Business Model For A Water District Septage Management Program

FRONT
COVER
BUSINESS MODEL FOR

A WATER DISTRICT SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Business Model for a Water District Septage Management Program
Published with assistance from the United States Agency for International Developments Philippine Water
Revolving Fund (PWRF) Support Program. Month and year of publication: February 2010.
The views expressed here do not necessarily reect the views of the USAID or the United States Government.
The PWRF Program is a collaborative undertaking of GOP Partners, USAID, Japan International Cooperation Agency,
LGU Guarantee Corporation, and the private nancing institutions (PFIs) through the Bankers Association of the
Philippines. GOP partners include the Department of Finance as the lead, Development Bank of the Philippines
(DBP) and Municipal Development Fund Ofce.
Primarily, the PWRF Program aims to establish a sustainable and innovative nancing facility for water supply and
sanitation projects. Its core structure is a co-nancing facility that blends ODA/JICA resources with PFI funds for
lending to creditworthy water service providers (WSPs). PFIs have access to credit risk guarantees provided by
LGUGC and USAIDs Development Credit Authority. The nancial structure was designed to allow the loan terms
and condition to be affordable to water service providers and at the same time at market terms for the PFIs.
To complement the nancing objectives, the PWRF Support Program also aims to assist utilities with governance
and performance improvement, and capacity building, on among others, project development for sanitation
services. In this regard, PWRF-SP prepared the Business Model for a Water District Septage Management Program,
a systematic, comprehensive and instructive reference material for septage management planning and project
preparation. PWRF-SP developed the Model and its accompanying excel-based toolkit parallel to the preparation
of the septage management project feasibility studies of Metro Cebu, Cabanatuan City, Baliwag, Zamboanga City
and San Pablo Water Districts. Thus it is enriched by actual experiences and lessons learned from the ve districts
project development.
The PWRF Support Program is implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc in association with
} The Community Group International LLC
} Resource Mobilization Advisors
} CEST, Inc.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This Business Model and the accompanying toolkit benefited from a peer review by sanitation
experts from Manila Water Company Inc., Philippine Association of Water Districts, ValuAdd
Management Services, Department of Health, and Philippine Sanitation Alliance. Furthermore,
the document and toolkit were finalized after three regional trainings, participated by 33 water
districts; thus enhanced by the comments, suggestions, and inputs of the participants. We would
also like to thank Philippine Sanitation Alliance for contributing the chapter on Advocacy and
Social Marketing Strategy of the Business Model.
CONTENTS
BUSINESS MODEL FOR

A WATER DISTRICT SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

INTRODUCTION
V
1
Background
Environmental and health considerations
Objectives of this business model
Legal basis
Approach and basic assumptions
Structure of the report
1
2
3
3
4
5
VALUE PROPOSITION AND MARKET ANALYSIS
The service to be offered

Market share and target market
Projecting septage volume available for collection
Willingness to pay
7
8
8
10
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Septage characteristics
Current practice in septage management
Collecting, handling and transporting septage
Treating and disposing of septage
FINANCIAL PLANNING
Scheduling of capital investment
Setting the price
Forecasting revenues
Analysis of financial viability
ADVOCACY AND SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY: BUILDING LOCAL

GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT
11
11
11
13
13
19
19
21
24
25
27
Introduction
Developing a local ordinance
Developing a promotion program
27
28
30
ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING
33
Modifications in the organizational structure
33
BUSINESS MODEL FOR A WATER DISTRICT SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Service levels
Operational efficiency
Financial effectiveness
Institutional development
Public relations
Environmental compliance
REFERENCES
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
36
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
Table 1.4
Table 1.5
Table 1.6
Table 1.7
Table 1.8
Table 1.9
Table 1.10
Table 1.11
Table 1.12
Table 1.13
Table 1.14
Table 1.15
Typical septage characteristics

Comparison matrix for mechanized and low-end
technology options for septage treatment using
same treatment volume
Environment Sanitation Fee Systems: General and
Specific Charges
Comparison of ways of charging the environment fee
Description of screening equipment
Typical design parameters for screening equipment
Typical design parameters of horizontal grit chambers
Typical design parameters of aerated grit chambers
Typical design parameters of vortex grit chambers
Types of dewatering methods
Typical performance data for solid-bowl centrifuges
Typical performance data for plate filter presses
Types of oil and water separators
Description of biological treatment methods
Characteristics of different disinfection methods
Characteristics of membrane processes
Comparison of different activated carbon media
Minimum setback distances for septage plants
and treatment sites
Different odor control methods for SpTP
11
15
23
23
63
64
66
67
68
69
69
71
73
75
78
79
80
Figure C
Figure D
Figure E
Figure F
Figure G
Figure H
Figure I
Figure J
Figure K
Figure L
Figure M
Figure N
Figure O
Figure P
Figure Q
Figure R
Figure S
Figure T
Screening equipment
Macerator equipment
Horizontal grit chamber
Aerated grit chamber
Vortex grit chamber
Solid-bowl centrifuge
Belt-filter press
Plate-filter press
Screw press
Sludge drying beds
Oil-water separator
Conventional activated sludge
Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
Oxidation ditch
Constructed wetlands
Membrane filtration
Activated carbon (AC)
Compost pile
64
65
66
67
68
70
71
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
83
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex A-1
Annex A-2
Annex A-3
Annex A-4
Annex B
Annex C-1
Annex C-2
Annex C-3
Annex D
Commercial/Institutional Establishment
Survey Instrument (Served)
Commercial/Institutional Establishment Survey
Instrument (Unserved)
Household Survey Instrument (Served)
Household Survey Instrument (Unserved)
Treatment Technology Options
Sample Capital Investment Table
Sample Operating Expense Table
Sample Financial Statements
Toolkit Worksheets
38
44
50
56
62
85
86
87
90
81
81
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 6-1
Figure A
Figure B
ii
Information and planning assumptions for

estimating the volume of septage using the typical tank
volume/pump-out frequency method
10 m3 MWCI vacuum truck
MWCI San Mateo Septage Treatment Plant
(mechanized system)
Malalag (Davao Del Sur) Septage Treatment Plant
(pond/low-technology system)
Septage treatment process using mechanized systems
Septage treatment process using low-cost alternatives
Dewatered sludge (biosolids) for disposal
Suggested Organizational Structure Septage Management Division
Schematic diagram of septage treatment process
Septage acceptance unit (SAU)
PHILIPPINE WATER REVOLVING FUND SUPPORT PROGRAM
10
13
14
14
16
16
17
34
62
63
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BOD
CAPEX
DA
DCWD
DOH
DENR
DPWH
DSCR
EMB
FIRR
HUC
IRR
LGU
LINAW
LWUA
MCWD
MTSP
MWCI
MWSI
MWSS
NEDA
NPV
O&M
OPEX
PD
PV
PWRF
STP
SpTP
Biochemical oxygen demand

Capital expenditures
Department of Agriculture
Dumaguete City Water District
Department of Health
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Department of Public Works and Highways
Debt service coverage ratio
Environmental Management Bureau
Financial internal rate of return
Highly urbanized city
Implementing rules and regulations
Local Government Unit
Local Initiatives for Affordable Wastewater Treatment
Local Water Utilities Administration
Metro Cebu Water District
Manila Third Sewerage Project
Manila Water Company, Inc.
Maynilad Water Services, Inc.
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
National Economic and Development Authority
Net present value
Operations and maintenance
Operational expenditures
Presidential Decree
Present value
Philippine Water Revolving Fund
Sewage treatment plant
Septage treatment plant
TSS
USAID
US-EPA
WACC
WD
WTP
Total suspended solids

United States Agency for International Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Weighted average cost of capital
Water district
Willingness-to-pay
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
no sewerage systems, water utilities may adopt
a sanitation improvement program that will
regularly remove septage (the combination of
sewage, scum and sludge that accumulates in
septic tanks) to increase the performance of
septic tanks in treating sewage.
The provision of effective sanitation services is

a key development challenge in the Philippines
especially in light of the countrys rapid
urbanization. As the population grows and is
increasingly concentrated in urban centers,
there is a corresponding increase in sludge
generation. Maintaining proper sanitation
through sewerage and septage management
is more important than ever to protect human
health, environment and economic activities
that largely depend on clean water.
Five years after the enactment of the Act, many

water utilities, including about 470 operational
water districts in the country, have remained
focused on the provision of potable water
supply with less attention to the provision of
sewerage and septage management services.
To date, the number of sewerage systems and
sludge treatment facilities remains low. With
the exception of Metro Manila, most of these
systems and facilities are operated by LGUs.
A number of private companies also provide
desludging services; however, many of them
do not comply with environmental regulations
because they do not have appropriate
treatment facilities.
In 2004, the Philippine Government enacted

Republic Act (RA) No. 9275, otherwise known
as the Philippine Clean Water Act. The Act
provides the legal backbone for developing an
integrated strategy for protecting the countrys
water resources, recognizing that water quality
management issues cannot be separated from
concerns about water sources and ecological
protection, water supply, public health and
quality of life. Under the Act, water utilities in
highly urbanized areas, in coordination with
local government units (LGUs), are required
to connect existing sewage lines to available
sewerage systems within five years following
its effectivity, subject to the payment of
sewerage service fees. In areas where there are
vi
The main reason often cited by water utilities

for the insufficient focus on providing
sewerage and septage management services is
the high upfront capital investments combined
with the perception of low investment
recovery because users are less willing to pay for

the service. The provision of sanitation services
is often viewed as an operation that drains
the finances of water districts; thus, despite
being mandated to provide the service, water
districts have not been aggressive in pursuing
the provision of septage management services.
Contrary to this perception, however, local
experiences reveal that provision of sanitation
services can be financially viable using
innovative approaches to pricing and given an
enabling business environment.
For instance, the Manila Water Company,
Inc. (MWCI), concession holder of the east
zone of the Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS) service area, has
increased sewerage services from 3 percent to
12 percent with more improvements underway.
It is targeting to increase treatment coverage
to 30 percent by 2010. The company has also
implemented scheduled desludging services
for households not connected to the sewerage
system. Currently, it has a fleet capacity of
92 vacuum tankers to meet the demand for
desludging. A total of 267,000 households have
already benefited from the service (MWCI
Sustainability Report 2007). In addition, it
has constructed two septage plants with a
combined capacity of approximately 1,400 m3/
day, which can readily serve 100 percent of
the requirements of non-sewered areas of its
concession (2007 MWCI DMI Report). MWCI
also constructed several decentralized sewerage
systems. MWCI charges an environmental fee
corresponding to 12 percent of water and sewer
revenues for sanitation service provided.
Feasibility study 1
for the Manila
Third Sewerage
Project prepared
by NJS in
association with
CEST, Inc. and
Mott McDonald
Co., Inc., 2004.
Likewise, Maynilad Water Services, Inc.

(MWSI) has established a desludging fleet of 25
vacuum tankers and seven mobile dewatering
units and intends to add 14 tankers to serve its
customers in the west zone. MWSI maintains
and operates a 500m3/day septage plant (MWSI
Business Plan 2008). MWSI also imposes an
environmental fee equivalent to 10 percent of
basic water and sewer revenues for sanitation
service. The experiences of these private

concessionaires show that cost recovery of
sanitation investments is possible and may
therefore be replicated by water districts.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH

CONSIDERATIONS
A proper septic tank that is regularly desludged
can reduce organic pollutants by as much as 50
percent. The treatment efficiency of improved
designs of septic tanks is reported to reach
almost 70 percent. However, if these septic tanks
are poorly maintained, treatment efficiency can
drop to as low as 10 percent. 1
Poor maintenance of septic tanks may cause
the release of relatively raw sewage into
the drainage system, making storm drains
essentially combined sewers. Septic tank
overflow may spread water-borne diseases
through infiltration into water pipes, especially
in areas where negative pressure occurs or
through contamination of groundwater, which
puts at risk areas where house wells are the
primary water supply source. There is also a
high probability of human contact with raw
sewage, particularly in areas where flooding
frequently occurs during the rainy season.
Floodwater can also bring with it sewage from
submerged septic tanks. These wastes are highly
pathogenic and can transmit a variety of human
diseases including gastro-enteritis, diarrhea,
typhoid, cholera, dysentery, and hepatitis.
Aside from health impacts, the discharge of
untreated domestic sewage or raw effluent
from septic tanks results in degradation
of surrounding water bodies. Improperly
maintained septic tanks discharge untreated
sewage into drainage systems in concentrations
way above the assimilative capacities of
receiving bodies of water. According to the
Philippines Environment Monitor 2003 (WB),
48 percent of the 2.2 million metric tons of
organic pollution introduced in the environment
each year comes from domestic sources.
OBJECTIVES OF THIS BUSINESS MODEL

This proposed business model aims to help
water districts develop a sustainable septage
management program that will encourage them
to comply with the responsibilities mandated
by PD 189 as well as the requirements of the
Clean Water Act. In so doing, water districts
promote the economic and social well-being
of their customers and, collectively, become
primary agents of change that will contribute to
improved health and environment conditions in
the country.
This business model will allow water districts
to better understand the underpinnings of
investing in septage management programs and
its implications to their operations. It will also
help them strengthen their technical capacity
in developing and implementing sanitation
programs and projects. Specifically, the model
will encourage them to:
~ Realize the opportunities of creating a
valuable service that is within their mandate;
~ Optimize their corporate strengths and
capabilities;
~ Assess investment possibilities given
various technology options and financing
requirements; and
~ Strengthen their partnerships with LGUs and
other relevant stakeholders especially in the
improved delivery of public services.
LEGAL BASIS
Where do the powers and functions of the water
district to provide septage management services
emanate? The legal framework for septage
management is provided by the Philippine
Constitution and various national laws including
Presidential Decree 198 (PD 198), the law which
created water districts, and Republic Act 9275 or
the Philippine Clean Water Act.
Section 15 Article II of the Philippine

Constitution provides that the State shall
protect and promote the peoples right to health
and instill health consciousness among them.
Section 16 of the same Article also provides that
the State shall protect and advance the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
The right to health and a balanced and healthful
ecology calls for, among others, the proper
management, conservation or protection of all
matters that affect these rights.
PD 198 laid down the framework for
the formation of water districts and the
establishment of the Local Water Utilities
Administration, recognizing that local water
systems and sanitary sewers are essentially
non-existent in many of the countrys
provinces. Under this decree, water districts
are empowered to operate water supply and
distribution systems; waste-water collection,
treatment and disposal facilities; and to conduct
other functions and operations incidental to
water resource development, utilization and
disposal, including the following:
~ Purchase, construction or acquisition of
works, water, water rights, land, rights and
privileges useful or necessary to convey,
supply, store, collect, treat, dispose of or
make other use of water (Section 27);
~ Require, construct, operate and furnish
facilities and services for the collection,
treatment and disposal of sewerage, waste,
and storm water (Section 29);
~ Locate, construct and maintain works along,
under or across any street, watercourse,
railway, or conduit in a manner which
will afford security for life and property,
provided that environmental aspects are also
considered (Section 30);
~ Commence, maintain, intervene in, defend
and compromise actions and proceedings to
prevent interference with or deterioration
of water quality or the natural flow of any

surface, stream or ground water supply
(Section 32);
or hauling of septage to treatment plants or

points of disposal, and final disposal of biosolids.
~ Prescribe and collect rates and other charges

for sewer services furnished, or fix, levy
and collect a sewerage and wastewater
service stand-by or availability charge in the
event the sewer service is available and no
connections is made (Section 38); and,
APPROACH AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
~ Establish, through a Board of Directors

resolution, the area to be benefited by the
installation of sanitary sewerage, so as to
obtain capital to finance such facility (Section
40).
The Philippine Clean Water Act, which
defines the policies for pursuing economic
growth within the framework of sustainable
development in the aspect of water quality
management of all water bodies, also grants
water districts with authority to develop and
implement septage management programs.
Section 6 of the Acts implementing rules and
regulations states that, in the case of HUCs,
non-HUCs and LGUs where water districts,
water utilities and LGU water works have
already been constituted and operational, the
water supply utility provider shall be responsible
for the sewerage facilities and the main lines
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 198 and
other relevant laws. In areas where there are no
existing facilities, the LGUs, water districts or
water utilities may adopt septage management
program or other sanitation alternatives.
Hereinafter 2
referred to as
the Program
The business model for a septage management

program2 has been developed with a view
to helping water districts comply with their
mandate of providing safe water supply to
customers and performing effective wastewater
collection and treatment. The program will
generally cover the whole range of collecting,
handling, treatment and disposal of septage.
Services offered will include desludging of
septage from septic tanks or cesspools, transport
This business model was developed based on

the combined replicable lessons and innovations
derived from the experiences of (1) Metro Cebu
Water District (MCWD) in the preparation of
a feasibility study for a septage management
program which was supported by the Philippine
Water Revolving Fund Support Program
(PWRF-SP); (2) Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS); (3) Manila Water
Company Inc; and (4) Maynilad Water Services
Inc. It also considered the lessons learned
from the experiences of Marikina, Dumaguete
and Sarangani in the provision of septage
management services.
This business model applies an integrated
approach to analyzing the viability and
sustainability of the venture. Thus, it considers
both the pre-investment and operation phases to
provide water districts with a complete picture
of the business proposition.
At the outset, this business model assumes the
water district will:
~ Adopt full-cost pricing strategy to sustain

its operations and base pricing decisions
on required investments and consumers
willingness to pay for the service.
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
Chapter 5 emphasizes the need to conduct

public awareness and consensus-building in
the process of developing and implementing
a septage management program. It highlights
the importance of stakeholder participation to
ensure that the program is maintained in the
long term.
The succeeding chapters provide the

foundations of the proposed Septage
Management Program for Water Districts.
Chapter 6 discusses organizational structure

and staffing considerations.
Chapter 2 describes the service proposed to

be offered by water districts and defines the
possible target market for the service. This
chapter also discusses demand and pricing
considerations.
Chapter 3 takes up the technical options and
cost considerations of the Program.
Chapter 4 presents the necessary financial
planning in relation to the Program. It
specifically discusses the water districts
investment plan, operating expenses and sources
of financing in relation to the Program. It also
explains the basis for and key elements of price
setting and revenue projections.
Finally, Chapter 7 highlights the need for

monitoring and evaluation to track the progress
of the Program vis--vis its targets.
This business model comes with an Excel
worksheet toolkit (Annex D in this manual
and an electronic file in a CD) that helps WDs
quickly estimate the investment requirements
for a septage management program as well
as the financial and tariff implications of this
program. It is an exercise that can be done by the
WD as prelude to a full-blown feasibility study.
~ Take the lead in developing and

implementing a septage management
program for its customers within its
franchise area;
~ Encourage the participation of relevant
stakeholders in the development process,
including the LGU, especially, and the
community to effectively implement and
sustain the initiative in the long term;
~ Cover current customers in the initial phase
but aim for service expansion to cover all
household residents within its franchise area;
~ Provide desludging service to its customers
every 35 years as required by Department
of Health (DOH) regulations on septage
collection and disposal; and
VALUE PROPOSITION
AND MARKET ANALYSIS
THE SERVICE TO BE OFFERED
Environment-friendly. The water district
will ensure that septage is properly collected,
disposed and managed.
The water district will utilize an integrated

approach to environmental protection and
improvement of water quality, sanitation and
public health through the implementation of
a septage management program that provides
complete, efficient, regular, affordable, and
environment-friendly desludging service to all
occupied structures in public and private use
within the franchise area.
Outsourcing services
While providing complete assistance, the
water district may opt to unbundle or
outsource some services. It is important for
the water district to assess the different costs
associated with providing septage management
services and determine if outsourcing some
activities is more cost efficient.
Complete. The service will cover a range of

activities including collection of septage from
septic tanks or cesspools, transport or hauling
to septage treatment plants, treatment of the
septage (separation of the biosolids from the
filtrate and corresponding treatment of each
component), and final disposal and/or reuse of
residual biosolids.
For example, the water district may outsource

septage collection activities to existing private
desludging companies. This will eliminate the
need to make capital investments up front for
trucks and their maintenance. Instead, the
water district may pay fees for private services
based on septage volume collected.
Efficient. The service will use a technology

that will give the greatest combined technical
and cost efficiency.
If the water district opts to outsource specific

operations, it should define in clear terms
the service level requirements to lessen the
chances of contractual disputes and, more
importantly, to ensure that the overall program
objectives are met.
Regular. The service will be done

periodicallythat is, every three to five years
as required by the Department of Health.
Affordable. The service will be priced at a
level accessible to consumers.
MARKET SHARE AND TARGET MARKET

Overall, water districts are the dominant water
service providers outside Metro Manila, serving
more than 15 million people in over 700 cities
and municipalities. They cover around 30
percent and 10 percent of the total urban and
rural populations, respectively. In terms of
service coverage, water districts provide water
supply services to about 68 percent of the total
population in their respective franchise areas
(World Bank, 2005).
The water district may target the household
population in its franchise area, both served
and un-served, but it may be necessary to
phase implementation to cover all of its target
population. It may initially cover current
customers especially in the core areas (those
areas which have 100 percent water supply
coverage) and consider un-served households
in its franchise area as potential expansion.
A phasing strategy could help facilitate
implementation because there is already a
system for charging, billing and collection of
environmental fees for septage management.
Segmenting the market

Market segmentation is the process of splitting
user groups into various groups based on
specific characteristics. It can provide the water
district with a basis for structuring service
delivery to suit the special needs of different
groups and formulating a pricing policy that
maximizes revenues from each.
The water district may segment its market
for septage management based on the current
classification of water users: residential,
commercial and institutional. Commercial
and institutional customers may be further
differentiated into those with and without
sewage treatment plants (STPs). Those
without STPs but have septic tanks only may
require frequent desludging service for proper
maintenance of their septic tanks. Those with
STPs also need regular desludging service for
regular sludge wastings, during operational

upsets or shutdowns.
Existing private desludging companies serving
the areas outside of the water districts franchise
area may want to utilize the septage treatment
and disposal facilities of the water district. They
can be considered as a potential market and
the water district may accommodate them if its
treatment plant has excess capacity. The water
district should prioritize use of its treatment
plant for existing customers.
PROJECTING SEPTAGE VOLUME

AVAILABLE FOR COLLECTION
Projecting septage volume for collection over a
period of time is crucial to septage management
planning because the amount that needs to
be collected in a day will determine the size
of investment needed. Investments typically
include trucks for desludging and a treatment
plant for processing the collected septage.
According to the US-EPA Guide to Septage
Treatment and Disposal, septage generation
varies from month to month and depends on the
weather, geography, household habits, among
others. There are several approaches used to
calculate septage volume:
~ Actual data. When an extensive survey
is done, this is considered as the most
accurate approach because it takes into
account the variations in septage volume. In
this approach, data is collected from local
septage haulers and desludgers and facilities
receiving septage.
~ Typical tank volume/pump-out frequency.
This approach estimates the number of septic
tanks from population projection data and
assumes an average tank volume and pumpout frequency.
~ Per capita generation. This approach
assumes a per capita generation rate (e.g., 50
to 70 gallons per capita per year).
Although the first approach described above is

the most accurate, records and data from existing
septage haulers operating in water districts
are usually incomplete or non-existent. In the
absence of a septic tank inventory, the use of
incomplete actual data on the frequency and
number of septic tanks may not be representative
of the entire population under study. Also,
data from septage haulers could be an
underestimation of the actual volume available
for collection given that only a small number of
households practice regular desludging (i.e., only
when the tank is full and clogged).
Thus, given the conditions above, projecting
septage volume using the typical tank volume/
pump-out frequency is recommended. To
calculate septage volume using this method, the
water district will have to source the following
information:
~ Present and projected household
population and estimated household
population growth in the franchise area.
To estimate future population of cities and
municipalities within the franchise area,
the water district may use the straight
line or the moving average approach, or
sophisticated statistical techniques such as
regression analysis. Other considerations in
making projections are proposed land use/
zoning, LGU development plans, and major
developments initiated by the private sector.
~ Present and projected water service
connection and estimated service
connection growth in the franchise area.
These information can be used to calculate
the target number of households that will be
covered by the water district. The approach
discussed in the preceding section can also be
used in projecting service connection growth
in the franchise area.
~ Present and projected number of
households with septic tanks. This is
derived from the projected number of
households within the franchise area that will
be served by the water district. Census data

from the National Statistics Office usually
show the number of houses with individual
septic tanks down to the municipal level.
Household surveys conducted within the
franchise area could also provide information
on the number of households with septic
tanks. Any known significant industrial,
institutional or commercial source of septage
should be added to the estimated number.
~ Accessibility. In the Philippines, not all
septic tanks are accessible, either because
access roads are too narrow or because of
poor building construction practices. The
water district may conduct a household
survey to determine more accurate figures.
As a reference, in the Manila Third Sewerage
Project (MTSP) Feasibility Study (MWCI,
2003), accessibility of septic tanks in Metro
Manila was reported to be between 6090
percent. In the MTSP Master Plan Updated
Report, 80 percent accessibility was assumed.
The MCWD-PWRF Feasibility Study
(September 2008) uses a range of 8095
percent. This figure was the result of the
actual household survey within the MCWD
franchise area.
~ Septic tank average septage volume.
The average septage volume in septic tanks
is computed by multiplying the width of
septic tanks by their length and the depth
of accumulated septage. The water district
may conduct a household survey to generate
information on the width, length and depth
of septic tanks. It may also opt to use the
figures calculated by previous studies as
proxy values. For instance, The Pasig River
Rehabilitation Project for Metro Manila
reported an average household septic tank
volume of 6m3 while the figure adopted
under the MTSP and MCWD was at 5m3.
The average size of large commercial and
institutional septic tanks is usually assumed
as twice the volume of a household septic
tank (MTSP and MCWD feasibility studies).
~ Frequency of desludging. The DOH

Operations Manual on the Rules and
Regulations Governing Domestic Sludge
and Septage (2008) requires that septic
tanks be desludged when half-full or every
three to five years, whichever comes first.
The frequency of desludging must be set
within the prescribed range to comply
with regulations. In the MTSP and MCWD
studies, the recommended frequency of
desludging is every five years.
~ Operational days per year. The total
operational days per year for desludging
operations may be calculated as the total
working days per year (assumed six days per
week) less holidays (21 days) and less truck
maintenance downtime (once a month). The
six working days assumption was used since
most households prefer to avail desludging
service on weekends when they are mostly
at home. This formula will give a total of
280 days in a year for desludging operations.
This figure must be re-assessed considering
the preference of water districts in terms of
operating days and weather considerations.
The working formula used to estimate septage

volume is shown:
Daily Septage Volume (m3/day)
= No. of Accessible Septic Tanks x Ave. Septage
Volume per Septic Tank (m3)
Operational Days per Year (days/year) x
Desludging Frequency (years)
WILLINGNESS TO PAY
A willingness-to-pay (WTP) survey will be
needed to assess demand for desludging service
offered by the water district and determine the
programs overall market viability. The WTP
survey should consider the assumption that
the water district will adopt a full-cost pricing
strategy to recover its investments, gradually
expand coverage to all households in its franchise
area, and aim to sustain its operations. It should
provide a clear description of the septage
collection services that the water district intends
to offer as well as the demographic and socioeconomic profile of customers and other factors
that affect their willingness to pay. A sample
survey questionnaire is attached (Annex A).
Figure 2-1 Information and planning assumptions for estimating the volume of septage using the typical tank volume/pump-out
frequency method
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
SEPTAGE CHARACTERISTICS
Septage refers to the material removed from
a septic tank by pumping, sometimes called
desludging. It can either be domestic,
commercial or industrial. Septage contains silt,
grit, plastic, rags, hair, grease, scum, and other
materials such as cans, sanitary napkins, dead
animals and even jewelry. Septage is highly
malodorous due to the presence of hydrogen
sulfide and volatile fatty acids produced by the
degradation of the sewage in the septic tank.
number of factors, including the type of

toilet facilities, climate, septic tank size and
configuration and water use.
Septage must be treated more extensively than
ordinary sewage to minimize or eliminate
possible hazards to public health and
environment. Table 3-1 presents the typical
characteristics of septage in Metro Manila,
Metro Cebu, and the United States.
Information about septage characteristics is

important for the design of treatment facilities.
Septage is generally more concentrated
than sewage. It contains over 30 times
the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
concentration of sewage, 70 times the amount
of solids, and 80 times the amount of grease
(SKM, PIA 2001). Septage characteristics
generally vary within and across cities and
municipalities because they depend on a
CURRENT PRACTICE IN SEPTAGE

MANAGEMENT
~ On-site sanitation facilities. In the
Philippines, it is common to find septic
tanks that are under-designed and do not
function as intended. Design deficiencies
typically include lack of access manholes
and an unlined bottom, which allows
sewage to percolate into the ground. It is
Table 3-1 Typical septage characteristics
Parameter
10
Unit
Metro Manila data

(2001)1
Metro Cebu data

(2008)2
US-EPA
mean values3
Organic content (BOD5)
mg/L
4,641
4,365
5,000
Total suspended solids (TSS)
% wt.
1.7
1.7
1.3
Oil and grease
mg/L
215
285
9,090
Data from SKM PIA Report in 2001; 2 Data from MCWD-PWRF Septage Management Program Feasibility Study in 2008; 3 US EPA Septage Management Manual.
11
also common to find permanent structures

built over septic tanks, making access for
desludging problematic. Also, some septic
tanks are difficult to access because streets
or alleys leading to these facilities are too
narrow and cannot be accessed by vacuum
tankers.
~ Collecting septage. Within Metro Manila
the two water concessionaires, MWCI and
MWSI, collect septage from water users that
are not connected to the sewerage system.
Outside Metro Manila, LGUs and private
desludging companies generally provide
collection services mainly as a response to
urgent demand from householdsthat is,
when their septic tanks are already full and
overflowing.
~ Treating and disposing of septage. Several
methods for treatment and disposal of
septage have been used. Among these are:
Disposing septage into deep ocean
waters. In 2001, MWSS and MWCI,
as approved by the DENR, conducted
septage sea dumping trials. The trials
were discontinued because of strong
opposition from LGUs and civil society
groups in Zambales and Bataan. The
perceived impact of such a practice to
the quality of coastal waters was the
primary reason for the objection. The
DOH Operations Manual on Rules
and Regulations Governing Domestic
Sludge and Septage (2008) does not
include ocean dumping in the list of
recommended methods for septage
disposal.
Disposing septage in lahar areas in
Central Luzon. This method of raw
septage disposal is no longer practiced,
although land application is among the
accepted methods of sludge disposal
listed in the DOH Operational Manual.
For this method of disposal, septage
was collected by vacuum trucks from
12
households and pre-treated using

screens to remove inert solids such
as plastics, rubber, metals, and other
non-conventional materials and
subsequently thickened in an Imhoff
tank. From the Imhoff tank, the settled
sludge was pumped into hauling tankers
for transport and disposal to identified
application sites in Tarlac and Pampanga.
Acting as soil conditioner, septage has
significantly improved the nutrient
content of lahar-soil mixtures which
made the soil suitable for agricultural
production. When this method was
adopted by MWCI and MWSI, it was
closely monitored by the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources
and the Department of Agriculture to
ensure compliance with environmental
standards and minimize health hazards.
Using septage treatment plants
(SpTPs). This is considered the most
environment-friendly and acceptable
treatment alternative because septage
is completely processed to produce
effluents and biosolids that meet
government regulatory requirements.
MWCI operates two septage treatment
plants and is developing a third. MWSI
on the other hand is operating one
septage treatment plant.
Using sewage treatment plants. A
sewage treatment plant (STP) may also
receive septage for treatment, and can be
as effective as a SpTP. However, this only
works well if septage acceptance units or
similar preliminary treatment equipment
are installed and if the STP has not
reached full capacity. A dewatering unit
may also be installed inside an STP. The
filtrate from this unit may be directly fed
into the STP for subsequent treatment.
MWCI has successfully treated septage
at some of its STPs.
Figure 3-1 10 m3 MWCI vacuum truck
COLLECTING, HANDLING AND

TRANSPORTING SEPTAGE
Desludging trucks are used to pump out and
transport septage to the nearest treatment plant.
A vacuum truck is capable of servicing septic
tanks even as far as 30 meters from the road.
The number of trucks that should be bought or
hired will depend largely on the average number
of trips that a truck can make in a day. The
average number of trips is based on estimated
average length of time required for hauling and
actual desludging. The average hauling time
is based on the average distance from all the
communities targeted for service. It takes a
while to open the cleanouts and manholes of a
septic tank and, as a practice, household owners
are required to open access points before the
scheduled service. If access points are already
open, septage collectionfrom the time the
truck arrives until it departsmay be completed
in 30 minutes.
Truck capacities may range from 210 m3.
Having a higher-capacity truck could be
advantageous as it can serve more septic tanks

each trip for a given collection area. On the other
hand, a smaller truck may be more adaptable
to difficult or narrow access roads. The
water district may opt to have a combination
of truck capacities to take into account the
characteristics of its service areas.
The DOH Operations Manual on the Rules and
Regulations Governing Septage Management
(2008) prescribes specific rules and regulations
for the collection and transport of septage.
TREATING AND DISPOSING OF

SEPTAGE
The water district will be required to treat
the collected septage and dispose bio-solid
by-products in accordance with DENR
Administrative Order No. 1990-35, the
Department of Agriculture (DA) Administrative
Order 2007-26 on wastewater reuse for
agricultural purposes, and the DOH Operations
Manual on the Rules and Regulations Governing
Septage Management (2008). As specified in this
DOH Septage Manual, biosolids disposal will
13
Figure 3-2 MWCI San Mateo Septage Treatment Plant (mechanized system)
Figure 3-3 Malalag (Davao Del Sur) Septage Treatment Plant (pond/low-technology system)
require DA approval particularly if the biosolids

are used for agricultural purposes.
For preliminary planning, the following
technical considerations can guide the WD
in setting up treatment and disposal facilities
in accordance with district and regulatory
requirements. More detailed studies on
treatment processes can be done in the
feasibility study stage and in consideration of
other processes other than those discussed
below.
~ Mechanized technology. Mechanized
treatment involves automated handling
and dewatering of septage with minimal
intervention of operators and is designed
to optimize solid-liquid (biosolids-filtrate)
separation and enhance pollutant removal
in the downstream processes (see figures
3-2 and 3-4). The preliminary treatment for
this process involves removing inert solids
using septage acceptance units (screening
and grit removal), followed by mechanized
dewatering (e.g., screw or belt press).
The dewatered solids may be used as soil
conditioner or landfill cover, while the
filtrate (water recovered from the dewatering
process) is further treated biologically using a
high-rate aeration system, which is a process
used for sewage treatment prior to disposal
to a receiving body of water.
~ Low-end technology. Low-end technology
treatment (see figures 3-3 and 3-5) generally
involves pond systems requiring relatively
larger footprints. The preliminary treatment
involves the removal of non-biodegradable
inert components of the septage (i.e., mostly
plastic materials). The septage is then
allowed to stabilize in ponds for 3045 days
to further remove organic contaminants.
The accumulated sludge at the bottom of the
ponds is usually pumped out and dewatered
using drying beds. When sufficiently dried,
the sludge may be used as soil conditioner for
selected agricultural crops or disposed in a
landfill as soil cover.
14
Table 3-2 Comparison matrix for mechanized and low-end technology

options for septage treatment using same treatment volume
Mechanized
system
Low-end
technology
Land area requirement
Lower
Higher
Process reliability and consistency of meeting efuent

requirements
Higher
Lower
Initial capital outlay excluding

land
Higher
Lower
Operating, maintenance and

replacement requirements
Higher
Lower
Relative local experience
Higher
Lower
Parameters
Table 3-2 provides a summary of the advantages

and disadvantages of low and mechanized
technology. To optimize the key features of
both, the water district may opt to combine low
and mechanized technologies in developing
treatment systems.
Other considerations in planning for a septage
treatment plant are as follows:
~ Design period and phasing. The water
district should be able to determine the
desired design period of the septage
management program based on projected
demand, initial and full capacity investment
costs, and actual service life of major plant
equipment. It is practical to design the
program by phases as it may be difficult to
estimate initially the average size of septic
tanks and the volume of potential septage.
Further expansion may be done after noting
changes in demand and other parameters
observed during the first phase of operation.
~ Lot requirements. The water district should
be able to determine lot requirements for
septage treatment and disposal. These mainly
depend on the type of technology used as
well as the capacity of the treatment plant. A
septage treatment plant requires an area to be
used for preliminary treatment, dewatering/
sludge drying systems, filtrate treatment,
parking and other auxiliaries such as offices,
15
laboratory, generator room and a place for

chemical storage. Buffer zones around the
facility may also be necessary to mitigate any
nuisance caused by the plant (i.e., odor and
noise). When determining lot requirements,
the long-term needs should be considered. In
the case of MCWD-PWRF pre-investment
study, a 55 m3/day septage treatment plant
using a mechanized system will require about
1,000 m2 of lot area. Using the pond systems
for the same capacity, the treatment plant
will require about 4,200 m2.
Selecting the location of a septage treatment
plant is a key decision; the water district
should carefully consider its options. Land
prices in urban areas are generally higher than

in rural and less developed areas. To reduce
capital cost, the water district can utilize its
own land assets or seek a land donation from
the LGU or other private entities.
~ Hauling distance. In selecting the treatment
plant site/s, the water district should
consider its distance from its service areas
as this factors significantly in determining
operating costs of desludging. When there is
considerable distance between the collection
points and the treatment facility, if the
distance between the facility and collection
points is too far, fewer trips can be made by
a collection truck, and therefore more trucks
are required. The locations and capacities
Figure 3-4 Septage treatment process using mechanized systems
Septage From
Hauling Trucks
Filtrate Treatment
(e.g., Activated
Sludge)
Filtrate
Post-Treatment
Treated
Efuent
Excess sludge
Preliminary
Treatment
Dewatering
Equipment
Solid wastes,
stones, grits, oil
and grease
Sludge Treatment
(e.g., lime
stabilization)
of SpTP/s must be optimized to minimize

hauling distance and, ultimately, operating
cost.
~ Pre-treatment at source. When the water
district provides desludging services to
commercial and institutional customers, the
septage collected may contain considerable
amount of fat, oil and grease. The treatment
system must be able to handle this type of
waste or some form of pre-treatment may be
required from customers (i.e., installation,
operation and regular cleaning of grease
traps).
~ Future requirements. The location and
design of a septage treatment plant must
consider the demands of future service
coverage expansion and the corresponding
increase in septage volume for collection.
Treatment facilities may be designed for the
initial phase; land requirements for the next
phases should be based on projections for
future needs. Moreover, if the water district
decides to implement the Program in phases,
it may opt to design a Centralized SpTP and
construct it in modules to allow flexibility in
expansion.
~ Operation of one central SpTP vs.
decentralized SpTPs. A central treatment
plant may require lower upfront capital
Treated
Biosolids
Figure 3-6 Dewatered sludge (biosolids) for disposal

Figure 3-5 Septage treatment process using low-cost alternatives
Septage From
Hauling Trucks
Filtrate
Post-Treatment
(e.g., Constructed
Wetlands)
Facultative Ponds
Excess sludge
Option 1
Preliminary
Treatment
Sludge Drying
Beds
Option 2
Solid wastes,
stones, grits, oil
and grease
16
Treated
Biosolids
Treated
Efuent
expense than constructing several smaller

satellite SpTPs, but capital costs are largely
dependent on the treatment technology. In
terms of logistics, the cost of operating a
centralized SpTP is lower compared to that
of two or more treatment plants with small
capacities. The advantage of having smaller
satellite SpTPs, on the other hand, is that
average hauling distance from the households
to the SpTPs will be less, resulting in lower
hauling costs.
~ Final disposal of treated biosolids. The
treatment system, whether mechanized
or low-end, will produce biosolids as end
products. These sludge or cakes must be
disposed in compliance with government
regulations. This means capital outlay must
be allotted for a storage facility and hauling
trucks. As much as possible, the disposal
site should be located near the SpTP. The
dewatered sludge may be conditioned by
lime or thermally composted as in the case
of Class A soil conditioner. When sufficiently
dried and composted, biosolids may be
used directly as Class B soil conditioner for
selected agricultural crops. When disposal to
landfill is considered, the dried and stabilized
biosolids may be used as landfill cover as an
alternative material to soil without requiring
additional post-treatment. There are possible
health risks associated with land application
of biosolids from septage, particularly from
pathogenic micro-organisms and heavy metal
contents. The DOH and DA have already
set specific limits on these parameters and
monitoring of actual contents must be made
prior to final disposal.
~ Effluent disposal through irrigation.
Treated effluent from a septage treatment
facility may also be used for irrigation. The
DA also formulated specific limits on selected
parameters that may affect the productivity
and assimilative capacities of soil (i.e., BOD,
nutrients, heavy metals and pathogenic
microorganisms).
17
~ Option for mobile dewatering systems. The

water district may also opt to acquire mobile
dewatering trucks. Screw-type dewatering
trucks are able to dewater septage onsite;
the filtrate (or liquid portion) will then be
returned to the septic tank. Such trucks are
rarely used in the Philippines mainly due to
the prohibitive capital cost (i.e., approximately
PhP3035 million per dewatering truck
which is capable of desludging 20 septic
tanks). The mobile dewatering unit practically

replaces the SpTP component of the septage
management program. This option was
not recommended in the MCWD-PWRF
study due to cost and lack of reliable local
experience in operating such a system.
Detailed descriptions of treatment technology
options are presented in Annex B.
FINANCIAL PLANNING
Financial planning should cover both the
investment and operation stages of the water
districts septage management program. The
planning stage involves the preparation of a
project feasibility study which includes an
investment plan and a financial viability study.
This stage will determine whether the project
is worth undertaking from technical, financial
and economic standpoints. The assessment of
financial viability is the most important part
of the study; funding institutions examine this
portion in detail to determine whether or not
the project is a financially sound undertaking.
Technical designs and specifications are
sometimes adjusted based on financial viability
considerations.
SCHEDULING OF CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
Investment may be front-ended or phased. If
the water district opts to undertake front-end
investment, it may have lower overall cost in
absolute terms. However, its fixed assets may
not be fully utilized at the start of the program
so it will be operating with excess capacity.
Fixed assets will be subjected to depreciation
and will accrue maintenance costs even if not
yet fully utilized.
If the water district opts for phasing of
investments, capital expenditures (CAPEX)
will be spread over an investment planning
horizon. This will translate to lower capital
requirement at the start but generally higher
overall cost since later CAPEX will have to be
escalated to reflect increases in construction
cost and cost of acquiring equipment due to
inflation. Nevertheless, phased investment
is usually the more viable option. It places
less pressure on cash flow because the
water district will have lower operating and
maintenance requirements.
Financial planning is also needed in the

programs operation stage. The financial plan
becomes an integral part of the programs
operational plan. Targets and budgets are
set and periodically assessed to ensure the
program remains on track toward objectives
identified by management. A performance
evaluation system based on attainment of
targets and adherence to set standards is a
tool that will help management gauge the
programs strengths and weaknesses.
18
19
Operating expenses
Operating expenditures generally include
salaries and wages (for personnel and desludging
crews), power and fuel, chemicals for treatment,
maintenance and miscellaneous expenses. If the
water district projects operating costs associated
with the septage management program over a
period, it should escalate the costs to account
for inflation. The LWUA guidelines for water
supply projects use the following inflation rates
(applied annually throughout the projection
period) for escalating O&M cost: salaries and
wages (5 percent), power, fuel and chemicals (10
percent) and maintenance and other expenses (7
percent). Similar assumptions may be used for
septage management projects. NEDA uses a 10
percent inflation rate for purposed of projecting
escalating costs.
Depreciation is also a part of operating cost and
represents the gradual retirement of fixed assets
employed in the business operation. The straight
line method (fixed asset cost / economic life =
depreciation expense) is usually employed in
depreciation of fixed assets.
In case of phased investments, adjustments in
operating costs should be made to correspond
with additional CAPEX. For instance, increased
plant capacity would mean increases in power
consumption, chemicals, maintenance cost and
even salaries if additional personnel would be
hired. There would also be a corresponding
need for additional trucks and therefore
additional costs for salaries of drivers/crew,
fuel, maintenance costs, etc. The increase in
assets would also mean increased depreciation
expenses.
Sources of nancing
The water district should be able to identify
funding sources that may finance its capital
investments. Generally, funding sources include:
~ Equity funds. These are usually in the form
of internally generated funds (or generated
20
from present operations of the water

district). Equity participation in the program
may be non-cash or in the form of assets such
as land, equipment or construction materials.
~ Loans. Funds may be borrowed from
government financing institutions (e.g.,
Development Bank of the Philippines and
Land Bank of the Philippines), private
banks (e.g., Philippine National Bank,
Bank of the Philippine Islands) or special
government financing agencies (e.g.,
Municipal Development Fund Office for
loans through an LGU, Local Water Utilities
Administration).
The water district should be able to select a
financing partner that can provide optimum
and affordable terms, i.e., a more competitive
interest rate, longer repayment period, grace
period (and perhaps capitalization of interest
during grace period or construction period),
lower equity participation requirement, and
less stringent security requirement.
~ Grants. Grant money may sometimes
be available either for partial funding of
project implementation (e.g., construction
or acquisition of equipment) or for technical
assistance (i.e., preparation of feasibility or
detailed design studies). Grants from the
national or local governments may take the
form of fresh infusion of funds to the water
district or donation of assets like land. Such a
contribution from the LGU may be considered
additional equity from the investment
perspective. Some funding agencies may also
offer a loan and grant package for sanitationrelated developmental projects.
Most capital-intensive projects are usually largely
financed by a loan. Should the loan allow for the
capitalization of interest during the construction
period, the capitalized interest will become
part of the principal amount of the project loan
that will have to be repaid over a period of time.
Capitalized interest therefore becomes a part of
the development cost of the project.
SETTING THE PRICE
Setting the appropriate fee for septage

management
Full-cost pricing
Ideally, the septage management operation
should be self-sustaining. A situation where the
water districts septage management operation
would require subsidy from its water supply
operation must be avoided. Hence, setting of
proper fees for septage is crucial. Revenues
from septage management operations shall
come mainly from water customers of the water
district. While determining fee service amounts
falls within the realm of management discretion,
they should be guided by the need to generate
enough revenue to cover capital costs, operation
and maintenance costs and financing costs.
A financially viable septage management
operation must be able to (1) recover all costs,
and (2) settle all financial obligations related to
the project. The costs that must be recovered in
calculating the price must include:
~ Project development costs, which include
studies, designs, land costs and other
capitalized costs;
~ Debt service and capital repayment on
loans secured to finance the construction of
facilities;
~ Operations and maintenance costs for the
entire process of desludging, transport and
treatment; and
~ Annual contributions to the capital repair
and replacement reserve fund.
A cost-recovery mechanism must be developed
to set up a revenue collection system and
applicable charging means. Since the water
district already has an existing collection unit
handling the water supply operation, the same
unit will be utilized for collection of fees from
the sanitation service operation.
Septage management is an effective sanitation

service but is not the end-all solution. It is an
interim measure that will need upgrading to
address evolving water pollution concerns.
Thus setting the appropriate fee for providing
septage handling and treatment is somewhat
tricky, considering that it is only a component of
the overall environmental service that an LGU
or a water district should provide in accordance
with standards prescribed by law, e.g., the Clean
Water Act. As discussed in Box 1, the ideal is to
structure a corresponding environmental fee
system that can build the utilitys resource base
to continually upgrade sanitation services (e.g.,
expanding coverage of septage management,
sewerage, sewage treatment). Given the high
capital costs of sanitation infrastructure, LGUs
or WDs will need to phase investments.
Under a general environmental fee system,
where an LGU or WD imposes a fee for
sanitation services, a simple fee system may
be based on water consumption, though the
preliminary service being provided is only for
septage management. Any surplus generated
under this fee system may be accumulated over
time to support the provision of sewerage and
sewage treatment services in the future.3 It is
recommended that the system adopt polluters
pay and social equity principles.
Under a stand-alone septage management
fee system, on the other hand, it may not be
appropriate or fair to directly link septage
generation (ones contribution to pollution) to
water consumption. For example, a household
that maintains a swimming pool may consume
more water but its septage generation may only
be average.4
The choice of fee system would depend on the
water district and LGUs vision and the need to
adapt to specific local institutional conditions.
3 Further expansion
into sewerage and
sewage treatment
would require
additional debts
and an increase
in environmental
fees. The surplus
accumulated from
the fee system
can be used as
equity and working
capital in the
expansion project.
4 The purpose of
the fee (i.e., where
it is collected
and where it is
invested) should
be clear from the
start to avoid the
perception that the
additional fee is
being used to favor
certain sectors. In
case tiered pricing
for social equity
considerations is
used (i.e., some
high-volume
consumers are
charged more), its
intention should
be fully explained
during public
hearings.
21
For example, a general environment fee system

is easier to implement in areas where a water
districts franchise area is confined to one LGU
and where the franchise area is fully served.
Where a water districts franchise area covers
several LGUs but it is only serving a portion of

this area, a general fee system may be difficult5
to implement. One option is to use pay-perservice for septage management in unserved
areas.
Box 1. Providing sanitation services in the Philippines: Institutional and nancing issues
Awareness of the need for sanitation services to help with environment protection is growing among LGUs and WDs.
The challenge is to establish institutional

arrangements between the WD and LGUs for
enforcement of environmental ordinances (i.e.,
requiring households to regularly desludge
septic tanks and requiring other desludgers to
strictly comply with environmental standards).
Another challenge is to set up agreements with
other entities (e.g., local power distributor) for
fee collection in unserved areas.6
Sanitation services may be in the form of septage management, sewerage and sewage treatment. Presently, there are only
a few LGUs outside of Metro Manila which provide these sanitation services. As yet there is no established institutional
set up in the Philippines that can be cited as a good model.
Ideally, sanitation projects should be introduced as environment protection interventions. In the same vein, charges
Table 4-1 shows the different types of

environmental fees and ways and means by
which they may be collected. Note that septage
handling and treatment (desludging service)
is classified as a specific sanitation service

modality covered by a specific environmental
fee. Depending on local conditions, the septage
pay-per-service fee can be structured to address
social equity considerations. For instance, highvolume consumers (customers with more than
30m3 consumption per month) may be charged
marginally higher. Additionally, separate pricing
for commercial and institutional establishments
can be set. Another way is to simply charge based
on the size of the septic tank of the customer.
6 As one-time
charge for septage
is expensive
(around PhP2,000
per service), a
deferred payment
term will make
it affordable.
However, a
deferred payment
system can work
only if the WD is
sure it can collect
the fee through the
collecting levers of
a power distributor
or another water
district.
Table 4-2 compares ways of charging the

environment fee.
for the service should be introduced as an environmental fee following the polluters pay principle. Given the large
capital requirement needed to build and operate comprehensive sanitation facilitiessewerage system and waste water
treatment infrastructureit is likely that capital investments on sanitation will have to be phased by LGUs or WDs to
Table 4-1 Environment Sanitation Fee Systems: General and Specic Charges
make it a viable service. After basic sanitation facilities (toilets and septic tanks), septage management is one of the
practicable and affordable approaches in providing sanitation services. However, as the community grows in terms of
population and economic activity, services will need to be scaled up or graduated to more sophisticated solutions.
Purpose
A. General Environment Fees
As percentage of monthly water bill
For general water related sanitation

services
Monthly water bill; deferred over a period of

time
As Fixed Charge based on water

consumption per m3
For general water-related sanitation

services
Monthly water bill; deferred over a period of

time
For septage handling and treatment

only
Upon service
Deferred payment through collecting agents
Other institutional issues related to sanitation are:

1.
Who should provide these services? By law, both WDs and LGUs are mandated to provide this service. In LGUs with
water districts, roles should be clearly identied.
2.
What should be the institutional arrangement? Availment of sanitation services should be mandatory rather than
an individual household decision as the impact of waste water generation and improper disposal is non-excludable.
Collected Through
B. Specic Environmental Fee for Septage

Pay per service
The environmental fee (EF) should also be mandatory because everyone benets from the service; moreover, it is
necessary for nancial sustainability. As such, an EF imposition should be supported by an ordinance.
Water District
Water Supply
Local Government
Table 4-2 Comparison of ways of charging the environment fee
General environmental fee
Septage Management
Specic environmental fee
Sewerage
Existing WD Customers
3.
Even though a 5
WD may cover
several LGUs, it
may still not be the
dominant water
supply provider in
all those LGUs.
22
How much EF to charge? There are as yet no guidelines on the fee structure. Even if EFs are intended to cover just
the project cost, the type of fee structure will have varying impact depending on household incomes. For instance, a
at rate (where every household is charged the same amount) will result in a heavier burden on lower and middleincome households. A deferred payment plan, where the cost of the project is spread over a period of time, will
minimize the burden (i.e., a lower increase in the monthly bill).
As xed charge based on water

consumption per m3
(e.g., PhP10 x volume consumption)
Payment mode
Pay cash per service (with

option for amortized
payment)
Included in monthly water bill
Included in monthly water bill
Price
application
Fixed price based on size

of septic tank or volume of
septage collected
Fixed rate (%) applied on water bill
Fixed rate (PhP/m3 ) applied on variable

water consumption
Septage
revenues and
water charge
Revenues independent of
water charge
Revenues increase every time water tariffs

are hiked even without adjustment of
environment fee
Revenues affected by variable water

consumption but not by water service
unit price per m3
Advantages/
disadvantages
Since all users pay the

same amount, the burden
of the environmental
project is shared equally by
everyone regardless of their
contribution to pollution.
Consistent with polluter pay principle

in that consumer with higher pollution
generation pays more; the water tariff
structure (socialized pricing/cross
subsidy mechanism) is carried on to the
environmental fee
Does not penalize high water volume

users/wastewater generators
Entire LGU Constituency

1. Who will provide the sanitation service?
2. What institutional arrangements are
needed?
3. How much EF to charge?
4. What is the mode of payment and
collection?
As percentage of monthly water bill

(e.g., 10% x water bill)
23
LWUA guidelines for charging sanitation

service fees
LWUA has no guidelines regulating fee-setting
for sanitation (sewerage, septage) services. The
existing LWUA tariff guidelines are for water
supply, under which water districts are allowed
to increase water rates by not more than 60
percent in one year, with the basic rate (for
the first 10 m3 for domestic consumption) not
exceeding 5 percent of average monthly income
of low-income group families in the water
districts franchise area. Since current LWUA
tariff regulations apply solely on water, the water
district will have to use their own judgment in
setting reasonable, affordable as well acceptable
pricing until LWUA draws up definite guidelines
for pricing of sanitation services.
Per existing procedures, the WD will likely need
to hold a public hearing to present proposed rate
adjustments.
FORECASTING REVENUES
Revenues can be projected based on the target
market and the charging method employed.
If only water-served households (current
customers) are targeted and the environmental
fee is the selected means of charging, water
revenues can be projected based on water
consumption/sales and the percentage charge for
environmental fee:
Revenues = total water sales x environmental
fee rate (%)
If a fixed charge on per cubic meter
consumption is the selected means, the basis
will be total sales in cubic meter volume and the
price of sanitation service per cubic meter of
water sold:
Revenues = water sales volume x
environmental fee (peso per cubic meter of
water)
24
If the septage collection service charge is the

selected means, revenue projection will be
based on the projected number of individual
septic tanks to be desludged and the charge per
service:
Revenues= number of septic tanks to be
serviced x desludging service charge
Markets may be segmented not only according
to whether they are served or unserved by water,
but also according to traditional classifications:
residential, commercial and institutional.
Commercial customers may further be classified
into those with or without their own wastewater
treatment plants. Differential services and
charges may be applied.
Since the environmental fee is linked to water
sales, the forecast must go hand-in-hand with
water sales projection. Revenue forecasting
for purposes of studying feasibility is based on
assumptions of connection growth rate, water
consumption, water rate adjustments and
environmental fee rate.
When septage management becomes
operational, revenues must still be projected
over a planning horizon of five years, for
example, and additional assumptionsas to
future investments, expansion of service areas,
economic conditions, etc.must be taken into
consideration. Target attainment must be
tracked and the assumptions used in projections
must be reviewed and adjusted periodically to
maintain their validity.
Other revenues may be generated under the
septage management program, like sales of
biosolids as soil conditioners or, in some cases,
sales of energy from biogas. It would be prudent
though to exclude these revenue streams in the
preliminary financial analysis unless there are
in-depth studies to support their inclusion.
ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL VIABILITY

The main measures of financial viability are the
financial internal rate of return (FIRR) and net
present value (NPV). The NPV is the present
value of net cash flows over a period when
discounted using the WACC as the discount rate.
If the NPV is positive, the project is acceptable.
The FIRR determines the discount rate that
would reduce the series of cash flows (net costbenefit streams) to zero. Cash flow refers to the
difference between financial costs (investment
costs, operating and maintenance costs) and
financial benefits (revenues, residual values).
The FIRR can therefore be defined as the
discount rate that would make the present value
of revenues equal to the present value of costs.
This means the FIRR is the discount rate that
would generate equilibrium in the values of both
revenues and costs. The FIRR can be calculated
using a formula in Microsoft Excel. It can also be
mathematically calculated using the following
formula:
NPV=
C1
(1+r)
t=0
=0
Where, t = time interval

N = total time intervals
r = discount rate (FIRR)
FIRR thus computes the break-even rate of
return showing the discount rate, below which
an investment results in a positive NPV. The
cash flow projection for the FIRR and NPV
should at least equal the duration of the loan.
Financial statements (e.g., income and cash flow
statements and balance sheet) for the septage
management project should be projected
over the planning horizon. Annex C provides
sample financial statements. From the projected
financial statements, various ratios may be
extracted for analysis. Ratios that may be used to

evaluate projected financial performance are:
~ Current ratio = Current assets / current
liabilities
~ Debt-to-equity ratio = Total liabilities /
equity
~ Net margin ratio = Net income / total
revenues
~ Return on assets = Net income / total assets
~ Return on equity = Net income / equity
~ Operating ratio = Gross revenues / operating
expenses
~ Debt service coverage ratio = (Operating
income + depreciation) / debt service
The current ratio is a measure of liquidity. The
rule-of-thumb for current ratio is 1.5:1 meaning
there should be PhP1.50 of current assets for
every PhP1.00 liability. Debt-to-equity ratio
measures leverage. Net margin, return of assets
and return on equity ratios are measures of
profitability. The operating ratio measures
operational efficiency. Other financial ratios may
be added for a more detailed analysis.
The ratio that is most important to lenders is
debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) as it gives an
indication of the borrowers ability to service the
loan. DSCR is computed by dividing operating
income plus depreciation by annual debt service.
Most lenders require that the DSCR should not
be less than 1.3x in any year of the projection
period.
When the septage management project is in
operation, financial analysis must be continued
for evaluation of performance. The same
financial ratios mentioned above may be used
with actual figures. Ratios are ideally compared
to benchmarks, such as average industry
figures. This may be impractical, however, until
there are more water districts with septage
25
management operations. Until then, the ratios

may be used for trend analysis.
It is recommended that the operations of
septage management be autonomous from the
water operation of the water districts to make it
easier to track performance. This would require
the ring-fencing of funds and keeping separate

books for the septage management operations.
However, a corporate level financial analysis of
the water district as a utility company offering
both water and sanitation services should also
be done for overall evaluation and planning.
ADVOCACY AND SOCIAL MARKETING

STRATEGY: BUILDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT
INTRODUCTION
Support from the local government and
community is critical for the long term
sustainability of septage management projects.
INTFRASTRUCTURE
AND PRODUCTS
AND SERVICES
IMPROVEMENTS
In all systems, there are three overarching

intervention areas that impinge on programs
and influence how customers might respond
to proposed projects. These are: (1) access
to infrastructure and products and services
improvements; (2) promotion; and (3) enabling
environment.
PROMOTION
ALL
HAPPENING
HERE
INTFRASTRUCTURE
AND PRODUCTS
AND SERVICES
IMPROVEMENTS
ENABLING
ENVIRONMENT
The level of overlap among these intervention

areasor the extent to which activities in
these intervention areas happen at the same
time in the same places and for the same target
audiencesimpacts on a programs ability
to influence customers to participate and
adopt feasible projects. Overlaps may happen
LARGER
SYSTEM
ENABLING
ENVIRONMENT
The larger system and the three overarching

intervention areas have an impact on the
behavior of customers. Working with and
within this larger system can increase the
likelihood of bringing about desired change,
whether it be for customers to adopt the
project, pay for services, connect to a system,
or desludge their septic tanks.
26
PROMOTION
When all activities are happening at the same time in the

same places with the same audiences, it increases the
likelihood of behavior change and sustained change.
27
between two of the intervention areas and

sometimes none at all. This is when problems
and confusion may occur.
In this section, developing a local ordinance
and a promotion program will be presented as
a support mechanism for developing a septage
management program. Options for water
districts will be discussed together with local
case studies and recommendations for building
local government and community support.
DEVELOPING A LOCAL ORDINANCE

There are numerous laws in the Philippines that
specify requirements for installation of proper
septic tanks and mandate septic tank desludging.
Nonetheless, a local ordinance on wastewater
management is useful to establish procedures
for obtaining permits, regulatory requirements
for treating and disposing of septage and septic
tank construction, scope and authority to
collect septage and payments, fee schedules for
services, and penalties for non-compliance. In
the Philippines, local ordinances are formulated
and promulgated by the local government
legislative councils.
Options for the water district

There are two ways to effect a local ordinance
from the stand point of the water district,
depending on the role the local government will
take in the septage management program. (In
this business model, it is assumed that the water
district will be the prime mover of the septage
management project through direct water
district investments and operations.)
Option 1: Cooperative agreement with the
local government
Assuming that the local government has
signified interest in taking an active role in
septage management, a cooperative agreement
defines the roles of both parties in the provision
of this service. It also provides impetus for
both entities to support the program to help
28
ensure successful implementation. This involves

creating the necessary enabling environment
through local government ordinances and water
district board resolutions.
Several operational approaches and costrecovery mechanisms are available for water
districts and local governments under a
cooperative agreement. The approach and
cost-recovery mechanism should consider
institutional strengths and staff capabilities
of both parties. It should also consider the
parties financial positions and arrive at
a win-win arrangement for managing the
program. This may become a bit complicated
if the water district needs to work with several
local governments within its service area, in
which case phasing of the project under a
comprehensive program may be a good option.
Option 2: Petition the local council for
legislation on septage management
It is still advisable for the water district to
lobby for the creation of an ordinance that
will support its implementation of a septage
management program. Such an ordinance
will simply reinforce the mandates of two
national laws: the Clean Water Act of 2004 and
Presidential Decree 198 or the Water District
Law. These laws direct local governments and
water districts to address water pollution issues
and plan for sewerage and sanitation projects.
To create support for a septage management
program, the water district needs to catalyze
public demand for better sanitation services
to protect public health and the environment.
Public assemblies and forums may need to be
organized to surface and discuss water pollution
issues and the need to address these. These
actions should increase public pressure for
elected officials to act on legal mandates and
formulate necessary interventions.
promotional campaigns, which can push local

governments into action by drawing attention
to issues and raising awareness among its
constituents. Local governments should respond
by formulating a local ordinance and developing
a system and infrastructure for collection and
treatment of septage.
The Dumaguete City local ordinance on septage
management sets a PhP2 per cubic meter
surcharge on water delivered by the Dumaguete
City Water District to fund the septage program.
It also prescribes (1) the procedure for desludging
and transfer of septage to the septage treatment
facility; (2) the chosen technology for the
septage treatment facility; (3) general design
and construction requirements for septic
tanks; (4) the institutional arrangement for the
administration, enforcement, monitoring, and
evaluation of the program; and (5) penalties for
violations.
The City Government of Dumaguete signed
a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with
the Dumaguete City Water District (DCWD)
in September 2006. The MOA states that
the DCWD shall be responsible for billing
and collection of fees imposed by the City
Government for desludging of septic tanks of
about 23,000 households and 2,000 business
establishments and other institutions in the
city. Although the MOA was simply a collection
service agreement, this necessitated the
formulation and adoption of a local ordinance
on septage management to ensure successful
implementation of the program and ultimately
the recoup of the original investment by the
local government. Emboldened by support
from the local government and the community
it serves, the DCWD recently committed
to financing half the cost of the septage
management program.
Case studies
Recommendations
Ideally, planning for local ordinances

on sanitation should be accompanied by
It is important for water districts to understand

what a local council needs to formulate a clear,
realistic, practical and effective ordinance so it

can decide how to best assist.
The following actions should be taken to help
formulate an effective local ordinance:
1. Analyze the current situation to assess
the level of environmental degradation,
note any water-borne diseases and/or lack
of proper sanitary facilities. Alleviating
current conditions may necessitate minimal
investment.
2. Conduct orientation and discussion meetings
(orientation on septage management and
legal mandates; discussions on technical
requirements, design parameters, and
institutional and funding arrangements). As
soon a potential site for the treatment facility
is identified, community meetings should be
held to get the residents input and support.
3. Conduct site visits for councilors and
local chief executives to septage treatment
facilities and research or review septage
management programs of other local
governments and water utility operators.
4. Prepare draft of the ordinance (by city
council committee on environment and/or
health), incorporating all information and
major decisions of the local government and
members of the council committee.
5. Circulate draft to other executive
departments for their review: check
documentation, legal, coordination,
procurement, oversight, and engineering
support requirements.
6. Note comments and revisions/refinements
from feedback during deliberations by the
council.
7. Hold community meetings and orientation
sessions to solicit reactions, suggestions and
buy-in of local residents, particularly those
who are living near the site of the treatment
facility.
29
8. Before finalizing the draft, conduct a public

hearing and solicit more comments using a
participatory approach.
9. Approval and adoption by council,
publication, and information dissemination.
10. Implement and monitor to be done by
the appropriate department in the local
government.
DEVELOPING A PROMOTION
PROGRAM
In the Philippines most peopleincluding
government officialsknow very little about
sanitation issues. While people generally
understand that most houses have septic tanks,
they generally do not know what they do, how
they function, how to properly operate and
maintain them, or even where they are located
on their property. For the public to support a
regular desludging program, they first need
to understand the problem and how septage
management can help so that they may support
this solution.
An effective information and promotion
campaign is therefore critical. Without it, the
Eight-month promotion program timeframe
Activity and tasks to be completed
Month
Select team members and organize team

Review toolkit
Month 1
Prepare 6- to 8-month plan of action
Step 1: Dene problem, audience, ideal behaviors
Step 2: Gather information
Month 2
Step 3: Focus problem, audiences and feasible

behaviors
Step 4: Design broad change strategy
Month 3
Step 6: Prepare materials and activities

Month 4
Step 7: Pretest materials and activities
Step 8: Implement promotion program
Months 5-8
Step 9: Monitor
30
To develop a campaign that will produce the

desired results, a very structured process
should be followed. The process, outlined in
the table below, includes clearly defining the
problem, audience and ideal behavior. Research
is needed to better understand the audience and
to identify the specific messages that can best
motivate them to perform the ideal behavior.
A sample process for a promotions campaign is
summarized in the table below. It was developed
by the USAID Environmental CooperationAsia (ECO-Asia) program, which is currently
developing a detailed toolkit that water districts
can use not only to develop effective campaigns
but also measure their impact on the target
audience.
In the implementation of the steps mentioned
above, it is necessary to use some rigor and
universally accepted principles of behavioral
psychology and marketing. The water district
may exercise its prerogative as to how
comprehensive or thorough of a process it
would like to adopt in developing the promotion
program. At the minimum, baseline research
is important to make promotional materials
accurate, effective, and relevant to the objectives
of conducting the promotion.
Options for the water district
Step 5: Develop specic promotion plan
Step 10: Evaluate
program will most likely fail. Unfortunately,

apart from the usual leaflets enclosed in water
bills announcing a rate hike or sharing water
conservation tips, water districts have very little
experience in conducting effective information
campaigns.
Months 6 and 8
There are three options for the water district to

develop an effective promotion program.
Option 1: Develop the promotion program
in-house
The water district can develop the promotion
program using the prescribed steps in the table
above. This would mean using its resources and
leading all consultation, survey, and pre-testing

activities. This would also mean learning and
adopting the art and science of developing a
promotion program, something that would
require time and access to resources.
Option 2: Work with the local government
Comparatively speaking, local governments
may have more experience in developing
promotion programs than water districts. Local
governments are also more exposed to various
campaigns, from convincing parents to get
their babies vaccinated, to asking households
to segregate their waste, to encouraging
homeowners to pay property taxes on time.
The water district may request the local
government to spearhead the development
of the promotion program and may offer to
finance promotional activities and production of
materials.
Option 3: Work with a professional service
provider
If neither the water district nor the local
government has the time or capacity to develop
the promotion program on their own, the last
resort is to turn to professionals to do the work.
However, this will entail higher costs.
Case studies
Dumaguete was one of the four cities involved
in the USAID Local Initiatives for Affordable
Wastewater Treatment (LINAW) project,
which ran in 20032007. The city government
was ready to take action to address water
pollution because they were aware of the high
level of pollution in their coastal waters. At
the beginning of the LINAW project, the city
decided that building a wastewater treatment
facility for their public market was their top
priority, which was done in 2007.
The citys second priority was to develop a
city-wide system to desludge septic tanks and
build a treatment facility for the sludge. The city
developed and passed a septage management

ordinance and signed an MOU with the water
district for collection services. At the same
time, the city implemented an innovative
public information campaign to encourage
residents to check their septic tanks and
have them desludged regularly. Focus group
discussions were held, as well as interviews
of key informants, to determine what kinds of
messages would be most effective. It was clear
that the residents valued the Rizal Boulevard
promenade and wanted to see the water quality
of the coastal waters there improved. The
City employed a local artist and photographer
to assist in the preparation of materials.
The campaign included posters, brochures,
billboards, community meetings, and broad
media coverage (local cable TV appearances,
print and radio news). They also did a water,
sanitation and hygiene (WASH) day, which was
a lively event featuring a parade, motorcade,
soap making and hand washing demonstrations,
little Miss and Mr. WASH, free food and medical
check-up, and an art contest. Several public
hearings were also held before the ordinance
was passed.
The other five LINAW cities also conducted
promotion campaigns on sanitation and
hygiene. In each case, the messages and media
were tailored to fit the interests and practices
of the local audience. Muntinlupa City made
good use of the talents and media contacts of
the its information office, and worked with an
advertising firm to produce innovative print
materials for national newspapers. Both Naga
and Iloilo focused on the importance of keeping
their river system cleanNaga for religious
reasons since their river is used during the
fluvial parade for the Our Lady of Peafrancia,
and Iloilo for tourism and the aquatic delicacies
found in their river. Malaybalay City focused on
tourism and the proliferation of Internet cafs,
where they installed promotional collaterals
as onscreen wallpaper displays. Calbayog
City made use of local talent by producing a
31
full-length musical stage play and a dramatic

film to convey messages on sanitation and
hygiene focused on cleaning the river. Although
most of these examples were done by local
governments, these can also be adopted and
modified by water districts that want to launch a
promotion campaign for septage management.
Recommendations
As people realize that their overflowing septic
tanks contribute to the deteriorating health
of the community and pollution of their
environment, they will be more likely to act and
more willing to support solutions. Increasing
knowledge about an issue helps achieve political
solutions to problems like septage management.
Developing, passing and enforcing a septage
management ordinance are much easier when
there is strong public support for the program.
Promotion campaigns are tools for changing
attitudes and behaviors about sanitation issues.
There is a need to consult with our customers,
the local government and/or professional
service providers to ensure that design,

development, and implementation of promotion
programs are based on good baseline research to
deliver desired results.
It is also important to have a well-rounded team
and an effective team leader who will develop
the promotion program. A team leader must
fully grasp organizational, political and technical
issues, be open and transparent, flexible and
adaptable to changing situations, able to manage
people and coordinate multiple activities,
facilitate team harmony, encourage consensus,
and work well with upper management.
Most of the work in developing a promotion
program is methodical and can be entrusted to
in-house talent, but it is also worth emphasizing
that knowledge of local habits, practices, and
attitude of target audiences, as well as creativity
and resourcefulness are very important
ingredients in increasing the likelihood of
behavior change and sustained change in
promotion programs.
ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

program. To start operating, the program may
require the following new water district units
and staff under its operations department:
MODIFICATIONS IN THE
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
With the expanded operation, it will be
necessary for the water district to review its
existing organizational structure and assess
how the proposed septage management
program will fit into its structure and
processes.
Septage management division

~ Division head
Desludging services section

~ Section head (depends on size of the
operations)
Primary units and functions
~ Desludging coordinators/site officers
Depending on its size and available resources,

the water district may consider setting up
a septage management division which will
be separate from water supply operations.
The division may consist of two sections:
desludging services and the septage treatment
plant section. The desludging services section
will be responsible for collection, handling
and transportation of septage from various
collection points to treatment facilities, while
the septage treatment plant section will
take charge of treatment of septage and the
subsequent disposal of the treated sludge. (See
Figure 6-1.)
~ Drivers
~ Laborers
~ Maintenance motor pool with mechanics
(depending on size of operations)
Treatment plant section

~ Plant manager (depending on size and
complexity of treatment operations)
~ Plant operator
~ Maintenance technicians (depending
on size and complexity of treatment
operations)
Stafng requirements
~ Laborers
The water district should also assess current

staffing and determine additional staffing
requirements for the implementation of the
32
Staffing requirements will depend largely on

the size of the water districts target market.
33
The water district should be able to assess

current manpower and organizational capacity
and determine additional staffing requirements
and qualifications.
Support units
Customer support may be provided by the unit
or staff currently handling customer support
for water supply operations, but there may be a
Figure 6-1 Suggested Organizational Structure - Septage
Management Division
Water District
Board of Directors
need to provide training on handing sanitationrelated customer complaints.

Billing and collection support for the septage
management program will be sourced from the
water districts finance department.
The water district can make use of existing
units and staff for maintenance activities.
For example, the existing motor pool can be
responsible for repair and maintenance work
on the trucks. Only if fleet requirements exceed
present capacity should a separate motor pool be
considered.
Staff training
General Manager
Administrative
Group
Finance Group
Operations
Group
Technical
Group
The water district should conduct a training

needs assessment to identify proper training
programs appropriate to the organizations
needs and the skill levels of staff. This implies
that the water district should also establish a
regular training program for its employees.
Training programs could include the following:
Septage Management
Division
~ Desludging truck route analysis
Division Head
~ Operations and maintenance of desludging

trucks
Desludging Services
Section
Treatment Plant
Section
Section Head
Desludging
Coordinators
Site Ofcers
Truck Drivers
Truck Laborers
Maintenance
Motorpool
Mechanics
Plant Manager
Maintenance
Technicians
Driver
Laborers
~ Proper method of septic tank maintenance

and desludging
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

To assess the performance of the water
district in implementing its septage treatment
program, it is necessary to develop a
monitoring and evaluation plan. The water
district should be able to keep track of critical
variablesespecially key performance areas
in relation to the programs objectives
throughout the life of the program.
FINANCIAL EFFECTIVENESS
~ Cash flow
~ Net profit ratio
~ Return on assets
~ Operating ratio
~ Debt to equity ratio
~ Debt service coverage ratio
The water district may consider the following

key performance areas and corresponding
indicators in developing a monitoring and
evaluation framework:
~ Septage treatment plant operation,

maintenance and troubleshooting
SERVICE LEVELS
~ Equipment maintenance
~ Population served
~ Environmental sampling and monitoring
~ Number of septic tanks desludged
~ Customer service support
~ Service standards
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
~ Staff trained
PUBLIC RELATIONS
~ Coverage area
~ Average response time for servicing

~ Average response time for billing
complaints
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY
~ Reduction of pollution load
~ Staff productivity index
~ Discharge permits
~ Desludging cost/m3
~ Effluent characteristics (BOD, nutrients, oil

and grease, TSS, coli forms)
~ Hauling cost/m
~ Biosolids characteristics (pathogens,

nutrients, helminthes)
~ Treatment cost/m3
~ Effluent quality
~ Water quality of receiving bodies of water
~ Collection efficiency
34
35
REFERENCES
Manila Water Company, Inc. Sustainability
Report 2007.
Feasibility Study for Septage Treatment of
Six Municipalities along Sarangani
Bay Protected Seascape and One
along Malalag Bay prepared by NJS in
association with CEST, Incorporated and
PRIMEX, 2008.
Feasibility Study for the Manila Third Sewerage
Project prepared by NJS in association
with CEST, Incorporated and Mott
McDonald Co., Inc., 2004.
Operations Manual on the Rules and Regulations

Governing Domestic Sludge and Septage
prepared by the Department of Health,
Philippines, 2008 with the assistance of
the USAID Environmental CooperationAsia (ECO-Asia) program
Septage Handling WEF Manual of Practice,
Water Environment Federation (WEF),
1997.
Feasibility Study for Antipolo Septage Treatment
Plant by SKM, PIA, 2001.
Guide to Septage Treatment and Disposal,
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA), 1994
Annexes
36
37
A1
ANNEX A-1
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY INSTRUMENT (SERVED)

TimeStart:__________
QUES.#:
TimeEnd:___________

Introduction:Goodday!Iam___________________________________________fromthe(statenameofWaterDistrict).Weare
conductingastudyinyourareaonseptictanksandrelatedhealthissues.Wehopeyoucanhelpusbyansweringsomequestions.
Theinterviewwillonlytake15minutes.Pleasebeassuredthatallinformationisstrictlyconfidentialandtheanswersgivenwillnot
beattributedtotherespondent.Youranswerswillhelpusgreatlyinimprovingourservices.

(Magandangaraw!Akoposi__________mulasa(banggitinpangalanngWaterDistrict).Kamiaykasalukuyanggumagawangpag
aaralsainyonglugartungkolsakalusuganatkondisyonngmgaposonegro.Mayroonkamingilangkatanunganatangintervieway
tatagalng15minutolamang.Huwagkayongmagalalaatlahatngimpormasyonatdatosnamakukuhanaminayconfidentialat
hindimaitutukoysainyo.Angresultangpagaaralnaitoaygagamitinnaminupangmapagbutipalaloangamingserbisyo.)

A.Screener
1.MayItalktosomeoneinthehouseholdwhoisknowledgeableonwateruseandyourwaterbillforthehousehold?(Maaaripo
bangmakausapangsinumansainyongbahaynamayalamtungkolsapagbabayadatpaggamitngtubig?)

Talkedtocustomer(asperbilling)SkiptoQuestion3
Talkedtocompanyhead
Talkedtootherdecisionmaker

2.Forcommercial,askforthe:
Nameofrespondent:_________________________________________
Designationincompany:______________________________________

3.Ifyourcompanyweretochooseamongprovidersofferingseptictankdesludgingserviceand/orotherrepairs,whichamongthese
statementsdescribeyourroleindecisionmaking?(Kungpaguusapannatinangtungkolsapagpilingkumpanyanamaglilinisng
inyongposonegrookayaayibapangmgarepairsabahay,alinsamgasumusunodangnaglalarawannginyongbahagisa
pagdedesisyon?)

Iamthesoledecisionmaker(Akolangangnagpapasya)
Ihaveamajorpartinthedecision(Akoaymaymalakingbahagisapagpapasya)
Ihaveaminorpartinthedecision(Akoaymaymaliitnabahagisapagpapasya)TERMINATESURVEY
Ihavenopartinthedecision(Akoaywalangbahagisapagpapasya)TERMINATESURVEY

4.Howoldareyou?(Ilantaonnapokayo?)

1825
3645
5660
2635
4655
Above60

B.Existingsanitationconditions
Drainage/discharge
1.Typeofstormdrain(Anoanglagusannginyongmarumingtubig?)

Opencanal
Coveredcanal
Drainpipe
Dontknow

2.Wheredoesyourhouseholdwastewaterflow?(Saanpapuntaang
marumingtubignamulasainyongbahay?)

Seeptoground
Drainage
Dontknow

38
3.Doyouexperienceanyofthefollowingproblemsin
yourdrainagecanal?(checkallthatapply)

Emitsodor
Overflow
Blockage
Others,specify:________________
None

Septictank
4.Doyouhaveatoilet?(Mayroonbakayongkasilyas?)

Yes
NoSkiptoQuestion11ofselfaccomplished
survey

6.Typeofwastedisposal(Anonguringpagtaponng
dumi?)
Septictank(ST)
Cesspool/aquaprivy
Linedpit
Unlinedpit
Compostpit
Others,specify:__________________
IfNONE,where?__________________

9.Howmanypersonsaresharingtheseptictank?(Ilang
taoanggumagamitsaposonegro?)

_______________
Dontknow

11.HowmanycompartmentsdoestheST/cesspoolhave?
(Ilanangkompartamentongposonegro?)

_______________
Dontknow

12.DothecompartmentsoftheST/cesspoolhave
concrete/imperviousflooring?(Maysementadongsahigba
angposonegroninyo?)

Yes
No
Don'tknow

13.DoestheST/cesspoolhaveopenings/manholes?
(Mayroonbang"access"/"manhole"/butasangposo
negro?)

Yes
No
Dontknow
16.WheredoestheST/cesspooloutletdischarge?(Saan
papuntaangdumi?)

Drainagepipe
Adjacentlot
Canal
Others:
River/creek
__________________

5.Whattypeoftoiletdoyouhave?(Anonguringkasilyas?)

Flush
Aquaprivy
Pourflush
Overhang
VIPlatrine
Field/notoilet
Compostprivy
Others:___________________

8.WhoownstheST/cesspool?
7.IfST/cesspool,whattypeof
(Sinoangnagmamayaring
materialisused?(Materyalesna
septictank?)
ginamitsaposonegro)

Concrete
Owned
Drum
Shared
Plastic

Others:______________

10.WhatisthesizeoftheST/cesspool(Anoangkabuuangsukatng
posonegro?)

____ m

Length of Septic Tank
House

____ m

Distance from
Septic Tank to House

Estimateddepthofseptictank=_________m
14.IstheST/cesspoolaccessible?
(Madalibangpuntahanang
lokasyonngposonegro?)

Yes
No
Dontknow
15.IsthereaST/cesspool
outlet?(Mayroonbang
lagusano"outlet"anginyong
septictank?)

Yes
No
Don'tknow

17.Doyouexperienceanyofthefollowingproblemswithyour
ST/cesspool?(checkallthatapply)

Emitsodor
Others:_______________
None
Overflow

Blockage
39
C.Willingnesstopay
Septageservice
Introduction:Ang__________________aynaismaglunsadngserbisyongpagsipsipngposonegroatpaglinisngdumi.Angserbisyongitoaymay
ganitongkatangian:(1)regularnapagsipsipngposonegrotuwingika3hanggang5taonat(2)paglilinisngdumingnakuhasaposonegrobagoito
itapon.Angganitongparaanngregularnapagsipsipatpaglilinisngdumiaymagdudulotngligtasnakapaligiranatmakababawasngpolusyonsa
atingkalikasangtubig(ilog,sapa,etc.),bukalnatubig(balon,bukal)attubigdagat.Itorinaymagpapabutisakalusuganngbuongpamayanandahil
maiiwasanangpagkakaroonngmgasakitnadulotngmadumingtubigatmadumingkapaligiran,atmababawasananggastossapagpapagamot.
Angmgakasalukuyangserbisyosapaglilinisngposonegroaywalangkasiguraduhannaangduminanakukuhaaylilinisinmunabagoitoitapon.
1. Wouldyoubewillingtopayforthisserviceifitwillcostanadditional(P30/P40/P50/P60/P70)inyourcurrentmonthlywaterbill?(Sangayon
bakayongmagbayadsaganitongserbisyokungitoaymagkakahalagangdagdagna[P30/P40/P50/P60/P70]sainyongbuwanangbayadsa
tubig?)
PLEASESOLICITANSWERSFOREVERYPRICEPOINT
1AE.
P30
P40
P50
P60
P70
Definitelywillingtopay(Talagangsangayonmagbayad)
5
5
5
5
5
Somewhatwillingtopay(Medyosangayonmagbayad)
4
4
4
4
4
Neutral(Hindimasabikungsangayonohindi)
3
3
3
3
3
Somewhatnotwillingtopay(Medyohindisangayonmagbayad)
2
2
2
2
2
Definitelynotwillingtopay(Talaganghindisangayonmagbayad)
1
1
1
1
1
2. Whatmakesyousaythatyouare(ANSWERINQ1)(Bakitponinyonasabingkayoay(SAGOTSAQ1))

2A.
2B.
2C.
2D.
2E.
Positive(5and4)
Iamworriedaboutthehealthrisksresultingfrompoorseptagemanagement.
(Nangangambaakosamaiidulotnapanganibpangkalusugandulotngdiangkopna

pangangasiwangseptage.)
Iwelcome____________involvementinseptagemanagement.(Ako'ynatutuwa

dahilang_____________aynakaugnaysaisangproyektoukolsa"septage.")
Thepriceisaffordable.(Abotkayaanghalaga.)
Others(specify):
Neutral(3)
FirstIwanttoseehowitactuallyworks.(Gustokomunangmalamankungpaanoito
gumagana.)
Abittooexpensiveforme.(Hindikoabotkayaanghalaga.)
Others(specify):
Iamworriedaboutthehealthrisksresultingfrompoorsewagemanagement.
pangangasiwangmarumingtubig.)
Iwelcome___________________________involvementinthecityssewage
management.(Ako'ynatutuwadahilang______________________________
aynakaugnaysaisangproyektoukolsa"sewage.")
Others(specify):
Neutral(3)
FirstIwanttoseehowitactuallyworks.(Gustokomunangmalamankung
paanoitogumagana.)
Others(specify):
Negative(1and2)
Theincreaseinthewaterbillistoohigh/notaffordable(Angdadagnasingil
satubigaysobra/hindiabotkaya.)
Negative(1and2)
Theincreaseinthewaterbillistoohigh/notaffordable.(Angdadagnasingilsatubig
aysobra/hindiabotkaya.)
Serviceisexpensivecomparedtoothercompanies.(Angserbisyoaymasmalaki
kumparasaibangkumpanya.)
Others(specify):
Whatdoyouthinkisanaffordableratepermonthfortheproposedservice?
(Magkanoangkayamongibayadsaisangbuwansaserbisyongnabanggit?)
Otherreasons(specify):
3. Thecurrentratein________________________fordesludgingseptictanksisP3,0005,000perseptictank.It
isuncertainthattheserviceincludespropertreatmentoftheseptage.Isthisrateaffordable?(Ditosa
__________________________,angkasalukuyangbayadsapagpapasipsipsaposonegroayP3,0005,000.
Itobaayabotkayanghalagaparasainyo?)
Yes
Abit(Medyo)
No
40
Sewerageservice
Introduction:Ang________________________WaterDistrictaynaismaglunsadngserbisyongpagkulektaatpaglinisng
marumingtubigmulasainyongbahayatibapangestablisyamentobagoitoitaponbagoitaponsailogosapa.Angganitong
paraanngregularnapagsipsipatpaglilinisngdumiaymagdudulotngligtasnakapaligiranatmakababawasngpolusyonsaating
kalikasangtubig(ilog,sapa,etc.),bukalnatubig(balon,bukal)attubigdagat.Itorinaymagpapabutisakalusuganngbuong
pamayanandahilmaiiwasanangpagkakaroonngmgasakitnadulotngmadumingtubigatmadumingkapaligiran,at
mababawasananggastossapagpapagamot.Sakasalukuyangpatakbonglungsod,hindinililinisangmarumingtubignanagmula
sakabahayananatibapangestablisyamento.

1. Wouldyoubewillingtopayforthisserviceifitwillcostanadditional(P30/P40/P50/P60/P70)inyourcurrentmonthlywater
bill?(Sangayonbakayongmagbayadparasaganitongserbisyokungitoaymagkakahalagangdagdagna
(P30/P40/P50/P60/P70)sainyongbuwanangbayadsatubig?)
1AE.
P30
P40
P50
P60
P70
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2.Whatmakesyousaythatyouare(ANSWERINQ1)(Bakitponinyonasabingkayoay(SAGOTSAQ1))

2A.
2B.
2C.
2D.
2E.
Positive(4and5)
4. Howmuchareyouwilling
topayforthisservice?
(Magkanoangnais
ninyongibayad?)
P__________________

P_______________________________
41
SELFACCOMPLISHEDFORM

A.Sociodemographicinformation
General
Nameofrespondent

Gender
Male
Female

Nameofcompanyhead

Companyinformation
Address

Typeofownership
Singleproprietorship
Partnership
Corporation
1825
2635
3645
4555
5660
Above60
Yearsofoperation

No.ofpersonnel
Permanent
Casual/contractual
Others:______________
Total

________
________
________
________
Sector
Manufacturing
Trading
Service
Others:_____________
Howmuchmorecanyouaffordtopay 3.
permonth?(Hanggangmagkanoang
abotkayaninyongbayaransaisang
buwan?)
______________P/month
Howmanyestablishmentsaresharing
thewaterbill?(Ilangestablisyamento
angnaghahatisabayadngtubig?)

_______________
Ownmeter(Sarilingmetro)
Dontknow

Howsatisfiedordissatisfiedareyouwiththeservicesof_________________________________?(Gaanokayonasisiyahaano
dinasisiyahansaserbisyong______________________________________?)
Verysatisfied(Lubosnanasisiyahan)
Somewhatdissatisfied(Medyohindinasisiyahan)
Somewhatsatisfied(Medyonasisiyahan)
Verydissatisfied(Lubosnahindinasisiyahan)

Somewhatsatisfied/dissatisfied(Hindimasabikung
nasisiyahanohindi)
6.Howmanyhoursdidittaketodesludgeyour
septictank?(Ilangorasnilinisangposonegro?)

<30min
2hours
<1hour
Others:
1hour _________

8.Howmuchdidyoupayforthedesludging?
(Magkanoangibinayadparasapaglinis?)

P_____________________

9.Didyouaskthedesludgerwheretheybringthecollectedsludge?(Naitanong
10.Doyouknowwherethesludgeistaken?
nyopobakungsaanniladinadalaangduminagalingsaposonegro?)
(Alamniyobakungsaandinadalaangmga
duminanakukuhamulasaposonegro?)

YesWhere?________SkiptoQuestion11
Yes.Ifso,where?______________
No
No

11.Doyouagreeordisagreethatimpropersewageandseptagetreatmentwouldaffectthefollowing?(Gaanokayosumasangayon
ohindisumasangayonnaanghindimaayosnapagtataponopaglilinisngdumigalingsaseweratposonegroaymayepektosa
mgasumusunod:)

Somewhat
Neutral

Strongly
Somewhat
Strongly
agree
(Hindi
agree
disagree
disagree
(Medyo
masabi
(Talagang
(Medyo
(Talagang
sangayon) sangayon) kungsang hindisang hindisang

ayono
ayon)
ayon)
hindi)
Causesdeteriorationinwaterqualityofcreeksand
rivers(Nagdudulotngpagbabangkalidadngtubig
5
4
3
2
1
sailogatsapa)
Causesuncleandrinkingwater(Nagdudulotng
maruminginumingtubig)
5
4
3
2
1

Causeswaterrelateddiseases(Nagdudulotngsakit
naukolsamarumingtubig)
5
4
3
2
1

D.Health
1.Haveyouoranyofyourfamilyfallenillwithanywater
2.Inthepast12months,howmuchdidyouspendformedication
bornediseaseinthepast12months?(checkallthatapply)
totreatthesediseases)?(Magkanoangnagastosninyosa

pagpapagamotngmganabanggitnasakitsaloobngisangtaon?)
Diarrhea
P__________________
Amoebiasis
Skindiseases

HepatitisA
Schistosomiasis
Typhoid
3.Howmanydayswereyousick(dayshospitalized,absent)inthe
Cholera
Hayfever
pastyear?(Sanakalipasna12nabuwan,Ilangarawang
Leptospirosis
Dysentery
pagkakasakitdahilansamganabanggitnasakit?)
Polio
Ascariasis

Others:
Meningitis
_________________days
_________
Otitisexterna

C.Existingsanitationpractices
1.Doyoudesludgeyourseptictank?
(Nagpapalinispobakayongposonegro?)

Yes
Ifno,why?___________
SkiptoQuestion11

42
Age

Designation
B.Levelofsatisfaction
1. Howmuchisyouraverage
2.
monthlywaterbill?(Magkanoang
inyongaveragenabinabayaransa
tubigsaisangbuwan?)

______________P/month

4.
Designation
4.Reasonfordesludging?(Bakitpo 5.Howlongdidyouwaitforthedesludger
kayonagpalinisnginyongposo
toarrivefromtimeofcall?(Gaanokatagal
negro?)
bagodumatingangmaglilinismulang

inyongtinawagan?)
Regularmaintenance

Halfday
Oneday
Blockage
Morethan
Others:
Tankfull
halfday
_________
Others:__________

7.Whatisthenameofdesludgingcompany?(Anoangpangalanngkumpanya
nanaglinisngposonegro?)

___________________________________
Dontknow
2.Howoften?(Gaanopokadalas?) 3.Whenwasthelastseptictankdesludging?

(Kailankayohulingnagpalinisngposonegro?)

Every_______years
_______________
Don't

(month)(year)
remember
________yearsago
43
A2
ANNEX A-2
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY INSTRUMENT (UNSERVED)

QUES.#:

TimeEnd:___________

Introduction:Goodday!Iam___________fromthe(statethenameoftheWaterDistrict).Weareconductingastudyinyourarea
onseptictanksandrelatedhealthissues.Wehopeyoucanhelpusbyansweringsomequestions.Theinterviewwillonlytake15
minutes.Pleasebeassuredthatallinformationisstrictlyconfidentialandtheanswersgivenwillnotbeattributedtothe
respondent.Youranswerswillhelpusgreatlyinimprovingourservices.

(Magandangaraw!Akoposi__________mulasa(banggitinpangalanngWaterDsitrict)Kamiaykasalukuyanggumagawangpag
hindimaitutukoysainyo.Angresultangpagaaralnaitoaygagamitinnamingupangmapagbutipalaloangamingserbisyo.)

A.Screener

Talkedtocompanyhead

2.Forcommercial,askforthe:
Nameofrespondent:______________________________
Designationincompany:____________________________

3.Ifyourcompanyweretochooseamongprovidersofferingseptictankdesludgingserviceand/orotherrepairs,whichamong
thesestatementsdescribeyourroleindecisionmaking?(Kungpaguusapannatinangtungkolsapagpilingkumpanyanamaglilinis
nginyongposonegrookayaayibapangmgarepairsabahay,alinsamgasumusunodangnaglalarawannginyongbahagisa
pagdedesisyon?)

Ihaveaminorpartinthedecision(Akoaymaymaliitnabahagisapagpapasya)TERMINATEINTERVIEW
Ihavenopartinthedecision(Akoaywalangbahagisapagpapasya)TERMINATEINTERVIEW


1825
3645
5660
2635
4655
Above60

Drainage/discharge

Opencanal
Coveredcanal
Drainpipe
Dontknow

2.Wheredoesyourhouseholdwastewaterflow?(Saanpapuntaangmaruming
tubignamulasainyongbahay?)

Seeptoground
Drainage
Dontknow

44
3.Doyouexperienceanyofthefollowing
problemsinyourdrainagecanal?(checkall
thatapply)

Emitsddor
Overflow
Blockage
None

Septictank
4.DoyouhaveaToilet?(Mayroonbakayongkasilyas?)

Yes
survey

dumi?)
Septictank(ST)
Cesspool/aquaprivy
Linedpit
Unlinedpit
Compostpit
Others,specify:__________________
IfNONE,where?__________________

9.Howmanypersonsaresharingtheseptictank?(Ilang
taoanggumagamitsaposonegro?)

_______________
Dontknow


_______________
Dontknow

concrete/imperviousflooring?(Maysementadongsahig
baangposonegroninyo?)

Yes
No
Don'tknow

13.DoestheST/Cesspoolhaveopenings/manholes?
(Mayroonbang"access"/"manhole"/butasangposo
negro?)

Yes
No
Dontknow
papuntaangdumi?)

Drainagepipe
Adjacentlot
Canal
Others:
River/creek
__________________


Flush
Aquaprivy
Pourflush
Overhang
VIPlatrine
Field/notoilet
Compostprivy Others:___________________

7.IfST/cesspool,whattypeof
8.Whoownsthe
materialisused?(Materyalesna
ST/cesspool?(Sinoang
nagmamayaringseptic
ginamitsaposonegro)

tank?)
Concrete

Drum
Owned
Plastic
Shared
Others:______________

posonegro?)

____ m

House

____ m

Distance from

14.IstheST/cesspoolaccessible?
(Madalibangpuntahanang
lokasyonngposonegro?)

Yes
No
Dontknow
13.DoestheST/Cesspoolhave
openings/manholes?(Mayroon
bang"access"/"manhole"/butas
angposonegro?)

Yes
No
Dontknow


Emitsodor
Others:_______________
None
Overflow

Blockage
45

C.Willingnesstopay
Septageservice
Introduction:Ang______________WaterDistrictaynaismaglunsadngserbisyongpagsipsipngposonegroatpaglinisngdumi.Angserbisyongito
aymayganitongkatangian:(1)regularnapagsipsipngposonegrotuwingika3hanggang5taonat(2)paglilinisngdumingnakuhasaposonegro
bagoitoitapon.Angganitongparaanngregularnapagsipsipatpaglilinisngdumiaymagdudulotngligtasnakapaligiranatmakababawasng
polusyonsaatingkalikasangtubig(ilog,sapa,etc.),bukalnatubig(balon,bukal)attubigdagat.Itorinaymagpapabutisakalusuganngbuong
pamayanandahilmaiiwasanangpagkakaroonngmgasakitnadulotngmadumingtubigatmadumingkapaligiranatmababawasananggastossa
pagpapagamot.Angmgakasalukuyangserbisyosapaglilinisngposonegroaywalangkasiguraduhannaangduminanakukuhaaylilinisinmuna
bagoitoitapon.
1. Wouldyoubewillingtopayforthisserviceifitwillcost(P1500/P2500/P3500/P4500/P5000)?(Sangayonbakayongmagbayadparasa
ganitongserbisyokungitoaymagkakahalagang[P1500/P2500/P3500/P4500/P5000]?)
1AE.
P1500
P2500
P3500
P4500
P5000
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1

2A.
2B.
2C.
2D.
2E.
Positive(4and5)
Iamworriedaboutthehealthrisksresultingfrompoorseptagemanagement

pangangasiwangseptage)
Iwelcome____________________involvementinseptagemanagementsystem.
(Ako'ynatutuwadahilang___________________________aynakaugnaysaisang

proyektoukolsa"septage.")
Thepriceisaffordable(Abotkayaanghalaga.)

Others(specify):
Neutral(3)
FirstIwanttoseehowitactuallyworks(Gustokomunangmalamankungpaanoito
gumagana.)
Others(specify):
Negative(1and2)
Theincreaseinthewaterbillistoohigh/notaffordable.(Angdadagnasingilsatubigay
sobra/hindiabotkaya.)
Serviceisexpensivecomparedtoothercompanies(Angserbisyoaymasmalaki
kumparasaibangkumpanya)
Others(specify):
3. Thecurrentrateherein___________fordesludgingseptictanksisP3,0005,000perseptictank.(Itis
uncertainthattheserviceincludespropertreatmentoftheseptage).Isthisrateaffordable?(Ditosa
___________angkasalukuyangbayadsapagpapasipsipsaposonegroayP3,0005,000.Itobaayabot
kayanghalagaparasainyo?)
Yes
Abit(Medyo)
No
4. Howmuchareyouwillingto
payforthisservice?
(Magkanoangnaisninyong
ibayad?)

P__________________
Sewerageservice
Introduction:Ang________________________(banggitinpangalanngWaterDistrict)aynaismaglunsadngserbisyong
pagkulektaatpaglinisngmarumingtubigmulasainyongbahayatibapangestablisyamentobagoitoitaponbagoitaponsailogo
sapa.Angganitongparaanngregularnapagsipsipatpaglilinisngdumiaymagdudulotngligtasnakapaligiranatmakababawas
ngpolusyonsaatingkalikasangtubig(ilog,sapa,etc.),bukalnatubig(balon,bukal)attubigdagat.Itorinaymagpapabutisa
kalusuganngbuongpamayanandahilmaiiwasanangpagkakaroonngmgasakitnadulotngmadumingtubigatmaduming
kapaligiranatmababawasananggastossapagpapagamot.Sakasalukuyangpatakbonglungsod,hindinililinisangmarumingtubig
nanagmulasakabahayananatibapangestablisyamento.

1.Wouldyoubewillingtopayforthisserviceifitwillcost(P1500/P2500/P3500/P4500/P5000)?(Sangayonbakayong
magbayadparasangganitongserbisyokungitoaymagkakahalagang[P1500/P2500/P3500/P4500/P5000]?)
1AE.
P1500
P2500 P3500 P4500
P5000
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1

2A.
2B.
2C.
2D.
2E.
Positive(4and5)
(Nangangambaakosamaiidulotnapanganibpangkalusugandulotngdi

angkopnapangangasiwangmarumingtubig.)
Iwelcome_________________________involvementinthecityssewage
management.(Ako'ynatutuwadahilang___________________ay
nakaugnaysaisangproyektoukolsa"sewage.")

Others(specify):

Neutral(3)
paanoitogumagana.)
Others(specify):

Negative(1and2)
Theincreaseinthewaterbillistoohigh/notaffordable.(Angdadagnasingil

Others(specify):

3.Whatdoyouthinkisanaffordableratepermonthfortheproposed
service?(Magkanoangkayamongibayadsaisangbuwansaserbisyong
b
i ?)

P_______________________________

46
47


General
Nameofrespondent

Gender
Male
Female

Nameofcompanyhead

Companyinformation
Address

Typeofownership
Singleproprietorship
Partnership
Corporation
Designation

Age
1825
2635
3645

Designation
Yearsofoperation

No.ofpersonnel
Permanent
Casual/contractual
Others:______________
Total

________
________
________
________
B.Existingsanitationpractices
2.Howoften?(Gaanopokadalas?)

Every_______years
Yes

Ifno,why?___________
SkiptoQuestion11

4.Reasonfordesludging?(Bakitpo
5.Howlongdidyouwaitforthe
desludgertoarrivefromtimeofcall?
negro?)
(Gaanokatagaldumatingangmaglilinis

mulanginyongtinawagan?)
Regularmaintenance

Oneday
Blockage
Halfday
Morethan Others:
Tankfull
halfday
_________
Others:__________

7.Whatisthenameofdesludgingcompany?(Anoangpangalanngkumpanyana
naglinisngposonegro?)

___________________________________
Dontknow

9.Didyouaskthedesludgerwheretheybringthecollectedsludge?
(Naitanongnyopobakungsaanniladinadalaangduminagalingsa
posonegro?)

No
48
4555
5660
Above60
Sector
Manufacturing
Trading
Service
Others:_____________
3.Whenwasthelastseptictankdesludging?

_______________
Don't
(month)(year)
remember
________yearsago

6.Howmanyhoursdidittaketodesludge
yourseptictank?(Ilangorasnilinisangposo
negro?)

<30min
2hours
<1hour
Others:
1hour _________

11.Doyouagreeordisagreethatimpropersewageandseptagetreatmentwouldaffectthefollowing?(Gaanokayosumasang
ayonohindisumasangayonnaanghindimaayosnapagtataponopaglilinisngdumigalingsaseweratposonegroaymayepekto
samgasumusunod:)

Neutral

Strongly
Somewhat
Strongly
Somewhat
(Hindi
agree
disagree
disagree
agree
masabi
(Talagang
(Medyo
(Talagang
(Medyo
kungsang
sangayon)
hindisang hindisang
sangayon)
ayono

ayon)
ayon)
hindi)
5
4
3
2
1
sailogatsapa)
5
4
3
2
1

5
4
3
2
1

C.Health
1.Haveyouoranyofyourfamilyfallenillwithanywaterborne
diseaseinthepast12months?(checkallthatapply)

Diarrhea
Amoebiasis
Skindiseases
HepatitisA
Schistosomiasis
Typhoid
Cholera
Hayfever
Leptospirosis
Dysentery
Polio
Ascariasis
Others:
Meningitis
_________
Otitisexterna

2.Inthepast12months,howmuchdidyouspendfor
medicationtotreatthesediseases?(Magkanoangnagastos
ninyosapagpapagamotngmganabanggitnasakitsaloobng
isangtaon?)

P__________________

3.Howmanydayswereyousick(dayshospitalized,absent)in
thepastyear?(Sanakalipasna12nabuwan,Ilangarawang

_________________days

(Magkanoangibinayadparasapaglinis?))

P_____________________

10.Doyouknowwherethesludgeistaken?(Alamniyo
bakungsaandinadalaangmgaduminanakukuhamula
saposonegro?)

No

49
A3
ANNEX A-3
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY INSTRUMENT (SERVED)

QUES.#:

TimeEnd:___________

Introduction:Goodday!Iam___________fromthe(statenameoftheWaterDistrict).Weareconductingastudyinyourareaon
septictanksandrelatedhealthissues.Wehopeyoucanhelpusbyansweringsomequestions.Theinterviewwillonlytake15

(Magandangaraw!Akoposi__________mulasa(banggitinpangalanngWaterDistrict).Kamiaykasalukuyanggumagawangpag
hindimaitutukoysainyo.Angresultangpagaaralnaitoaygagamitinnamingupangmapagbutipalaloangamingserbisyo.)

A.Screener

Talkedtoheadofhousehold

2.MayIknowyourrelationshiptoMr/Ms.(mentioncustomername)?_______________(Maaripobangmalamankungkaanoano
ninyosiMr/Ms.(customername)?)_______________________

3.Ifyourhouseholdweretochooseamongcompaniesofferingseptictankdesludgingserviceand/orotherrepairs,whichamong
pagdedesisyon?)



1825
3645
5660
2635
4655
Above60

Drainage/discharge

Opencanal
Coveredcanal
Drainpipe
Dontknow


Seeptoground
Drainage
Dontknow

50
problemsinyourdrainagecanal?(checkallthat
apply)

Emitsodor
Overflow
Blockage
None

Septictank

Yes
survey

dumi?)
Septictank(ST)
Cesspool/aquaprivy
Linedpit
Unlinedpit
Compostpit
Others,specify:__________________
IfNONE,where?__________________

9.Howmanypersonsaresharingtheseptictank?(Ilangtao
angnakatirasabahay?)

_______________
Dontknow


Flush
Aquaprivy
Pourflush
Overhang
VIPlatrine
Field/notoilet
Compostprivy Others:___________________
7.IfST/cesspool,whattypeofmaterial 8.Whoownsthe
isused?(Materyalesnaginamitsaposo ST/cesspool?(Sinoang
negro)
nagmamayaringseptic

tank?)
Concrete

Drum
Owned
Plastic
Shared
Others:______________

posonegro?)

____ m

House


(Ilanangkompartamentongposonegro)

_______________
Dontknow
____ m

Distance from


13.DoestheST/Cesspoolhaveopenings/manholes?(Mayroonbang
concrete/imperviousflooring?(Maysementadongsahigba "access"/"manhole"/butasangposonegro?)
angposonegroninyo?)

Yes
Yes
No
Don'tKnow
No

Dontknow

14.IstheST/cesspoolaccessible?(Madalibangpuntahan
15.IsthereaST/cesspooloutlet?(Mayroonbanglagusano"outlet"
anglokasyonngposonegro?)
anginyongseptictank?)

Yes
Yes
No
No
Dontknow
Don'tknow

papuntaangdumi?)

Others:_______________
Drainagepipe
Adjacentlot
Emitsodor
None
Canal
Others:
Overflow

River/creek
__________________
Blockage

51

C.Willingnesstopay
Septageservice
Introduction:Ang__________________WaterDistrictaynaismaglunsadngserbisyongpagsipsipngposonegroatpaglinisngdumi.Angserbisyong
itoaymayganitongkatangian:(1)regularnapagsipsipngposonegrotuwingika3hanggang5taonat(2)paglilinisngdumingnakuhasaposonegro
bagoitoitapon.Angganitongparaanngregularnapagsipsipatpaglilinisngdumiaymagdudulotngligtasnakapaligiranatmakababawasng
polusyonsaatingkalikasangtubig(ilog,sapa,etc.),bukalnatubig(balon,bukal)attubigdagat.Itorinaymagpapabutisakalusuganngbuong
pamayanandahilmaiiwasanangpagkakaroonngmgasakitnadulotngmadumingtubigatmadumingkapaligiranatmababawasananggastossa
pagpapagamot.Angmgakasalukuyangserbisyosapaglilinisngposonegroaywalangkasiguraduhannaangduminanakukuhaaylilinisinmuna
bagoitoitapon.
1. Wouldyoubewilingtopayforthisserviceifitwillcostanadditional(P30/P40/P50/P60/P70)inyourcurrentmonthlywaterbill?(Sangayon
bakayongmagbayadparasaganitongserbisyokungitoaymagkakahalagangdagdagna(P30/P40/P50/P60/P70)sainyongbuwanang
bayadsatubig?)
1AE.
P30
P40
P50
P60
P70
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1

2A.
2B.
2C.
2D.
2E.
Positive(5and4)

Iwelcome____________________involvementintheseptagemanagementsystem.
(Ako'ynatutuwadahilang________________________________aynakaugnaysa

isangproyektoukolsa"septage.")

Others(specify):
Neutral(3)
gumagana.)
Others(specify):
Negative(1and2)
3. Thecurrentratein__________________fordesludgingseptictanksisP3,0005,000perseptictank.It
isuncertainthattheserviceincludespropertreatmentoftheseptage.Isthisrateaffordable?(Ditosa
SanPablo,angkasalukuyangbayadsapagpapasipsipsaposonegroayP3,0005,000.Itobaayabot
kayanghalagaparasainyo?)
Yes
Abit(Medyo)
No
52
4. Howmuchareyouwillingtopay
forthisservice?(Magkanoang
naisninyongibayad?)

P__________________
Sewerageservice
Ang__________________WaterDistrictaynaismaglunsadngserbisyongpagkulektaatpaglinisngmarumingtubigmulasainyong
bahayatibapangestablisyamentobagoitoitaponbagoitaponsailogosapa.Angganitongparaanngregularnapagsipsipat
paglilinisngdumiaymagdudulotngligtasnakapaligiranatmakababawasngpolusyonsaatingkalikasangtubig(ilog,sapa,etc.),
bukalnatubig(balon,bukal)attubigdagat.Itorinaymagpapabutisakalusuganngbuongpamayanandahilmaiiwasanang
pagkakaroonngmgasakitnadulotngmadumingtubigatmadumingkapaligiranatmababawasananggastossapagpapagamot.
Sakasalukuyangpatakbonglungsod,hindinililinisangmarumingtubignanagmulasakabahayananatibapangestablisyamento.

1. Wouldyoubewillingtopayforthisserviceifitwillcostanadditional(P30/P40/P50/P60/P70)inyourcurrentmonthlywater
bill?(Sangayonbakayongmagbayadparasaganitongserbisyokungitoaymagkakahalagangdagdagna
(P30/P40/P50/P60/P70)sainyongbuwanangbayadsatubig?)

1AE.
P30
P40
P50
P60
P70
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1

2A.
2B.
2C.
2D.
2E.
Others(specify):
Neutral(3)
paanoitogumagana.)
Positive(4and5)
(Nangangambaakosamaiidulotnapanganibpangkalusugandulotngdi
angkopnapangangasiwangmarumingtubig.)
Iwelcome_______________________________involvementinthecitys
sewagemanagement.(Ako'ynatutuwadahilang______________________
Others(specify):

Negative(1and2)
Theincreaseinthewaterbillistoohigh/notaffordable(Angdadagnasingil

Others(specify):

3.Whatdoyouthinkisanaffordableratepermonthfortheproposed
service?(Magkanoangkayamongibayadsaisangbuwansaserbisyong
nabanggit?)

P_______________________________
53


Respondentsname
Age

1825
2635
3645
Nameofheadofhousehold
B.Levelofsatisfaction
1. Howmuchisyouraveragemonthly
waterbill?(Magkanoanginyong
averagenabinabayaransatubigsa
isangbuwan?)

______________P/month

4.
Relationshiptoheadof
household
2.
Barangay

4555
Address
5660

Above60

Telephoneno.

Monthlyhouseholdincome

LessthanP10,000
P10,00120,000
P20,00130,000
P30,00140,000
P40,00150,000
P60,00170,000
Howmuchmorecanyouaffordto
paypermonth?(Hanggang
magkanoangabotkayaninyong
bayaransaisangbuwan?)

______________P/month
P70,00180,000
P80,00190,000
P90,001100,000
Over100,000
Refused/notknown
Howmanyfamiliesaresharingthewater
bill?(Ilangpamilyaangnaghahatihatisa
bayadngtubig?)

_______________
Ownmeter(Sarilingmetro)
Dontknow

Howsatisfiedordissatisfiedareyouwiththeservicesof___________________________________?(Gaanokayo
nasisiyahaanodinasisiyahansaserbisyong________________________________________?)
Verysatisfied(Lubosnanasisiyahan)
Somewhatdissatisfied(Medyohindinasisiyahan)
Somewhatsatisfied(Medyonasisiyahan)
Verydissatisfied(Lubosnahindinasisiyahan)

Somewhatsatisfied/dissatisfied(Hindimasabikung
nasisiyahanohindi)
C.Existingsanitationpractices
2.Howoften?(Gaanopo
kadalas?)

Yes
Every_______years
Ifno,why?___________

SkiptoQuestion11

negro?)

RegularActivity

Oneday
Blockage
<halfday
Halfday
Others:
TankFull

_________
Others:__________

54
3.


_______________
Don't
(month)(year)
remember
________yearsago

negro?)

<30min
2hours
<1hour
Others:
1hour _________

7.Whatisthenameofdesludgingcompany?(Anoangpangalanngkumpanyana 8.Howmuchdidyoupayforthedesludging?

___________________________________
Dontknow
P_____________________

posonegro?)
saposonegro?)

No
No

samgasumusunod:)

Neutral

Strongly
Somewhat
Strongly
Somewhat
(Hindi
agree
disagree
disagree
agree
masabi
(Talagang
(Medyo
(Talagang
(Medyo
kungsang
sangayon)
hindisang hindisang
sangayon)
ayono

ayon)
ayon)
hindi)
5
4
3
2
1
sailogatsapa)

5
4
3
2
1

5
4
3
2
1

D.Health

Diarrhea
Amoebiasis
Skindiseases
HepatitisA
Schistosomiasis
Typhoid
Cholera
Hayfever
Leptospirosis
Dysentery
Polio
Ascariasis
Others:
Meningitis
_________
Otitisexterna

isangtaon?)

P__________________


_________________days

55
A4
ANNEX A-4
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY INSTRUMENT (UNSERVED)

QUES.#:

TimeEnd:___________

Introduction:Goodday!Iam___________fromthe(statenameoftheWaterDistrict)Weareconductingastudyinyourareaon
septictanksandrelatedhealthissues.Wehopeyoucanhelpusbyansweringsomequestions.Theinterviewwillonlytake15

(Magandangaraw!Akoposi__________mulasa(banggitinpangalanngWaterDistrict)).Kamiaykasalukuyanggumagawang
pagaaralsainyonglugartungkolsakalusuganatkondisyonngmgaposonegro.Mayroonkamingilangkatanunganatang
interviewaytatagalng15minutolamang.Huwagkayongmagalalaatlahatngimpormasyonatdatosnamakukuhanaminay
confidentialathindimaitutukoysainyo.Angresultangpagaaralnaitoaygagamitinnamingupangmapagbutipalaloangaming
serbisyo.)

A.Screener

Talkedtoheadofhousehold

2.MayIknowyourrelationshiptoMr/Ms.(mentioncustomername)?_______________(Maaripobangmalamankungkaanoano
ninyosiMr/Ms.(customername)?)_______________________

3.Ifyourhouseholdweretochooseamongcompaniesofferingseptictankdesludgingserviceand/orotherrepairs,whichamong
pagdedesisyon?)



1825
3645
5660
2635
4655
Above60

Drainage/discharge
1.Typeofstormdrain(Anungurianglagusannginyongmarumingtubig?)

Opencanal
Coveredcanal
Drainpipe
Dontknow


Seeptoground
Drainage
Dontknow

56
problemsinyourdrainagecanal?(checkallthat
apply)

Emitsodor
Overflow
Blockage
None

Septictank

Yes
survey

dumi?)
Septictank(ST)
Cesspool/aquaprivy
Linedpit
Unlinedpit
Compostpit
Others,specify:__________________
IfNONE,where?__________________

9.Howmanypersonsaresharingtheseptictank?(Ilanang
taonanakatirasabahay?)

_______________
Dontknow


Flush
Aquaprivy
Pourflush
Overhang
VIPlatrine
Field/notoilet
Compostprivy
Others:___________________
7.IfST/cesspool,whattypeofmaterial 8.Whoownsthe
isused?(Materyalesnaginamitsaposo ST/cesspool(Sinoang
negro)
nagmamayaringseptic

tank?)
Concrete

Drum
Owned
Plastic
Shared
Others:______________

posonegro?)

____ m

House



_______________
Dontknow
____ m

Distance from

12.DothecompartmentsoftheST/Cesspoolhave
13.DoestheST/cesspoolhaveopenings/manholes?(Mayroonbang
concrete/imperviousflooring?(Maysementadongsahigba "access"/"manhole"/butasangposonegro?)
angposonegroninyo?)

Yes
No
Don'tknow
Yes
No
Don'tknow
14.IstheST/cesspoolaccessible?(Madalibangpuntahan
anglokasyonngposonegro?)

Yes
No
Dontknow

papuntaangdumi?)

Drainagepipe
Adjacentlot
Canal
Others:
River/creek
__________________

15.IsthereaST/cesspooloutlet?(Mayroonbanglagusano"outlet"
anginyongseptictank?)

Yes
No
Don'tknow

ST/cesspool?(Checkallthatapply)

Emitsodor
Others:_______________
None
Overflow

Blockage
57

C.Willingnesstopay(unservedhousehold)
Septageservice
Introduction:Ang____________WaterDistrictaynaismaglunsadngserbisyongpagsipsipngposonegroatpaglinisngdumi.Angserbisyongitoay
mayganitongkatangian:(1)regularnapagsipsipngposonegrotuwingika3hanggang5taonat(2)paglilinisngdumingnakuhasaposonegrobago
itoitapon.Angganitongparaanngregularnapagsipsipatpaglilinisngdumiaymagdudulotngligtasnakapaligiranatmakababawasngpolusyonsa
atingkalikasangtubig(ilog,sapa,etc.),bukalnatubig(balon,bukal)attubigdagat.Itorinaymagpapabutisakalusuganngbuongpamayanandahil
maiiwasanangpagkakaroonngmgasakitnadulotngmadumingtubigatmadumingkapaligiranatmababawasananggastossapagpapagamot.
Angmgakasalukuyangserbisyosapaglilinisngposonegroaywalangkasiguraduhannaangduminanakukuhaaylilinisinmunabagoitoitapon.
1. WouldyoubewillingtopayforthisserviceifitwillcostP1500/P2500/P3500/P4500/P5000?(Sangayonbakayongmagbayadparasa
ganitongserbisyokungitoaymagkakahalagang(P1500/P2500/P3500/P4500/P5000)?)
1AE.
P1500
P2500
P3500
P4500
P5000
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2. Whymakesyousaythatyouare(ANSWERINQ1)(Bakitponinyonasabingkayoay(SAGOTSAQ1))

2B.
2C.
2D.
2E.
2A.
Positive(5and4)

Iwelcome______________________________involvementintheseptage
managementsystem.(Ako'ynatutuwadahilang_____________________________

aynakaugnaysaisangproyektoukolsa"septage.")

2A.
2B.
2C.
2D.
2E.
Others(specify):
Positive(5and4)
pangangasiwangmarumingtubig.)
Iwelcome_____________________________________involvementinthecitys
sewagemanagement.(Ako'ynatutuwadahilang____________________________
Others(specify):
Neutral(3)
gumagana.)
Neutral(3)
paanoitogumagana.)
Others(specify):
Negative(1and2)
Theincreaseinthewaterbillistoohigh/notaffordable.(Angdadagnasingil
Others(specify):
Others(specify):
Negative(1and2)



3. Thecurrentratein__________fordesludgingseptictanksisP3,0005,000perseptictank.Itisuncertain 4. Howmuchareyouwillingto
thattheserviceincludespropertreatmentoftheseptage.Istherateaffordable?(Ditosa__________,
payforthisservice?(Magkano
angkasalukuyangbayadsapagpapasipsipsaposonegroayP3,0005,000.Itobaayabotkayang
angnaisninyongibayad?)
halagaparasainyo?)

Yes
Abit(Medyo)
No
P__________________

58
Sewerageservice
Introduction:Ang___________________WaterDistrictaynaismaglunsadngserbisyongpagkulektaatpaglinisngmaruming
tubigmulasainyongbahayatibapangestablisyamentobagoitoitaponbagoitaponsailogosapa.Angganitongparaanng
regularnapagsipsipatpaglilinisngdumiaymagdudulotngligtasnakapaligiranatmakababawasngpolusyonsaatingkalikasang
tubig(ilog,sapa,etc.),bukalnatubig(balon,bukal)attubigdagat.Itorinaymagpapabutisakalusuganngbuongpamayanandahil
maiiwasanangpagkakaroonngmgasakitnadulotngmadumingtubigatmadumingkapaligiranatmababawasananggastossa
pagpapagamot.Sakasalukuyangpraktisnglungsod,hindinililinisangmarumingtubignanagmulasakabahayananatibapang
establisyamento.

1.WouldyoubewillingtopayforthisserviceifitwillcostP1500/P2500/P3500/P4500/P5000?(Sangayonbakayongmagbayad
parasaganitongserbisyokungitoaymagkakahalagang(P1500/P2500/P3500/P4500/P5000)?)
1AE.
P1500
P2500
P3500
P4500
P5000
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2.Whymakesyousaythatyouare(ANSWERINQ1)(Bakitponinyonasabingkayoay(SAGOTSAQ1))
Whatisanaffordableratepermonthfortheproposedservice?(Magkano
angkayamongibayadsaisangbuwansaserbisyongnabanggit?)

P_______________________________
59

Respondentsname
Age

1825
2635
3645
Nameofheadofhousehold
Relationshiptoheadof
household
Barangay

4555
Address
5660

Above60

Telephoneno.

Monthlyhouseholdincome

LessthanP10,000
P10,00120,000
P20,00130,000
P30,00140,000
P40,00150,000
P60,00170,000
B.Existingsanitationpractices
2.Howoften?(Gaanopo
kadalas?)

Yes
Every_______years
IfNo,why?___________

SkiptoQuestion11

negro?)

RegularActivity

Oneday
Blockage
<halfday
Halfday
Others:
TankFull

_________
Others:__________

7.Whatisthenameofdesludgingcompany?(Anoangpangalanngkumpanyana

___________________________________
Dontknow

posonegro?)

No

60

P70,00180,000
P80,00190,000
P90,001100,000
Over100,000
Refused/NotKnow

_______________
Don't
(month)(year)
remember
________yearsago

negro?)

<30min
2hours
<1hour
Others:
1hour _________


P_____________________

saposonegro?)

No

samgasumusunod:)

Neutral
Somewhat
Somewhat

Strongly
Strongly
(Hindi
agree
disagree
agree
disagree
masabi
(Medyo
(Talagang
(Medyo
(Talagang
sangayon) sangayon) kungsang hindisang hindisang
ayono

ayon)
ayon)
hindi)
5
4
3
2
1
sailogatsapa)
5
4
3
2
1

5
4
3
2
1

D.Health

Diarrhea
Amoebiasis
Skindiseases
HepatitisA
Schistosomiasis
Typhoid
Cholera
Hayfever
Leptospirosis
Dysentery
Polio
Ascariasis
Others:
Meningitis
_________
Otitisexterna

isangtaon?)

P__________________


_________________days

61
ANNEX B
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Figure B Septage acceptance unit (SAU)
Septage treatment consists of several unit operations in handling, treatment, and safe disposal of
septage and its by-products. Figure A shows a typical process flow diagram for septage and filtrate
treatment facilities.
Figure A Schematic diagram of septage treatment process
Septage from
Hauling Trucks
Filtrate
Treatment
Filtrate
Clarification
PostTreatment
Sludge
Screening &
Grit Removal
Size
Reduction
(left) HUBER Rotamat Fine Screen and Grit Trap, and (right) Screw Press
Source: HUBER Solutions, Hans Huber AG, http://www.huber-solutions.com
Dewatering
(2) Screening
Biosolids
Biosolids
Treatment
Biosolids
Disposal
The treatment process usually starts with preliminary treatment. Preliminary treatments are mostly
physical unit operations using specialized equipment designed to optimize solid-liquid (biosolidsfiltrate) separation and enhance pollutant removal in the downstream treatment processes.
A. PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
(1) Septage acceptance unit
A septage acceptance unit, or SAU, is a semi- or fully-automated piece of equipment that is designed
to receive bulk septage/wastewater loads from various sources, most notably from septage hauling
trucks. SAUs are compact systems that combine mechanical operations such as screening, grit
removal, and dewatering into a single unit. It is equipped with valves and pipe-end attachments
similar to those found on septage trucks for compatibility and ease of handling.
The advantage of SAUs compared to typical septage/wastewater treatment units is that it combines
several mechanical operations into a single unit, thus creating less space and, at times, improving
operational efficiency. Most SAUs are constructed in enclosed stainless steel vessels to eliminate
the emanation of nuisance odors. It is also most applicable to plants with small capacities. However,
because SAUs are compact and combine several processes into a single unit, they can be mechanically
complex to maintain.
SAUs may be operated on its own or in combination with other wastewater/septage treatment
equipment, depending on the requirements.
Figure B shows a diagram of SAUs and actual equipment images in existing septage plants.
Screening is one of the first unit processes normally found in septage treatment facilities. Its primary
purpose is to remove coarse solids (i.e., sticks, rags, diapers, sanitary napkins, toiletry packaging, etc.).
It is designed using perforated plates, or with iron/steel bars equally spaced apart to form a mesh.
Screens are designed to protect valves, pumps, pipes, and process equipment against mechanical
breakdown due to clogging. Typically, coarse screens have 12 mm (0.5 in) or greater openings, while
fine screens have openings less that 6 mm (0.25 in). Depending on the volume of the wastewater/
septage and coarse solids, the facility can be equipped with bar racks, or mechanical screening
devices. Manual bars are simple and easy to maintain, but keeping it debris-free can be labor
intensive. Mechanical screens can collect debris more efficiently but they are more costly to purchase
and maintenance requirements may be more complicated. Bar racks and mechanical screening
devices can be used in combination to complement performance.
Table 1.1 lists descriptions of, while Table 1.2 lists typical design parameters for screening equipment.
Figure C shows some pictures of different screening equipment used in various applications.
Table 1.1 Description of screening equipment
Method
Advantage
Disadvantage
Bar racks/
Static screens
Very simple in fabrication and installation

Very easy to maintain and replace if
necessary
Not susceptible to mechanical breakdowns
Requires frequent manual removal of

coarse solids
Needs intensive manual labor for
cleaning and maintenance
Reciprocating rake
No submerged moving parts

Can handle large objects
High ow capacity
Some susceptibility to screenings

carryover
Unaccounted for high channel water
level can submerge the motor and
cause motor burnout
Chain-driven screen/
Step screens
Multiple cleaning elements ensure efcient removal of screenings

Heavy duty
Less labor intensive than bar racks
Less efcient screenings removal

Requires dewatering of the channel
during maintenance operations since
some parts are submerged in the water
Source: Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Re-use 4th ed. Metcalf and Eddy
62
63
Table 1.2 Typical design parameters for screening equipment
Parameter
(3) Size reduction

Unit
Design value
Bar width
mm
5 to 15
Bar depth
mm
25 to 38
Clear spacing between bars
mm
25 to 50 (manual)
15 to 75 (mechanical)
Size reduction is an alternative or supplemental process to screening of coarse solids within the
septage/wastewater. Its objective is to transform debris into smaller and more uniform sizes for easier
removal. Similar to screening, its purpose is to protect equipment and pipes from clogging.
30 to 45 (manual)
0 to 30 (mechanical)
Macerators are grinders that are composed of counter-rotating blade assemblies. These in-line devices
can be fitted in pipes of 100400 mm (46 in) in diameter. The blades inside the equipment are
designed to grind coarse solids into smaller sizes. Figure D shows a typical design of a macerator device.
m/s
0.3 to 0.5 (mechanical)
Figure D Macerator equipment
Approach velocity, max
m/s
0.3 to 0.6 (manual)

0.6 to 1.0 (mechanical)
Allowable headloss
m/s
150 (manual)
150-600 (mechanical)
Angle from vertical

Approach velocity, min
o(
degrees)
(from left to right)

Schematic diagram of macerator, macerator
with counter-rotating blades, and macerator
with motor and flange for pipeline
connection
Figure C Screening equipment
Source: Allwieler, http://www.imo-pump.com/allweilermarine/images/maceratr.gif
(clockwise from top-left)

Mechanical step screens, horizontal
screens, vertical bar racks, static
wedgewire screens, and
rotary/reciprocating rake
(4) Grit removal

Grit removal is the removal of coarse solids, such as small rocks and sand, from the incoming
wastewater stream. Similar to screening, it is designed to protect process equipment from clogging
and attrition caused by grit particles.
Grit chambers are specially designed chambers to control the velocity of the incoming wastewater
stream. This results in a water stream that is partially or mostly free of insoluble solids.
Horizontal grit chambers

Horizontal grit chambers are the oldest type of grit chamber utilized in septage/wastewater plants.
This grit removal method relies on gravity; as the wastewater stream travels horizontally farther
into the tank, heavier items such as grit will gradually settle at the bottom. Tanks are usually
constructed in rectangular form, equipped with scrapers at the bottom to remove the accumulated
grit particles. At the end of the bed is a deeper channel from which grit can be removed by pumps or
lifts. Horizontal grit chambers need sufficient area and depth to achieve appropriate settling rates and
water velocity turbulence.
64
65
Table 1.3 lists typical design parameters while Figure E shows a photo of a horizontal grit chamber.
Table 1.4 Typical design parameters of aerated grit chambers
Table 1.3 Typical design parameters of horizontal grit chambers
Parameter
Parameter
Unit
Design value
Detention time at average ow rate
20 to 30
Unit
Design value
45 to 90
Diameter, upper
1.2 to 7.2
m/s
0.25 to 0.4
Diameter, lower
0.9 to 1.8
m/min
0.6 to 1.3
Height
2.7 to 4.8
Headloss in a control section as a percent of depth in the channel
30 to 40
Removal rates, 50 mesh
92 to 98
Added length for allowance for inlet and outlet turbulence
25 to 50
80 to 90
60 to 70
Detention time
Horizontal velocity
Settling velocity for removal of 65-mesh material
Figure E Horizontal grit chamber
Figure F Aerated grit chamber

Treated
water
Incoming
water
Air
Treated water
ncoming
water
Grit
Particles
(left) Schematic diagram, and (right) image of a
Horizontal Grit Chamber (note the presence of the grit
scraper system)
o
o
oo
oo
(left) Schematic diagram, and
(right) an image of an aerated
grit chamber
Grit particles
Aerated grit chambers

An aerated grit chamber is a modification of the horizontal grit chamber. The main difference is
the addition of air diffusers in the tank which creates a spiral flow pattern within the tank. Heavier
particles settle in the bottom of the tank since it has a higher settling velocity, while lighter particles
and wastewater are allowed to pass through the tank for additional treatment. In this configuration,
the amount of air being introduced in the tank as well as the velocity of the water must be carefully
controlled. If velocity is too fast, it will transfer the grit particles out of the chamber. By adjusting
variables correctly, aerated grit chambers can achieve higher removal rates of grit than its horizontal
counterpart.
Vortex-type grit chambers

Vortex chambers are cylindrical or semi-conical, designed to draw the wastewater stream into a spiral
flow similar to the principle of aerated grit chambers. The spiral pattern is achieved by introducing
the steam into a tangential flow, thus creating a vortex. This vortex enables heavier particles to
settle at the bottom of the chamber, allowing the lighter particles and wastewater to flow through.
Compared to horizontal or aerated grit chambers, the vortex-type chamber is more compact, has a
higher capacity, and has faster settling/separation rates.
Table 1.5 lists typical design parameters while Figure G shows a photo of a vortex grit chamber.
Table 1.4 lists typical design parameters while Figure F shows a picture of an aerated grit chamber.
66
67
Table 1.6 Types of dewatering methods
Table 1.5 Typical design parameters of vortex grit chambers
Unit
Design value
Detention time at average ow rate
Parameter
20 to 30
Diameter, upper
1.2 to 7.2
Diameter, lower
0.9 to 1.8
Height
2.7 to 4.8
92 to 98
80 to 90
60 to 70
Method
Advantage
Disadvantage
Solid-bowl centrifuge
Produces a relatively dry sludge cake

Low capital cost-to-capacity ration
High installed capacity to building ratio
Good odor containment
Fast start-up and shut-down
High maintenance
Requires grit removal or a grinder in the
feed stream
Moderately high suspended solids in the
centrate
Belt press
Low energy requirements

Relatively low capital and operating costs
Less complex mechanically and is easier to
maintain
Capable of producing very dry cake
Minimal effort required for system shutdown
High odor potential

Requires sludge grinder in the feed
stream
Very sensitive to incoming sludge feed
characteristics
Automatic operation is not highly
recommended
Plate lter press
Low energy requirements

Capable of producing good cake solids
Small area requirements
Good ltrate quality
Low odor potential

Operates at higher pressures which
require higher energy costs
Needs frequent removal of collected
solids, thus requires additional equipment to ensure continuous operations
Sludge drying beds
Lowest capital cost method where land is

readily available
Small amount of operator attention and skill
required
Low energy consumption
Low to no chemical requirements
Less sensitive to sludge variability
Higher solids content than its mechanical
counterparts
Requires large land area

Requires consideration of climatic effects
Sludge removal is labor-intensive
Odor potential
Figure G Vortex grit chamber
Treated
water
Incoming
water
Grit particles
(left) Schematic diagram, and (right) image of a vortex grit chamber
After the wet biosolids have undergone this operation, the centrate (liquid) and dewatered biosolids
are further processed separately to render it safe for final disposal.
(1) Centrifugation
B. DEWATERING
Dewatering is the removal or separation of water/moisture from untreated biosolids/sludge. This
process enhances the treatment of biosolids and reduces their weight and bulk for easier handling
during further treatment.
In this dewatering method, the untreated biosolids/sludge is fed to a solid-bowl machine at a constant
flowrate. By means of rapid circulation, the machine achieves enough centrifugal force to separate
the centrate from the biosolids/sludge. The resulting sludge cake contains roughly 70 to 80 percent
moisture, which is discharged via a screw-type mechanism. Chemical conditioners can be added in
the biosolids feedline to improve the separation and biosolids quality.
Table 1.7 lists typical performance data while Figure H shows an image of a solid-bowl centrifuge.
Table 1.7 Typical performance data for solid-bowl centrifuges
Type of biosolids
Cake solids (%)
Solids capture (%)

w/o chemicals
w/ chemicals
25 to 35
75 to 90
95+
5 to 15
60 to 80
92+
Anaerobically digested
25 to 35
25 to 35
92+
Aerobically digested
8 to 10
60 to 75
90+
Untreated
Waste sludge
68
69
Figure H Solid-bowl centrifuge
Figure I Belt-lter press
(above) Image, and

(below) a cut-away
veiw of a solid-bowl
centrifuge
Source: EKOTUOTANTO AB (Finland), Press
and Dewatering Equipment
http://www.ekotuotanto.fi
(above) Image, and (below)

schematic diagram of a belt filter
press
Source: TRICANTER, Flottweg Separation Technologies

http://www.sgconsulting.co.za/Products/SX%20crud/SX%20crud_files/image005.jpg
Source: http://www.ihi.co.jp/separator/english/images/belt-structure.gif
Table 1.8 lists typical performance data for commercially-available plate filter presses. Figure J shows
an image of a typical plate filter press.
(2) Belt press

Belt presses are continuous-feed dewatering devices that use the principles of chemical conditioning,
gravity drainages, and mechanically applied pressure for solid-liquid separation. This device is
common in wastewater/septage facilities. In this method, the sludge/biosolids is introduced via
gravity drainage and allowed to thicken. Most of the liquid/moisture is then removed, aided by
squeezing the mixed sludge/biosolids when they pass thru a series of rollers.
Figure I shows an image and diagram of a typical belt-press filter.
(3) Plate lter press
Table 1.8 Typical performance data for plate lter presses
Parameter
Unit
Design value
2
Operating pressure
kN/m
690 to 1,550
Detention time
1 to 3
Cake thickness
mm
25 to 38
Filtration cycle time
2 to 5
Cake moisture content
48 to 70
In a plate filter press, biosolids are forced in a series of cloth filters at high pressure to separate the
supernatant from the biosolid cake. To induce high pressure, the biosolids are pushed by a hydraulic
ram or by a screw-type impeller. The high pressure also contributes to stresses within the filter cloths,
so these need to be replaced frequently.
Source: Andritz AG http://www.andritz.com/ep-filter_cake_washing.jpg
A plate filter press can only process in batches as it requires periodic shut-downs to remove and clean
accumulated biosolids cake in the filter cloth. The supernatant is then diverted in pipes to be sent for
further processing.
Attachment K: Screw Press
Figure J Plate-lter press
This type of dewatering equipment is commonly used in many industrial applications.

(left) Schematic, and (right) image of a Plate-filter Press
70
71
(4) Screw press
Figure L Sludge drying beds
A screw press is a common mechanical equipment used in many dewatering applications. The
thickened sludge is fed via a screw mechanism to the inlet of the filtration zone where solid-liquid
separation is done. The filtrate in the sludge is separated by gravity and feed pressure, while the solids
are conveyed to the pressing dewatering zone. At the pressing dewatering zone, the pressing sludge
mechanism is equipped with a tapered screw shaft with a properly reducing pitch. An eccentric
rotating screen is also included in the equipment to further remove the filtrate in the sludge cake via
shearing force. Figure K shows an image of a typical screw press.
Figure K Screw press
(left) Schematic, and (right) image of a Sludge Drying Bed
C. FILTRATE TREATMENT
The general treatment of filtrate separated from septage is similar to sewage treatment since they
have similar characteristics. The following sub-sections present various options in filtrate treatment.
(1) Oil and grease removal

Oil and grease (O&G) is the collective term used to describe filtrate constituents that contain fat, wax,
oils, petroleum distillates (i.e., diesel, kerosene, gasoline, etc.) and other similar compounds. Since
O&G are partially or totally immiscible with water due to difference in specific gravities, it forms a
film layer on top of the water. Over time this layer may coat the surfaces of pipes, pumps, and filters,
affecting performance and interfering with the effectiveness of biological treatment. Thus, removal of
oil and grease is necessary as a preliminary step in any filtrate treatment.
Most methods of O&G removal rely on physical unit operation, either by gravitational or centrifugal
action. Chemicals may also be added to aid the separation process. The equipment used in removing
O&G are commonly referred to as oil-water separators
Source: Global Environmental Foundation, http://nett21.gec.jp/WATER/data/water_29-7.html

(above) Schematic and, (below) actual image of a Screw Press
Table 1.9 lists the different types of commercially available oil-water separators. Figure M shows an
image of a typical oil-water separator.
Table 1.9 Types of oil and water separators
Equipment
(5) Drying beds

Drying beds are widely used for dewatering sludge. Typically, these are constructed with concrete
beds or with impermeable membranes with underdrain pipes to draw off excess liquid from biosolids.
Using solar radiation, the remaining sludge/biosolids is allowed to dry via evaporation and afterwards
removed manually for disposal.
Comments
API oil-water separator
Requires no chemical or electrical inputs; relies on

gravitational separation of oil and water
Plate separator
Similar to the API oil-water separator, but with addition of inclined parallel plates to increase the degree
of separation without requiring additional area
Plates may require frequent cleaning
Air oatation
Produces air bubbles in the oil-water separator to

induce or accelerate the oating of oil and grease on
the ltrate surface
Additional electrical power expenses;

suitable as secondary oil-water separation option
Granular media lter
Passes the ltrate stream over a series of media

lters, upon which the O&G is retained
Requires backwashing to reduce clogging;

may require additional chemical inputs
Figure L shows an image of a typical sludge drying bed.
72
Description (m)
Large area requirements
73
Figure M Oil-water separator
Table 1.10 Description of biological treatment methods
Method
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API_oil-water_separator
Advantage
Disadvantage
Conventional activated
sludge (AS) process
Common and proven process

Adaptable to various types of wastewater
Large dilution capacity for shock and toxic
loadings
Simple design
Susceptible to lamentous sludge bulking
Oxidation Ditch
Highly reliable process

Simple operation
Capable of treating shock loads/toxic loads
High quality of efuent
Well stabilized sludge
Low solid production
Large structure requirements

Requires more energy and aeration than
conventional AS system
SBR
Process is simplied
Compact facility
Flexible operation
Applicable in various plant sizes
More complicated process controls

Susceptible to high peak ows
May require equalization tanks
Higher maintenance requirements
Ponds or aerated lagoons
Simple operation
Stabilization with very minimal operating cost
De-nitrication capable for facultative ponds
Requires large area

Efciency is not as high as CAS
Susceptible to ooding
Susceptible to odor nuisance
(left) Schematic, and (right) actual image of an Oil-water Separator
Conventional activated sludge
(2) Chemical treatment

Coagulation/flocculation
Coagulation/flocculation is the addition of chemical coagulants (i.e., alum or ferric chloride) to the
filtrate to allow suspended and colloidal particles to agglomerate into bigger particles for easier
removal. This process deals mainly with inorganic constituents such as heavy metals and sediments
within the filtrate.
Conventional activated sludge systems are perhaps the most popular and widely used wastewater
treatment. Its simplicity and proven technology makes it a preferred method by industries and public
sanitation utilities.
Ozonation
This process relies on decomposition of organic matter by aerobic microorganisms. In this set-up,
diffusers placed in the bottom of the tank supply air to microorganisms. The aerobic microorganisms
metabolize the organic matter present within the wastewater. Afterwards, the aerated wastewater is
brought to a clarifier, where the separation of the supernatant (treated wastewater) and sludge takes
place.
This process refers to the application of ozone, a highly unstable and reactive gas, into the filtrate
to oxidize inorganic (i.e., iron and manganese) and organic matter, while also providing efficient
disinfection.
Conventional activated sludge requires good operator maintenance to ensure the right levels of air,
wastewater, and sludge. Figure N shows an image and diagram of a conventional activated sludge.
Ozone is produced on-site by exposing liquid oxygen (O2) to high electrical voltages, which causes
the oxygen atoms to combine into a triple atom molecule (O3). However, the higher electrical energy
requirements also means that ozonation is more expensive to operate compared to other conventional
chemical coagulation systems.
Figure N Conventional activated sludge
(3) Biological treatment

Biological treatment is one of the most important steps in the overall septage/filtrate treatment
process. In brief, this treatment significantly reduces the amount of organic constituents that
contribute to water pollution.
There are several filtrate treatment technologies available. We evaluate each based on various
parameters (i.e., land requirements, filtrate characteristics, cost of electricity and chemicals, etc.)
to select the most appropriate method. Table 1.10 lists the different biological treatment methods
applied in various septage/filtrate treatment plants.
74
(left) Schematic, and (right) image of a Conventional Activated Sludge
75
Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
Figure P Oxidation ditch
An SBR is a fill-and-draw type of treatment system consisting of a singe, complete-mix reactor

system. This system combines the operation of aeration and solid settlement into a single reactor.
In a typical SBR process, the tank is filled with untreated water, which is aerated for 2 hours. Solids
allowed to settle for 0.5 hours, and then the treated water (supernatant) is drawn off by decantation.
The time for the filling, aeration, settling, and decantation can be varied based on the quality and
quantity of wastewater to be treated.
This process is compact and flexible enough to handle different types of wastewater. However, this
also requires more complex process control automation to achieve optimum performance and may be
susceptible to disruption during heavier loads of wastewater.
Figure O shows an image and diagram of a typical SBR.
Figure O Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_sludge
(clockwise from top-left) Schematic, image, and

cut-away view of an Oxidation Ditch
Aerated lagoons
Aerated lagoons are basins that are shallowly constructed, typically 25 meters in depth, equipped
with mechanical aerators or paddle-mixers to provide air/oxygen for aerobic treatment. But unlike in
the conventional activated sludge process, this set-up has aerobic and partially anaerobic regions that
decompose the organic constituents within the water.
This process requires bigger land areas to handle the volume of wastewater and allow sufficient
detention times for effective removal of solids and BOD.
D. POST-TREATMENT FOR FILTRATE

(left) Schematic diagram, and (right) image of an SBR
Souce: Mixing Systems, Inc.
(1) Disinfection
Oxidation ditch
An oxidation ditch is a technology modification of the conventional activated sludge. One of the
noticeable features of an oxidation ditch is the oval or ring-shaped channel equipped with mechanical
aerators and mixing devices. This tank-shape configuration allows unidirectional water flow,
with air diffusers acting as propellers. This tank design also allows longer detention time for the
wastewater, thus further reducing the amount of pollutants present. An oxidation ditch is capable of
producing high-quality treated effluent, though energy requirements may be higher than when using
conventional activated sludge.
Disinfection is the process of inactivation or elimination of pathogenic microorganisms present in

wastewater. This treatment step renders treated water safe for final disposal or re-use.
Table 1.11 lists the different disinfection methods used in septage/wastewater post-treatment.
Figure P shows an image and diagram of a typical oxidation ditch system.
76
77
(3) Membrane separation
Table 1.11 Characteristics of different disinfection methods
Characteristic
Chlorine
Sodium
hypochlorite
Calcium
hypochlorite
Chlorine
dioxide
Ozone
UV radiation
Availability/
cost
Delivered onsite; low cost
Delivered onsite; relatively

low cost
Delivered onsite; relatively

low cost
Delivered and
made on-site;
relatively low
cost
Made on-site;
relatively high
cost
Made on-site;
relatively high
cost
Toxicity to
microorganisms
High
High
High
High
High
High
Residual
effects
Very good
Very good
Good
Good
None
None
Solubility
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Not
applicable
Stability
Stable
Slightly
unstable
Relatively
stable
Unstable
Unstable
Not
applicable
High
High
Not
applicable
Absorbance
of UV
radiation
Low
Deodorizing
ability
High
Moderate
Moderate
Reactivity
Oxidizes
organic matter
Active oxidizer
Active oxidizer
Highly reactive
Oxidizes
organic
matter
Safety concern
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
(2) Constructed wetlands
Membrane separation uses polymer-based filters designed to sort minute particles from water.
Similar to the constructed wetlands method, this technology requires good pre-treatment systems to
prevent clogging of the membrane pores. It is highly effective in removing tiny and dissolved solids,
though the major drawback of this technology is the high cost of membrane filters, plus frequent
maintenance requirements.
Table 1.12 details the different membrane processes and their corresponding operating range while
Figure R shows an actual image of a membrane filtration system and the cartridges used for various
applications.
Table 1.12 Characteristics of membrane processes
Membrane process
Typical operating range (m)
Typical constituents removed
Microltration
0.08 to 2.0
TSS, turbidity, protozoan oocysts & cysts,

some bacteria and virus
Ultraltration
0.005 to 0.2
Macromolecules, colloids, most bacteria,

some virus, proteins
Nanoltration
0.001 to 0.01
Small molecules, some hardness, viruses
Reverse osmosis
0.0001 to 0.001
Very small molecules, color, hardness,

sulfates, nitrates, sodium, other ions
Figure R Membrane ltration
Constructed reedbeds are specially-designed structures that mimic the pollution-removal

characteristics of a natural wetland system. With this technology, the water is allowed to flow
subsurface; treatment is done through the root system of phragmites (reeds). The plants utilize
remaining organic matter and water for their own growth and metabolism, so that the resulting
effluent has very low organic pollutant characteristics. One advantage of this technology is that it does
not require external energy inputs, and needs very low maintenance. However, the wastewater feed
must have low levels of solids to prevent clogging the soil underdrain system.
Figure Q shows a schematic diagram and an actual image of a constructed wetland
Source: Koch Membrane Systems, http://www.kochmembrane.com/
Figure Q Constructed wetlands
(4) Adsorption
Adsorption is the process of accumulating substances on a suitable interface or media. Activated
carbon (AC) is the most common and widely used adsorption media in wastewater treatment. It is
made by heating a carbon-based material (i.e., wood or coal) to around 700oC or more in the absence
of air (pyrolisis) to drive off other volatile compounds. The product is a highly porous material, with
a large internal surface area. With this effect, several amounts of contaminants can be collected with
even a small amount of AC be attached to the internal surface.
Source: Southface Online, www.southface.org
(left) Image, and (right) schematic diagram of a Constructed Wetland
78
Table 1.13 details the comparison of granulated and powdered AC, while Figure S shows an image and
diagram of an actual AC.
79
Table 1.13 Comparison of different activated carbon media
Parameter
Total surface area
Table 1.14 Minimum setback distances for septage plants and treatment sites
Type of AC
Unit
2
m /g
Recommended minimum setback distance (meters)
Granulated
Powdered
700 to 1,300
800 to 1,800
Concerned area
Septage plants
Land application of
septage
New stabilization
lagoons
Bulk density
kg/m
400 to 500
360 to 740
Public wells
150
90
300
Particle density
kg/L
1.0 to 1.5
1.3 to 1.4
Private wells
90
90
300
Particle size range
mm
0.1 to 2.36
0.005 to 0.05
Adjacent property line
77
30
Effective size
mm
0.6 to 0.9
Not available
Bedrock outcrops
Uniformity coefcient
UC
7 1.9
Not available
Dwellings and built-up areas
300
90-450
300
Mean pore radius
16 to 30
20 to 40
Uninhabited dwellings
30
150
Ash
78
76
Perennial water bodies
90
120
Moisture as packed
2 to 8
3 to 10
Intermittent water bodies
60
120
Swales and man-made ditches
14
Primary and secondary roads
30
30
100
Figure S Activated carbon (AC)
Unpaved roads
1
Note: Guidelines for the Handling, Treatment, and Disposal of Septage, Nova Scotia Dept. of Environment and Labour
(clockwise from top):

Diagram of AC adsorption,
powdered AC, and granular AC
In addition to establishing setback distances, properly operating and maintaining the SpTP prevents
septic conditions from developing during the treatment procedures. Moreover, physical (i.e.,
establishing additional facilities/equipment, venting and piping of odorous gases) and chemical (i.e.,
addition of chemical agents) methods can also be used in combination to further reduce the problem
of odors.
Table 1.15 Different odor control methods for SpTP
Source: http://www.everythingyoualwayswantedtoknow.com/watertreatment/activated-carbon.gif
Odor Control Method
Description
Physical methods
E. ODOR CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT

Odors are a major concern for septage treatment facilities. Different factors can cause odor problems
within a SpTP, such as prevailing wind patterns, type of equipment in the treatment plant, the method
of septage treatment itself (i.e., aerobic or anaerobic conditions) and other contributing factors.
One of the approaches in addressing odor problems is establishing a buffer zone to minimize impact
to the surrounding environment and public, should there be any instance that the proposed SpTP be
built near a critical environment or public area. The buffer zone decreases the likelihood of dispersion
of nuisance odors and other health hazards that may cause inconvenience to the nearby population.
As such, minimum setback distances are recommended for establishing SpTPs, as listed in Table 1.14.
80
Activated carbon (AC) scrubbers
Odorous gases are passed through a layer of AC, which traps molecules
that cause odor
Sand or soil media adsorbents
Odorous gases are passed through a layer of sand or soil media adsorbents, which traps molecules that cause odor
Scrubbing towers
Odorous gases are passed through a column of water, ammonia, etc. to

adsorb molecules that cause odor
Containment barriers
Open chambers (i.e., activated sludge, drying beds) and dewatering

equipment have containment barriers (i.e., roofs, covers, enclosures,
walls) to reduce odor migration
Chemical methods
Chemical oxidation
Oxidizing agents, mainly of chlorine-based items, are mixed in the

septage stream to oxidize molecules that cause odor
Neutralizing agents
Neutralizing agents, either basic or acidic, are mixed in the septage

stream to neutralize or dissolve odorous compounds
Thermal oxidation
Odorous gases are combusted at temperatures 8001,400oC to destroy

odor-causing compounds
Ionizing agents
Odorous gases are passed through a layer or series of catalysts and/or

ionizing surfaces (i.e., TiO2, Pt-Pd-Rh catalysts). This causes dissociation
of odorous chemical substances into simpler compounds such as CO2,
etc.
81
F. SLUDGE AND BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT
(4) Composting
Sludge/Biosolids can be further processed either under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, to reduce its
organic loading.
Composting is a process similar to aerobic treatment, but here biosolids are mixed with bulking
agents, such as sawdust, wood chips, and other related materials. This treatment process is applicable
where adequate land is available to store biosolids for extended periods, there is adequate supply of
bulking agents, and there is a demand for soil conditioners.
(1) Aerobic digestion

Aerobic digestion is a treatment process that utilizes aerobic microorganisms to degrade organic
matter. It is similar to the activated sludge process for treatment of wastewater, but in this case the
solids are more concentrated.
Under this treatment, biosolids are placed in open tanks equipped with air/oxygen diffusers. The
diffusers supply the microorganisms with air/oxygen in their metabolism to consume organic matter
within the biosolids. This process produces high-quality treated biosolids that can be disposed safely.
Moreover, the tanks are usually outfitted with impeller mixers to guarantee the biosolids are equally
aerated. This set-up, together with the aeration equipment, contributes to higher operational
expenses due to added energy costs but lessens the problem of odor.
To keep the pile in optimum conditions, it must be mixed thoroughly from time to time to ensure all
portions of the biosolids get aerated. This can be done using heavy equipment such as payloaders.
The temperature and moisture content of the compost pile must also be checked regularly to ensure
optimum conditions. If this is achieved, the resulting product can be applied as fertilizers for nonfood plants.
Figure T shows the types of composting procedures that are presently applied.
Figure T Compost pile
(2) Anaerobic digestion

Anaerobic digestion is another microbial treatment process, but under very minimal/zero air/oxygen
levels. The biosolids are placed in enclosed chambers, and allowed to be digested for 3060 days.
Compared to aerobic digestion, the anaerobic process takes a longer time to stabilize the biosolids
since reaction rates are slower.
One major by-product of anaerobic digestion is methane, which can be used beneficially as an
alternative energy source for auxiliary equipment of the wastewater/septage treatment facility.
The contaminant levels of sludge/biosolids can be lowered to a safe limit through the following
processes:
(3) Alkaline stabilization

Alkaline stabilization is the addition of an alkaline material, typically calcium oxide (CaO) or lime,
to untreated biosolids. The result is a biosolid that has a high pH value, usually 12 or higher, which is
unsuitable for most microorganisms. This is a technique applied in most septage treatment facilities.
Under alkaline stabilization, the dewatered sludge or biosolids is mixed with lime using a paddle
mixer, pugmill, or thru a screw conveyor. The minimum mixing time is about 30 minutes, while
maintaining a pH value of 12. The lime dosage is dependent on the existing pH value of the biosolid.
Hence, appropriate amounts of lime can be added to adjust its pH value. This process can result into
exothermic conditions, which also inactivates helminthic (parasitic worm) eggs and other vectors.
Moreover, good mixing must be ensured to maintain a good degree of material consistency. The
resulting product is a stabilized cake that can be stored safely for longer periods or can be readily used
for land application.
82
(left) windrow, and (right) aerated static pile composting

Source: American Bio Tech http://www.abt-compost.com/
G. FINAL DISPOSAL
(1) Land application
Land application refers to the direct to disposal of treated biosolids in a prepared area, such as
agricultural lands, forest lands, or dedicated disposal sites. Application can be done by spreading the
biosolids on the surface of the soil, as well as the subsurface.
In the Philippines, there is no legislated standard regarding parameters for disposing biosolids in
landfills. For this reason, the biosolids must be thoroughly examined for hazardous chemicals and
pathogens, especially if the land is being used for agricultural (i.e., farming, grazing) purposes.
83
(2) Landll disposal

Landfill disposal is also another disposal alternative similar to land application. Since the biosolids
are considered inert and stabilized after treatment, it can be classified as general solid waste and
can be collected and disposed in the same manner as municipal solid waste.
The cost of collection, hauling, and disposal should also be considered, as well as the distance of the
landfill. The landfill should be also checked if it is designed (i.e., leachate collection systems, covering
materials) to accept items such as biosolids.
(3) Material recycling

Material recycling of treated biosolids is an environmental-friendly option and is generally accepted
as a viable disposal strategy. The biosolids can be used readily as filler material for various concrete/
masonry applications, such as:
~ Road pavement
C1
ANNEX C-1
SAMPLE CAPITAL INVESTMENT TABLE
Project Cost
CostItems
SpTP
Land
Plant&equipment
TotalSpTP
Totaltrucks
CAPEX
Amount
PhP 45,000,000
122,041,564
PhP 167,041,564
PhP 60,860,000
PhP 227,901,564
%
19.75%
53.55%
73.30%
26.70%
100.00%
~ Hollow-blocks and concrete panels

~ Filling material
This option, however, must be studied based on actual and local conditions in which the biosolids are
intended to be re-used. Biosolids have different characteristics from regular construction materials
(i.e., sand, gravel, and cement). Tests should be conducted to confirm its compatibility with other
concrete materials.
84
85
86
1,821,076
66,500
6,945,241
8,832,817
12,713,253
1,486,592
57,000
2,707,205
4,250,798
7,004,920
2,263,823
2,898,487 13,872,524 14,337,549 14,337,549 14,102,816 13,611,053 13,072,571 12,482,934 11,837,281 11,130,292 10,356,138 9,508,439
(5,162,311) 12,496,734 2,674,320 5,529,711 6,390,687 9,934,047 8,617,484 12,956,072 13,518,487 14,094,558 14,223,032 15,848,843
LoanProcessingFee
InterestExpense
NetIncome
26,369,258 17,011,868 19,867,259 20,493,503 23,545,099 21,690,055 25,439,006 25,355,768 25,224,850 24,579,170 25,357,283
OperatingIncome
117,214
420
240
117,874
799,644 836,637 917,311 956,154 1,044,746 1,085,530 1,182,642 1,225,477 1,331,728 1,376,705
113,506
407
232
114,145
6,608,046 11,307,092 11,307,092 11,307,092 11,307,092 10,876,409 10,009,524 10,009,524 10,806,868 10,806,868 12,715,730
109,798
393
225
110,416
2020
106,090
380
217
106,687
2019
Depreciation
102,381
367
210
102,958
2018
BadDebts
98,673
353
202
99,229
2017
4,035,837
95,000
22,200,390
26,331,227
35,188,561
2,858,822
375,778
342,183
5,280,551
8,857,334
2020
2,247,305
95,000
7,073,728
9,416,033
13,097,329
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,682,546
3,681,295
2020
7,004,920 12,713,253 13,854,577 15,089,775 16,428,942 20,665,299 22,598,031 24,725,913 29,329,189 32,117,464 35,188,561
94,965
340
195
95,500
2016
3,843,654
95,000
20,132,976
24,071,630
32,117,464
2,722,687
351,195
332,216
4,639,736
8,045,834
2019
2,247,305
95,000
7,056,485
9,398,790
13,023,738
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,626,199
3,624,948
2019
O&MCosts
91,257
327
189
91,772
2015
3,660,623
95,000
18,257,981
22,013,604
29,329,189
2,593,036
328,219
322,540
4,071,791
7,315,585
2018
2,247,305
95,000
7,039,242
9,381,547
12,950,148
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,569,852
3,568,600
2018
39,982,224 41,831,858 45,865,566 47,807,682 52,237,287 54,276,509 59,132,091 61,273,848 66,586,384 68,835,229 74,638,277
87,549
313
182
88,044
2014
3,137,677
85,500
14,844,522
18,067,699
24,725,913
2,469,558
306,747
313,146
3,568,764
6,658,214
2017
2,022,575
85,500
6,295,527
8,403,601
11,915,854
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,513,504
3,512,253
2017
EnvironmentalFees
83,841
300
176
84,316
2013
2,988,264
85,500
13,458,058
16,531,822
22,598,031
2,351,960
286,679
304,025
3,123,545
6,066,209
2016
2,022,575
85,500
6,278,283
8,386,358
11,842,264
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,457,157
3,455,906
2016
152.32 152.32 167.55 167.55 175.93 175.93 184.73 184.73 193.96 193.96 203.66 203.66 213.84
0%
0%
10%
0%
5%
0%
5%
0%
5%
0%
5%
0%
5%
659,682,893 693,316,209 799,644,476 836,637,154 917,311,323 956,153,635 1,044,745,744 1,085,530,171 1,182,641,815 1,225,476,950 1,331,727,690 1,376,704,582 1,492,765,547
80,132
287
169
80,588
2012
2,845,965
85,500
12,200,996
15,132,462
20,665,299
2,239,962
267,925
295,170
2,729,781
5,532,837
2015
2,022,575
85,500
6,261,040
8,369,115
11,768,673
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,400,809
3,399,558
2015
WaterTariff
WaterRateAdjustment
WaterRevenues
76,424
273
162
76,860
2011
2,108,123
66,500
9,302,457
11,477,080
16,428,942
2,133,297
250,397
286,573
2,281,596
4,951,862
2014
1,573,114
66,500
5,250,995
6,890,608
10,177,258
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,287,901
3,286,650
2014
659,682,893 693,316,209 726,949,524 760,579,231 794,208,938 827,838,645 861,468,352 895,098,059 928,736,787 962,375,514 996,014,242 1,029,652,969 1,063,291,697
72,716
260
155
73,131
2010
2,007,736
66,500
8,442,868
10,517,104
15,089,775
2,031,711
234,016
278,226
2,028,718
4,572,671
2013
1,573,114
66,500
5,242,357
6,881,970
10,140,394
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,259,674
3,258,423
2013
NumberofConnections(CebuCity)
Domestic&SmallCommercial
LargeCommercial
Institutional
Total
WaterRevenues
Domestic&SmallCommercial
LargeCommercial
Institutional
WaterRevenues
2008
1,912,129
66,500
7,659,526
9,638,155
13,854,577
1,934,963
218,706
270,122
1,792,631
4,216,422
2012
1,573,114
66,500
5,231,559
6,871,173
10,094,313
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,224,391
3,223,140
2012
C3
ProjectedIncomeStatement
2009
1,842,822
204,398
262,254
1,570,961
3,880,436
1,755,069
191,027
127,308
680,719
2,754,122
2011
1,573,114
66,500
5,218,063
6,857,676
10,036,711
1,348,383
57,000
2,237,360
3,642,743
6,084,069
2010
1,591,899
166,850
240,000
1,180,286
3,179,035
2011
1,591,899
166,850
120,000
562,578
2,441,327
2010
ANNEX C-2
SAMPLE OPERATING EXPENSE TABLE
Projected Income Statement
SpTP
Salaries
Officeexpenses
Waterqualitytest
Septagehandlingandtreatment
Total
Desludging
Salaries
Registrationandinsurance
Fuel,maintenance,parts
Total
TotalO&Mcosts
O&M cost (Escalated)
SpTP
Salaries
Officeexpenses
Waterqualitytest
Septagehandlingandtreatment
Total
Desludging
Salaries
Registrationandinsurance
Fuel,maintenance,parts
Total
TotalO&Mcosts
O&M cost (Unescalated)
C2
ANNEX C-3
SAMPLE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
87
88
89
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

6,066,209
16,531,822
1,085,530
29,932

6,658,214
18,067,699
1,182,642
33,843

7,315,585
22,013,604
1,225,477
38,237

8,045,834
24,071,630
1,331,728
43,172
43,073,614
8,857,334
26,331,227
1,376,705
48,711
122,041,564
28,880,000
29,222,231
121,699,333
45,000,000
166,699,333
208,989,153
35,930,716
6,222,838
136,265
42,289,820
2012
122,041,564
28,880,000
40,529,323
110,392,241
45,000,000
155,392,241
210,203,379
47,322,565
7,334,361
154,212
54,811,137
2013
122,041,564
28,880,000
51,836,415
99,085,149
45,000,000
144,085,149
214,469,200
61,477,142
8,733,475
173,434
70,384,051
2014
122,041,564
33,242,011
62,712,824
92,570,751
45,000,000
137,570,751
216,879,977
69,119,580
9,982,143
207,502
79,309,225
2015
122,041,564
33,242,011
72,722,348
82,561,227
45,000,000
127,561,227
223,039,704
83,687,812
11,553,232
237,434
95,478,477
2016
122,041,564
33,242,011
82,731,873
72,551,703
45,000,000
117,551,703
229,116,194
98,343,165
12,950,049
271,277
111,564,491
2017
122,041,564
33,242,011
93,538,741
61,744,835
45,000,000
106,744,835
235,061,766
113,300,637
14,706,780
309,514
128,316,931
2018
122,041,564
33,242,011
104,345,609
50,937,967
45,000,000
95,937,967
240,361,657
127,807,613
16,263,392
352,686
144,423,691
2019
122,041,564
76,315,625
117,061,338
81,295,851
45,000,000
126,295,851
246,439,662
101,522,012
18,220,401
401,397
120,143,811
2020
83,827,865
7,334,424
91,162,289
237,188,853
83,827,865
(5,162,311)
78,665,555
139,686,337
83,827,865
10,008,743
93,836,609
244,758,173
83,827,865
15,538,454
99,366,319
247,817,019
83,827,865
21,929,141
105,757,006
249,031,244
83,827,865
31,863,188
115,691,053
253,297,065
83,827,865
40,480,672
124,308,537
255,707,842
83,827,865
53,436,744
137,264,609
261,867,569
83,827,865
66,955,231
150,783,096
267,944,060
83,827,865
81,049,789
164,877,655
273,889,631
83,827,865
95,272,821
179,100,687
279,189,523
83,827,865
111,121,665
194,949,530
285,267,527
2,470,865 5,176,462 5,668,226 6,206,707 6,796,344 7,441,997 8,148,987 8,923,140 9,770,839 10,699,069
NETWORTH
Equity
Retainedearnings
Totalnetworth
Totalliabilitiesandequity
4,362,011
5,532,837
15,132,462
1,044,746
34,068
61,020,782 146,026,564 148,450,699 143,274,238 137,606,012 131,399,305 124,602,960 117,160,963 109,011,977 100,088,836 90,317,997 79,618,929
61,020,782 146,026,564 150,921,564 148,450,699 143,274,238 137,606,012 131,399,305 124,602,960 117,160,963 109,011,977 100,088,836 90,317,997

4,951,862
11,477,080
956,154
19,222
2,470,865 5,176,462 5,668,226 6,206,707 6,796,344 7,441,997 8,148,987 8,923,140 9,770,839 10,699,069
122,041,564
28,880,000
17,915,138
133,006,426
45,000,000
178,006,426
205,930,308
61,020,782 122,041,564
23,985,000
6,608,046
61,020,782 139,418,518
45,000,000 45,000,000
106,020,782 184,418,518
100,858,471 198,360,988
2011
22,821,636
4,982,830
119,415
27,923,882
2010
(5,162,311) 9,840,759
3,998,222

103,489
(5,162,311) 13,942,470
2009

4,572,671
10,517,104
917,311
17,946
LIABILITIES
Currentliabilities
Accountspayables
CurrentportionofLTD
Othercurrentliabilities
Totalcurrentliabilities
Longtermdebt
Projectloan
Totalliabilities
ASSETS
Currentassets
Cash
Accountsreceivables
Suppliesinventory
Totalcurrentassets
Fixedassets
SpTPfacilities
Trucks
Lessaccumulateddepreciation
Netplant,equipment&trucks
Land
Totalfixedassets
Totalassets
Projected Balance Sheet

4,216,422
9,638,155
836,637
16,850
14,337,549 16,808,413 19,279,278 19,279,278 19,279,278 19,279,278 19,279,278 19,279,278 19,279,278 19,279,278
32,761,372 31,516,478 35,304,310 36,683,596 45,385,403 42,992,771 45,221,676 49,872,182 52,771,641 98,966,869
4,895,000
3,880,436
8,832,817
799,644
15,927
(5,162,311) 15,003,069 12,980,877 13,109,080 11,391,848 14,154,577 7,642,438 14,568,232 14,655,354 14,957,472 14,506,976 (26,285,601)
(5,162,311) 9,840,759 22,821,636 35,930,716 47,322,565 61,477,142 69,119,580 83,687,812 98,343,165 113,300,637 127,807,613 101,522,012
2014
NETCASHFLOW
CUMULATIVECASHFLOW
2013
106,020,782 61,020,782
23,985,000
2,754,122
4,250,798

103,489
2,263,823
2,898,487 13,872,524
111,183,093 105,986,714
2012
OUTFLOW
CAPEXSpTP
CAPEXTrucks
OPEXSpTP
OPEXdesludging
Baddebts
Additionstochemicalinventory
Loanprocessingfee
Debtservice
Totaloutflow
2011
61,020,782 85,005,782 4,895,000

45,000,000

35,984,001 40,847,250 44,625,558 46,696,159 50,838,173 53,027,841 57,561,002 59,877,030 64,829,654 67,278,617 72,681,268
106,020,782 120,989,784 45,742,250 44,625,558 46,696,159 50,838,173 53,027,841 57,561,002 59,877,030 64,829,654 67,278,617 72,681,268
2010
INFLOW
Proceedsfromloan
Equitycontribution
Collectionofenvironmentalfees
Totalinflow
2009
Projected Cash Flow Statement
TOOLKIT WORKSHEETS
PART A. WD SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SYSTEM PLANNING
WORKSHEETS 1-7
WORKSHEET 1 CALCULATING SEPTAGE VOLUME
input cell
Year0
The main objective of this workbook is to provide the water district with an initial estimate
of investment requirements for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of a septage
management program. It is divided into two parts. Part A is the planning template ((Worksheets 1-7))
and Part B is the financial model template (Worksheets 8-14) which shows, among others, the fees
that need to be collected from WD customers to ensure full cost-recovery. Figures generated from
this toolkit may be incorporated in the business plan of a WD.
Note that the level of analysis in this toolkit is not equivalent to that of a full-blown feasibility study.
Assumptions/notes:
1.
Cells with light blue background are input cells. It is highly recommended that the worksheets
be developed from left to right, and top to bottom.
WaterSupplyServiceProjections
ProjectedWaterSupplyConnections
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
20,820
20,000
800
20
conn.
conn.
conn.
conn.
SeptageCoverage
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
3.
4.
5.
6.
The plan covers a period of 10 years. Actual operations are assumed to start on Year 2.
The toolkit counts water connections as potential customers for the septage program. If nonWD households/establishments will be serviced, the user can increase the number of water
connections accordingly. Note that the connections also include a certain number of non-WD
households/establishments.
It is assumed that the average size of septic tanks and septage pumped out per tank remains the
same over the planning period.
Three (3) types of septage collection trucks with varying capacities are used in this toolkit:
10 m3, 5 m3, and 2.5 m3. While in reality the trucks will be assigned to cover certain areas (i.e.,
larger trucks will not be able to access areas with narrow roads), it is assumed in this toolkit that
average hauling distance will be the same for all types of trucks.
The toolkit may be used to develop costs for all three treatment options to help the WD
determine which option is best suited to its capacity and need.
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
20,840
20,000
800
40
21,257
20,400
816
41
21,682
20,808
832
42
22,116
21,224
849
42
22,558
21,649
866
43
23,009
22,082
883
44
23,469
22,523
901
45
23,939
22,974
919
46
24,417
23,433
937
47
24,906
23,902
956
48
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
AssumptionsonSepticTanksandDesludging
Operations
1 Residential
%ofHouseholds(Connections)withSeptic
Tanks
Ave.SizeofSepticTank
AverageSeptageVol.perSepticTank
%ofSepticTanksAccessible
No.ofSepticTanksAccessible
80% %
5 m3
2.5 m3
80% %
12,800
TotalPotentialVolumeofSeptageforCollection 32,000 m3
2.
Year1
2 Commercial
%ofCommercial(Connections)withSeptic
Tanks
90% %
10 m3
8 m3
90% %
648
TotalPotentialVolumeofSeptageforCollection 5,184 m3

3 Institutional
%ofInstitutions(Connections)withSeptic
Tanks
100% %
10 m3
8 m3
90% %
18
TotalPotentialVolumeofSeptageforCollection 144 m3
4 DesludgingOperations
DesludgingFrequency
No.ofDaysperYearforDesludging
WorkdaysPerWeek
VehicleDowntime(pervehicle)peryear
InclementWeatherperyear
Holidaysperyear
5 years
221
5
10
10
20
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
14,400 14,688 14,982 15,281 15,587 15,899 16,217 16,541 16,872 17,209
36,000 36,720 37,454 38,203 38,968 39,747 40,542 41,353 42,180 43,023
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
648 661 674 688 701 715 730 744 759 774
5,184 5,288 5,393 5,501 5,611 5,724 5,838 5,955 6,074 6,195
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
36

37

37 38 39 40 41 41 42 43
288 294 300 306 312 318 324 331 337 344
note:DOHrequiresdesludgingevery35years
days
days
days
days
days
ProjectedDailySeptageCollectionVolume
(m3/day)
Total
1 Residential
2 Commercial
3 Institutional
90
33.8

29.0
4.7
0.13
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
37.5 38.3 39.0 39.8 40.6 41.4 42.3 43.1 44.0 44.9
32.6 33.2 33.9 34.6 35.3 36.0 36.7 37.4 38.2 38.9
4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.31
0.31
91
WORKSHEET 3 CALCULATING COLLECTION EQUIPMENT (VACUUM TRUCKS)

REQUIREMENTS, CAPEX AND OPEX
WORKSHEET 2 SETTING ASSUMPTIONS FOR SEPTAGE COLLECTION (PUMPOUT)

OPERATIONAL COSTS
input cell
input cell
Unit
10m
TruckCapacity
3
5m
pertruckyear
pertruckyear
Fuel
FuelCost
FuelConsumption
perliter
perliter
FuelCostperkm
Maintenance
Truckengineoilchange(every3,000km)
Vacuumpumpoilchange(every3000m3septagepumpedout)
Tires(replaceevery50,000km)
Hoses(newsetevery3000m septagepumpedout)
2.5m
Total
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
P
P
132,000
109,000
132,000
109,000
132,000
109,000
P
km
40
4.0
40
4.0
40
4.0
perkm
10.00
10.00
10.00
peroilchange
perkm
P
P
3,000.00
1.00
2,500.00
0.83
2,000.00
0.67
peroilchange
perm3septage
P
P
600.00
0.20
400.00
0.13
400.00
0.13
costperset
perkm
P
P
50,000.00
1.00
40,000.00
0.80
30,000.00
0.60
costperset
perm3septage
P
P
30,000.00
10.00
30,000.00
10.00
30,000.00
10.00
Otherpartsandminorrepair(per20,000km)
costperrepair
perkm
P
P
10,000.00
0.50
10,000.00
0.50
10,000.00
0.50
Tuneups(every10,000km)
cost/tuneup
perkm
P
P
10,000
1.00
9,000
0.90
8,000
0.80
Battery(replaceevery20,000km)
costperbattery
perkm
P
P
10,000
0.50
9,000
0.45
8,000
0.40
Insurance
Registration
pertruckyear
pertruckyear
P
P
80,000
3,000
80,000
3,000
80,000
3,000
SummaryofOperatingCosts
A.
Ppertruckyear
Pperkilometer
324,000
14.00
324,000
13.48
324,000
12.97
Pperm3septagepumped
10.20
10.13
10.13
B.
Labor(Ppertruckyear)
Fuel(Pperkm)
Maintenance
Ppertruckyear
Pperkilometer
Pperm3septagepumped
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
37.5
32.6
4.7
0.3
38.3
33.2
4.8
0.3
39.0
33.9
4.9
0.3
39.8
34.6
5.0
0.3
40.6
35.3
5.1
0.3
41.4
36.0
5.2
0.3
42.3
36.7
5.3
0.3
43.1
37.4
5.4
0.3
44.0
38.2
5.5
0.3
44.9
38.9
5.6
0.3
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
ProjectedDailySeptage
CollectionVolume(m3/day)
TruckOperatingCosts
Labor
DriversMechanicsOne(1)pertruck(SG7)
Laborers/HelpersOne(1)pertruck(AdminAideSG3)
Year1
Year0
33.8
29.0
4.7
0.1
TruckCapacity
AverageHaulingDistance
AverageTravelSpeed
RoundtripTraveltime
UnloadingtimeatSpTP
Pumpouttimeforeachseptic
5 tank
Averageseptagevolumefrom
6 eachseptictank
7 HaulingEfficiency
No.ofseptictankspumpedout
pertrip(basedonaveragesize)
8
9 CycleTime
10 WorkingHoursperDay
11 Ave.No.ofTripsperDay
1
2
3
4
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
10m3
7.00
40.00
10.50
30.00
5m3
7.00
40.00
10.50
30.00
2.5m3
7.00
40.00
10.50
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00 min
2.77
95%
2.77
90%
2.77 m3
90%
3.43
143.31
8.00
3.35
1.62
89.20
8.00
5.38
0.81
64.85 min
8.00 h
7.40 trips
km
km/h
min
min
note:thetruckwillnotalwaysbefilledupto100%ofitscapacity
"optimum"%coveragearea,
bytrucktype)
12 VacuumTruckAccessibility
Accessibleby10m3truck
Accessibleby5m3truck
Accessibleby2.5m3truck
60%
80%
100%
[0100%]
[0100%]
assumed
60% 10m3vacuumtruck
20% 5m3vacuumtruck
20% 2.5m3vacuumtruck
indicate%ofservicearea
thatcanbeaccessedby
trucktype(size)
13 ProposedFleetSize
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck
14 Serviceareacoverage
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck
0.00
1.00
1.00
note:maximumareacoverage(basedonproposednoof
trucks,limitedbytruckaccessibility)
note:totalshould>100%,otherwiseincrease fleetsize
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck
note:setareacoverage(donotexceedabovevalues)
note:totalshould=100%
increase2.5m3coverage?
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
64.52%
63.25%
62.01%
60.80%
80.00%
80.00%
80.00%
80.00%
80.00%
80.00%
44.37%
43.50%
42.65%
41.81%
40.99%
40.19%
39.40%
38.63%
37.87%
37.13%
108.9%
106.8%
104.7%
102.6%
121.0%
120.2%
119.4%
118.6%
117.9%
117.1%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
80.00%
80.00%
80.00%
80.00%
80.00%
80.00%
40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
20.00%
20.00%
20.00%
20.00%
20.00%
20.00%
100.00%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
37.53 38.28 39.05 39.83 40.63 41.44 42.27 43.11 43.97 44.85
37.53 38.28 39.05 39.83 40.63 41.44 42.27 43.11 43.97 44.85
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
15 ProcurementSchedule
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck
Retire(set57yearsafterpurchasetoretiretrucks)
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck
FleetLevel,checkagainst[13]
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
16 CAPEX
241,000.00
10.00
241,000.00
10.00
241,000.00
10.00
ProcurementCost
PhP
6,000,000 perunit
PhP
4,000,000 perunit
PhP
2,000,000 perunit
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck
10%
Total(Yr110):
Total(Yr110):
Total(Yr110):
Total(Yr110):
PhPM
0.00
12.00
4.00
16.00
discountrate
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck
TOTALCAPEX(unescalated)
PresentValue
PresentValue
PresentValue
PresentValue
0.00
8.60
3.06
11.66
0.00
4.00
2.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
inPhPM
0.00
8.00
2.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTALCAPEX(escalated)
Total(Yr110):
18.16
escalationrate:
5.0%
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
peryear
83,000.00
4.00
10.20
83,000.00
3.48
10.13
83,000.00
2.97
10.13
17 EstimatedAnnualOPEXmileage(km)
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck

15,483
20,644
discountrate
PresentValue
PresentValue
PresentValue
PresentValue
OPEXescalated
Labor
Fuel
Maintenance
TOTALOPEX(escalated)
laborescalationrate:
fuelescalationrate:
maintenanceescalationrate:
TotalPresentValue(PV)CAPEXANDOPEXCOSTfor
18 SeptageCollectionEquipment

16,649
22,901

16,649
22,901

16,649
22,901
5.0%
5.0%
2.0%

22,346
22,901

22,792
22,901

23,248
22,901

23,713
22,901

24,188
22,901

24,671
22,901
0.00
0.58
0.63
1.21
0.00
0.60
0.66
1.26
0.00
0.60
0.66
1.26
0.00
0.60
0.66
1.26
inPhPM
0.00
1.02
0.66
1.68
0.00
1.03
0.66
1.69
0.00
1.04
0.66
1.70
0.00
1.04
0.66
1.70
0.00
1.05
0.66
1.71
0.00
1.06
0.66
1.72
0.48
0.36
0.37
1.21
0.48
0.40
0.38
1.26
0.48
0.40
0.38
1.26
0.48
0.40
0.38
1.26
inPhPM
0.72
0.45
0.50
1.68
0.72
0.46
0.51
1.69
0.72
0.46
0.51
1.70
0.72
0.47
0.51
1.70
0.72
0.47
0.52
1.71
0.72
0.48
0.52
1.72
0.48
0.36
0.37
1.21
0.51
0.42
0.39
1.31
0.53
0.44
0.40
1.37
0.56
0.46
0.44
1.46
inPhPM
0.88
0.55
0.61
2.04
0.92
0.58
0.65
2.15
0.97
0.62
0.68
2.27
1.02
0.66
0.72
2.40
1.07
0.70
0.76
2.53
1.12
0.74
0.81
2.67
10%
0.00
4.98
4.01
9.00
OPEX
Labor
Fuel
Maintenance
TOTALOPEX(unescalated)
0.00
1.00
1.00
totalfleetcapacity(m3/day)
requiredfleetcapacity(m3/day)
OPEX,bytrucktype
10m3vacuumtruck
5m3vacuumtruck
2.5m3vacuumtruck
TOTALOPEX(unescalated)
92
0.00
1.00
1.00
MaximumValue
MinimumValue
20.66 PhPM
93
WORKSHEET 4 CALCULATING STP CAPEX AND OPEX (OPTION 1 FULL-MECHANIZED OPTION)
WORKSHEET 5 CALCULATING STP CAPEX AND OPEX (OPTION 2

- SEMI-MECHANIZED
input cell
input cell
Year1
Year1
DesludgingOperations
DesludgingFrequency
WorkdaysPerWeek
5
221
5
10
Holidaysperyear
Year2
years
days
days
days
10 days
20 days
Total
1 Residential
2 Commercial
3 Institutional
Year0
33.8
29.0
4.7
0.1
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
37.5
32.6
4.7
0.3
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
aveSpTPdayload(m3/day)
Phase1
24.6
Phase2
27.2
maxSpTPdayload(m3/day)
40.6
44.9
38.3
33.2
4.8
0.3
39.0
33.9
4.9
0.3
39.8
34.6
5.0
0.3
40.6
35.3
5.1
0.3
41.4
36.0
5.2
0.3
42.3
36.7
5.3
0.3
43.1
37.4
5.4
0.3
44.0
38.2
5.5
0.3
44.9
38.9
5.6
0.3
DesludgingFrequency
WorkdaysPerWeek
5
221
5
10
Holidaysperyear
Year2
years
days
days
days
10 days
20 days
Total
1 Residential
2 Commercial
3 Institutional
Year0
33.8
29.0
4.7
0.1
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
37.5
32.6
4.7
0.3
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
Phase1
24.6
Phase2
27.2
40.6
44.9
38.3
33.2
4.8
0.3
39.0
33.9
4.9
0.3
39.8
34.6
5.0
0.3
40.6
35.3
5.1
0.3
41.4
36.0
5.2
0.3
42.3
36.7
5.3
0.3
43.1
37.4
5.4
0.3
44.0
38.2
5.5

0.3
44.9
38.9
5.6

0.3
TreatmentOption2:SemiMechanizedSystem
TreatmentOption1:FullMechanizedSystem
SludgeAcceptanceUnit(SAU)
ScrewPress(SP)
ActivatedSludge(AS)
(2)Dewatering
(3)FiltrateTreatment
DesignCapacity(maxSpTPdayload):
Initial
expansion
300
44.9 m3/day[Phase1]
0 m3/day[Phase2]
44.9 m3/dayTotal
Note:Phasingshouldatleastbein50m3/dayincrements.Ifplantload
increaseisminimal,designfor"ultimate"orPhase2capacity
200
300
100
40 Pmillion[Phase1]
0 Pmillion[Phase2]
40.0 PmillionTotal
44.9 m3/day[Phase1]
0 m3/day[Phase2]
44.9 m3/dayTotal
200
100
Note:Phasingshouldatleastbein50m3/dayincrements.Ifplantload
increaseisminimal,designfor"ultimate"orPhase2capacity
1 CAPEXforPlant(refertocostcurve )
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
23 Pmillion[Phase1]
0 Pmillion[Phase2]
23.0 PmillionTotal
1 CAPEXforPlant(refertocostcurve)
800
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Capacity, m3/d
Capacity, m3/d
2 CAPEXforLand
2 CAPEXforLand
unitlandcost 2,000 P/m2

arearequirement 1,000 m2(refertotableguidebelow)
landcost
2.00 Pmillion

landcost
2.00 Pmillion
tableguide
tableguide
plantcapacity(m3/day,
inmaxday)
landreqmts(m2)
plantcapacity(m3/day,in
maxday)
25
50
75
100
200
300
500
750
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,500 3,000
landreqmts(m2)
25
50
75
100
200
300
500
750
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,500 3,000
3 OPEXforpowerandchemicals
dailyload(m3)
yearlyload(m3)
varOPEXPmillionfor
powerandchemicals
4 OPEXforlabor
AnnualCostofPowerandChemicals(PhPM)
Year1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
37.5 38.3 39.0 39.8 40.6 41.4 42.3 43.1 44.0 44.9
8,294 8,460 8,629 8,802 8,978 9,158 9,341 9,528 9,718 9,913
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.35
0.36
4 OPEXforlabor
setlaborresources
operator
security
unskilledlabor
25
2
1
1
Year1
50
2
1
1
Year2
PlantCapacity(m3/day,inmaxday)
75
100
200
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Year3
operator
security
unskilledlabor
2
2
1
1
1
1
ave.monthlysalary
15,000.00
10,000.00
8,000.00
operator
security
unskilledlabor
total
Year1
0.36
0.12
0.10
0.58
Year4
2
1
1
Year5
2
1
1
300
2
1
2
Year6
2
1
1
500
3
2
2
Year7
2
1
1
Year8
2
1
1
AnnualCostofLabor(inPhPM)
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58
Year9
Year3
0.36
0.12
0.10
0.58
Year8
0.36
0.12
0.10
0.58
Year2
0.07
AnnualCostofDewateredSludgeDisposal(inPhPM)
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08
0.28
25
1
1
1
laborrequirements
operator
security
unskilledlabor
2
1
1
Year2
0.36
0.12
0.10
0.58
AnnualCostofPowerandChemicals
Year1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
38 38

39

40

41

41

42

43

44

45

8,294 8,460 8,629 8,802 8,978 9,158 9,341 9,528 9,718 9,913
setlaborresources
operator
security
unskilledlabor
Year10
2
1
1
Year9
0.36
0.12
0.10
0.58
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.34
Year9
Year10
tableguide
750
3
2
2
2
1
1
Year10
0.36
0.12
0.10
0.58
Year1
50
1
1
1
Year2
75
100
200
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Year3
Year4
1
1
1
Year5
1
1
1
300
2
2
2
Year6
1
1
1
500
2
2
2
Year7
1
1
1
750
2
2
2
Year8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
operator
security
unskilledlabor
1
1
1
1
1
1
monthlysalary
15,000.00

10,000.00

8,000.00
operator
security
unskilledlabor
total
AnnualCostofLabor(Pmillion)
Year1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Year8
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.40
Year9
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.40
Year10
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.40
Year9
0.08
Year10
0.08
5 OPEXfordewateredsludgedisposal
costofdisposal
dailyload(m3)
yearlyload(m3)
varOPEXPmillionfor
powerandchemicals
0.37
tableguide
laborrequirements
operator
security
unskilledlabor
200.00 P/m3
Year1
0.07
Year9
0.08
costofdisposal
Year10
0.08
200.00 P/m3
Year1
0.07
Year2
0.07
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08
Year1
0.23
Year2
0.23
Year3
0.23
6 MaintenanceCost
6 MaintenanceCost
%ofplantcost
Year1
0.40
1%
Year2
0.40
Year3
0.40
MaintenanceCost(inPhPM)
Year4
Year5
Year6
0.40 0.40 0.40
Year7
Year8
Year9
0.40 0.40 0.40
Year10
0.40
%ofplantcost
1%
TOTALO&MCOSTSFORSEPTAGETREATMENTPLANTOPTION1(inPhPM)
Year1
powerandchemicalescalationrate
laborescalationrate
maintenanceescalationrate
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
7 TOTALOperationalandMaintenanceCost
94
SpTP Cost Curve

Option 2: Semi Mechanized System
BarScreensandHorizontalGrit
Chamber
ScrewPress(SP)
ActivatedSludge(AS)
400
PhP, Millions
DesignCapacity(maxSpTPdayload):
Initial
expansion
TreatmentProcess:
(1)Screening/Degritting
SpTP Cost Curve

Option 1: Full Mechanized System
PhP, Millions
TreatmentProcess:
(2)Dewatering
3.00%
5.00%
1.00%
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
1.348 1.356 1.363 1.371 1.379 1.387 1.395

TOTALO&Mescalated(inPhPM)
0.306 0.322 0.338 0.355 0.373 0.392 0.412
0.576 0.605 0.635 0.667 0.700 0.735 0.772
0.400 0.404 0.408 0.412 0.416 0.420 0.425
1.282 1.330 1.381 1.434 1.489 1.547 1.608
Year8
Year9
1.404 1.412 1.421

0.432
0.810
0.429
1.672
Year1
0.974
Year10
0.454 0.477
0.851 0.894
0.433 0.437
1.738 1.808
laborescalationrate
3.00%
5.00%
1.00%
0.281
0.396
0.230
0.907
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
0.980 0.988 0.995 1.002 1.010 1.017 1.025
0.295 0.310 0.326 0.343 0.360 0.378 0.397
0.416 0.437 0.458 0.481 0.505 0.531 0.557
0.232 0.235 0.237 0.239 0.242 0.244 0.247
0.944 0.982 1.021 1.063 1.107 1.153 1.201
Year9
Year10
1.033 1.041
0.417
0.585
0.249
1.251
0.438
0.614
0.252
1.304
95
WORKSHEET 6 CALCULATING STP CAPEX AND OPEX (OPTION 3

- NON-MECHANIZED
WORKSHEET 7 SUMMARY OF CAPEX AND OPEX

input cell
input cell
Year1
DesludgingFrequency
WorkdaysPerWeek
Year3
Year4
Year5
5 years
221 days
5 days
Holidaysperyear
Total
1 Residential
2 Commercial
3 Institutional
Year2
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
m3/day
Year7
Year8
Year9
24.6
40.6
TreatmentOption1:FullMechanizedSystem
AssumedCAPEXSchedule*:
80% Year1
20% Year2,note:operationisassumedtostartinYear2
27.2
44.9
SUMMARY
37.5
32.6
4.7
0.3
38.3
33.2
4.8
0.3
39.0
33.9
4.9
0.3
39.8
34.6
5.0
0.3
40.6
35.3
5.1
0.3
41.4
36.0
5.2
0.3
42.3
36.7
5.3
0.3
43.1
37.4
5.4
0.3
44.0
38.2
5.5

0.3
44.9
38.9
5.6
0.3
SpTP Cost Curve

Option 3: Non-Mechanized System
BarScreensandHorizontalGrit
Chamber
DryingBeds
FacultativePonds
400
CostsinPhPM
CAPEXForTrucks
CAPEXForPlant*
CAPEXforLand
O&MForTrucks
O&MForPlant
Year0
Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year10
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.00
8.00
0.00
2.00
1.21
1.31
1.37
1.46
2.04
2.15
2.27
2.40
2.53
2.67
1.28
1.33
1.38
1.43
1.49
1.55
1.61
1.67
1.74
1.81
TOTAL
40.00 10.49
2.64
2.75 15.05
3.53
3.70
3.88
4.07
4.27
4.48
300
DesignCapacity(useSpTPavedayload ):
initial
expansion
27.2 m3/day[Phase1]
0 m3/day[Phase2]
27.2 m3/dayTotal
PhP, Millions
(2)Dewatering
Phase2
TreatmentOption3:NonMechanizedSystem
TreatmentProcess:
PreferredTreatmentOption:
Year10
Phase1
10 days
10 days
20 days
Year0
33.8
29.0
4.7
0.1
Year6
200
Note:Phasingshouldatleastbein2025m3/dayincrements.Ifplant
loadincreaseisminimal,designfor"ultimate"orPhase2capacity
100
1 CAPEXforPlant(refertocostcurve )
0
0
18 Pmillion[Phase1]
0 Pmillion[Phase2]
18.0 PmillionTotal
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Capacity, m3/d
2 CAPEXforLand(procureforPhase2)
landcost
5.00 Pmillion
tableguide
plantcapacity(m3/day,
inmaxday)
landreqmts(m2)
25
50
75
100
200
300
500
750
2,100 3,400 4,700 6,000 11,000 16,000 26,000 39,000
dailyload(m3)
yearlyload(m3)
varOPEXPmillionfor
powerandchemicals
4 OPEXforlabor
AnnualCostofPowerandChemicals
Year1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
38 38

39

40

41

41

42

43

44

45
8,294 8,460 8,629 8,802 8,978 9,158 9,341 9,528 9,718 9,913
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.37
Year9
Year10
tableguide
25
1
1
1
laborrequirements
operator
security
unskilledlabor
setlaborresources
operator
security
unskilledlabor
Year1
50
1
1
1
Year2
75
100
200
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
Year3
Year4
operator
security
unskilledlabor
1
1
1
1
1
1
monthlysalary
15,000.00

10,000.00

8,000.00
1
1
1
operator
security
unskilledlabor
total
Year1
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.40
Year2
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.40
Year3
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.40
Year1
0.07
Year2
0.07
Year3
0.07
Year5
1
1
1
300
1
2
2
Year6
1
1
1
500
1
2
2
Year7
1
1
1
750
1
2
2
Year8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AnnualCostofLabor(inPhPM)
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Year8
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.40
Year9
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.40
Year10
0.18
0.12
0.10
0.40
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08
Year9
0.08
Year10
0.08
costofdisposal
200.00 P/m3
6 MaintenanceCost
%ofplantcost
Year1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
1%
Year1
0.583
laborescalationrate
96
3.00%
5.00%
1.00%
0.007
0.396
0.180
0.583
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
0.583 0.584 0.584 0.584 0.584 0.584 0.584
0.007 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.011
0.416 0.437 0.458 0.481 0.505 0.531 0.557 0.585
0.182 0.184 0.185 0.187 0.189 0.191 0.193 0.195
0.605 0.628 0.652 0.677 0.704 0.731 0.760 0.791
Year2
0.583
Year10
0.942
0.477
0.614
0.197
1.288
97
98
40,000,000
4,000,000
-
Year 0
600,000
600,000
32,551,373
40,080,197
8,892,901
81,524,471
10.47%
7.93%
48,000,000
4,800,000
10,624,056
10,624,056
2.21
Year 1
3,358,241
600,000
3,958,241
48,000,000
4,800,000
10,934,708
10,934,708
2.28
Year 2
6,052,631
3,958,241
10,010,871
42,285,714
9,942,857
11,309,554
11,309,554
1.14
Year 3
1,279,952
10,010,871
11,290,823
10.00%
14.71%
Rate
CapexSchedule(SelectedOption)
2,000,000
32,000,000 8,000,000
6,000,000

Year2

Year3
35,428,571
10,400,000
13,032,866
13,032,866
1.25
Year 4
(9,869,255)
11,290,823
1,421,568

12,155,063
Year4
28,571,429
9,714,286
12,872,517
12,872,517
1.33
Year 5
3,089,525
1,421,568
4,511,093
200,000
200,000
4,800,000

4,800,000
48,000,000
10,934,708
2.28
200,000 200,000

200,000 200,000
4,000,000 4,800,000

4,000,000 4,800,000
40,000,000 48,000,000

10,624,056
2.21
TotalInterestExpenses
TotalPrincipalPayments
TOTALDEBTSERVICE
TotalInterestBearingDebts
EBITDA
DebtServiceCover(SeptageProjectOnly)
Assumption:DrawdownforeachtrancheisDec31Paymentof
PrincipalisJan1.
2,000,000
2,000,000 2,000,000
42,285,714
11,309,554
1.14
4,228,571
5,714,286
9,942,857
1,714,286
285,714
171,429
457,143
35,428,571
13,032,866
1.25
3,542,857
6,857,143
10,400,000
1,428,571
285,714
142,857
428,571
28,571,429
12,872,517
1.33
2,857,143
6,857,143
9,714,286
1,142,857
285,714
114,286
400,000
21,714,286
13,194,937
1.46
2,171,429
6,857,143
9,028,571
857,143
285,714
85,714
371,429

4,571,429
1,142,857
457,143
1,600,000
16,285,714
5,428,571
1,628,571
7,057,143
12.00

Year6
14,857,143
8,342,857
13,523,112
13,523,112
1.62
Year 7
5,090,784
8,590,467
13,681,252
1,142,857
6,971,429
14,196,496
14,196,496
2.04
Year 9
7,130,436
19,789,080
26,919,516
1,142,857
14,541,549
14,541,549
12.72
Year 10
13,301,376
26,919,516
40,220,893

Year8
285,714
285,714
28,571
314,286

2,285,714
1,142,857
228,571
1,371,429
5,428,571
5,428,571
542,857
5,971,429
14,857,143 8,000,000
13,523,112 13,856,988
1.62 1.81
1,485,714 800,000

6,857,143 6,857,143
8,342,857 7,657,143
571,429
285,714
57,143
342,857

3,428,571
1,142,857
342,857
1,485,714
10,857,143
5,428,571
1,085,714
6,514,286
12.00 12.00

Year7
1,142,857
14,196,496
2.04
114,286
6,857,143
6,971,429

285,714

285,714

1,142,857
1,142,857
114,286
1,257,143

5,428,571

5,428,571
12.00

Year9
Year10
11,924,642
11,924,642
net cash
Year 11
11,923,302
40,220,893
52,144,194

14,541,549
12.72

1,142,857
1,142,857

1,142,857

1,142,857

12.00

STEP 4. Check for ALERTS in the left image ("GO" sign ).

Evaluate what input values to adjust to address the alert
message. For example, you can do the following: 1) adjust the
base tariff or the EF 2) increase tariff hikes in subsequent
years, 3) lengthen the loan term, 4) increase equity
contribution or 5) adjust working capital loan. You can adjust
tariffs in year 5 if there is a substantial capex, or if ending cash
is negative.
8,000,000
7,657,143
13,856,988
13,856,988
1.81
Year 8
6,107,829
13,681,252
19,789,080
STEP 3. Input water consumption assumptions and growth in

consumption per connection.
0.0%
0.0%
STEP 2. Input term of loan, interest Rates, Base Tariff and

subsequent tariff adjustments.
STEP 1. Input actual financial data in Working Capital

Worksheet . Then, plug in Equity Contribution and Working
Capital Requirement in this sheet..
0.0% Tariff Adjustment in Year 9


5,714,286
1,142,857
571,429
1,714,286
21,714,286
5,428,571
2,171,429
7,600,000
12.00

6,857,143
1,142,857
685,714
1,828,571
27,142,857
5,428,571
2,714,286
8,142,857
12.00
0.00%

3.00

Expansion

Year5
21,714,286
9,028,571
13,194,937
13,194,937
1.46
Year 6
4,079,374
4,511,093
8,590,467
0.0%
0

800,000
800,000
WorkingCapital
PrincipalPayment
InterestPayment
TOTALDEBTSERVICE
NewLoanExpansionPhase(10Years)
PrincipalPayment
InterestPayment
TOTALDEBTSERVICE
LoanTranche5(10Years)
PrincipalPayment
InterestPayment
TOTALDEBTSERVICE
PrincipalPayment
InterestPayment
TOTALDEBTSERVICE
PrincipalPayment
InterestPayment
TOTALDEBTSERVICE
800,000
800,000
8,000,000
800,000
800,000
8,000,000
32,571,429
5,428,571
3,257,143
8,685,714
12.00
8,000,000
38,000,000 38,000,000
3,800,000 3,800,000
3,800,000 3,800,000
PrincipalPayment
InterestPayment
TOTALDEBTSERVICE
PrincipalPayment
InterestPayment
TOTALDEBTSERVICE
38,000,000
3,800,000
3,800,000
12.00 12.00
NumberofMonthsofInterestExpenses
12.00
10.00%
10.00
3.00
10.00%
InterestRateonLongTermLoan(10Yrs,include3yrsgrace)
TenorofLoan
GracePeriodonPrincipal
InterestRateonWorkingCapitalLoan(1Yr)
ProjectedDebtDrawdownandServicingSchedule(Note:Capexnotcarriedfromabovearefinancedbyinternallygeneratedfunds.)
Tranche1
Tranche2
Tranche3
Tranche4
Tranche5
Land
32,000,000 8,000,000
SeptageTreatmentPlant
6,000,000

Trucks
2,000,000
WorkingCapitalLoan
Land
SeptageTreatmentPlant
Trucks
Year1
Year 5
Interest Rate
Term of Loan
Expansion Phase (Year 5)

9.00%
1.47%
10.47%
WACC

11,924,642
netcash

12.00

Year11
12,282,381
12,282,381
net cash
Year 12
12,179,416
52,144,194
64,323,611

12,282,381
netcash

12.00

Year12
12,650,853
12,650,853
net cash
Year 13
12,544,799
64,323,611
76,868,409

12,650,853
netcash

12.00

Year13
13,030,378
13,030,378
net cash
Year 14
12,921,143
76,868,409
89,789,552

13,030,378
netcash

12.00

Year14
13,421,290
13,421,290
net cash
Year 15
13,308,777
89,789,552
103,098,329

13,421,290
netcash

12.00

Year15
PART B. WD SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL MODELING WORKSHEETS 8-14
Year0
Thereisaninputcellfortheinterestrateandtheneededshorttermworkingcapitalloanifneededbytheproject.
WORKSHEET 8 CAPEX AND DEBT SCHEDULE
Notes:
EBITDA is Earnings before interest taxes depreciation and amortization.
NOPLAT is Net operating profits less adjusted taxes.
Debt servce cover is EBITDA divided by debt service.
* Data on 10 Year Treasury Bonds can be found at www.pdex.com.ph.
Net Present Value (Year 1 - Year 10)

Net Present Value (Year 11 - Year 30
Continuing Value
Total NPV using WACC
Discount Rate (WACC)
Risk Free Rate: 10 Year RP Treasury Bonds *
Outstanding Debts
Debt Service
EBITDA
NOPLAT
Debt Service Cover (X)
Change in Cash
Beginning Cash
Ending Cash
90%
10%
100%
Weight
10.0%
10.0
2.50
0%
248
1.5%
43.89
12.14
24.81
45,000,000
5,000,000
50,000,000
Debt
Equity Contribution
Total
(STEP 3)
Interest Rate
Term of Loan (Years)
Environmental Fee (Php per cu m)
Corporate Income Tax Rate
Tariff Adjustment in Year 3
Tariff Adjustment in Year 4
Water Consumption per Conn per Yr (Year 0, cu m)
Growth in Consumption per Connection
Average Days Collection of Receivables
Average Days Payables
Average Days Inventory
48,000,000
2,000,000
50,000,000
Project Details
Capital Expenditure
Working Capital
Total Project Amount
First Phase
Input Sheet for Financial Sensitivity Analysis
5.Workingcapital(WC)loanfigureissetmanuallytotargettheendingcashinYear0toYear1.
4.Capitalexpenditureprogramsareintwophases:Phase1(Yr0Yr2)andExpansionPhase(Yr5).
3.Environmentalfee(EF)isbasedonpercubicmeterconsumptionofwater.
Inthismodel,EFcanbemanipulatedtomeetlevelsofreturn(WACC),debtservicecoverage,endingcashlevels,andnetpresentvalue.
2.Loansareassumedtotakea3yeargraceperiodonprincipalpayments.Thenumberofmonthsofinterestexpensesininitialyrcanbechanged(inthe
CapexandDebtSheet).
1.Lightbluecellsareinputcells.
Notes:(Pleaseread)
99
100
101
TOTAL
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
Year11
Year12
Year13
Year14
Year15
77,550,982
17%
4,908,290
84,746,434
3.1%
5,060,093
2%
5,163,360
86,475,953
2.0%
2%
5,245,845
87,857,409
1.5%
1.6%
4%
5,431,023
90,958,775
1.5%
3.5%
4%
5,622,738
94,169,620
1.5%
3.5%
SeptageManagement
3.0%
3%
5,965,163
99,904,550
1.5%
3.0%
3%
6,144,118
113,191,855
1.5%
3.0%
3%
6,328,441
128,246,372
1.5%
3.0%
3%
6,518,295
145,303,139
1.5%
3.0%
3%
6,713,844
164,628,457
1.5%
3.0%
3%
6,915,259
186,524,041
1.5%
3.0%
3%
7,122,717
211,331,739
0.6%
1.5%
3.0%
3%
7,336,398
239,438,860
0.6%
1.5%
3.0%
3%
7,556,490
271,284,229
0.6%
1.5%
3.0%
3%
7,783,185
307,365,031
0.6%
1.5%
3.0%
3%
8,016,680
348,244,580
0.6%
1.5%
5.4%
1.9%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
12000000
0%
11.14%
34.67% 2,181,818
0.235337938
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
Year11
Year12
Year13
Year14
Year15

(12,155,063)

NOPLAT
Doesitbalance?
10,624,056
10,934,708
11,309,554
91,408
42,285,714
4,626,414
5,000,000
(373,586)
47,003,536
13,032,866
96,274
35,428,571
7,818,743
5,000,000
2,818,743
43,343,589
12,872,517
117,506
28,571,429
12,736,439
5,000,000
7,736,439
41,425,373
4,511,093
1,972,701
1,115,209
33,826,371
41,425,373
13,194,937
123,153
21,714,286
18,662,268
5,000,000
13,662,268
40,499,706
8,590,467
2,031,882
1,148,665
28,728,692
40,499,706
Year6
13,523,112
129,099
14,857,143
25,601,986
5,000,000
20,601,986
40,588,227
13,681,252
2,092,838
1,183,125
23,631,013
40,588,227
Year7
13,856,988
135,361
8,000,000
33,561,295
5,000,000
28,561,295
41,696,656
19,789,080
2,155,623
1,218,619
18,533,333
41,696,656
Year8
14,196,496
141,957
1,142,857
44,976,838
5,000,000
39,976,838
46,261,652
26,919,516
2,220,292
1,255,178
15,866,667
46,261,652
Year9
14,541,549
148,906

56,851,720
5,000,000
51,851,720
57,000,626
40,220,893
2,286,901
1,292,833
13,200,000
57,000,626
Year10
26,919,516
40,220,893
13,301,376
11,924,642
254,958

66,109,696
5,000,000
61,109,696
66,364,653
52,144,194
2,355,508
1,331,618
10,533,333
66,364,653
Year11
40,220,893
52,144,194
11,923,302
12,282,381
262,606

75,725,410
5,000,000
70,725,410
75,988,017
64,323,611
2,426,173
1,371,566
7,866,667
75,988,017
Year12
52,144,194
64,323,611
12,179,416
12,650,853
270,484

85,709,597
5,000,000
80,709,597
85,980,081
76,868,409
2,498,958
1,412,713
5,200,000
85,980,081
Year13
64,323,611
76,868,409
12,544,799
13,030,378
278,599

96,073,308
5,000,000
91,073,308
96,351,907
89,789,552
2,573,927
1,455,095
2,533,333
96,351,907
Year14
76,868,409
89,789,552
12,921,143
13,308,777
13,421,290
286,957

108,961,265
5,000,000
103,961,265
109,248,222
103,098,329
2,651,145
1,498,748
2,000,000
109,248,222
Year15
89,789,552
103,098,329
(39,400,000) (44,041,759) (37,989,129) (30,994,891) (34,007,003) (24,060,336) (13,123,819) (1,175,891) 11,789,080 25,776,659 40,220,893 52,144,194 64,323,611 76,868,409 89,789,552 103,098,329
(14.63)

(56.18)

34.05 9.16

4.54 2.25 1.17

0.59

0.24 0.03

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
282.9%
219.3%
160.6%
69.5%
40.8%
38.6%
31.8%
27.1%
23.7%
25.4%
20.9%
14.0%
12.7%
11.6%
10.8%
11.8%
81.0%
80.5%
80.5%
81.8%
78.5%
78.1%
77.7%
77.3%
76.9%
76.5%
60.9%
60.9%
60.9%
60.9%
60.9%
14%
17%
23%
20%
30%
35%
40%
44%
62%
62%
47%
48%
48%
48%
58%

2.21 2.28

1.14

1.25 1.33 1.46

1.62

1.81 2.04

12.72 netcash
netcash
netcash
netcash
netcash
87,933
48,000,000
1,412,098
5,000,000
(3,587,902)
49,500,030
1,421,568
1,915,243
1,082,727
38,924,050
43,343,589
Year5
13,681,252 19,789,080
19,789,080 26,919,516
6,107,829 7,130,436
CashlessInterestBearingLiab.(Php)
DebtEquityRatio
ReturnonEquity
EBITDAMargin
NetProfitMargin
DebtServiceCoverage(X)
82,866
48,000,000
(855,944)
5,000,000
(5,855,944)
47,226,922
11,290,823
1,690,418
955,629
33,066,667
47,003,536
Year4
8,590,467
13,681,252
5,090,784

40,000,000
(2,733,333)
5,000,000
(7,733,333)
37,266,667
10,010,871
1,632,781
923,045
36,933,333
49,500,030
Year3
4,511,093
8,590,467
4,079,374

AccountsPayables
InterestBearingLiabilities
Stockholder'sEquity
Equitycontribution
RetainedEarnings
TOTALLIABITITIES&EQUITY
3,958,241
1,577,109
891,573
40,800,000
47,226,922
Year2
1,421,568
4,511,093

600,000

36,666,667
37,266,667
Year1
11,290,823
1,421,568
(9,869,255) 3,089,525

Cash
ReceivablesfromCustomers
Inventory
FixedAssets(Net)
TOTALASSETS
Year0
10,010,871
11,290,823
0 600,000 3,958,241
600,000 3,958,241 10,010,871
BeginningCash
EndingCash
ProjectedBalanceSheet(Php)
1,279,952
600,000 3,358,241 6,052,631
EquityContributionfromParent
CashDividendDeclaration
ChangeinCashPosition
5,000,000
40,000,000

(4,000,000)
(400,000)
CashflowfromFinancingActivities
Increaseindebt
DebtRepayments
InterestPayments()
LoanProcessingFees
Year3
8,000,000

(5,714,286) (6,857,143) (6,857,143) (6,857,143) (6,857,143) (6,857,143) (6,857,143) (1,142,857)
(4,800,000) (4,800,000) (4,228,571) (3,542,857) (2,857,143) (2,171,429) (1,485,714) (800,000) (114,286)

(80,000)
(2,000,000)
(32,000,000) (8,000,000)
(6,000,000)

CashflowfromInvestingActivities
Land
SpTP
Trucks
Year2
10,624,056 10,934,708 11,309,554 13,032,866 12,872,517 13,194,937 13,523,112 13,856,988 14,196,496 14,541,549 11,924,642 12,282,381 12,650,853 13,030,378 13,421,290
(2,385,816) (82,077) (86,746) (347,058) (68,707) (86,991) (89,470) (92,016) (94,631) (97,316) (1,340) (102,965) (106,054) (109,236) (112,513)

Year1

Year0
CashflowfromOperations
EBITDA
ChangesinWorkingCapital(net)
Taxes
SeptageManagementProject
ProjectedCashFlowStatement(Php)
Inthebalancesheet,thereisacheckertoseeifthetotalassets(A)lessliabilities(L)andequity(E)balanceout.Ifnot,thereissomethingwronginyourfinancialmodel.Rememberalwaysthat
A = L+ E
IncrementalCashFlowfromSeptageOperations: Theapproachtakenistomodeltheseptagemanagementonanincrementalapproachbasis.Thetablesummarizesthechangesincashand
thecorrespondingbalancesheetanddebtservicecoverage.
WORKSHEET 10 FORECASTING CASH FLOW AND BALANCE
**WSPstartscollectingEFsstartingJanuary2011.
(7,733,333) 1,877,389 2,268,041 3,214,316 3,192,329 4,917,695 5,925,829 6,939,718 7,959,309 11,415,543 11,874,883 9,257,975 9,615,715 9,984,186 10,363,712 12,887,956
(7,733,333) 1,877,389 2,268,041 3,214,316 3,192,329 4,917,695 5,925,829 6,939,718 7,959,309 11,415,543 11,874,883 9,257,975 9,615,715 9,984,186 10,363,712 12,887,956
NetProfitsafterTaxes
Taxes
NetProfitbeforeTaxes
3,333,333 3,866,667 3,866,667 3,866,667 6,297,679 5,097,679 5,097,679 5,097,679 5,097,679 2,666,667 2,666,667 2,666,667 2,666,667 2,666,667 2,666,667 533,333
DepreciationExpenses
4,000,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 4,228,571 3,542,857 2,857,143 2,171,429 1,485,714 800,000 114,286
400,000 80,000
InterestExpenses
LoanProcessingFees
2,490,556 2,642,850 2,747,291 2,893,540 3,531,681 3,701,387 3,880,102 4,068,322 4,266,574 4,475,413 7,662,828 7,892,713 8,129,495 8,373,380 8,624,581
13,114,612 13,577,558 14,056,846 15,926,406 16,404,198 16,896,324 17,403,214 17,925,310 18,463,070 19,016,962 19,587,471 20,175,095 20,780,348 21,403,758 22,045,871
10%
2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75

2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75
10,624,056 10,934,708 11,309,554 13,032,866 12,872,517 13,194,937 13,523,112 13,856,988 14,196,496 14,541,549 11,924,642 12,282,381 12,650,853 13,030,378 13,421,290
0.0%
OperatingExpenses
0.0%
13,114,612 13,577,558 14,056,846 15,926,406 16,404,198 16,896,324 17,403,214 17,925,310 18,463,070 19,016,962 19,587,471 20,175,095 20,780,348 21,403,758 22,045,871
0%
0.0%
EBITDA
TotalRevenues
IncomeStatementOption2(Php)
3%
5,791,420
96,994,709
1.5%
3.0%
5,060,093 5,163,360 5,245,845 5,431,023 5,622,738 5,821,221 6,026,710 6,239,453 6,459,706 6,687,733 6,923,810 7,168,221 7,319,398 7,577,773 7,845,269 8,122,207 8,408,920
14.7 15.5 15.8 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 18.4 20.3 22.3 24.5 27.0

29.7 32.6 35.9 39.5 43.4
9%
4,188,046
64,914,713
Year1
TheIncomeStatementbelowshowsthefeesandtheexpensesarisingfromtheseptageoperations.ItissimpleandstraightforwardandcarriestheestimateEfsfromthetablebelow.NotethatEBITDAisearningsbeforeinterest,taxes
depreiationandamortization.Thestatementbelowshowsthecorrespondingprocessingfees(1%ofdebt)arisingfromthenewloanstakenbytheWSP.
CreatingIncomeStatement
TariffAdjustments(Sanitation)
PricePerCubicMeter
PercentageofWaterBill
EnvironmentalFees
growthinwaterprice
WaterPricepercum
growthinvolume
56,347,658
3,833,174
WaterRevenues(Php)
BilledWater(cum)
EnvironmentalFeesProjection
Growth in Number of Connections
GrowthinConsumption/Conn
GrowthinBillWaterSales
4,908,290
Year0
20,820

20,840

21,257

21,682

22,116

22,558

23,009

23,469

23,939

24,417

24,906 25,055

25,556

26,067

26,589

27,121
Year1
248 252 255 259 263 267 271 275 279 284 288 292 297 301 305 310
Year2
ConsumptionperConn.(cum)
Year3
NumberofConnections
Year4
EnvironmentalFeeStructuring:Therearedifferentpricingmodels.TheapproachdonebyManilaWateristochargeEFsasapercentageofthemonthlywaterbill.Another
approachistochargeanEFperunitvolumeofwaterconsumedandbilled.Thismodelusesthesecondapproach.
Incasethereisnoavailablefigureontarriffincrease,theanalystcanusethetheaverageannualincreaseinthepast5years.Inthetablebelow,itisshownthattarriffsare
expectedtoincreasebyanaverageof3%.
Rulesofthumb: Typically,thewaterserviceoperatorwouldhavemediumtermforecastsofwatervolumesalesandapprovedtariffs.Theseforecastsarederivedfromadditional
connectionsandaverageconsumptionperconnection.TheanalytcanusetheseestimatestoforecasttheEnvironmentalFeesthatcanbecollected.
WORKSHEET 9 FORECASTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEES
102
103
37,199
44
1,632,781
(55,672)
43,634
44
1,915,243
(224,826)
Year4
Year2
2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

Year3
49,110
44
2,155,623
(62,785)
Year8
50,584
44
2,220,292
(64,669)
Year9
52,101
44
2,286,901
(66,609)
Year10
55,274
44
2,426,173
(70,665)
Year12
56,932
44

2,498,958
(72,785)
Year13
58,640
44
2,573,927
(74,969)
Year14
60,400
44

2,651,145
(77,218)
Year15
20,994 21,624 22,273 22,941 23,629

12 12 12 12 12
254,958 262,606 270,484 278,599 286,957
106,052 7,649 7,878 8,115 8,358
53,664
44
2,355,508
(68,607)
Year11
Year5

2,431,013

2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

Year9

2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

Year10

2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

Year11

2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

Year12

2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

Year13

Year15

2,133,333
533,333 533,333

2,666,667 533,333

Year14
40,000,000 48,000,000 48,000,000 48,000,000 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063 60,155,063
36,666,667 40,800,000 36,933,333 33,066,667 38,924,050 33,826,371 28,728,692 23,631,013 18,533,333 15,866,667 13,200,000 10,533,333 7,866,667 5,200,000 2,533,333 2,000,000

2,431,013

2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

Year8
GrossFixedAssets
NetFixedAssets

2,431,013

2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

Year7
3,333,333 3,866,667 3,866,667 3,866,667 6,297,679 5,097,679 5,097,679 5,097,679 5,097,679 2,666,667 2,666,667 2,666,667 2,666,667 2,666,667 2,666,667 533,333
3,333,333 7,200,000 11,066,667 14,933,333 21,231,013 26,328,692 31,426,371 36,524,050 41,621,729 44,288,396 46,955,063 49,621,729 52,288,396 54,955,063 57,621,729 58,155,063

2,431,013
2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

Year6
TotalDepreciationExpenses
AccumulatedDepreciation
1,200,000

2,431,013
2,133,333
533,333

2,666,667

12,155,063
Year4
inputcell
1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 3,631,013 2,431,013 2,431,013 2,431,013 2,431,013
1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000

2,133,333 2,133,333 2,133,333

533,333 533,333

2,133,333 2,666,667 2,666,667
0
15
5
2,000,000

32,000,000 8,000,000
6,000,000
Year1
47,680
44
2,092,838
(60,956)
Year7
TOTAL
Trucks
Trucks1
Trucks2
Trucks3
Trucks4
Trucks5
Trucks6
Trucks7
Trucks8
Trucks9
Trucks10
SpTP
SpTP1
SpTP2
SPTP3
TOTAL
DepreciationYears
Land
SpTP
Trucks
Land
SpTP
Trucks(110)
Year0
46,291
44
2,031,882
(59,181)
Year6
(2,385,816) (82,077) (86,746) (347,058) (68,707) (86,991) (89,470) (92,016) (94,631) (97,316) (1,340) (102,965) (106,054) (109,236) (112,513)
Thetableissimpleenoughforthereader.Justplugintheyearsinthegreencells.Landisnot
d
i d
DepreciationSchedule
44,943
44
1,972,701
(57,457)
Year5
7,527 7,928 9,676 10,141 10,630 11,146 11,689 12,261

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
91,408 96,274 117,506 123,153 129,099 135,361 141,957 148,906
3,475 4,866 21,232 5,646 5,946 6,262 6,596 6,948
38,512
44
1,690,418
(57,637)
Year3
input cell (use latest annual figures)
24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8

1,455,095 1,498,748

891,573 923,045 955,629 1,082,727 1,115,209 1,148,665 1,183,125 1,218,619 1,255,178 1,292,833 1,331,618 1,371,566 1,412,713
(891,573) (31,473) (32,583) (127,099) (32,482) (33,456) (34,460) (35,494) (36,559) (37,655) (38,785) (39,949) (41,147) (42,381) (43,653)
6,823 7,241
12 12
82,866 87,933
82,866 5,067
35,930
44
1,577,109
(1,577,109)
Year2
WORKSHEET 12 CONSTRUCTING DEPRECIATION TABLE
ChangesinCashduetoWorkingCapital

12

24.8

44

DaysInventory
Inventory
Changesinventory
DailyCashOpex
DaysPaybles
AccountsPayable
changesinAP
DailyRevenues
DaysReceivables
AccountsReceivable
changesinAR
Year1
Year1
WorkingCapitalRequirement
24.81
4,985
Inventory
Year0
48,900 134 12.1

1,627
CashOpex
AccountsPayable
WaterDistrictDaysReceivablesandDaysPayables
Value
DailySales/
Days
('000)
DailyOpex
Credit
Revenues
73,327
Receivables
8,818 201 43.9
ForecastingworkingcapitalrequirementisimportantparticularlywhentheWSPhaslimitedcashinitsbalancesheets.Theapproachbelowisto
usetheexistingaveragecollectionsdaysandpayabledaysasguidetothecollectionandpaymentcycleoftheSeptageoperations.Inthecells
below,theactualfiguresoftheWSPareusedtocomputeforthedaysreceivablesandpayablestotrackchangesinARandAP.Thesame
approachisappliedtoforecastinginventory.
WORKSHEET 11 FORECASTING WORKING CAPITAL
104
15
22.45%
10.5%
14
24.80%
10.5%
13
27.40%
10.5%
12
30.27%
10.5%
11
33.44%
10.5%
assumed*
computed
bloomberg(mwc)
MarketRateofReturn
EquityMarketRiskPremium
Beta
computed
pdex.com.ph
SourceofInfo
WeightedAverageCostofCapital(WACC)Assumptions
Rate
RiskFreeRate
10YearTreasuryBills
7.93%
interestonbankloan
10
36.94%
10.5%
9
40.81%
10.5%
8
45.08%
10.5%
10.00%
CostofDebt
*usingDamodaran'srecommendedreturnonemergingmarkets.
14.71%
CostofEquity
16.00%
8.07%
0.84
7
49.80%
10.5%
6
55.02%
10.5%
5
60.78%
10.5%
4
67.14%
10.5%
3
74.17%
10.5%
2
81.94%
10.5%
0.6%
16.0%
AverageGrowthinConnectionsYr11Year30
MaintenanceCapex:Year11Year30(as%ofsales)
AdditionalAssumptions
1.NPV(Year110)
2.NPV(Year1130)
FreeCashFlowafterExplicitPeriod
WACC
LongRunSteadyStateGrowthafterExplicitPeriod
3.ContinuingValue(afterYear30)
TOTALVALUEusingshortmethod
EstimateofPresentValue
A.EstimatedValueusingShortMethod
NPV
FIRR
32,551,373
10.47%
32,551,373
40,080,197
797,765
10.47%
1.5%
8,892,901
81,524,471
1
90.52%
10.5%
0
100%
10.5%
Year
Discount Factor
Discount Rate (TBonds)
(40,000,000) 2,624,056 10,934,708 11,309,554 877,803 12,872,517 13,194,937 13,523,112 13,856,988 14,196,496 14,541,549 11,924,642 12,103,512 12,285,064 12,469,340 12,656,380
(40,000,000) 2,375,339 8,960,086 8,388,860 589,396 7,823,948 7,259,760 6,735,100 6,247,248 5,793,667 5,371,995 3,987,702 3,663,880 3,366,354 3,092,989 2,841,822
Net
PresentValue
Year5
Year4
Year3
Year2
Year1
13,114,612 13,577,558 14,056,846 15,926,406 16,404,198 16,896,324 17,403,214 17,925,310 18,463,070 19,016,962 19,587,471 20,175,095 20,780,348 21,403,758 22,045,871
Year11
1,510
2,628
1,653
1,838
895
6,670
Year10
150
242
404
617
840
2,764
Year9
1,360
1,233
1,370
720
1,123
7,178
Year8
180
280
470
766
1,013
4,249
Year7
590
1,573
1,340
1,418
1,010
50,395
Year6
208
362
562
876
1,232
13,021
18,212
79,930
268,615
213,238
113,895
61,930
92,573
EnvironmentalFees
5,816,290
120
189
329
491
677
1,356
40,000,000 8,000,000

12,155,063

2,490,556 2,642,850 2,747,291 2,893,540 3,531,681 3,701,387 3,880,102 4,068,322 4,266,574 4,475,413 7,662,828 7,892,713 8,129,495 8,373,380 8,624,581
365,872
MonthlyEnvironmental
Fee(Php)
CapitalExpenditures
OperatingExpenses
Year15
GrandTotal
AverageMonthly
WaterBill(Php)
Year0
MonthlyConsumption,AverageWaterBillandEstimatedEnvironmentalFee(EFs)*
Consumption
BilledWater
MonthlyWater
no.of
Bracket
cum/month
Revenues(Php)
subcribers
Residential
010
31,972 556,336 4,652
1120
107,446 1,343,976 7,113
2130
85,295 1,129,445 3,433
3140
45,558 642,817 1,310
4150
24,772 372,487 550
Over50
37,029 657,613 485
subtotal
332,072 4,702,674 17,543
CommA
010
236 10,830 52
1120
629 14,828 41
2130
536 12,370 22
3140
567 14,023 16
4150
404 11,088 9
Over50
20,158 781,233 60
subtotal
22,530 844,372 200
CommB
010
544 18,900 105
1120
493 9,240 33
2130
548 10,808 23
3140
288 6,128 8
4150
449 10,128 10
Over50
2,871 84,983 20
subtotal
5,193 140,187 199
CommC
604 18,450 123
010
1120
1,051 16,451 68
2130
661 10,904 27
3140
735 12,951 21
4150
358 6,721 8
Over50
2,668 63,580 23
subtotal
6,077 129,057 270
Year12
2.50
WORKSHEET 14 ESTIMATE VALUE OF THE ENTERPRISE
EnvironmentalFee
input historical values

Year13
Thissectionshowstheimpactoftheproposedenvironmentalfeeonmonthlywaterbillacrossdifferenttypesof
customers.Thisgivesyouanideahowmuchmoreconsumerswillbepayingonamonthlybasis.
Year14
WORKSHEET 13 EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF EFs ACROSS TYPE OF CUSTOMERS
105
BACK COVER

Business Model For A Water District Septage Management Program

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Business Model For A Water District Septage Management Program

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FRONT

BUSINESS MODEL FOR

BUSINESS MODEL FOR

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

VALUE PROPOSITION AND MARKET ANALYSIS

The service to be offered

ADVOCACY AND SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY: BUILDING LOCAL

ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

Modifications in the organizational structure

BUSINESS MODEL FOR A WATER DISTRICT SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Typical septage characteristics

Information and planning assumptions for

PHILIPPINE WATER REVOLVING FUND SUPPORT PROGRAM

BUSINESS MODEL FOR A WATER DISTRICT SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Biochemical oxygen demand

Total suspended solids

The provision of effective sanitation services is

Five years after the enactment of the Act, many

In 2004, the Philippine Government enacted

PHILIPPINE WATER REVOLVING FUND SUPPORT PROGRAM

The main reason often cited by water utilities

recovery because users are less willing to pay for

Likewise, Maynilad Water Services, Inc.

service. The experiences of these private

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH

OBJECTIVES OF THIS BUSINESS MODEL

Section 15 Article II of the Philippine

BUSINESS MODEL FOR A WATER DISTRICT SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

of water quality or the natural flow of any

or hauling of septage to treatment plants or

~ Prescribe and collect rates and other charges

APPROACH AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

~ Establish, through a Board of Directors

The business model for a septage management

PHILIPPINE WATER REVOLVING FUND SUPPORT PROGRAM

This business model was developed based on

~ Adopt full-cost pricing strategy to sustain

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

Chapter 5 emphasizes the need to conduct

The succeeding chapters provide the

Chapter 6 discusses organizational structure

Chapter 2 describes the service proposed to

Finally, Chapter 7 highlights the need for

~ Take the lead in developing and

The water district will utilize an integrated

Complete. The service will cover a range of

For example, the water district may outsource

Efficient. The service will use a technology

If the water district opts to outsource specific

Regular. The service will be done

MARKET SHARE AND TARGET MARKET

Segmenting the market

PHILIPPINE WATER REVOLVING FUND SUPPORT PROGRAM

regular sludge wastings, during operational

PROJECTING SEPTAGE VOLUME

Although the first approach described above is

be served by the water district. Census data

BUSINESS MODEL FOR A WATER DISTRICT SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

~ Frequency of desludging. The DOH

The working formula used to estimate septage