Benefits

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03.1.
CDM – Executive Board
page 1
CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)
Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006
CONTENTS
A. General description of project activity
B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology
C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period
D. Environmental impacts
E. Stakeholders’ comments
Annexes
Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: Baseline information
Annex 4: Monitoring plan

page 2
SECTION A. General description of project activity
A.1 Title of the project activity:

>>
Cassava Waste To Energy Project, Kalasin, Thailand (CWTE project)
Document Version 04
Date 4 August 2008
A.2. Description of the project activity:

>>
The Cassava Waste To Energy Project (CWTE project) is an improvement of the existing lagoons that
have, for many years, been used to treat wastewater generated from the cassava processing plant of Asia
Modified Starch Co., Ltd. (AMSCO), Kalasin province. AMSCO is a group of cassava processing
facilities located in the same area consisting of a native starch plant, a citric acid plant and a modified
starch plant, with overall capacity to process up to 700 tonnes of cassava root per day. Approximately
5,110 m3 of wastewater is produced each day from AMSCO facilities and is directed into the existing
open anaerobic lagoons which have an overall capacity of 788,700 m3.
The project activity comprises an Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR) which is a high rate anaerobic
wastewater treatment and a biogas recovery system. Operated by Cassava Waste To Energy Co., Ltd.
(CWTE), this new wastewater treatment facility will receive 3 wastewater streams from the native starch
plant, the citric acid plant and the modified starch plant, with an average COD around 13,385 mg/L. ABR
is designed to remove around 90% of the COD prior to release to the existing lagoons.
The recovered methane rich biogas will be channeled back to AMSCO to generate heat and electricity for
its production process. Prior to this project, AMSCO has been consuming approximately 8.8 million
litres of heavy fuel oil per year. The project is expected to supply approximately 7.1 million Nm3 of
biogas per year for heat generation, which can replace approximately 4.2 million litres of heavy fuel oil
per year, and around 1.9 million Nm3 for electricity generation. Any excess biogas will be flared.
The purpose of the project activity can be summarised as:

⇒ Treatment of organic wastewaters from cassava processing;
⇒ Capture of biogas for use in onsite heat and electricity generation;
⇒ Reduction of atmospheric emissions of the greenhouse gas (GHG); and
⇒ Use of the CDM process to offset some of the financial and technical risks associated with the
investments.
The project delivers reductions of anthropogenic GHG emissions in two ways:

(i) Capture and combustion of CH4 which would otherwise result in direct atmospheric emissions
from anaerobic degradation of organic wastewater in an open lagoon system; and
(ii) Displacement of heavy fuel oil for heat generation and displacement of grid electricity in the
cassava processing plants.
page 3
The project can expect to deliver multiple benefits in respect of sustainable development in Thailand,
including:
Environmental benefits
⇒ Reduction of methane emission which is a potent GHG;
⇒ Reduction in the odour and nuisance associated with the old open treatment system;
⇒ Reduction of air pollution such as SO2 and PM10 from displacement of heavy fuel oil with
biogas;
⇒ Improvement of wastewater quality as ABR is design to remove around 90% of the COD in the
wastewater prior to release to the existing lagoons;
⇒ Conservation of groundwater resources from the use of HDPE lining which can prevent
wastewater from contaminating groundwater;
⇒ Reduction in usage of non-renewable energy, i.e. heavy fuel oil and grid electricity generated
mainly from fossil fuel;
Social benefits
⇒ Involvement of local communities through attitude surveys and public participation meeting, in
which most people accepted the project;
⇒ Extended benefits to local communities, including:
o Reduction of health problems and nuisance related to the odour from open lagoon
wastewater treatment system;
o CWTE will be open to local community as a biogas education centre – a request
expressed during the public participation meeting to show how this concept can be
applied to other sources of organic wastewater;
o Increased employment by employing 22 full time staffs to operate the system;
Economic benefits
⇒ Reduction in the dependency on oil imports while at the same time enhancing energy security by
increasing diversity of fuel supply;
⇒ Enhancing competitiveness of cassava processing industry in Thailand which is currently facing
a lot of competitive pressure in the global market;
⇒ Promoting technological excellence and innovation in Thailand by being a clean technology
demonstration project, which could be replicated across Thailand and the region, and by
demonstrating the use of a new financial mechanism for funding of the renewable energy and
waste management sector via the CDM; and
⇒ Building confidence for project developers in agro-industries in the efficacy, cost and safety of
biogas systems as an emerging cassava waste-to-energy technology within the SE Asia region.
page 4
A.3. Project participants:

>>
Kindly indicate if the Party
Name of Party
Private and/or public entity(ies) project involved wishes to be
involved (*) ((host)
participants (*) (as applicable) considered as project
indicates a host
participant (Yes/No)
Party)
Thailand • Cassava Waste To Energy Co., Ltd. No
Japan • Toyota Tsusho Corporation No
• Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc. No
(*) In accordance with the CDM modalities and procedures, at the time of making the CDM-PDD public at the stage of
validation, a Party involved may or may not have provided its approval. At the time of requesting registration, the approval by
the Party(ies) involved is required.
Contact information of each project participant is provided in Annex 1.
A.4. Technical description of the project activity:
A.4.1. Location of the project activity:
A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

>>
The Kingdom of Thailand
A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:

>>
Kalasin Province
A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

>>
Tambol Phontong, Amphur Muang
A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information allowing the

unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):
>>
CWTE project is located in Kalasin province in the northeast of Thailand, approximately 500 km from
Bangkok. The project location is depicted in Figure 1.
Street address: 19 Moo 8 Theenanond Rd., Tambol Phontong, Amphur Muang, Kalasin, 46000
THAILAND
page 5
Figure 1 CWTE Project Location, Kalasin Province, Thailand
CWTE project
A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:

>>
The project falls into sectoral scope 13 - Waste handling and disposal - as defined by the UNFCCC.
A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:

>>
The technology to be employed by the project activity is known as Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR).
The ABR is a compartmentalised, high rate anaerobic reactor that has been shown to be effective in the
treatment of various effluents. A diagram of a simple ABR is shown in Figure 2. In this diagram, the
wastewater influent is directed by a series of alternating hanging and standing baffles under the force of
the pressure head at the influent, causing biomass to be retained by settling in the upflow region of each
compartment. This results in the decoupling of hydraulic and solids retention times. Consequently, a high
concentration of biomass is obtained and high chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal rates can be
achieved. The concentration profiles of organic species in the liquid phase vary considerably across the
length of the reactor resulting in the growth of different bacterial populations in each compartment. The
differing populations increase resistance to variations in feed load, temperature and pH.
page 6
Figure 2 A diagram of a simple ABR
Note: This diagram is used for illustration only and is not the actual design of ABR at CWTE project.
Source: Adapted from KM Foxon, P Dama and CA Buckley, Application of Aquatic Modelling to the Design of an Anaerobic
Baffled Reactor for Peri-urban Sanitation
The key design parameters of the ABR plant at CWTE are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 Key design parameters of ABR treatment plant
Plant size Technical summary Biogas generation

Plant volume: 80,000 m3 Influent COD: 17,000 mg/L Biogas flow 28,000 m3/day or 1,160m3/hr
Flow: 5,700 m3/day max COD removal: 90% Methane content: 60 – 70%
Hydraulic retention time ~ 14 days
The biogas generated from the ABR plant is captured and stored under the high density polyethylene
(HDPE) cover, and is piped back to AMSCO. The project is expected to recover approximately
9.4 million Nm3 of biogas per year, which will be used for onsite heat and electricity generation for the
production process of the cassava plant. Dual fuel burners, which are a relatively new technology to
Thailand, will be installed at these boilers. Prior to this project, AMSCO has been consuming
approximately 8.8 million litres of heavy fuel oil per year to generate heat in its production process. Any
excess biogas will be sent to flare, which is an enclosed flare with a capacity to burn up to 2,000 m3/hr of
biogas. There is no use of fossil fuel in the existing and new wastewater treatment facility.
The effluent from the ABR, which has most of the organic materials removed, is channeled to the
existing lagoons for further treatment. Although AMSCO does not discharge the treated wastewater to
the environment, it is the industry best practice to treat the wastewater to meet the effluent discharge
standard anyway.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate pre-project scenario and aerial photo of existing lagoons, respectively.
page 7
Figure 3 Pre-project Scenario
Fuel Oil
CO2
CO2 CO2
Native Citric Modified

Starch Acid Starch
CH4 CH4 CH4
Series of Open Lagoons

Fuel
Wastewater
Emissions
page 8
Figure 4 Existing lagoons
The dimensions and surface areas of existing lagoons are illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2 Dimensions and surface areas of existing lagoons
Pond Native Starch Modified starch Citric Acid

No. Dimension Surface area Dimension Surface area Dimension Surface area
×m)
(m× (m2) ×m)
(m× (m2) ×m)
(m× (m2)
1 110 × 220 24,200 60 × 60 3,600 30 × 110 3,300
2 110 × 230 25,300 60 × 60 3,600 20 × 110 2,200
3 110 × 220 24,200 60 × 70 4,200 30 × 110 3,300
4 110 × 160 17,600 60 × 80 4,800 60 × 60 3,600
5 110 × 140 15,400 60 × 130 7,800 60 × 60 3,600
6 110 × 140 15,400 50 × 100 5,000 60 × 110 6,600
7 110 × 120 13,200 80 × 80 6,400 (70 × 210) 17,700
+ (30 × 100)
8 - - 60 × 90 5,400 70 × 210 14,700
9 - - 120 × 160 19,200 60 × 210 12,600
Total (m2) 135,300 60,000 67,600
The total surface area of existing lagoons is 262,900 m2 and, with the depth of at least 3 metres, the
capacity of the lagoons is 788,700 m3.
page 9
Figure 5 shows post-project scenario.
Figure 5 Post-project Scenario
Fuel Oil
CO2
CO2 CO2
Native Citric Modified

Starch Acid Starch
biogas
biogas
ABR biogas
CH4
Fuel
Wastewater
Emissions
The treatment plant will be controlled by the Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition system or the
SCADA system, which is a central system that monitors and controls a complete site or a system spread
out over a long distance. Not only will the SCADA system ensure the smooth operation of the treatment
plant, it will also ensure that the necessary data will be monitored and stored according to the CDM
monitoring requirements.
Safety is another priority of the plant. The gas pressure in the pipeline is monitored continuously and
should it drop, due to for example a leak in the pipeline, the blower will stop operating automatically. In
case of electricity outage where the blowers and flaring system will not be operating; the biogas under
the HDPE cover can be released through the manual pressure release valves to prevent any damages to
the system from excessive pressure.
page 10
A.4.4 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:
>>
Years Annual estimation of emission reductions
in tonnes of CO2 e
2008 (2 months) 14,398
2009 87,586
2010 87,586
2011 87,586
2012 87,586
2013 87,586
2014 87,586
2015 87,586
2016 87,586
2017 87,586
2018 (10 months) 73,188
Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 e) 875,857
Total number of crediting years 10
Annual average over the crediting period of
estimated reductions (tones of CO2 e) 87,586
A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

>>
No Annex-I country financial support for this project has been received.
page 11
SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology
B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the
project activity:
>>
− Version 04 of AM0022 – Avoided Wastewater and On-site Energy Use Emissions in the
Industrial Sector
− Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane (agreed during the
Executive Board 28th meeting, no version indicated)
B.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project
activity:
>>
The proposed project activity meets each of the applicability conditions of the methodology, as justified
in the following table.
Applicability conditions Justification

− Project is implemented in existing lagoon-based − AMSCO has been using open lagoons for treating
industrial waste water treatment facilities for the wastewater for many years. The project activity
wastewater with high organic loading. introduces anaerobic treatment facilities in existing
lagoon-based water treatment facilities with high
organic loading from cassava processing plant.
Figure 6 shows part of the existing lagoons at
AMSCO.
− The organic wastewater contains simple organic − The wastewater generated from cassava processing
compounds (mono-saccharides). If the methodology contains mostly of biodegradable compounds and
is used for waste water containing materials not akin that their methane emission factors in this case are
to simple sugars a CH4 emissions factor different equivalent to the factor of simple sugar, as confirmed
from 0.21 kg CH4/kg COD has to be estimated and by wastewater expert from Khon Kaen University.
applied.
− The methodology is applicable only to the − The project activity is the improvement of existing
improvement of existing wastewater treatment wastewater treatment facilities and is not a new built
facilities. It is not applicable for new facilities to be or an extension of current facility. There are 25
built or new build to extend current site capacity. lagoons for treating wastewater from AMSCO
factories with total capacity of 788,700 m3 as shown
in Figure 4 and Table 2. The lagoons was designed
with treatment capacity of 8,460 m3/day which is
higher than the actual wastewater generated of
5,110 m3/day, equivalent to 155 days of retention
time.
− It can be shown that the baseline is the continuation − It is shown in Section B.4 that in the absence of the
of a current lagoon system for managing wastewater. project activity, the most likely baseline scenario is
In particular, the current lagoon based system is in the continuation of a current lagoon system for
full compliance with existing rules and regulations. managing wastewater, which is in full compliance
with existing rules and regulations.
− The depth of the anaerobic lagoons should be at − The depth of the anaerobic lagoons is at least 3 m.
least 1m.
page 12
Applicability conditions Justification

− The temperature of the wastewater in the anaerobic − Thailand is situated in the tropical climate with the
lagoons is always at least 15 °C. average temperature around 30°C. It is unlikely that
temperature at the site will drop below 15 °C.
− In the project, the biogas recovered from the − All the biogas recovered from the anaerobic
anaerobic treatment system is flared and/or used treatment is directed to the boilers to replace fuel oil
onsite for heat and/or power generation, surplus and any surplus biogas is flared. Figure 7 shows the
biogas is flared. existing fuel oil storage tanks at AMSCO.
− Heat and electricity needs per unit input of the water − The main equipment is water pumps which are used
treatment facility remain largely unchanged before both in the lagoons and in the project activities. The
and after the project. total electrical capacity of equipment to be used in
the project is expected to be 0.22 MW while the
power rating used in the baseline is approximately
0.20 MW, so that the electricity needs remain largely
unchanged. No heat is required for wastewater
treatment.
− Data requirements as laid out in the related − Data requirements as laid out in the related
Monitoring Methodology are fulfilled. In particular, Monitoring Methodology will be fulfilled.
organic materials flow into and out of the
considered lagoon based treatment system and the
contribution of different removal processes can be
quantified (measured or estimated).
page 13
Figure 6 Part of the Existing Lagoons at AMSCO

page 14
Figure 7 Existing Fuel Oil Storage Tanks at AMSCO

page 15
B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary
>>
Source Gas Included? Justification
Lagoon-based CO2 No Biogenic CO2 from renewable sources
wastewater treatment CH4 Yes
N2O No Ignored emission, as per AM0022 version 04
Heat generation CO2 Yes
Baseline
(from fossil fuel) CH4 No Negligible – this is conservative.

Electricity CO2 No Omitted since the project proponent does not wish to
generation (from claim emission reduction from displaced grid electricity
fossil fuel) – this is conservative
CH4 No Negligible – this is conservative.
Lagoon-based CO2 No Biogenic CO2 from renewable sources
wastewater treatment CH4 Yes
New anaerobic CO2 No Biogenic CO2 from renewable sources
treatment facility CH4 Yes
Project Activity

Biogas combustion CO2 No Biogenic CO2 from renewable sources
CH4 Yes
Biogas flaring CO2 No Biogenic CO2 from renewable sources
CH4 Yes
Leaks in biogas CO2 No Biogenic CO2 from renewable sources
system CH4 Yes
B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified
baseline scenario:
>>
Baseline Determination
The baseline determination methodology consists of a six-step process in order to define the baseline
scenario and to demonstrate that the continuation of current practices (existing lagoon based waste water
treatment system without biogas use or flaring of the biogas) is the baseline scenario:
Step 1: Listing a range of potential baseline options

Options available to the project participants or similar project developers that provide waste water
disposal services comparable with the proposed CDM project activity include:
Scenario 1 Direct release of wastewaters to a nearby water body;
Scenario 2 Continuation of the current open lagoon system;
Scenario 3 An anaerobic treatment facility without heat/power generation;
page 16
Scenario 4 The proposed anaerobic treatment facility not undertaken as a CDM project activity;
and
Scenario 5 New aerobic wastewater treatment facilities.
Step 2: Selection of the barriers

Barriers that are considered significant in the context of the project activity include:
⇒ Legal;
⇒ Technical;
⇒ Financial;
⇒ Social barrier;
⇒ Business culture; and
⇒ Others.
Legal Barrier
• Does the practice violate any host country laws or regulations or is it not in compliance with
them?
The Notification No.2 of the Thai Ministry of Industry (B.E. 2539) requires effluent discharges into
watercourses to have, inter alia, COD not exceeding 120 mg/L and 5-day BOD not exceeding 20 mg/L
(with an exception to starch plants that 5-day BOD is not to exceed 60 mg/L). Given the high strength
organic wastewater from AMSCO, it will be illegal to release wastewaters directly to a nearby water
body (Scenario 1). The legal barrier is an absolute barrier in the sense that illegal options can not be the
baseline. As such, this alternative will not be further discussed.
However, the Notification does not specify how the wastewater should be treated to achieve its
requirements. AMSCO operates closed water cycle systems1 with no discharges of final effluents to the
aquatic environment, and therefore requires no wastewater discharge permit2. The existing lagoons has
been approved by the Ministry of Industry, and has been inspected by the Ministry of Industry every
year. Moreover, Thailand does not enforce any controls on the emission of CH4 from wastewater
treatment facilities in any sector. Therefore, Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 can achieve the same discharge
standard requirement and would present a legal option.
Potential Baseline Option Does Barriers Description of legal barriers

Exist?
Scenario 1 Direct release of Yes Direct discharge of high organic strength wastewater to a nearby water
wastewaters to a nearby water body is not allowed by Thai law.
body
1
In addition to evaporation, the treated wastewater can also be reused to wash tapioca and to sprinkle the grass field.
2
The design of the lagoons has already taken into account of rainfall. The designed treatment capacity of the lagoons is
8,460 m3/day while the actual wastewater generated was only 5,110 m3/day. This results in excess capacity of 3,360 m3/day or
100,800 m3/month. The 30-year average rainfall in the area of Kalasin province where the project is situated shows that
September has the highest amount of rainfall 221.4 mm within that month
(http://www.tmd.go.th/en/province_stat.php?StationNumber=48390). Given the surface area of the lagoon of 262,900 m2, the
total amount of rainfall into the lagoons in September would be 58,101 m3, which is lower than the excess capacity that the
lagoon has. Thus, the lagoon has enough capacity to prevent overflow due to rainfall.
page 17
Potential Baseline Option Does Barriers Description of legal barriers

Exist?
Scenario 2 Continuation of the No No Thai law exists to drive a certain type of wastewater treatment
current open lagoon system technology for a particular industry.
Scenario 3 An anaerobic No No law exists to drive a certain type of wastewater treatment technology
treatment facility without for a particular industry.
heat/power generation
Scenario 4 The proposed No No law exists to drive a certain type of wastewater treatment technology
anaerobic treatment facility not for a particular industry.
undertaken as a CDM project
activity
Scenario 5 New aerobic No No law exists to drive a certain type of wastewater treatment technology
wastewater treatment facilities for a particular industry.
Technical Barrier
• Is this technology option currently difficult to purchase through local equipment suppliers?
• Are skills and labour to operationalize and maintain this technology in country insufficient?
• Is this technology outside common practice in similar industries in the country?
• Is performance certainty not guaranteed within tolerance limits?
• Is there real, or perceived, technology risk associated with the technology?
Open lagoons, described as Scenario 2, have been used extensively in Thailand and in this region as a
cost effective solution for treating organic wastewater in this tropical climate. Lagoon system is
considered low risk because it does not require any advanced technology and is easy to operate and
maintain.
Covered anaerobic treatment technologies (Scenarios 3 and 4) have been introduced to Thailand for more
than 10 years with supports from the government but there continues to be low confidence amongst
investors in the efficacy and operating costs of anaerobic treatment technologies as it is largely unproven
as yet on a commercial scale in Thailand. The anaerobic system is seen as a high risk with limited
performance guarantee as it requires constant and ongoing precise management of a variety of elements
such as water flows, pH and temperature. Furthermore, neither the technology, nor the requisite skills to
build and operate such systems are generally available locally. All major equipment required for the
operation of the anaerobic digester and the biogas power plant were sources overseas because this
technical capacity was not available in Thailand. Moreover, because this anaerobic digestion technology
is not common in Thailand, there is a lack of skilled manpower to operate and maintain this technology.
As such, CWTE has engaged wastewater treatment experts from overseas to consult on the design of the
system, system start-up, and 1-year training of staff to operate and maintain this technology.
Anaerobic treatment system is considered as high risks because it relies fully on the function of a
biological system that is neither 100% characterised, nor performance guaranteed. The function of the
biological system is sensitive to the changes in the environment, such as changes in chemical
composition, amount of organic load, pH, temperature, etc. These harmful changes can be caused by a
host of problems such as mismanagement of the ABR or mixing pond, improper recycling of the
wastewater or the introduction of chemical agents into the system. This system therefore requires
constant and ongoing precise management of a variety of elements, water flows, pH etc. Overall they are
perceived as a risky solution.
page 18
Scenario 5 aerobic treatment is an alterative waste management choice but is normally associated with
high operating cost with high electricity consumption. Moreover, aerobic treatment systems are often
used to treat low organic load wastewater.
Potential Baseline Option Does Barriers Description of technical barriers

Exist?
Scenario 1 Direct release of NA This option is not legal.
wastewaters to a nearby water
body
Scenario 2 Continuation of the No Open lagoons have been used extensively in Thailand and in this region.
current open lagoon system
Scenario 3 An anaerobic Yes There is clearly a perceived risk of this technology in Thailand. The
treatment facility without equipment and skill labours are not available. There has been no
heat/power generation successful anaerobic treatment plant operated on a fully commercial scale
in Thailand.
Scenario 4 The proposed Yes There is clearly a perceived risk of this technology in Thailand. The
anaerobic treatment facility not equipment and skill labours are not available. There has been no
undertaken as a CDM project successful anaerobic treatment plant operated on a fully commercial scale
activity in Thailand.
Scenario 5 New aerobic Yes Although this might be considered as lower risks compared to anaerobic
wastewater treatment facilities treatment, little of this technology has been employed on a commercial
scale and is not yet seen as a technology of choice in Thailand.
Technology issues are therefore considered a major barrier to the anaerobic scenario, Scenarios 3 and 4,
and mid-range barrier to Scenario 5 aerobic alternative and no barrier to Scenario 2 current pond based
management system.
Financial Barrier
• Is the technology intervention financially less attractive in comparison to other technologies
(taking into account potential subsidies, soft loans or tax windows available)?
• Is equity participation difficult to find locally?
• Is equity participation difficult to find internationally?
• Are site owners/ project beneficiaries carrying any risk?
• Is technology currency (country) denomination a risk?
• Is the proposed project exposed to commercial risk?
Scenario 2, the existing lagoons, does not face any financial barrier because the existing system is
already installed and requires no further investment. The only identifiable cost of the existing lagoons is
the opportunity cost of alternative land use. Once the new wastewater treatment facility is in operation,
AMSCO does not plan to reclaim the land from the existing lagoons, which demonstrates that the
opportunity cost of alternative land use is very low.
Commercial risk represents one barrier that prevent the unfamiliar wastewater treatment technologies to
establish in Thailand and in this region. Cassava products are highly competitive; the plant owners are
reluctant to take on a large investment in unfamiliar technology such as anaerobic treatment system
(Scenarios 3 and 4) or aerobic treatment technology (Scenario 5) because it could put their core business
at risk. It is also difficult to find local entrepreneurs that are willing to assume this commercial risk.
CWTE is financed exclusively by foreign investors who are willing to take on high risk project that result
in GHG emission reductions. Without the expectation of CERs, this project would not have taken place.
page 19
Potential Baseline Option Does Barriers Description of financial barriers

Exist?
body
Scenario 2 Continuation of the No There is no financial barrier for the currently installed or new open
current open lagoon system lagoons.
Scenario 3 An anaerobic Yes There is high perceived commercial risk for an investment in anaerobic
treatment facility without technology in this industrial sector. Moreover, without capturing and
heat/power generation utilising the biogas, it is undeniably financially unattractive.
Scenario 4 The proposed Yes There is high perceived commercial risk for an investment in anaerobic
anaerobic treatment facility not technology in this industrial sector. In this project, CWTE takes all the
undertaken as a CDM project risks. Thus, none is being taken by Thai nationals or by AMSCO.
activity
Scenario 5 New aerobic Yes Similar risks (although perhaps lower) may be observed for aerobic
wastewater treatment facilities treatment.
Financial barriers are perceived to be major barriers to the project scenario of adopting anaerobic
treatment technology (Scenarios 3 and 4) and major barriers to the aerobic waste management alternative
(Scenario 5). Conversely, they do not pose barriers to the continued prevailing practice of pond systems.
Social Barriers
• Is the understanding of the technology low in the host country/industry considered?
Although there are some slight discomforts to local community associated with odour from the lagoons
(Scenario 2) that could happen from time to time, the local community has generally accepted it as the
standard operating practice by commercial entities in Thailand. Scenarios 3 and 4 – anaerobic facilities –
on the other hand, present social barriers of perceived biogas explosion risk, as emerged from the attitude
survey and the public participation meeting. Significant amount of investment in the safety equipment is
required to ensure that the safety risks are minimal.
Potential Baseline Option Does Barriers Description of social barriers

Exist?
body
Scenario 2 Continuation of the No This system has been accepted by the local community as standard
current open lagoon system wastewater treatment solution in the local context.
Scenario 3 An anaerobic Yes There is high perceived risk of unfamiliar technology due to biogas being
treatment facility without generated from this technology.
Scenario 4 The proposed Yes There is high perceived risk of unfamiliar technology, especially with the
anaerobic treatment facility not presence of the recovery and utilisation of biogas.
undertaken as a CDM project
activity
Scenario 5 New aerobic No There is no perceived social barrier of this technology.
wastewater treatment facilities
Social issues are therefore considered a minor barrier to Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 – anaerobic and aerobic
treatment technologies – and no barrier to Scenario 2 current pond based management system.
page 20
Business Culture and Other Barriers

• Is there a reluctance to change to alternative management practices in the absence of regulation?
If industrial facility would like to discharge wastewater outside their facilities, it will have to meet
wastewater effluent standards. Otherwise, there is no specific environmental regulation in Thailand,
which prescribe certain methods of wastewater treatment for certain industry. The main objective of
industrial wastewater treatment is to maintain compliance with local regulation at the lowest cost. For
this reason, the open lagoon system in Scenario 2 has become the standard operating practice in Thailand
and in this region. Energy production as in Scenario 4, which is even more capital intensive and requires
even greater management resources than the simple digestion process, is not a priority. There is little or
no positive experience of utilising aerobic or anaerobic technologies (Scenarios 3, 4 and 5) in a Thai
context, and therefore these are not considered a high management priority.
Furthermore, cash flow is crucial to starch plants for running their business in Thailand. Investment in a
new biogas technology requires large amount of cash investment, which will significantly affect the cash
flow of the starch plant. Unless the benefit for investment in biogas is assured with acceptable payback
period, the owner of starch plant will not take such risky investment.
CDM brings together outside investor who is willing to invest in high-risk projects, competent
technology provider, and the owner of the wastewater stream, and offers an effective solution to this
circumstance. This has become a financial innovation for solving environmental problems that can be
replicated in Thailand and elsewhere.
Such barriers can be confirmed by the study undertaken by the Energy Policy and Planning Office
(EPPO)3 which found that most of cassava starch plants choose to retain wastewater in their open ponds
because of insufficient knowledge / confidence in the technology, high investment cost compared to
cheap land price, the resulting operating cost throughout the treatment life. As such, the Ministry of
Energy then started a pilot demonstration of biogas system in starch industry, in which 9 factories have
been selected and received financial support from the Energy Conservation Promotion Fund (ENCON),
as shown below.
3
Energy Policy and Planning Office, Ministry of Energy, Seminar on the Promotion of Production of Biogas from Wastewater as
an Alternative Energy and for Environmental Improvement, At Ballroom, Sirikit Convention Centre 29 August 2007, pp.46-47,
http://www.thaibiogas.com/book_pdf.php?PDF=Part2.pdf
page 21
Participant Agency Location Technology

1. Eiamburapa Co., Ltd. DEDE Sra Kaew UASB
2. Isan Starch Co., Ltd DEDE Nakorn Ratchsima Cover Lagoon
3. Roi Et Flour Co., Ltd. DIW Roi Et UASB
4. Bangna Tapioca Flour Co., Ltd DIW Kalasin UASB
5. VP Starch (2000) Co., Ltd. DIW Nakorn Ratchasima UASB
6. Chol Charoen Co., Ltd KMUTT Chonburi Fixed Film
7. Chaiyaphum Plant Products Co., Ltd. KMUTT Nakorn Ratchasima Fixed Film
8. Northeastern Starch Co., Ltd. KMUTT Nakorn Ratchasima Fixed Film
9. P.V.D. International Co., Ltd. BAU Nakorn Ratchasima HUASB A+
Source: Energy Policy and Planning Office, Ministry of Energy, Seminar on the Promotion of Production of Biogas from
Wastewater as an Alternative Energy and for Environmental Improvement, At Ballroom, Sirikit Convention Centre 29 August
2007, p.47, http://www.thaibiogas.com/book_pdf.php?PDF=Part2.pdf
Note: UASB = Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket;
HUASB A+ = Hybrid Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (A+ model)
In addition to the above 9 projects that have received financial support from ENCON Fund, there are
other 11 biogas projects being implemented without support from ENCON Fund. These projects need
financial incentives from CDM to overcome the prevailing practice barriers, including:
Project Title Current Status

Korat Waste To Energy Registered
Jiratpattana Biogas Energy Project Under validation process
Chao Khun Agro Biogas Energy Project Under validation process
Kitroongruang Biogas Energy Project Under validation process
Kalasin Wastewater Treatment to Energy Under validation process
Wastewater Treatment with Biogas System (UASB) in a Starch Plant for Energy & Environment Under validation process
Wastewater Treatment with Biogas System (AFFR) in a Starch Plant for Energy & Environment Under validation process
Conservation at Chachoengsao
Cassava Waste To Energy Project, Kalasin, Thailand (CWTE project) [this project] Under validation process
Siam Quality Starch Wastewater Treatment and Energy Generation Project in Chaiyaphum, Under validation process
Thailand
Northeastern Starch (1987) Co., Ltd. -- LPG Fuel Switching Project Under validation process
CYY Biopower Wastewater treatment plant including biogas reuse for thermal oil replacement Under validation process
and electricity generation Project, Thailand
Source: UNFCCC website as of 22 November 2007
From the evidence shown above, it is conclusive that an anaerobic wastewater treatment system with
methane recovery, Scenario 4, is not a common practice in cassava processing industry in Thailand due
to insufficient knowledge / confidence, and the high investment cost compared to open lagoons. Those
plants that have implemented the biogas system either received financial support from the ENCON Fund,
or they have to seek financial support from CDM.
Potential Baseline Option Does Barriers Description of business culture barriers

Exist?
body
Scenario 2 Continuation of the No This technology is an accepted technology and continued operation of
current open lagoon system existing facilities presents no real barriers.
Scenario 3 An anaerobic Yes There is insufficient knowledge / confidence.
page 22
treatment facility without

Scenario 4 The proposed Yes There is insufficient knowledge / confidence, and the high investment cost
anaerobic treatment facility not of biogas system compared to open lagoons. Those plants that have
undertaken as a CDM project implemented the biogas system either received financial support from the
activity ENCON Fund, or they have to seek financial support from CDM.
Scenario 5 New aerobic Yes There is no experience of implementing such technologies in the Thai
wastewater treatment facilities context.
Business culture issues are considered a significant barrier to anaerobic treatment technologies and no
barrier to the current pond based management system.
Step 3: Score the barrier.
release to nearby water

Plausible Baseline Alternative
project not undertaken

Scenario 3 Anaerobic
Scenario 4 Proposed
treatment without
Scenario 1 Direct
aerobic treatment
Scenario 5 New
Continuation of
current lagoons
Scenario 2
as CDM
body
Barrier Tested
Legal Y N N N N
Technical NA* N Y Y Y
Financial NA* N Y Y Y
Social NA* N Y Y N
Business Culture NA* N Y Y Y
Key – Y: barrier exists; N: barrier does not exist; NA: question is not relevant
* The legal barrier is an absolute barrier in the sense that illegal options can not be the baseline. Since the direct release to nearby
water body is illegal, no further assessment of this option is carried out.
Step 4: Compare and determine the baseline option.

The barrier analysis has clearly shown that there are no barriers that prevent AMSCO from continuing
the current practice which is, from its perspective, the most financially and logistically viable option. The
most significant barrier for undertaking the high-rate wastewater treatment option is the business culture
due to insufficient knowledge / confidence in this technology together with very high capital investment
to convert from open lagoon systems. Financial risks also present significant barriers for investing in any
new wastewater treatment facilities.
Step 5: Investment Analysis

Since only one most plausible baseline option can be identified, this investment analysis is not
applicable.
Step 6: Conclusion
This analysis confirms that the continuation of the current open lagoon system is the most plausible
baseline option.
page 23
B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below
those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment
and demonstration of additionality):
>>
As per the methodology, if the baseline determination demonstrates that the baseline is different from the
proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity, it may be concluded that the project
is additional.
Section B.4 above demonstrates that the most plausible baseline option is the continuation of the current
open lagoon system, and the project is, therefore, additional.4
B.6. Emission reductions:
B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:

>>
The project emissions are calculated using equation (1) to equation (7) of AM0022, and equation (13)
and equation (15) of the tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane.
These equations are denoted as equation (f13) and (f15) in the calculation below. Equation (1) to
equation (12), and equation (14) of this tool are omitted because are used to determine flare efficiency in
enclosed flaring, while project uses enclosed flare and a default value for flare efficiency of 90% is used.
The baseline emissions are determined from equation (8) to equation (11) of AM0022. Since AM0022
does not provide separate equation for calculating baseline methane emission from lagoons, equation (2),
(3), (5) and (6) are repeated, and are denoted as equation (2a), (3a), (5a) and (6a) to distinguish them
from equations to calculate the project emissions. Where it is important to distinguish the baseline
parameters in these equations from the project emission parameter, a subscript BL is added to indicate a
baseline parameter. Since the project proponent does not wish to claim emission reduction from
displacement of grid electricity, equation (10) is omitted.
There is no calculation of leakage, since it is considered to be negligible, as per AM0022.
The emission reductions are calculated in equation (12). The integrity of the calculation is confirmed
using equation (13) of AM0022.
All inputs into each equation and the result of each calculation are shown in tabulated format and in a
transparent manner so as to enable the reader to reproduce the calculation.
4
As per the guideline for completing the PDD, if the starting date of the project activity is before the date of validation, evidence
shall be provided that the incentive from the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity.
It can be shown from the Energy Supply and Purchase Agreement between CWTE and AMSCO made on Jan 11, 2006 (which is
before start date of the project 23 Jan 2006) that the incentive from the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to
proceed with the project activity. In addition, the following press releases from Toyota Tusho and TEPCO - the
major shareholders of CWTE have shown that CDM has been considered at the start of the project.
http://test.toyotsu.co.jp/press/en/20060208_2pasttoyotsu.cfm
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/06020801-e.html
page 24
B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:

(Copy this table for each data and parameter)
Data / Parameter: EFCH4

Data unit: kg CH4/kg COD
Description: Default COD to methane conversion factor
Source of data used: AM0022 (IPCC, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, page 5.16)
Value applied: 0.21
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment: In fact, the stoichiometric conversion factor for simple sugar molecules to
methane is 0.25 kg CH4/kg COD (IPCC 1996 Reference Manual, p.6.20), so
this default value is conservative.
Data / Parameter: Arealagoon

Data unit: m2
Description: Surface area of existing lagoons
Source of data used: AMSCO
Value applied:
Lagoon Pond surface area
2
m
Native starch (N) 135,300
Citric acid (CA) 67,600
Modified starch (M) 60,000
Total 262,900
*conversion factor 10,000 m2 = 1 hectare
Justification of the These values were estimated from the aerial photo as shown in Figure 4 and
choice of data or Table 2.
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
page 25
Data / Parameter: Rlagoon, Rlagoon_BL

Data unit: -
Description: Total organic material removal ratio of the lagoon
Source of data used: Calculated from actual data prior to project implementation – See Annex 3 for
details
Value applied: 96.2% (for conservativeness)
COD input Treated COD Rlagoon

Native 16,026,828 137,469 99.1%
Citric Acid 6,704,983 42,000 99.4%
Modified 816,750 31,386 96.2%
Justification of the As per the methodology, the organic removal ratio is calculated by undertaking
choice of data or a series of chemical analyses on the lagoon site. A series of Chemical Oxygen
description of Demand samples should be taken at the inlet point to the lagoon system, or
measurement methods wherever the wastewater enters the system boundaries. In parallel, a series of
and procedures COD samples should be taken at the point of exit from the lagoon system or
actually applied : system boundaries. To be conservative, the lowest value of the 3 streams has
been applied.
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Raerobic, Raerobic_BL

Data unit: kg COD/hectare/day
Description: Aerobic degradation ratio of the lagoon.
Source of data used: AM0022
Value applied: 254
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Rdeposition, Rdeposition_BL

Data unit: %
Description: Organic material deposition ratio of the lagoon.
Source of data used: Calculated from laboratory test result from Khon Kaen University
Value applied: 2.5
Justification of the The laboratory test result is project specific project derived by assessing the
choice of data or relative ability of COD in the waste water stream to sediment undigested in the
description of project boundaries.
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: DCH4

page 26
Data unit: kg/Nm3

Description: Density of methane at normal conditions
Source of data used: Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane (EB
28)
Value applied: 0.716
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment: Volume of CH4 is standardised at 0°C and 1atm.
Data / Parameter: CVCH4

Data unit: MJ/Nm3
Description: Calorific value of methane
Source of data used: Standard enthalpy change for the combustion of methane = -890.4 kJ/mol
Value applied: 39.7
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment: Volume of CH4 is standardised at 0°C and 1atm.
Data / Parameter: EFfueloil

Data unit: t CO2e/TJ
Description: Emission factor of fuel oil
Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Table 2.4
Value applied: 77.4
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: ηflare,on

Data unit: -
Description: Flare combustion efficiency if the temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare
(Tflare) is above 500 °C for more than 40 minutes during the hour h and the
manufacturer’s specifications on proper operation of the flare are met
continuously during the hour h.
Source of data used: Tool to determine project emissions from flaring p.10 for enclosed flaring
page 27
Value applied: 90%

choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: ηflare,half

Data unit: -
(Tflare) is above 500 °C for more than 40 minutes during the hour h but the
manufacturer’s specifications on proper operation of the flare are not met at
any point in time during the hour h.
Value applied: 50%
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: ηflare,off

Data unit: -
(Tflare) is below 500 °C for more than 20 minutes during the hour h .
Value applied: 0%
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures
actually applied :
Any comment:
B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

>>
Total Project emissions:
Eproject = ECH4_lagoons + ECH4_NAWTF + ECH4_IC+Leaks (1)
Where:
page 28
Eproject are the Total Project Emissions (t CO2e)

ECH4_lagoons are the fugitive methane emissions from lagoons from equations 2 (t CO2e)
ECH4_NAWTF are the fugitive methane emissions from the new anaerobic waste water treatment facility
(t CO2e)
ECH4_IC+leaks are the methane emissions from inefficient combustion and leaks (t CO2e)
ECH4_lagoons ECH4_NAWTF ECH4_IC+Leaks Eproject

t CO2e/year t CO2e/year t CO2e/year t CO2e/year
0 0 852 852
Note that there is no use of fossil fuel in the project activity (ie. in the wastewater treatment facility).
Fugitive Methane Emissions from Lagoons are:

ECH4_lagoons = Mlagoon_anaerobic ⋅ EFCH4⋅ GWPCH4/1000 (2)
Where:
ECH4_lagoons is the methane emissions from the lagoons (t CO2e)
Mlagoon_anaerobic is the amount of organic material removed by anaerobic processes in the lagoon system
(kg COD)
EFCH4 is the methane emission factor (kg CH4 / kg COD). A default COD to Methane
conversion factor of 0.21 kg CH4/kgCOD is used5. If the methodology is used for waste
water containing materials not akin to simple sugars a CH4, a different emissions factor
different has to be estimated and applied. Where a metric for organic wastewater flows
other than COD is to be applied, the developer should set out the case for a relevant
carbon emission factor.
GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane (GWPCH4 = 21)
Mlagoon_anearobic EFCH4 GWPCH4 ECH4_lagoons

kg COD/year kg CH4/kg COD t CO2e/t CH4 t CO2e/year
0 0.21 21 0
Mlagoon_ anaerobic = Mlagoon _ total −Mlagoon_ aerobic − Mlagoon _ chemical _ ox −Mlagoon _ deposition (3)
Where:
Mlagoon_total is the total amount of organic material removed in the lagoon system from equation 5 (kg
COD)
Mlagoon_aerobic is the amount of organic material degraded aerobically in the lagoon system (kg COD).
Surface aerobic losses of organic material in pond based systems equal to 254 kg COD
per hectare of pond surface area and per day is assumed to be lost through aerobic
5
Source: IPCC, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
page 5.16.
page 29
processes. Where other more project specific losses can be determined, these should be
applied.
Mlagoon_chemical_ox is the amount of organic material lost through chemical oxidation in the lagoon system
(kg COD)
Mlagoon_deposition is the amount of organic material lost through deposition in the lagoon system from
equation 6 (kg COD)
Mlagoon_total Mlagoon_aerobic Mlagoon_chem_ox Mlagoon_deposition* Mlagoon_anearobic

kg COD/year kg COD/year kg COD/year kg COD/year kg COD/year
2,059,726 2,006,175 0 53,551 0
*Note that Mlagoon_deposition is calculated using equation 6 below.
Mlagoon_ aerobic = Arealagoons * Raerobic
Where:
Mlagoon_aerobic is the amount of organic material degraded aerobically in the lagoon system (kg COD).
Surface aerobic losses of organic material in pond based systems equal to 254 kg COD
per hectare of pond surface area and per day is assumed to be lost through aerobic
processes. Where other more project specific losses can be determined, these should be
applied.
Arealagoons is the pond surface area
Raerobic is the Aerobic Decomposition of COD at lagoon surfaces
Arealagoons Conversion Raerobic Mlagoon_aerobic*

2 2
m m /hectare kg COD/ha/day kg COD/year
262,900 10,000 254 2,069,308
*Note that Mlagoon_aerobic cannot exceed Mlagoon_total - Mlagoon_deposition
Project Organic Material Entering Lagoon System from New Anaerobic Water Treatment System, based
on the design of 90% COD removal, is:
Mlagoon_ input = Minput _ total · (1− RNAWTF) (4)
Where:
Mlagoon_input is the input of organic material from the new project anaerobic waste water treatment
facility into the lagoon system (kg COD)
Minput_total is the total amount of organic material fed into the new project water treatment facility
(kg COD)
RNAWTF is the total organic material removal efficiency of the new project water treatment facility
(-). It is a project specific factor used to estimate how much COD will be removed from
the system. The most appropriate manner to estimate this factor is to undertake pilot
plant trials with a pilot scale digester system prior to project implementation. Where this
is not possible, manufacturer’s estimates as to equipment removal efficiencies may be
applied. This factor will be used to determine estimates of COD flows to the project
lagoon system, and the related monitoring methodology (AM0022 “Avoided Wastewater
page 30
and On-site Energy Use Emissions in the Industrial Sector”) sets out how the actual
amount of COD can be monitored to allow calculation of actual project emissions.
Minput_total RNAWTF Mlagoon_input

kg COD/year % kg COD/year
21,420,390 90% 2,142,039
Sources of
Vinput_total CODinput_total Operating days Minput_total
Wastewater
3
m /d mg O2/l days/year kg COD/year
N1 3,000 15,000 300 13,500,000
N2 500 7,500 300 1,125,000
CA1 280 25,000 348 2,436,000
CA2 500 17,000 348 2,958,000
CA3 280 6,000 348 584,640
M 550 4,500 330 816,750
Total 21,420,390
Note: N = Native starch, CA = Citric acid and M = Modified starch.
Total material removed in lagoon system is:

Mlagoon_ total = Mlagoon _ input · Rlagoon (5)
Where:
Mlagoon_total is the total amount of organic material removed in the lagoon system through various
routes (kg COD)
Rlagoon is the total organic material removal ratio of the lagoon (-). It is a project specific factor,
and is equal to the proportion of organic material removed (through all routes) within the
boundaries of the lagoon system under consideration. This factor should be determined
by carrying out a series of biochemical tests prior to project implementation. These tests
will determine the COD flows into the system, and the COD flows out of the system at
the system boundary. The relative difference of COD flowing in and out of the system
over a period of time will allow determination of the Total Organic Material Removal
Ratio.
Mlagoon_input Rlagoon* Mlagoon_total

2,142,039 96.2% 2,059,726
*Rlagoon = Rlagoon_BL
Material Deposition in Lagoon System is:

Mlagoon_ deposition = Mlagoon _ input · Rdeposition (6)
Where:
Rdeposition is the organic material deposition ratio of the lagoon. It is equal to the proportion of
organic material physically sedimented in lagoons within the project boundaries. It is a
page 31
project specific factor derived by assessing the relative ability of COD in the waste water
stream to sediment in the project boundaries, through pre project analysis.
Mlagoon_input Rdeposition Mlagoon_deposition

2,142,039 2.50% 53,551
Methane emissions from new anaerobic waste water treatment facility

The new anaerobic wastewater treatment facility is operating in a closed system so there expects to be no
methane emission from this system. All the organic material input/output and biogas generation will be
monitored to ensure that all the biogas generated will be captured and utilised.
Methane emissions from Inefficient Combustion Emissions

The combustion of biogas methane may give rise to significant methane emissions as a result of
incomplete or inefficient combustion. The three predominant potential routes for the destruction of
methane are:
• Biogas flaring;
• Biogas use in heating systems;
• Biogas use for on site electricity generation.
This methane should be quantified through equation 7.

ECH4_IC+Leaks = ( ∑V
r
r ⋅ CCH4_r ⋅ (1 – fr) ⋅ GWPCH4) + PEflare (7)
Where:
the sum is made over two routes r for methane destruction (heating and power generation);
Vr is the biogas combustion process volume in route r (Nm3)
CCH4_r is the methane concentration in biogas (tCH4/Nm3) to be measured on wet basis
fr is the proportion of biogas destroyed by combustion (-)
PEflare are the project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream (tCO2e) calculated
following the procedures described in the “Tool to determine project emissions from
flaring gases containing Methane”.
Biogas will be routed for heat and electricity generation. Any excess biogas will be flared.
Biogas
combustion Proportion Vr CCH4* fr** GWPCH4 ECH4_IC
3
t CH4/Nm
3
Nm biogas % t CO2e /t CH4 tCO2e/year
Heating 75% 6,896,915 0.00043 99.50% 21 311
Power 20% 1,839,177 0.00043 99.50% 21 83
Flare 5% 459,794 0.00043 90.00% 21 458
Total 100% 9,195,887 852
*assume % methane in biogas = 60% and density of CH4 = 0.7154 kg/Nm3 (IPCC 1996 Reference Manual p1.124)
**IPCC 1996 Reference Manual Table 1-6
page 32
Methane emissions from Flaring

Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream are calculated based on the flare efficiency and
the mass flow rate of methane in the residual gas stream that is flared. In this project, an enclosed flare
will be used for flaring of the residual gas stream. As per the guideline, the default value of 90% for flare
efficiency is to be used. Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream are determined as
follows:
TMRG,h = FVRG,h * fvCH4,RG,h * ρCH4,n (f13)
Where
TMRG,h Mass flow rate of methane in the residual gas in the hour h
FVRG,h Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas in dry basis at normal conditions in hour h
fvCH4,RG,h Volumetric fraction of methane in the residual gas on dry basis in hour h (NB: this
corresponds to fvi,RG,h where i refers to methane).
ρCH4,n Density of methane at normal conditions (0.7154 kg/m3)
FVRG,h fvCH4,RG,h ρCH4,n TMRG,h

3 3
m /h - kg/m kg/h
58.01 60% 0.716 24.92
8760
GWPCH 4
PE flare , y = ∑ TM RG ,h × (1 − η flare ,h ) × (f15)
h =1 1000
Where
PEflare,y Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in year y
TMRG,h Mass flow rate of methane in the residual gas in the hour h
ηflare,h Flare efficiency in the hour h
GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential of methane valid for the commitment period
Flare detected ηflare,h tflare TMRG,h GWPCH4 PEflare,y

- - kg/h t CO2e/t CH4 t CO2e/year
Detected 90% 100% 24.92 21 458
half efficiency 50% 0% 24.92 21 0
Not detected 0% 0% 24.92 21 0
458
Methane Emissions from Leaks in Biogas System

Leaks in the biogas system include leaks from any anaerobic digester and leaks from the biogas pipeline
delivery system. Leaks in the biogas pipeline delivery system is estimated to be zero since the pipelines
are short (i.e., less than 2 km, and for on site delivery only), though it will be monitored to determine
materiality.
page 33
Methane emissions from the ABR are expected to be zero in this project. Because the ABR is being
operated effectively under sub atmospheric pressures, it is reasonable to expect that air will actually be
sucked in as opposed to biogas leaking out. There is no storage of biogas after blowers before
consumption. Wxcess biogas will be sent directly to flare. Any direct vent of CH4 will be monitored and
accounted for in the project emission when flare temperature is lower than 500°C. Nonetheless, leaks
from the biogas transporting pipeline will be monitored.
MCH4_coll LCH4 GWPCH4 ECH4_Leaks

t CH4/year % t CO2e/t CH4 tCO2e/year
3,947 0% 21 0
Total Baseline Emissions:
EBL = ECH4_lagoons_BL + ECO2_heat_BL + ECO2_power_BL (8)
Where:
EBL are the Total Baseline Emissions (t CO2e)
ECH4_lagoons_BL are the fugitive methane emissions from lagoons in the baseline case (t CO2e). They are
calculated with baseline data based on equation 2 in the section on project emissions.
ECO2_heat _BL are the CO2 emissions from on site fossil heat generation in the baseline case (t CO2) that are
displaced by generation based on biogas collected in the anaerobic treatment facility.
ECO2_grid_BL are the CO2 emissions related to electricity supplied by the grid in the baseline case
(t CO2) that are displaced by generation based on biogas collected in the anaerobic
treatment facility.
ECH4_lagoons_BL ECO2_heat _BL ECO2_power_BL EBL

t CO2e/year t CO2e/year t CO2e/year t CO2e/year
75,729 12,709 0 88,438
On Site Heat Generation Emissions displaced by generation based on biogas collected in the
anaerobic treatment facility
In calculating CO2 emissions from on site heat displaced by biogas collected in the anaerobic treatment,
the use of fossil fuels is considered:
ECO2_heat_BL = F ⋅NCV ⋅ EF (9)
Where:
F is the corresponding amount of fossil fuel displaced by the use of biogas for the
generation of on site heat (unit). This is estimated as product of :(1) Average specific fuel
consumption for the output of the facility, estimated using 3 years historical data; and (2)
the annual production.
page 34
NCV is the net calorific value of the fossil fuel considered (TJ/unit). Site specific local NCV
values should be applied where available; however, should this information not be
available, IPCC data may suffice for that specific country.
EF is the carbon emission factor of the fossil fuel considered (t CO2/TJ).
The captured biogas will be combusted in steam and hot oil boilers to generate heat for the drying
process of the starch factory. In the absence of the project activity, the starch factory would have to burn
fuel oil to generate the same amount of heat energy. The baseline emission from combustion of fuel is
shown in the following table.
Vr_heating PCH4 CVCH4* Heat Energy EFfueloil ECO2_heat

3 3
Nm /year % MJ/Nm MJ/year tCO2e/TJ tCO2e/year
6,891,135 60% 39.71 164,199,473 77.400 12,709
* Standard enthalpy change for the combustion of methane = -890.4 kJ/mol, Molar mass of CH4 = 16.04 g, density = 0.7154
kg/Nm3
On site and/or off site Grid Power Generation Emissions displaced by generation based on biogas
collected in the anaerobic treatment facility
For displaced electricity generated off site different quantification processes for carbon emission factors
(CEF) may be applied:
• Sub 15MW Generation: Where the project will have sub 15MW of installed capacity the small
scale procedures for sub 15MW electricity generation for export to a grid, as set out by the
CDM Executive Board, may be applied (under 1D, Renewable Energy Projects for a Grid).
• 15MW+ Generation: Where the project will have more than 15MW of installed capacity the
approved consolidated methodology ACM0002 should be applied.
Displaced electricity CO2 emissions are:

ECO2_power_BL = EL ⋅ CEF (10)
Where:
EL is the amount of electricity displaced by the electricity generated from the biogas
collected from the anaerobic treatment facility. This is estimated as product of :(1)
Average specific electricity consumption for the output of the facility, estimated using 3
years historical data; and (2) the annual production .
CEF is the carbon emission factor for the electricity displaced by the electricity generated
from the biogas. If in the baseline situation only one source of power is used (onsite
production or grid), then apply the corresponding carbon emission factor. If the two
sources are used in the baseline situation, apply the lowest among (i) carbon emission
factor of the grid as discussed above (t CO2e/MWh) and (ii) carbon emission factor of the
on site electricity generation equipment displaced (tCO2e/MWh).
Although the project activity will generates electricity that will displace grid electricity, the project
proponent does not wish to claim emission reduction from the displacement of grid electricity, so
ECO2_grid = 0
page 35
Baseline Organic Material Entering Lagoon System from New Anaerobic Water Treatment System is:
Mlagoon_input_BL = Minput_total (11)
Where:
Mlagoon_input_BL is the input of organic material from the new project anaerobic waste water treatment
facility into the lagoon system (kg COD)
Minput_total is the total amount of organic material fed into the baseline water treatment facility (kg
COD). It is the same amount as fed into the project water treatment facility.
Minput_total Mlagoon_input_BL
kg COD/year kg COD/year
21,420,390 21,420,390
Fugitive Baseline Methane Emissions from Lagoons are:

ECH4_lagoons_BL = Mlagoon_anaerobic_BL ⋅ EFCH4⋅ GWPCH4/1000 (2a)
Where:
ECH4_lagoons_BL is the methane emissions from the lagoons in the baseline (tCO2e)
Mlagoon_anaerobic_BL is the amount of organic material removed by anaerobic processes in the lagoon
system in the baseline (kg COD)
EFCH4 is the methane emission factor (kg CH4 / kg COD). A default COD to Methane
conversion factor of 0.21kg CH4/kgCOD is used. If the methodology is used for waste
water containing materials not akin to simple sugars a CH4, a different emissions
factor different has to be estimated and applied. Where a metric for organic
wastewater flows other than COD is to be applied, the developer should set out the
case for a relevant carbon emission factor.
GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane (GWPCH4 = 21)
Mlagoon_anearobic_BL EFCH4 GWPCH4 ECH4_lagoons_BL

kg COD/year kg CH4/kg COD t CO2e/t CH4 t CO2e/year
17,172,057 0.21 21 75,729
Mlagoon_ anaerobic_BL = Mlagoon _ total −Mlagoon_ aerobic − Mlagoon _ chemical _ ox −Mlagoon _ deposition (3a)
Where:
Mlagoon_total_BL is the total amount of organic material removed in the lagoon system from equation 5
(kg COD)
Mlagoon_aerobic_BL is the amount of organic material degraded aerobically in the lagoon system (kg
COD). Surface aerobic losses of organic material in pond based systems equal to 254
kg COD per hectare of pond surface area and per day is assumed to be lost through
aerobic processes. Where other more project specific losses can be determined, these
should be applied.
page 36
Mlagoon_chemical_ox_BL is the amount of organic material lost through chemical oxidation in the lagoon
system (kg COD)
Mlagoon_deposition_BL is the amount of organic material lost through deposition in the lagoon system from
equation 6 (kg COD)
Mlagoon_total_BL Mlagoon_aerobic_BL Mlagoon_chem_ox_BL Mlagoon_deposition_BL Mlagoon_anearobic_BL

kg COD/year kg COD/year kg COD/year kg COD/year kg COD/year
20,597,261 2,437,346 452,348 535,510 17,172,057
The amount of organic material lost through chemical oxidation in the lagoon system is estimated from
the following equation:
Mlagoon_ chem_ox = Qsulphate * Rlagoon_chem_ox
Qsulphate* Rlagoon_chem_ox Mlagoon_chem_ox

kg/year kg COD/kg sulphate kg COD/year
694,851 0.651 452,348
* Calculation provided in Annex 3
Total material removed in lagoon system in the baseline is:

Mlagoon_ total_BL = Mlagoon _ input_BL · Rlagoon_BL (5a)
Where:
Mlagoon_total_BL is the total amount of organic material removed in the lagoon system in the baseline
through various routes (kg COD)
Rlagoon_BL is the total organic material removal ratio of the lagoon (-) in the baseline. It is a project
specific factor, and is equal to the proportion of organic material removed (through all
routes) within the boundaries of the lagoon system under consideration. This factor
should be determined by carrying out a series of biochemical tests prior to project
implementation. These tests will determine the COD flows into the system, and the COD
flows out of the system at the system boundary. The relative difference of COD flowing
in and out of the system over a period of time will allow determination of the Total
Organic Material Removal Ratio.
Mlagoon_input_BL Rlagoon_BL* Mlagoon_total_BL

21,420,390 96.2% 20,597,261
*Rlagoon_BL is calculated based on the total COD input (816,750 kg COD/year) and total COD of the treated wastewater in the last
pond (31,386 kg COD/year) in the baseline scenario of the modified starch plant which has the lowest value among the 3 systems
for conservativeness.
page 37
Material Deposition in Lagoon System in the Baseline is:

Mlagoon_ deposition_BL = Mlagoon _ input_BL · Rdeposition_BL (6a)
Where:
Rdeposition_BL is the organic material deposition ratio of the lagoon in the baseline. It is equal to the
proportion of organic material physically sedimented in lagoons within the project
boundaries. It is a project specific factor derived by assessing the relative ability of COD
in the waste water stream to sediment in the project boundaries, through pre project
analysis.
Mlagoon_input_BL Rdeposition_BL* Mlagoon_deposition_BL

21,420,390 2.50% 535,510
Leakage
Leakage is considered to be negligible.
Emission Reductions
Emission reductions, ER (t CO2e) are calculated as the difference between baseline (equation 8) and
project (equation 1) emissions (see equation 12 below). Leakage is considered to be negligible.
ER = EBL – Eproject (12)
EBL Eproject ER
t CO2e/year tCO2e/year t CO2e/year
88,438 852 87,586
Nevertheless it has to be verified that this equation delivers a conservative estimate of emission
reductions i.e. that the emissions of CH4 from the lagoons in the baseline situation are not higher than the
total emissions of biogas from the digester and the lagoons in the project situation. Therefore calculate:
ECH4_lagoon_BL – (ECH4_lagoon + ECH4_NAWTF + ECH4_coll) (13)
Where:
ECH4_coll is the amount of methane expressed in (tCO2e) contained in the biogas collected from the
anaerobic treatment facility (i.e. the sum of the biogas sent to heaters, the biogas sent to
the gen sets and the biogas sent to the flare)
If this difference is positive, it has to be deducted from the result obtained through the equation (12) in
order to obtain the final estimation of the emissions reductions. The equation (13) test from the applied
methodology AM0022 Version 04 is to be conducted during verification.
page 38
Emission
ECH4_lagoons_BL ECH4_lagoons ECH4_NAWTF ECH4_coll discrepancy
t CO2e/year t CO2e/year t CO2e/year t CO2e/year t CO2e/year
75,729 0 0 82,892 -7,163
B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

>>
Year Estimation of project Estimation of Estimation of Estimation of overall
activity emissions baseline emissions leakage (tonnes of emission reductions
(tonnes of CO2e) (tonnes of CO2e) CO2e) (tonnes of CO2e)
2008 140 14,538 0 14,398
2009 852 88,438 0 87,586
2010 852 88,438 0 87,586
2011 852 88,438 0 87,586
2012 852 88,438 0 87,586
2013 852 88,438 0 87,586
2014 852 88,438 0 87,586
2015 852 88,438 0 87,586
2016 852 88,438 0 87,586
2017 852 88,438 0 87,586
2018 712 73,900 0 73,188
Total (tonnes
of CO2 e) 8,522 884,378 0 875,857
B.7 Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:
B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:

(Copy this table for each data and parameter)
Data / Parameter: Vinput_total

Data unit: m3/day
Description: Wastewater flows entering project treatment facility
Source of data to be Direct measurement
used:
Value of data applied 5,110
for the purpose of
calculating expected Source of COD Volume
3
emission reductions in m /day
N1 3,000
section B.6 N2 500
CA1 280
CA2 500
CA3 280
M1 550
Total/average 5,110
Source of information: AMSCO, N=Native starch plant; CA=Citric acid plant; and
M=Modified starch plant.
page 39
Description of Wastewater flows entering project treatment facility shall be measured

measurement methods continuously using flow meter. Since all 3 wastewater streams have the same
and procedures to be characteristics, and the most conservative value of the pond has been chosen,
applied: thus it is possible to monitor wastewater flow as a single parameter.
Recording frequency Continuously
QA/QC procedures to Flow meters should be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to
be applied: ensure accuracy
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Vlagoon_input

Data unit: m3/day
Description: Wastewater flows leaving project treatment facility
used:
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.6
Description of Wastewater flows leaving project treatment facility shall be measured
measurement methods continuously using flow meter.
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Flow meters should be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to
be applied: ensure accuracy
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: CODinput_total

Data unit: kg COD/m3
Description: Wastewater organic material concentration entering the project boundary.
Source of data to be Laboratory testing
used:
for the purpose of
calculating expected Operating
emission reductions in Source of COD Volume COD days COD input
3
m /day mg/L days/year kg/year
section B.6 N1 3,000 15,000 300 13,500,000
N2 500 7,500 300 1,125,000
CA1 280 25,000 348 2,436,000
CA2 500 17,000 348 2,958,000
CA3 280 6,000 348 584,640
M1 550 4,500 330 816,750
Total/average 5,110 13,385 313 21,420,390
Description of COD should be measured daily and composite sample is preferred to single
page 40
measurement methods sample to obtain the most representative COD value. Samples should be stored
and procedures to be in a refrigerator before being taken to the laboratory for analysis.
applied:
Recording frequency Daily
QA/QC procedures to COD should be sampled frequently, and cross checked by tests carried out by
be applied: accredited laboratory each week.
Any comment: Indicator of baseline wastewater methane emissions. Organic material
concentration can be sampled on site, but off-site analysis by an accredited lab is
recommended.
Data / Parameter: CODlagoon_input

Data unit: mg O2/L
Description: Wastewater organic material concentration leaving the treatment facility.
used:
for the purpose of (assume 90% COD removal from ABR plant design)
section B.6
Description of COD should be measured daily and composite sample is preferred to single
measurement methods sample to obtain the most representative COD value. Samples should be stored
and procedures to be in a refrigerator before being taken to the laboratory for analysis.
applied:
Recording frequency Daily
QA/QC procedures to COD should be sampled frequently, and cross checked by tests carried out by
be applied: accredited laboratory each week.
Any comment: Indicator of baseline wastewater methane emissions. Organic material
concentration can be sampled on site, but off-site analysis by an accredited lab is
recommended.
Data / Parameter: Vr_heating

Data unit: Nm3
Description: Volume of biogas sent to boilers
used:
Value of data applied 6,891,135
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of Biogas flow will be measured using orifice plate metering devices in all systems.
measurement methods The meter will be calibrated on installation. In general, orifice plate meters can
and procedures to be provide a level of data accuracy of +/-5%. Ultrasonic meters can provide high
applied: levels of accuracy (+/-2.5%), but a significantly higher capital cost.
page 41
QA/QC procedures to Biogas meters should be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to
be applied: ensure accuracy. Where erroneous meter readings are encountered, specialist
contractors will be employed to recalibrate meters.
Any comment: Volume in Nm3, normalised to take into account pressure and temperature.
Data / Parameter: Vr_power

Data unit: Nm3
Description: Volume of biogas sent for electricity generation
used:
for the purpose of
section B.6
Data / Parameter: -
Data unit: dm3/year
Description: Fossil fuel volume equivalent to generate the same amount of heat generated
from the biogas collected in the anaerobic treatment facility
Source of data to be Calculation
used:
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of This is calculated from Vr_heating * PCH4 * CVCH4 / CVfueloil
measurement methods
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
page 42
Any comment: The biogas collected from the new anaerobic wastewater treatment facility will
partially replace fuel oil in the existing boilers through the installation of dual
fuel burner. Baseline emission from combustion of displaced fuel oil can be
calculated directly by multiplying the amount of heat generated from the biogas
(TJ) by the emission factor of fossil fuel (t CO2/TJ).
Data / Parameter: Vr_flare

Data unit: Nm3
Description: Volume of biogas sent to flare
used:
for the purpose of
section B.6
Data / Parameter: Tflare

Data unit: °C
Description: Temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare
Source of data to be Measurements by project participants
used:
Value of data applied Above 500°C
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of Measure the temperature of the exhaust gas stream in the flare by a Type N
measurement methods thermocouple. A temperature above 500 ºC indicates that a significant amount of
and procedures to be gases are still being burnt and that the flare is operating.
applied:
Recording frequency Continuously.
QA/QC procedures to Thermocouples should be replaced or calibrated every year.
be applied:
Any comment: An excessively high temperature at the sampling point (above 700 ºC) may be an
indication that the flare is not being adequately operated or that its capacity is
not adequate to the actual flow.
page 43
Data / Parameter: PCH4

Data unit: %
Description: Biogas methane concentration
used:
Value of data applied 60%
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of Continuously readings of the CH4 content of the biogas will be made, most likely
measurement methods employing specialist contractors equipped with a gas analyzer probe. These
and procedures to be devices can generally achieve accuracy up to +/-2.5%, depending on calibration
applied: frequency. Gas analysis a using chromatography can provide more accurate
results, but is technically more challenging, and more costly.
QA/QC procedures to Biogas methane concentration should be measured by near infrared spectrometry
be applied: or other quantitative process. The equipment will be calibrated via span check
using fresh air to set zero CH4 and using regulated CH4 span gas to span CH4
reading. The calibration activity is recommended to be checked every 6-12
months in accordance with the equipment manual.
Any comment: Measured by near infrared spectrometry (extremely accurate).
Data / Parameter: PEflare,y

Data unit: t CO2e/year
Description: Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream
used:
Value of data applied 458
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of
measurement methods
applied:
Recording frequency
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment: The parameters used for determining the project emissions from flaring of the
residual gas stream (PEflare,y) should be monitored as per the “Tool to determine
project emissions from flaring gases containing methane”.
Data / Parameter: Rlagoon_chemical_ox

page 44
Data unit: kg COD/kg sulphate

Description: Amount of chemical oxidising agents entering system boundary
Source of data to be Laboratory analysis
used:
Value of data applied 0.651
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of An analysis must be carried out to determine firstly whether there are oxidative
measurement methods chemical species in the wastewater. The most likely chemical species that may
and procedures to be be present is the sulphate ion (SO42-) from use in the process of sulphuric acid.
applied: This chemical species will oxidise organic material, and reduce chemical oxygen
demand. While determining the chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater, a
parallel series of test must be carried out to determine the presence and
concentration of any oxidative chemicals, such as sulphate using recognised best
practice conditions by qualified personnel.
Recording frequency Continuously, but in practice daily analysis using composite samples should be
acceptable
QA/QC procedures to Regular samples will test for concentration of oxidising agents where they are
be applied: identified as being likely to be present in waste water when they are part of the
process (i.e. sulphuric acid).
Any comment: Chemical oxidising agents, such as sulphates, are not expected to be added to the
wastewater stream at CWTE. In the event that chemical oxidising agents are
added, however, the amount of oxidising agent and its oxidising potential will be
recorded. From this information, COD losses will be calculated and the
emissions reductions adjusted accordingly.
Data / Parameter: fcombustion

Data unit: %
Description: Heating system combustion efficiency
Source of data to be On-site measurement
used:
Value of data applied 99.5%
for the purpose of (IPCC 1996 Table 1-6)
section B.6
Description of The CH4 combustion efficiency may be determined based on a stack gas analysis
measurement methods using calibrated analyzers.
applied:
Recording frequency During regular O&M cycle (minimum of annually)
QA/QC procedures to Check the consistency of the measurements by comparing the measurement
be applied: results with measurements from previous years, relevant data sources (e.g. values
in the literature, values used in the national GHG inventory) and default values
page 45
by the IPCC. If the measurement results differ significantly from previous

measurements or other relevant data sources, conduct additional measurements.
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: fvi,h

Data unit: -
Description: Volumetric fraction of component i in the residual gas in the hour h where i =
CH4, CO, CO2, O2,H2, N2
Source of data to be Measurements by project participants using a continuous gas analyser
used:
for the purpose of (for i = CH4 only)
section B.6
Description of Ensure that the same basis (dry or wet) is considered for this measurement and
measurement methods the measurement of the volumetric flow rate of the residual gas (FVRG,h) when
and procedures to be the residual gas temperature exceeds 60 ºC
applied: Monitoring frequency: Continuously. Values to be averaged hourly or at a
shorter time interval

QA/QC procedures to Analysers must be periodically calibrated according to the manufacturer’s
be applied: recommendation. A zero check and a typical value check should be performed by
comparison with a standard certified gas.
Any comment: As a simplified approach, project participants may only measure the methane
content of the residual gas and consider the remaining part as N2.
Data / Parameter: FVRG,h

Data unit: m3/h
Description: Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas in dry basis at normal conditions in the
hour h
Source of data to be Measurements by project participants using a flow meter
used:
for the purpose of (estimated value, based on the target working days of the starch plant of 330 out
calculating expected of 365 days)
section B.6
Description of Ensure that the same basis (dry or wet) is considered for this measurement and
measurement methods the measurement of volumetric fraction of all components in the residual gas
and procedures to be (fvi,h) when the residual gas temperature exceeds 60 ºC
applied: Monitoring frequency: Continuously. Values to be averaged hourly or at a
shorter time interval

page 46
QA/QC procedures to Flow meters are to be periodically calibrated according to the manufacturer’s
be applied: recommendation.
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: -
Data unit: -
Description: Indication that the flare operates within the range of operating conditions
according to the manufacturer’s specifications during the hour h.
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of Flame is detected using a UV sensor.
measurement methods
applied:
Recording frequency Every 20 minutes when flare operates.
QA/QC procedures to Flare will operate automatically including flame ignition when it detects gas
be applied: pressure more than 5 millibar. However, if the flame is not detected, the flare gas
valve will be closed automatically. This parameter is recorded as a double check
that the automatic sensing operates properly.
Any comment: Only applicable in case of use of a default value
Data / Parameter: Other flare operation parameters

Data unit: -
Description: This should include all data and parameters that are required to monitor whether
the flare operates within the range of operating conditions according to the
manufacturer’s specifications.
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of
measurement methods
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment: Only applicable in case of use of a default value
page 47
Data / Parameter: fheating

Data unit: %
Description: Heating system combustion efficiency
used:
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of The measurement should be undertaken according to the internally accepted
measurement methods standard.
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Gen set combustion efficiency should be determined during regular O&M down
be applied: time and as part of the regular O&M schedule. This should be a minimum of
annually. This can be cross-checked with the IPCC default value.
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: fpower

Data unit: %
Description: Gen set combustion efficiency
used:
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of The measurement should be undertaken according to the internally accepted
measurement methods standard.
applied:
QA/QC procedures to Gen set combustion efficiency should be determined during regular O&M down
be applied: time and as part of the regular O&M schedule. This should be a minimum of
annually. This can be cross-checked with the IPCC default value.
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: LCH4

Data unit: %
Description: Loss of biogas from pipeline
Source of data to be Direct measurement at 2 points, from the biogas plant blower and at AMSCO
used: facility, receiving and utilising the biogas
page 48

for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of Integrity of biogas pipeline for losses of biogas methane will be tested annually
measurement methods through pressurising the system and establishing pressure drops through leakage.
and procedures to be Estimates can also be inferred through system mass balance (i.e. estimation of
applied: the theoretical methane production and the quantity of power generated)
Recording frequency Annually
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: -
Data unit: t COD/year
Description: Organic material removed from wastewater facility
used:
for the purpose of
section B.6
Description of The amount of organic material removed from wastewater facility is calculated
measurement methods from the difference between the amount of organic material entering the system
and procedures to be boundary (Vinput_total * CODinput_total) and the organic material leaving the system
applied: boundary (Vlagoon_input * CODlagoon_input).
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment: Removals of COD after monitoring and prior to entry to the lagoon system
should be recorded to ensure CH4 emissions are not overestimated. This maybe
material screened out after the wastewater concentration is recorded.
Data / Parameter: CVbiogas

Data unit: MJ/Nm3
Description: Calorific value of biogas at 0°C and 1atm
used:
for the purpose of (from 39.7 MJ/Nm3 CH4 and 60% CH4 content in the biogas at 0°C and 1 atm)
section B.6
page 49
Description of
measurement methods
applied:
QA/QC procedures to The measurement should be carried out to international standards.
be applied:
Any comment: Volume of biogas is standardised at 0°C and 1atm.
B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan:

>>
The Plant Manager of CWTE will take sole responsibility of monitoring all the parameters required with
the help of the Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The SCADA system is a
central system that monitors and controls a complete site or a system spread out over a long distance.
Not only will the SCADA system ensure the smooth operation of the treatment plant, it will also ensure
that the necessary data will be monitored and stored according to the CDM monitoring requirements.
The monitored data of such parameters as wastewater flows, biogas flows, methane contents, will be
continuously and automatically stored on to the server by an automatic data logger. However, there are
some other parameters that are logged into electronic format by hand by CWTE staff, such as COD,
amount of oxidising agents, etc. In this case, there might be scope for input errors. Analysis of trend data
will provide an opportunity to identify anomalous results, and the taking of appropriate corrective action
to maintain data quality. All the documentation of input data, such as laboratory analysis of COD,
oxidising agents or biogas calorific values shall be kept for recheck. Coordination of basic training
procedures for operational staff is also essential so that they are able to fulfill the requirements the
proposed monitoring plan, taking into account the QA/QC issues highlighted above.
All the data should be backed up on to other media (CD-ROM, floppy disk) at regular intervals to
prevent data losses. CWTE has also developed procedures for project performance review, procedure for
corrective actions to improve future monitoring and reporting before submitted for verification.
B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology
and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies)
>>
The application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology has been completed on 23/07/2007.
The name of the responsible person and contact address are shown below.
Wichet Phothiwisutwathee
ERM-Siam, Co Ltd
17th floor, Wave Place Building
Wireless Road, Lumpini, Pathumwan
Bangkok 10330
Thailand
ERM-Siam, Co Ltd is not a “project participant” as listed in Annex 1.

page 50
SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period
C.1 Duration of the project activity:
C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:

>>
The construction contract, i.e. the real implementation of the project, started on 23 January 2006.
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:

>>
12 years 0 month.
C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information:
Fixed crediting period.
C.2.1. Renewable crediting period
Not applicable.
C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period:

>>
Not applicable.
C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:

>>
Not applicable.
C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:
C.2.2.1. Starting date:

>>
01/11/2008 or the project’s registration date whichever is later.
C.2.2.2. Length:
>>
10 years 0 month.
page 51
SECTION D. Environmental impacts

>>
D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary

impacts:
>>
Although an approval of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report is not required by Thai laws
for this type of project, the project participants have undertaken an Initial Environmental Evaluation
(IEE) in accordance with the draft Guideline for Preparing Initial Environmental Evaluation Report of
CDM Project in Thailand developed by the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and
Planning (ONEP) dated August 2005. This analysis of the environmental impacts ensures minimum
impacts on the environment and proposes any mitigation measures if such impacts are significant. The
IEE report has been submitted to ONEP together with this PDD in March 2007.
The analysis of environmental impacts of the project activities was undertaken in comparison of the
impacts of the old anaerobic lagoon system. Three aspects of environmental impacts were identified as a
result of the wastewater treatment operation, which are:
• Odour – since the new wastewater treatment system operates in a closed system, undesirable
odour will be significantly reduced;
• Wastewater pollution – the new wastewater system can remove more than 90% of organic
matter in the wastewater so that environmental impacts of possible overflow during the rainy
season or of groundwater contamination will be significantly reduced. Since the ABR system is
constructed using HDPE lining, its impacts on groundwater contamination will be as well
significantly reduced;
• Safety – since biogas will be captured and stored, the issue of gas safety becomes a concern.
However, the risk of any explosion will be very unlikely because the biogas, once leaked from its
storage, will disperse quickly upward and will not build up near to the ground surface. Moreover,
the amount of gas stored will be minimal since it will constantly be sent to the starch plant. The
biogas will be flared when the plant is operating. Nonetheless, to avoid any risk of fire, no matter
how unlikely, ignition sources, including smoking in the proximity of the biogas plant must be
strictly prohibited.
Overall, there appear to be no significant negative impacts the new wastewater treatment operation
compared with the old system. Most environmental aspects are expected to improve after implementing
the ABR system. Although gas safety can have negative impacts, its impacts are not significant since
biogas will not be stored in large amount and the risks of explosion or fire are very unlikely.
D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host
Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental
impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party:
>>
The environmental impacts are considered not significant.
page 52
SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments

>>
E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:
>>
The process by which comments by local stakeholders was received is through meetings with the
community leaders, an attitude survey and a public participation event.
Meetings with the community leaders

Meetings with the community leader were organised in the local villages on the following date and time.
• 22 November 2006, morning session – Phontong relevant community leaders; and
• 22 November 2006, evening session – Phai relevant community leaders.
Participants to the meetings were the heads of villages in the project’s sensitive area. The main activities
during the meeting include:
• Project introduction;
• Presentation about biogas generation technology;
• Questions and answers; and
• Attitude survey using questionnaire.
Attitude survey
In addition to the meetings, additional door-knocking attitude survey was also conducted. A brief
summary of wastewater treatment system and biogas was introduced to the respondents prior to asking
the questions and filling in the questionnaire forms.
The target areas for attitude survey were drawn from the villages within the sensitive area. The sensitive
area is defined as the area within 3 km from the project site, as this area was most likely to be affected by
the project’s operation. Figure 8 shows the villages that lie within 3 km of the project site, encircled by
the red line.
page 53
Figure 8 Villages within 3 km of the Project Site
Moo 1
Ban Nong Phon Moo 9
Moo 6
Ban Non Thong
Ban Rueng Na Kae
Moo 4
Ban Kham Mek
Moo 6
Ban Huai Si Thon Moo 3
Ban Khok Nam Kliang
Project Site
Moo 8
Ban Mo Din Daeng
Moo 7
Ban Phontong
Moo 9
Ban Ham Hae
Moo 2
Ban Phontong
Moo 1
Ban Ham Hae
Note: Moo is Thai word for “village”
The sampling size was determined based on a 95% confidence interval. A total sampling size of 307 was
taken, which accounted for approximately 20% of the total number of households, as provided in Table
3.
page 54
Table 3 Sampling Size by Village
Sub-district Villages Households

• Phontong • Moo 1 Ban Ham Hae 169
• Moo 2 Ban Phontong 178
• Moo 3 Ban Khok Nam Kliang 124
• Moo 6 Ban Huai Si Thon 171
• Moo 7 Ban Phontong 212
• Moo 8 Ban Mo Din Daeng 101
• Moo 9 Ban Ham Hae 74
• Phai • Moo 1 Ban Nong Phon 113
• Moo 4 Ban Kham Mek 175
• Moo 6 Ban Rueng Na Kae 107
• Moo 9 Ban Non Thong 70
Total 1,494
Target sampling size 307
Note: Moo is Thai word for “village”
Public participation event

The public participation event was conducted at Pailin Hotel, Kalasin, on Friday 15 December 2006,
9.00-13.00. There were 37 participants taken part in the event from various organisations as shown in
Table 4. A few selected pictures at the public participation event at Pailin Hotel are shown in Figure 9.
Table 4 List of Participating Organisations at the Public Participation Event
Organisation Number of
participants
Kalasin Irrigation Project 2
Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Work, Kalasin Municipality Office 1
Kalasin Provincial Office of Electricity Authority 1
Kalasin Provincial Office 1
Kalasin Provincial Office of Waterworks Authority 1
Kalasin Provincial Industry Office 1
Phontong Sub-district Administrative Organisation 1
Phai Sub-district Administrative Organisation 3
Phontong community leaders 7
Phai community leaders 2
Phontong Health Centre 1
Nong Phon Health Centre (Phai Sub-district) 1
Schools 6
AMSCO 2
CWTE 3
Clean THAI 1
ERM 3
Total 37
page 55
Figure 9 Public Participation Event at Pailin Hotel, 15th December 2006
The main objectives of the public participation event are:

• To show the results of the attitude survey;
• To disseminate information about biogas and its production process;
• To demonstrate the project’s safety system; and
• To receive further recommendations and to respond on the issues of public concerns.
E.2. Summary of the comments received:

>>
Comments received questionnaire attitude surveys were consolidated and summarised below.
• Number of respondents: 307
• 73% agreed with the project activity, where 24% provided no comment
page 56
• Risk of the biogas leakage and explosion was the main rationale of negative responses (3%)
• Most respondents believed the project would benefit them and their families through reduction in
nuisance odour (54%), village and environmental development (38%) and benefits as an
alternative energy (10%)
The issues of concerns from the participants during the public participation event, and responses from
CWTE had been summarised and shown in the following table.
Issues Responses
Would the project be able to deliver CWTE confirmed that the odour would be significantly reduced after the
a reduction of nuisance odour? project has been in operation for a few months.
Would the farmers be able to use of The treated water could be used to water the plants since the water is rich
treated wastewater? in plant nutrient.*
Were the fish in the post-treatment The fish in the post-treatment ponds were kept as an indicator showing
ponds edible? the level of its contamination. It was not recommended that the fish in
the post-treatment ponds be taken as food.
How the sampling size was The attitude survey’s sampling size accounted for around 20% of the total
calculated and what was the number of households in the project’s adjacent area. The sampling size
associated level of confidence? had been calculated based on a 95% confidence interval.
How would CWTE get rid of the The plastic cover, which was made of HDPE, can be recycled after the
plastic cover after 10-year of its end of its useful life.
useful life?
How would CWTE make sure that CWTE confirmed that the operation and safety system were the best
the operation of the biogas plant is practice, which included:
safe? - Hour-to-hour use of the biogas produced, otherwise the gas will
be flared;
- If the blower does not work, the biogas in the covered system will
be automatically released;
- It is impossible that an explosion occurred in under the cover
since the biogas could never ignite without oxygen; and
- There will be 26 of project staff working 3 shifts, 24/7, and the
system is scheduled to be checked on an hourly basis.
* The treated wastewater can potentially be distributed to local farmers, but in practice, it is confirmed that no treated wastewater
is to be provided to farmers, or to be discharged outside the plant.
Other recommendations obtained from the participants included:

• More public relations, including the knowledge about biogas, its advantages and disadvantages;
• The local communities were very interested in the biogas technology and requested that CWTE
be opened for local communities to learn more about biogas technology and its application in
smaller scale; and
• Warning system, as part of the project safety procedure, may benefit not only the staff but also
the local villagers.
E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:
>>
As explained in the environmental impact assessment section above, the risk of explosion is unlikely
because when there is a gas leak, the leaked biogas will disperse quickly upward into the atmosphere as it
page 57
is lighter than air. Since, methane will not build up above the ground surface, the resulting chance of a
gas explosion, therefore, does not appear possible.
Nonetheless, to reduce all the possibilities of fire, the following measures must be undertaken.
• Ignition sources, including smoking in the proximity of the biogas plant, are strictly prohibited. A
warning sign should be made and affixed at the biogas storage area. Such warning signs might
read, for example, ‘no-smoking, matches or open flames’, or ‘flammable gas, keep fire away’;
• All staff working at the biogas plant shall receive adequate training on fire safety;
• CWTE shall set up a routine check to ensure no leakage of biogas; and
• CWTE shall supply sufficient fire fighting equipment located within the plant area and maintain
them in good condition.
page 58
Annex 1
CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY
Organization: Cassava Waste To Energy Co., Ltd.

Street/P.O.Box: 313 Silom Road
Building: C.P. Tower, 25th Floor
City: Bangrak, Bangkok
State/Region: -
Postfix/ZIP: 10500
Country: Thailand
Telephone: +662 638 2038
FAX: +662 638 2030
E-Mail: -
URL: -
Represented by: Mr. Tatsunori Kaiden
Title: Managing Director
Salutation: Mr.
Last Name: Kaiden
Middle Name: -
First Name: Tatsunori
Department: -
Mobile: +668 9204 3051
Direct FAX: +662 638 2030 ext. 105
Direct tel: +662 638 2038
Personal E-Mail: tkaiden@cassava-wte.com
page 59
Organization: Toyota Tsusho Corporation

Street/P.O.Box: 4-9-8 Meieki, Nakamura-ku
Building: Century Toyota Bldg
City: Nagoya
State/Region: Aichi
Postfix/ZIP: 450-8575
Country: Japan
Telephone: +81-52-584-5000
FAX:
E-Mail:
URL: http://www.toyota-tsusho.com
Represented by:
Title:
Salutation: MR.
Last Name: Tomoichi
Middle Name:
First Name: Yamaguchi
Department: Energy
Mobile:
Direct FAX: +81-3-5288-2574
Direct tel: +81-3-5288-9082
Personal E-Mail: tomoichi_yamaguchi@toyota-tsusho.com
page 60
Organization: The Tokyo Electric Power Company, Incorporated

Street/P.O.Box: 1-3 Uchisaiwai-cho 1-Chome
Building:
City: Chiyoda-ku
State/Region: Tokyo
Postfix/ZIP: 100-8560
Country: Japan
Telephone: 81-3-4216-1111
FAX: 81-3-3504-1570
E-Mail: carbonteam@tepco.co.jp
URL: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html
Represented by: Ikuo Nishimura
Title: Group manager, International Environmental Business Group
Salutation: Mr.
Last Name: Nishimura
Middle Name: -
First Name: Ikuo
Department: Environment Department
Mobile:
Direct FAX: 81-3-3504-1570
Direct tel: 81-3-4216-6369
Personal E-Mail: ikuo.nishimura@tepco.co.jp
page 61
Annex 2
INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING
No Annex-I country financial support for this project has been received.
page 62
Annex 3
BASELINE INFORMATION
Parameter Symbol Value Unit Source Note

Parameters known at validation
Global warming potential of GWPCH4 21 t CO2e/t CH4 IPCC
Methane
Methane emission factor EFCH4 0.21 kg CH4/kg AM0022 For organic
from wastewater COD wastewater contains
simple organic
compounds (mono-
saccharides)
2
Surface area of open Arealagoons 262,900 m AMSCO
lagoons
2
Area unit conversion factor CFarea 10,000 m /hectare
Organic removal aerobic Raerobic 254 kg AM0022
degradation ratio COD/hectare
/day
Organic material Rdeposition 2.50% - Report by Khon Kaen University:
deposition ratio Evalulation Organic Material Deposition
Ratio of Wastewater Treatment
Lagoons of Asia Modified Starch Co.,
Ltd.
Baseline organic material Rdeposition_BL 2.50% - Report by Khon Kaen University:
deposition ratio Evalulation Organic Material Deposition
Ratio of Wastewater Treatment
Lagoons of Asia Modified Starch Co.,
Ltd.
3
Density of methane DCH4 0.716 kg/Nm Tool to Normal condition at
determine 0°C and 1 atm
project
emissions
from flaring
gases
containing
methane (EB
28)
3
Calorific value of methane CVCH4 39.7 MJ/Nm Standard enthalpy change for the
combustion of methane = -890.4
kJ/mol, Molar mass of methane = 16.04
g
Emission factor of fuel oil EFfueloil 77.4 tCO2e/TJ IPCC 2006 Table 2.4
Calorific value of fuel oil CVfueloil 39.8 MJ/Litre DEDE 2004 Thailand Energy Report
Baseline total organic Rlagoon_BL 96.2% - Calculated see Used the value of
material removal ratio of below the modified starch
the lagoon plant which is
smallest for
conservativeness
Total organic material Rlagoon 96.2% - Calculated R_lagoon = R_lagoon_BL
removal ratio of the lagoon
2
Surface area of open Arealagoons_BL 262,900 m AMSCO
lagoons in the baseline
Baseline organic removal Raerobic_BL 254 kg AM0022
aerobic degradation ratio COD/hectare
/day
page 63

Flare efficiency in the hour ηflare,h,on 90% - Tool to determine project emissions
h when T_flare is more from flaring p.10 for enclosed flaring
than 500C more than 40
minutes and manufacturer
specification is met
Flare efficiency in the hour ηflare,h,half 50% - Tool to determine project emissions
h when T_flare is more from flaring p.10 for enclosed flaring
minutes but manufacturer
specification is not met
Flare efficiency in the hour ηflare,h,off 0% - Tool to determine project emissions
h when T_flare is lower from flaring p.10 for enclosed flaring
minutes and manufacturer
specification is met
Flare efficiency in the hour Rlagoon_chem_ox 0.651 kg COD/kg AM0022
h when flare is not sulphate
detected for more than 20
minutes
Parameters to be monitored
3
COD of wastewater CODinput_total 13,385 g O2/m Calculated based on AMSCO
influent into NAWTF information
3
COD of wastewater CODlagoon_inpu 1,338 g O2/m Calculated from 90% COD removal
effluent from NAWTF into t
lagoon
3
COD of wastewater after CODfinal 51 g O2/m Calculated COD_final =
lagoon treatment COD_lagoon_input * (1 – R_lagoon)
Organic removal efficiency RNAWTF 90.0% - Plant design
of NAWTF parameter
Wastewater flows entering
3
project treatment facility Vinput_total 5,110 m /day AMSCO historical data
Organic material removed
from wastewater facility - 19,278 t COD/year Calculated
Amount of oxidising agent Qsulphate 694,851 kg/year Based on laboratory result
(sulphate)
Mass of total methane MCH4_coll 3,947 tCH4/year Calculated
generated
3
Volume of biogas Vr_total 9,188,181 Nm Calculated
3
Volume of biogas used for Vr_heating 6,891,135 Nm Calculated – to
heating be measured
3
Volume of biogas used for Vr_power 1,837,636 Nm No power
power generation generation
3
Volume of biogas sent to Vr_flare 459,409 Nm Calculated – to
flare be measured
Gas leak in pipe LCH4 0.0% - Leaks in pipe are expected to be zero
since the pipes are short.
Methane emission from ECH4_NAWTF 0 t CO2e/year NAWTF is operating at sub
new wastewater treatment atmospheric pressure. Emission is
facility expected to be zero
Methane content in biogas PCH4 60.0% - Plant design parameter, lower bound
Amount of fuel oil - 4,128,727 Litre/year Calculated
displaced
Time t 330 days/year Based on starch plant expected
operating days
Fraction of biogas used for rheating 75% - Estimated based on total operating
heating days
page 64

Fraction of biogas used for rpower 20% - There is no plan to use biogas for
power generation power generation
Fraction of biogas sent to rflare 5% - Estimated based on total operating
flare days 330 days per year
3
Volumetric flow rate of FVRG,h 58.01 m /h Estimated based on total operating
residual gas in dry basis at days 330 days per year
normal conditions in the
hour h
Heating system
combustion efficiency fheating 99.5% - IPCC 1996 Table 1-6
Gen set combustion
efficiency fpower 99.5% - IPCC 1996 Table 1-6
Proportion of time that flare tflare,on 100% - Flare operation is automated
is detected
Proportion of time that flare tflare,off 0% - Flare operation is automated
is not detected
The calculation of Rlagoon is described below. As per the methodology, the organic removal ratio is
calculated by undertaking a series of chemical analyses on the lagoon site. A series of Chemical Oxygen
Demand samples should be taken at the inlet point to the lagoon system, or wherever the wastewater
enters the system boundaries. In parallel, a series of COD samples should be taken at the point of exit
from the lagoon system or system boundaries.
Baseline COD Input into Existing Lagoons

COD N1 N2 CA1 CA2 CA3 M1
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
10/26/2006 19,548 177 n/a 7,850 296 4,500
10/19/2006 16,464 196 n/a 5,668 787
10/12/2006 22,108 163 67,462 6,421 1,528
10/5/2006 15,417 305 58,003 8,700 595
9/28/2006 17,985 n/a 58,140 6,357 n/a
9/21/2006 7,788 n/a 65,633 5,242 914
9/14/2006 36,211 n/a n/a 5,314 693
9/7/2006 11,145 217 58,000 7,588 n/a
8/31/2006 10,467 n/a 58,490 7,003 n/a
8/24/2006 15,901 n/a 98,406 8,108 n/a
8/17/2006 21,450 n/a 29,434 5,484 1,387
8/10/2006 18,915 496 36,605 6,849 1,700
8/3/2006 14,342 n/a n/a 8,080 1,064
7/27/2006 23,462 290 49,632 15,040 1,158
7/20/2006 17,706 186 18,164 10,074 481
7/13/2006 16,000 200 n/a n/a 264
7/6/2006 17,136 184 n/a n/a n/a
Average 17,767 241 54,361 7,585 906 4,500
Volume (m3/day) 3,000 500 280 500 280 550
Operating days 300 300 348 348 348 330
COD input (kg/year) 15,990,618 36,210 5,296,918 1,319,825 88,240 816,750
Total COD input (kg/year) 23,548,561
Source of information: AMSCO, provided by CWTE. Note that actual data for modified starch is not available in the same period
and has been estimated from previous data. The variation in this data will not result in changes in the Rlagoon value since it
constitutes a very small proportion of total organic compound.
Note that the high fluctuation of the COD value might be the result of several factors, such as:
• The difference in raw material. Some batch of the raw material is cleaner than others - thus The COD would be lower
than others.
page 65
• There are different grades of the products. in The higher quality of The product, more water is required for The washing
process.
• The point of sampling is outdoor and the sample could be diluted by rain.
Since the starch plant does not discharge any wastewater from the existing lagoons, the COD sample of
the final ponds will be used as if it is the sampling point of exit from the lagoon system.
COD in last pond Native Citric Acid Modified

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Average 131 114 173
10/30/2006 50 151 235

11/6/2006 67 137
11/13/2006 117 168 218
11/27/2006 134 117 369
12/4/2006 39 27 29
12/11/2006 168 101 201
12/19/2006 168 101 335
1/8/2007 135 118 118
1/22/2007 168 67 135
1/29/2007 202 152 152
2/5/2007 168 101 152
2/12/2007 118 67 135
2/19/2007 135 118
2/26/2007 168 152 51
Source of information: AMSCO, provided by CWTE
Source of COD Volume COD Operating days Treated COD

(Treated) m3/day mg/L days/year kg/year
Native 3,500 131 300 137,469
Citric Acid 1,060 114 348 42,000
Modified 550 173 330 31,386
210,854
Source of COD COD input Treated COD Rlagoon

kg/year kg/year
Native 16,026,828 137,469 99.1%
Citric Acid 6,704,983 42,000 99.4%
Modified 816,750 31,386 96.2%
* Rlagoon is calculated as (COD input – treated COD)/COD input
To be most conservative, the Rlagoon of modified starch plant, 96.2%, is selected to represent as a
parameter Rlagoon of all wastewater streams.
Calculation of the amount of sulphate in wastewater is shown in the following table.
Source Volume Sulphate* Operating days Sulphate

m3/day mg/L days/year kg/year
Native 3,500 65 300 67,970
Citric Acid 1,060 1,314 348 484,585
Modified 550 784 330 142,296
694,851
* Laboratory test
page 66
Annex 4
MONITORING INFORMATION
The monitoring information can be referred to Section B.7.

Benefits

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

Benefits

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03.1.

CDM – Executive Board

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

A. General description of project activity

B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan

CDM – Executive Board

SECTION A. General description of project activity

A.1 Title of the project activity:

Date 4 August 2008

A.2. Description of the project activity:

The purpose of the project activity can be summarised as:

The project delivers reductions of anthropogenic GHG emissions in two ways:

CDM – Executive Board

CDM – Executive Board

A.3. Project participants:

Contact information of each project participant is provided in Annex 1.

A.4. Technical description of the project activity:

A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

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

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

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

CDM – Executive Board

Figure 1 CWTE Project Location, Kalasin Province, Thailand

A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:

A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:

CDM – Executive Board

Figure 2 A diagram of a simple ABR

Table 1 Key design parameters of ABR treatment plant

Plant size Technical summary Biogas generation

CDM – Executive Board

Figure 3 Pre-project Scenario

Native Citric Modified

CH4 CH4 CH4

Series of Open Lagoons

Series of Open Lagoons

CDM – Executive Board

Figure 4 Existing lagoons

Table 2 Dimensions and surface areas of existing lagoons

Pond Native Starch Modified starch Citric Acid

CDM – Executive Board

Figure 5 shows post-project scenario.

Figure 5 Post-project Scenario

Native Citric Modified

Series of Open Lagoons

CDM – Executive Board

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

CDM – Executive Board

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

Applicability conditions Justification

CDM – Executive Board

Applicability conditions Justification

CDM – Executive Board

Figure 6 Part of the Existing Lagoons at AMSCO

CDM – Executive Board

Figure 7 Existing Fuel Oil Storage Tanks at AMSCO

CDM – Executive Board