clean development mechanism project design document...

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

1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD)

Version 03 - in effect as of: 22 December 2006

CONTENTS A. General description of the small scale project activity B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period D. Environmental impacts E. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the proposed small scale project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring Information


2

Revision history of this document Version Number

Date Description and reason of revision

01 21 January 2003

Initial adoption

02 8 July 2005 • The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since version 01 of this document.

• As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest version can be found at <http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents>.

03 22 December 2006

• The Board agreed to revise the CDM project design document for small-scale activities (CDM-SSC-PDD), taking into account CDM-PDD and CDM-NM.


3

SECTION A. General description of small-scale project activity A.1 Title of the small-scale project activity: Composting project activity for biomass residues derived from Palm Oil Mill Version: 1.2 Date: 18/03/2011 A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity: Purpose of the project activity: The proposed project activity developed by the Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. (hereafter “PP”), includes co-composting of biomass residues derived from a palm oil mill in Malaysia at the location mentioned in Section A.4.1.4. The purpose of the project activity is to avoid methane emissions from anaerobic decomposition of organic waste and wastewater through controlled aerobic decomposition. In addition, by product of aerated co-composting will result in compost, which can be utilized as soil conditioner in the palm oil plantation. Baseline scenario: Various types of solid and liquid waste are generated from the Palm oil mill, namely empty fruit bunches (EFB) , fibers, palm kernel shells (PKS) and liquid effluent with high COD content known as palm oil mill effluent (POME) and POME slurry. The project under discussion is proposed by Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. in its 45 TPH capacity palm oil mill located in Malaysia. In baseline scenario POME (which includes POME slurry) were being treated in series of anaerobic & aerobic open lagoons1. The treated wastewater was finally discharged to water ways. The treated wastewater would comply with the existing regulations for effluent discharge i.e., a maximum 20 mg BOD/liter2. EFB would be dumped in open solid waste disposal sites situated in the plantation estate belonging to the project proponent near to the palm oil mill. Decomposition of POME and EFB disposal in anaerobic conditions would result in methane emissions into the atmosphere. Project scenario: In the project scenario, waste residues i.e., EFB, POME and POME slurry will be co- composted. The two phase decanter technology3, which is imported from Germany, is used to separate oil, water and solid contents in the crude palm oil stream. Thus, it separates the POME slurry from POME. The compost produced is used as fertilizer in palm plantation of project proponent. There is minimal power consumption in co-composting process, which will be imported from the existing biomass based power plant. In the project activity, PP is co-composting the solid biomass (EFB) with the wastewater from the palm oil mill (POME and POME slurry) in compost pits. However, PP is claiming emission reductions for methane avoidance through wastewater (which includes POME and POME slurry) 1 Please refer Annex 3 for details of existing pond. 2 Environmental Quality Act 1974 (Act 127), 20th July 2006 – Regulations of Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Crude Palm Oil) 1977- P.U.(A) 342/1977. 3 PP uses a two-phase decanter technology in which crude palm oil is split in the two phases and sludge, right after a thermo-screw pressing process. In general, decanter systems generate less POME, estimated at 0.45 times the quantity of FFB (Fresh Fruit Bunches) processed in the mill. Reference: Technology supplier offer letter.


4

treatment only and not for EFB disposed off at the solid waste disposal site in the plantations owned by the PP. Table 1: Summary of Baseline and project scenario Waste Type Baseline scenario Project scenario EFB4 Disposal at solid waste disposal

dumpsites owned by the PP Aerobic Composting - to be applied in the plantation as organic fertilizer displacing chemical fertilizers

POME Series of anaerobic and aerobic open lagoons

Aerobic process – where POME is sprayed on a large fibrous surface area of EFB during composting

POME slurry Series of anaerobic and aerobic open lagoons

Aerobic process- where POME slurry is mixed with EFB and POME during composting

Contribution to the sustainable development of the host country: Proposed project activity contributes positively to the sustainable development of the host country’s National Criteria defined by Designated National Authority5. Criterion 1 - The project must support the sustainable development policies of Malaysia and bring direct benefits towards achieving sustainable development: Social & Economic: The project activity contributes significantly to the socioeconomic development by generating permanent and temporary employment opportunities during construction and operation phase. The project activity is located in a remote village. Therefore the local job opportunities might also help in reducing the rural-to-urban migration to some extent. Environmental: The proposed project activity intends to apply integrated waste treatment system that will prevent methane emission from the EFB disposal in unmanaged dumpsites and the POME treatment in anaerobic open lagoons in the pre-project scenario. Also, odour problem in the existing open lagoon treatment system will be reduced. In addition, the end product i.e., compost would be used in palm plantation, reducing consumption of chemical fertilizers. Technological: Proposed project activity transfers know-how by applying the imported equipments for co-composting. The project implementation will set an example for other similar business houses to come up with similar projects. The project might also encourage technology suppliers and manufactures to put in more efforts/funds for further improvement of equipment/machinery and help in removing existing technological barriers in such projects. The successful execution and implementation of the project activity might encourage the investment in other cleaner technologies as well. Criterion 2 - Project implementation must involve participation of Annex I Party/Parties as CER buyer The project implementation involves participation of Annex 1 party as CER buyer. A letter from an interested CER buyer shall be provided to the DOE during validation.

4 PP will not claim emission reductions for methane avoidance from EFB consumption for co- composting. 5 Malaysia Handbook for Clean Development Mechanism, Pusat Tenaga Malaysia. Available at: http://cdm.eib.com.my


5

Criterion 3 - Project must provide technology transfer benefits and/or improvement in technology: In the proposed project activity, windrow turner is imported from Germany. The imported technology will improve local know how contributing to the technology transfer benefits. Criterion 4 - Project must fulfil all conditions underlined by the CDM Executive Board: i. Voluntary Participation: Project promoter’s participation is voluntary. ii. Real, measurable and long term benefits related to mitigation of climate change; Please refer section A.4.3 and Section B.6 for details. iii. Reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity: Please refer section B.5 for details. Criterion 5 - Project proponent should justify the ability to implement the proposed CDM project activity: The project promoter, Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. is a local company with paid-up capital of more than RM 100,000. Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. will be financing the project using internal equity. A.3. Project participants: Name of Party involved (*) ((host) indicates a host Party)

Private and/or public entity(ies) Project participants (*) (as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the party involved wishes to be considered as project participant (yes/no)

Malaysia (Host) Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. (Private Entity)

No

A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity: A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity: A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): Malaysia A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: Sabah A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc: Ulu Tungud, Labuk Sugut,


6

Beluran Sabah A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this small-scale project activity : The project site is located at village Daerah Beluran. The closest airport is 150 km away at Sandakan. The project activity is situated at 60 2’ 52.0” North latitude and 1170 13’ 17.3” East Longitude. The physical location of plant site is depicted in the maps below:

Physical Address of site: Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. Ulu Tungud, Labuk Sugut, Beluran Sabah, Malaysia A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology/measure of the small-scale project activity: According to the Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities, the project is a small scale CDM project activity and conforms to the following category - Project Type Project Category Version Sectoral Scope III. Other Project Activities

III.F. Avoidance of methane emissions through controlled biological treatment of biomass

Version 08 13

Technology measure: The project activity will change the existing conventional waste treatment of EFB and POME, POME Slurry in Palm oil mill. POME and POME Slurry is treated in a series of anaerobic and aerobic open lagoons before discharged to water ways. The figure given below depicts process applied for treatment of POME, POME Slurry and EFB in the baseline scenario.

Project activity location


7

EFB and POME including slurry treatment in baseline scenario Co- Composting process: Composting is an aerobic process of degradation of organic matter into simpler substances aided by micro-organisms in the presence of oxygen. The effectiveness of the composting process is influenced by the environmental conditions present within the waste viz. temperature, moisture, organic matter content of waste, presence of oxygen and the size and activity of microbial populations. In the project activity, Co-composting system utilizes EFB, POME slurry and POME. The EFB is approximately 22%6 of FFB processed by weight. A 2-phase decanter system reduces the volume of waste water as a result of which the POME generated is approximately 0.45 m3 per tonne7 of FFB processed. EFBs are shredded using a high speed hammer mill and then stacked into windrows of 1.5 meter high by 100 meter length in a confined composting site. POME slurry is spread/sprayed over the windrow using a truck-tipper and the compost heap is turned using a windrow turner. POME is pumped from the second anaerobic pond (60 m wide and 5.5 m deep) and sprayed on these windrows periodically to convert these waste matters into organic fertilizer. The windrows are turned regularly using a windrow-turner for better mixing, aeration and temperature control. The compost is mature after approximately 8 weeks and ready for use. The leachate is collected in internal perimeter leachate trenches and transferred to the leachate pit. From the leachate pit, it is recycled back to the compost heaps, resulting in avoidance of leachate leakage from the composting area. Technical details of the project activity: The project activity includes two main technologies; the shredding machine and the compost turner. The shredder machine will be used to press and shred the EFB into smaller bits, which increases its surface area for faster decomposition. The turning machine will ‘turn’ the compost to provide oxygen to the compost while mixing it, making the process aerobic while restoring the porosity of the compost pile. In addition to that, turning also has a pasteurization effect which exposes the weed seeds, pathogens and

6 Values range from 22-24% as documented at “Environmental Management for POM”, A.H-Kittikun, P.Prasertan, G. Srisuwan and A. Krause. A value of 22% was selected to be conservative. 7 As specified by the technology provider.

POME Slurry

POME

Cooling Pond Series of anaerobic and aerobic open lagoons

Water ways

Irrigation

EFB Solid Waste disposal sites


8

insect larvae to the hot inner core of the compost heap. Technical specification of shredder and windrows turner is provided in following table.

Particular Details Palm Oil Mill Mill processing capacity 45 TPH Ratio of EFB/ FFB (by weight) 22% Average working hrs/ day 16 hrs Days of operation (days per year) 300 Ratio of POME/FFB 0.45 m3/ton FFB processed Windrow Turner Model Backhus Mechanical Turner Machine (15.55) Dimensions 3.490*5.70*3.460 (mm) Rotor Diameter 1.20 mm Motor 6 – Cyl, Cummins Turbo – Diesel Shredder No of shredding units 04 Model SE/F75 Capacity 8 TPH Motor 55 kw (75hp) Fiber produced 100- 150mm Power consumption Source of Electricity In the proposed project activity, electricity will

be sourced from existing biomass based power plant in palm oil mill.

A.4.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:

Estimated amount of emission reductions are given below.

Years Estimation of annual emission reductions in tones of CO2 e**

2010-11 27,586 2011-12 27,586 2012-13 27,586 2013-14 27,586 2014-15 27,586 2015-16 27,586 2016-17 27,586

Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 193,102 Total number of crediting years 7*3 Annual average of estimated reductions over the crediting period (tonnes of CO2e)

27,586

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


9

No Public funding (ODA and/ or Annex I countries) is or will be used in the proposed project activity. A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a large scale project activity: According to the “Appendix C of the Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small-Scale CDM project activities” A proposed small-scale project activity shall be deemed to be a de-bundled component of a large project activity if there is a registered small-scale CDM project activity or an application to register another small-scale CDM project activity:

• With the same project participants; • In the same project category and technology/measure; and • Registered within the previous 2 years; and • Whose project boundary is within 1 km of the project boundary of the proposed small-scale

activity at the closest point” The project activity is not a de-bundled component of a large project activity as there is no small scale CDM project activity or an application registered by Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. in the same project category and technology in the last two years within 1 km of the project boundary of the proposed small scale project activity.


10

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the small-scale project activity: Following approved Small Scale methodology and tool is applied. Meth. No. Title Reference III. F “Avoidance of methane emissions through controlled

biological treatment of biomass” Version 08/ EB 48

B.2 Justification of the choice of the project category: Applicability of AMS III F: The project activity is in line with applicability conditions of approved methodology AMS III F Version 8; specific features of project and applicability of methodology are discussed below- Applicability Criteria Project Status This methodology comprises measures to avoid the emissions of methane to the atmosphere from biomass or other organic matter that would have otherwise been left to decay an-aerobically in a solid waste disposal site (SWDS), or in an animal waste management system (AWMS). In the project activity, controlled biological treatment of biomass is introduced through one, or a combination, of the following measures: (a) Aerobic treatment by composting and proper soil application of the compost; (b) Anaerobic digestion in closed reactors equipped with biogas recovery and combustion/flaring system.

Proposed project activity is co-composting of POME, POME slurry and EFB under aerobic conditions with proper soil application in the palm oil estates.

Measures are limited to those that result in emission reductions of less than or equal to 60 kt CO2 equivalent annually.

Annual emission reduction from project activity is estimated to be 27.586 ktCO2e, which is less than 60 kt CO2e.

This methodology is applicable to the treatment of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and biomass waste from agricultural or agro-industrial activities including manure. Project activities involving anaerobic digestion and biogas recovery from manure shall apply AMS-III.D or AMS-III.R.

Proposed project activity involves the co- composting of biomass waste from Palm Oil Mill (i.e., agro- industrial activities). The project activity does not involve biogas recovery.

This methodology is also applicable for co-treating wastewater and solid biomass waste, where wastewater would otherwise have been treated in

Proposed project activity includes the co-treating of POME & POME slurry (wastewater) and EFB (solid biomass) using aerobic co-composting.


11

an anaerobic wastewater treatment system without biogas recovery. The wastewater in the project scenario is used as a source of moisture and/or nutrients to the biological treatment process e.g., composting of empty fruit bunches (EFB), a residue from palm oil production, with the addition of palm oil mill effluent (POME) which is the wastewater co-produced from palm oil production.

In absence of the proposed project activity, POME and POME slurry would have been treated in anaerobic open lagoons i.e., anaerobic wastewater treatment system without biogas recovery system.

The location and characteristics of the disposal site of the biomass in the baseline condition shall be known, in such a way as to allow the estimation of its methane emissions. Guidance in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 in AMS-III.E shall be followed in this regard. Project activities for composting of animal manure shall also meet the requirements under paragraphs 1, 2(a) and 2(c) of AMS III.D. Further no bedding material is used in the animal barns or intentionally added to the manure stream in the baseline or project scenario. The following requirement shall be checked ex ante at the beginning of each crediting period in the case of composting of solid waste: • Establish that identified landfill(s) can be expected to accommodate the waste to be used for the project activity for the duration of the crediting period; or • Establish that it is common practice in the region to dispose off the waste in solid waste disposal site (landfill). The project participants shall clearly define the geographical boundary of the region and document it in the CDM-PDD. In defining the geographical boundary of the region, project participants should take the usual distances for transporting the waste utilized by the project activity into account, i.e., if waste is transported up to 50 km, the region may cover a radius of 50 km around the project activity. In any case, the region should cover a reasonable radius around the project activity that can be justified with reference to the project circumstances but in no case it shall be more than 200 km. Once defined, the region should not be changed during the crediting period(s).

The location and characteristics of the disposal sites of EFB i.e., biomass, where EFBs would have been disposed off in absence of the project activity are known. In the absence of the project activity, EFBs were disposed of in a dumpsite situated in the plantation area owned and managed by the PP. However, methane emissions from EFB disposal at unmanaged solid waste disposal site is not included in proposed project activity. PP is claiming emission reductions through wastewater (POME and POME slurry) treatment component only. In case of the project activity, the co-composting consists of composting the EFB (the biomass) with the wastewater from the palm oil mill. Since no emission reductions are being claimed for composting of EFB, this condition is not applicable for the project activity. Also, the disposal site of EFB has been excluded from the project boundary.

In case residual waste from the biological treatment (slurry, compost or products from those treatments) are handled aerobically and submitted to soil application, the proper conditions and procedures (not resulting in methane emissions)

The end product from the biological treatment i.e., compost will be handled aerobically and used for soil application as fertilizers. No methane emission from compost application will be ensured as per the procedures defined in monitoring plan.


12

must be ensured. In case residual waste from the biological treatment (slurry, compost or products from those treatments) are stored under anaerobic conditions and/or delivered to a landfill, emissions from the residual waste shall be taken into account and calculated as per the latest version of the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site”.

The end product from the biological treatment i.e., compost will not be stored under anaerobic conditions or delivered to a landfill. Monitoring plan will include the procedures to ensure the aerobic conditions during storage and application of the compost.

Summary: Proposed Project activity meets the applicability criteria of approved small scale methodologies AMS III. F “Avoidance of methane emissions through controlled biological treatment of biomass”. B.3. Description of the project boundary: Project boundary: As per the AMS III.F, the project boundary is the physical, geographical site: Project boundary Project details

(a) Where the solid waste would have been disposed and the methane emission occurs in absence of the proposed project activity;

Unmanaged dumpsites in the plantation area. However, PP does not claim emission reductions from avoidance of solid waste disposal in dumpsites in the baseline scenario. Hence, this is excluded from the project boundary.

(b) In the case of projects co-composting wastewater, where the co-composting wastewater would have been treated an-aerobically in the absence of the project activity;

Anaerobic and aerobic open lagoon treatment system in the baseline scenario are included.

(c) Where the treatment of biomass through composting or anaerobic digestion takes place;

Composting facility in the project activity is included in the project boundary.

(d) Where the residual waste from biological treatment or products from those treatments, like compost and slurry, are handled, disposed, submitted to soil application, or treated thermally/mechanically;

Composting and storage facility in the project activity are included in the project boundary.

(e) Where biogas is burned/flared or gainfully used;

There is no biogas generation in the project activity, hence this condition is not applicable.

(f) And the itineraries between them (a, b, c, d and e), where the transportation of waste, wastewater, where applicable manure, compost/slurry/products of treatment or biogas occurs

Itineraries between EFB production site, open lagoons of the baseline scenario, compost and storage facility in the project activity are included.


13

Project boundary diagram is given below.

Project boundary Gases and sources included in the project boundary: Gases and Sources included in the project boundary are summarized in following table. Table. Summary of gases and sources included in the project boundary (As per approved CDM methodology AM0039 version 2)9: Source Gas Included? Justification

Bas

elin

eBiomass disposed in unmanaged disposal sites

CO2 No CO2 emissions from biomass decay in unmanaged disposal sites due to biogenic nature of biomass are not considered. This is conservative.

9 http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_PMB1BBMS56VWLFM0GE6S01W8TS5TTP

Biofertilizer

Compost

Excess POME

EFB

Palm

Oil

Mill

POMESlurry

POME

Shredder Shredded EFB

Composting Unit

Mixing pond

POME

Existing Anaerobic & aerobic ponds

Leachate pond

Fertilizer Unit Plantation

Waterways

Solid waste dump sites


14

CH4 No CH4 emissions from biomass decay in unmanaged disposal sites are not included in the project boundary. This is conservative.

N2O No Not significant. Excluded for simplification and conservativeness.

CO2 No CO2 emissions from POME treatment in anaerobic open lagoon due to biogenic nature are not considered.

CH4 Yes CH4 emissions from POME treatment in anaerobic open lagoons in the baseline scenario.

Open lagoons

N2O No Not significant. Excluded for simplification and conservativeness.

CO2 Yes Emissions from fuel consumption in transportation of EFB from production plant to disposal site

CH4 No Not significant. Excluded for simplification and conservativeness

Transportation

N2O No Not significant. Excluded for simplification and conservativeness

CO2 No Emission from Grid Electricity or Fossil Fuel. PP does not claim for emission reductions for such avoidance. Hence, this is excluded. This is conservative.

CH4 No Not significant. Excluded for simplification and conservativeness

Auxiliary equipment

N2O No Not significant. Excluded for simplification and conservativeness

CO2 No CO2 emissions from composting process are not considered due to biogenic nature of biomass

CH4 Yes CH4 emissions from anaerobic pockets during composting process

Co- Composting Process

N2O Yes N2O emissions from loss of N2O-N during composting process and during land application of the compost

CO2 No CO2 emissions from residual POME treatment in aerobic open lagoon are not considered due to biogenic nature

CH4 Yes CH4 emissions from process wastewater post treatment and reuse

Open lagoons for post treatment

N2O No Not significant. Excluded for simplicity and conservativeness

CO2 Yes Emissions from fossil fuel consumption in transportation of EFB/ compost to/ from project site

CH4 No Not significant. Excluded for simplicity and conservativeness

Transportation


CO2 Yes Emission from combustion of fossil fuel and/or electricity from grid in the auxiliary equipments or machineries

Proj

ect

Act

ivity

Auxiliary equipment

CH4 No Not significant. Excluded for simplicity and conservativeness


15


B.4. Description of baseline and its development: Baseline Scenario: Project activity includes three waste streams (POME, POME slurry and EFB) from Palm Oil mill. The baseline scenario is the situation where, in the absence of the project activity, POME, POME slurry are treated anaerobically in a series of ponds & EFB are left to decompose and methane is emitted into the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. To be conservative, the proposed project is not claiming methane avoidance from the disposal of EFB in solid waste disposal sites. Baseline scenarios for these waste streams are discussed in following sections. Description of baseline scenario for Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) and Palm Oil Mill slurry disposal: In the baseline scenario, POME and POME slurry were being treated in series of anaerobic & aerobic open lagoons system. The COD and BOD of the treated wastewater that is released into the river or used for irrigation purposes after going through a series of open lagoons is able to meet the regulatory discharge limits, hence conforms with the environmental regulations of Malaysia. Details of the ponds are provided in Annex 3. POME treatment in open anaerobic lagoons is the most common POME treatment system in palm oil mills in Malaysia and is consistent with the mandatory laws and regulations of Malaysia. As per the study carried out 8510% of the palm oil mills use open ponds and another 5-10% use open tanks for POME treatment, while the rest use composting and others (Eco-Ideal 2004; Yeoh 2004a). The baseline open lagoons treatment system at the site consists of a cooling pond, four anaerobic ponds (lagoons) and two aerobic ponds. Description of baseline scenario for Empty Fruit Branch (EFB) disposal: EFB primarily in the baseline would be disposed off in solid waste disposal sites located in plantation estate owned by the PP. Also, some amount of EFB in the baseline was being mulched for the palm oil plantations through soil application. Thus in the baseline, methane emissions would have occurred due to anaerobic decay of EFBs in disposal site. Thus continuation of current practice is the most plausible baseline scenario. In the baseline, POME & POME slurry would have been treated in open anaerobic lagoons/ponds before final discharge into a waterway or plantation. In the baseline, the EFBs would have been disposed at unmanaged disposal site or would have been mulched. Data used to determine the baseline emissions: Following data is used for estimation of baseline emissions:

10 B.G. Yeoh (2004) A Technical and Economic Analysis of Heat and Power Generation from Bio-methanation of Palm Oil Mill Effluent - Paper presented in seminar on Electricity Supply Industry in Transition: Issues and Prospect for Asia 14-16 January 2004; Ma, Ah Ngan. (1999), “Management of Palm Oil Industrial Wastes in Malaysia”, Paper presented in Seminar on Integrated Waste Management in Sarawak (28-29 July 1999).


16

Particular Value Unit Reference Mill Capacity 45 TPH Operational license of the mill Operational days 300 days/annum Assumption Operational hours 16 hrs/day Assumption EFB generation 22% % of FFB processed - POME generation11 0.45 m3/ FFB processed Tech supplier COD POME 86000 mg/l Average of test reports from five

samples Methane generation potential 0.21 kgCH4/kg COD AMS III.F MCFww,treatment 0.8 - AMS III.F Diesel density 0.870 kg/l Petronas12 B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered small-scale CDM project activity: Proposed project activity falls under small scale project activity. According to the Attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities, the project is deemed to be additional if it faces at least one of the following barriers: (a) Investment barriers: a financially more viable alternative to the project activity would have led to higher emissions; (b) Technological barriers: a less technologically advanced alternative to the project activity involves lower risks due to the performance uncertainty or low market share of the new technology adopted for the project activity and so would have led to higher emissions; (c) Barrier due to prevailing practice: Barrier due to prevailing practice: prevailing practice or existing regulatory or policy requirements would have led to the implementation of a technology with higher emissions; (d) Other barriers; without the project activity, for another specific reason identified by the project participant, such as institutional barriers or limited information, managerial resources, organizational capacity, financial resources, or capacity to absorb new technologies, emissions would have been higher. PP demonstrates investment barriers in line with the guidelines defined in the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (Ver. 3.0). To conduct the investment analysis, following Sub-steps are applied; Selection of analysis method: The project generates revenue (avoiding purchase of chemical fertilizers due to use of compost). Therefore, PP has chosen benchmark analysis to demonstrate the investment barriers to the proposed project activity. For this purpose, the PP has chosen Project IRR as the financial indicator. Benchmark selection:

11 Includes generation of POME and POME slurry 12 http://www.petronasjababeka.co.id/brochures/ADO-PETRONAS.pdf


17

According to paragraph 12 of Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (Ver. 3.0) Local commercial lending rates is appropriate benchmark for a project IRR. Therefore PP has selected the Base Lending rate (BLR) of commercial banks as benchmark to compare the project IRR. Benchmark determination: The Malaysian Central Bank releases the Base Lending Rates (BLR) at which the Malaysian commercial banks provide financing to projects. PP has selected the BLR of 2005 i.e., 6.20%13 as benchmark IRR for proposed project activity. The proposed project will be considered financially attractive if project IRR crosses the selected benchmark, else it would be termed as additional. IRR calculation: Following table includes the data used for Project IRR calculation.

Particular Value Unit Mill Capacity 45 TPH Operational hrs 4800 Hrs/annum FFB processed 216000 Ton/annumFFB to EFB conversion 22 % Project cost 8140000 RM Annual Operation & Maintenance 5 % Corporate Tax rate 28 % Inflation Rate ~3 % Depreciation rate 5 % Project life 21 years

The Project IRR based on above mentioned assumptions is provided in Table below. All the values were applicable at the time of decision making phase of the project activity, in line with the guidance on investment analysis (EB 51 Annex 58) from the EB of UNFCCC. The project IRR without CDM is below the benchmark making the proposed project activity financially unviable. Additional revenue from CDM would improve the project’s return above the required returns and thus helps the project to overcome investment barriers.

Project IRR Value Project IRR (without CDM revenue) Negative Project IRR (with CDM) +14.7%

Sensitivity Parameters: The purpose of sensitivity analysis is to conclude that financial analysis is robust to reasonable variations in the critical assumptions. For proposed project activity, following key parameters are selected as sensitive parameters to check financial attractiveness. i. Project cost ii. Savings from project iii. Operational and Maintenance cost

13 \http://www.bnm.gov.my/files/publication/ar/en/2006/zcp07_table_A.26.pdf


18

Project cost: Increase or decrease in assumed project cost will directly affect project returns. However, it is evident from sensitivity assessment that even 10% reduction in project cost does not make project attractive. The return to the project activity remains financially unviable without the CDM revenues. Sensitivity analysis for project cost Project IRR -10% 0% +10% Project IRR (without CDM revenue) Negative Negative Negative Project IRR (with CDM revenue) 17.2% 14.7% 12.5% Benchmark 6.20%

However, chances of a decrease in the project cost are absent as the project proponent has already made all the investments and all costs have already been incurred. A certificate from the CA regarding the project cost shall be submitted to the DOE during validation. Saving from project activity: In the proposed project activity, compost will be used to replace chemical fertilizer and thus results in monetary savings. Either increase in price of compost or production rate of compost will affect the returns from project activity in similar way. However, even +10% change in project activity does not make the project financially viable. Sensitivity analysis for compost price Project IRR -10% 0% +10% Project IRR (without CDM revenue) Negative Negative Negative Project IRR (with CDM revenue) 13.6% 14.7% 15.7% Benchmark 6.20%

Chances of a variation in the savings are very low as the project proponent has taken into account the maximum possible production of compost for calculating the IRR of the project activity. Moreover, as seen above, even a 10% increase in the savings does not make the project IRR viable. Annual operational cost: Any change in annual operational cost may have direct impact on returns from the project activity. However, as seen here, a change of -10% in O&M cost is not able to cross the benchmark rate. Sensitivity analysis for annual operational cost Project IRR -10% 0% +10% Project IRR (without CDM revenue) Negative Negative Negative Project IRR (with CDM revenue) 15.9% 14.7% 13.4% Benchmark 6.20%

The annual operation costs are expected to increase with time due to many factors (i.e. inflation, increase in maintenance, wear and tear, etc.). Increase in expenses shall lead to lesser savings for the project activity. Hence, chances of a decrease in the annual operational costs are minimal. Conclusion:


19

It is evident from above assessment that the proposed project activity is not a financially viable option. However revenue from sell of CERs will affect project’s return significantly and makes the project a financially attractive alternative for the project promoter. Hence, it can be concluded that the project activity is additional and would not have taken place in the absence of CDM revenues. Prior CDM consideration According to the paragraph 6 of Guidance on the Demonstration and Assessment of Prior Consideration of CDM (Version 3.0 Annex 22 EB 49)14, for the project activity with a start date before 2 August 2008 are required to demonstrate that the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity. Such demonstration requires the following elements to be satisfied: (a) The project participant must indicate awareness of the CDM prior to the project activity start date, and that the benefits of the CDM were a decisive factor in the decision to proceed with the project. Evidence to support this would include, inter alia, minutes and/or notes related to the consideration of the decision by the Board of Directors, or equivalent, of the project participant, to undertake the project as a CDM project activity. The start date of the project activity under discussion was 09/08/2006. However, PP had initiated discussion with technology consultant (01/03/2006) and CDM consultant (02/04/2006) before taking decision to proceed with the project, which confirms prior CDM awareness. The company’s Board of director discussed the project’s financial viability with or without CDM benefits in its Board meeting on 09/05/2006. The Board members concluded that proposed project activity is not financially viable without CDM benefits and the company should take into account CDM benefits and proceed with the project activity. It confirms that CDM revenues were a decisive factor in the decision to implement the project activity. (b) The project participant must indicate, by means of reliable evidence, that continuing and real actions were taken to secure CDM status for the project in parallel with its implementation. Evidence to support this should include, inter alia, contracts with consultants for CDM/PDD/methodology services, Emission Reduction Purchase Agreements or other documentation related to the sale of the potential CERs (including correspondence with multilateral financial institutions or carbon funds), evidence of agreements or negotiations with a DOE for validation services PP had made continuous efforts to secure CDM status for the project in parallel with project’s implementation. Please refer table below for detail project chronology. PP had signed agreement with CDM consultant (14/09/2006) soon after project start date. Along with the PDD development, CDM consultant was looking for the potential CER buyer on behalf of PP. PP had organized stakeholder meeting (12/07/2007) to raise the opinion of local stakeholders about the project activity. In the meantime Project Information Note (PIN) was submitted to local DNA, which was approved later on 27/07/2007. PP had signed MoU with CER buyer on 16/10/2007 and the PDD was webhosted for Global Stakeholder process (09/10/07)15. On expiry of 1st MoU, PP had signed 2nd MoU with the CER Buyer on 30/07/2008.

14 http://cdm.unfccc.int/EB/049/eb49_repan22.pdf 15 www.dnv.com/focus/climate_change/.../Fortuna%20PDD_20071005.pdf


20

Due to some unavoidable circumstances, the composting facility could only be commissioned partially till 13/09/2008 (Project commissioning). Although the PP was putting his best efforts to secure CDM status, the ERPA could not be signed due to market instability. Finally, the CER buyer informed PP about his decision to back-out of the deal on 08/04/2009. PP discussed other alternatives with his CDM consultant to take project further. However, despite PP’s best efforts no mutual understanding acceptable to all stakeholders could be reached and PP received no objection certificates from all parties i.e., CER buyer & CDM consultant. PP was determined to secure CDM status; therefore PP reinitiated the validation process and signed agreement with other CDM consultant in October 2009. It is evident from above discussion that PP has made real and continuous efforts to secure the CDM status for the project in parallel with its implementation. Table: Project chronology Event Date Reference Proposal from technology consultant

1/3/2006 Copy of proposal

Proposal from CDM Consultant

2/4/2006 Copy of agreement

Board of Directors meeting

9/5/2006 Copy of MoM

Agreement with technology consultant


PO order 22/09/2006 Copy of purchase order Agreement with CDM consultant


News Paper Advertisement

4/7/2007 Copy of news paper advertisement

Stakeholder meeting 12/07/20007 Copy of stakeholder meeting PIN approval by DNA 26/07/2007 Copy of NCCDM approval MoU with Buyer 16/10/2007 Copy of MoU 1st GSP 09/10/07 -

07/11/07 UNFCCC Website - http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/QJ8YNUS5ENUWR05U2HU062H8PJ04RR/view.html

2nd MoU with Buyer 30/07/2008 Copy of MoU Composting Plant Commissioning

13/08/2008 Copy of Letter

NoC from CER buyer 31/07/2009 Copy of letter Proposal from 2nd CDM consultant

22/10/2009 Copy of proposal from second CDM consultant

Agreement with CDM Consultant – EVI


Agreement with DoE - BVC Malaysia

Feb-10 Copy of agreement

2nd GSP 29/06/2010 – 28/07/2010

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/DCVZB0FWZFV3XIBING3UWR4BJN70IB/view.html


21

Further according to the paragraph 8 of Guidance on the Demonstration and Assessment of Prior Consideration of CDM (Version 3.0 Annex 22 EB 49), in validating proposed CDM project activities where: (a) there is less than 2 years of a gap between the documented evidence the DOE shall conclude that continuing and real actions were taken to secure CDM status for the project activity; PP has signed agreement with CDM consultant within one month of placing purchase order. It confirms that continuing and real actions were taken to secure CDM status for the project activity within the limit defined. From project chronology it is confirmed that along with the project implementation, PP has also taken real action to secure CDM status for the proposed project activity. B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: Baseline Emissions: Methane generation potential of Solid Waste As per paragraph 17 of AMS III F version 8, the baseline scenario is the situation where, in the absence of the project activity, biomass and other organic matter (including manure where applicable) are left to decay within the project boundary and methane is emitted to the atmosphere. The baseline emissions are the amount of methane emitted from the decay of the degradable organic carbon in the biomass solid waste or manure. When wastewater is co-composted, baseline emissions include emissions from wastewater co-composted in the project activity. The yearly Methane Generation Potential for the solid waste is calculated using the first order decay model as described in the latest version of the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site”. Baseline emissions from the manure composted are calculated as per the procedures of AMS III.D. Baseline emissions shall exclude emissions of methane that would have to be captured, fuelled or flared to comply with national or local safety requirement or legal regulations. BEy = BECH4,SWDS,y – (MDy,reg * GWP_CH4) + (MEPy,ww *GWP_CH4) + BECH4, manure,y ....(1) Where, Parameter Details BEy Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e)

BECH4,SWDS,y

Yearly methane generation potential of the solid waste composted or an-aerobically digested by the project activity during the years “x” from the beginning of the project activity (x=1) up to the year y estimated as per the latest version of the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site” (tCO2e). The tool may be used with the factor “f=0.0” assuming that no biogas is captured and flared. With the definition of year x as ‘the year since the landfill started receiving wastes, x runs from the first year of landfill operation (x=1) to the year for which emissions are calculated (x=y)’

MDy,reg Amount of methane that would have to be captured and combusted in the year y to comply with the prevailing regulations (tonne)


22

BECH4, manure,y Where applicable, baseline emissions from manure composted by the project activities, as per the procedures of AMS-III.D

MEPy,ww Methane emission potential in the year y of the wastewater co-composted. The value of this term is zero if co-composting of wastewater is not included in the project activity (tonne)

GWP_CH4 GWP for CH4 (value of 21 is used) Assumptions:

i. EFB (i.e, Biomass) would have been dumped at unmanaged solid waste disposal site in the baseline scenario. However, being conservative methane emissions from biomass decay are not considered for emission reduction calculation. Hence, BECH4, SWDS, y is taken as ZERO.

ii. There is no biogas capture or combustion and no prevailing regulation to capture and/or combust methane in the baseline scenario. Therefore MDy,reg is taken as ZERO.

iii. Baseline emissions from manure composting is not applicable therefore BECH4,manure,y is taken ZERO.

Methane emission potential in the year y of the wastewater co-composted: As per paragraph 18 of AMS III.F, methane emission potential of co-composted wastewater is estimated as: MEPy,ww =Qy,ww,in * CODy,ww,untreated * BO,ww * MCFww,treatment * UFb ...................................(2) Where, Parameter Details MEPy,ww Methane emission potential in the year y of the wastewater co-composted. (tonne)

Qy,ww,in Volume of wastewater (POME and POME slurry) entering the co-composting facility in the year y (m3)

CODy,ww,untreated Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the co-composting facility in the year y (tonnes/m3)

BO,ww Methane producing capacity for the wastewater (IPCC default value of 0.21 kg CH4/kg.COD)

MCFww,treatment Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system in the baseline scenario (MCF value as per table III.F.1)

UFb Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties (0.94) Assumptions: The following assumptions are taken to estimate baseline emissions from wastewater co-composting;

i. ii. The average amount of POME generated by FFB processing at the mill is 0.45 m3/ tFFB.

iii. Untreated POME volume, Qy,ww estimated as 97200 m3/y iv. Raw POME COD concentration, CODy,ww,untreated is default value of 86000 mg/l v. As per paragraph 19 of AMS III.F, Methane Correction Factor (MCF) value should be taken

from table III.F.1. In the baseline scenario, depth of anaerobic open lagoons is more than 2 meters16. MCF value is taken as 0.8.

Project Activity Emissions:

16 Details of anaerobic open lagoons are provided in Annex 3.


23

As per paragraph 20 of AMS III.F, project activity emissions consist of: (a) CO2 emissions due to incremental transportation distances; (b) CO2 emissions from electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption by the project activity facilities; (c) In case of anaerobic digestion: methane emissions from physical leakages of the anaerobic

digester; (d) In case of composting: methane emissions during composting process; (e) In case of composting (including co-composting of wastewater): methane emissions from runoff

water; (f) In case the residual waste from the biological treatment (slurry, compost or products from those

treatments) are stored under anaerobic conditions and/or delivered to a landfill: the methane emissions from the disposal/storage of these residual waste/products

PEy = PEy,transp +PEy,power + PEy,phy leakage + PEy,compost + PEy, runoff + PEy, res waste ..................(3) Where, Parameter Details PEy Project emissions in the year y PEy,transp CO2 emissions due to incremental transportation distances PEy,power CO2 emissions from electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption by the project activity

facilities PEy,phy leakage Methane emissions from physical leakages of the anaerobic digester PEy,compost Methane emissions during composting process PEy, runoff Methane emissions from runoff water PEy, res waste Methane emissions from the disposal/storage of these residual waste/products

Project emissions due to incremental transportation distances (PE y, transp): As per Paragraph 21 of AMS III.H, project emissions due to incremental transport distances (PEy,transp) are calculated based on the incremental distances between:

(i) The collection points of biomass and the compost treatment site as compared to the baseline solid waste disposal site;

(ii) When applicable, the collection points of wastewater and treatment site as compared to baseline wastewater treatment site;

(iii) Treatment sites and the sites for soil application, landfilling and further treatment of the residual waste/products.

PE y, transp = (Q y/CTy) * DAFw * EFCO2 + (Qy, treatment, i / CTy, treatment, i) * DAFtreatment,i * EFCO2 .......(4) Where, Parameter Details PEy,transp CO2 emissions due to incremental transportation distances Q y Quantity of wastewater co-treated in the year y (tonnes) CTy Average truck capacity for transportation (tonnes/truck)

DAFw Average incremental distance for raw solid waste/manure and/or wastewater transportation (km/truck)

EFCO2 CO2 emission factor from fuel use due to transportation (kgCO2/km, IPCC default values or local values may be used)

I Type of residual waste/products and or compost Qy, treatment, i Quantity of residual waste/products and/or compost i produced in year y (tonnes)


24

CTy, treatment, i Average truck capacity for residual waste/products/compost i transportation (tonnes/truck)

DAFtreatment,i Average distance for residual waste/products/compost i transportation (km/truck) Assumptions:

i. Distance travelled for collection points of biomass and the compost treatment site The composting facility is within the palm oil mill compound at a distance of less than 0.5km. In baseline scenario, EFB was transported by truck to the SWDS (on - average 20 km) while in the project scenario the EFB is transported to the composting plant (on average less than 0.5 km) located in the Palm oil Mill compound. Therefore there is no additional distance will be travelled for collection of There is no incremental transportation in EFB collection EFB and transportation to compost site. Thus, CO2 emission from due to incremental transportation distance is taken as ZERO.

ii. Distance travelled for transportation of POME & slurry The POME is transported using a piping system both in the baseline and project activity, which is within the palm oil mill compound. However, for slurry transportation, lorry will be used. Fuel consumption due to transportation from slurry transportation will be covered under project emission from fossil fuel consumption. Therefore, in the project scenario emissions from slurry and POME transportation is taken as ZERO.

iii. Distance travelled for transportation of compost for soil application: The compost will be used in the parent company’s palm oil plantation located in around 15-20 km radius. An estimated distance for transportation of compost for soli application is assumed to be 20 km from the composting facility and is used for the project emission estimations in the PDD (therefore a 40 km roundtrip). Actual distance travelled for transportation of compost for soil application will be monitored during project activity.

Project emissions from electricity and fossil fuel consumption by the project activity facilities (PEy,power): As per paragraph 22, emission from electricity and diesel consumption calculated as described in category AMS I.D; PEy,power = PE,ydiesel + PE,yelectricity..............................................................................................(5) PEy, diesel = Qy, diesel * EFCO2.......................................................................................................(6) Where, Parameter Details PEy,transp CO2 emissions from electricity and fossil fuel consumption by the project activity

facilities PE,ydiesel CO2 emissions from diesel consumption in the year y (tCO2/yr) Qy, diesel Quantity of diesel consumption in the year y (liters/yr) EFCO2 CO2 emission factor for diesel (kgCO2/lit)

Assumptions:

i. In the project activity, minimal power will be consumed to operate the shredder. At palm oil mill, biomass based power generation unit of 1.6 MW capacity is already installed, which will export


25

power for shredder. The total power requirement of the project activity shall be met by the biomass based power plant. Since the power plant uses biomass as fuel, emissions from power consumption are taken as ZERO.

ii. In the project activity windrows turner, pay loader and lorries will be used at compost facility.

These vehicles/equipments are diesel operated and will result in GHGs emissions. Following assumptions are taken into account to estimate emissions from windrows turner, pay loader and lorries operations.

Assumptions for estimation of fuel consumption Vehicle/ Equipment No of operational hrs

(hrs/ annum) Fuel consumption (liter per hr)

Windrow turner 3600 5.5 Lorry 2400 1.47 Pay loader 2400 0.805

Project emissions due to physical leakages from the digester (PE y, phy leakage): Anaerobic digestion is not included in the proposed project activity, therefore methane emissions from anaerobic digester is taken as ZERO. Therefore PE y, phy leakage is taken as ZERO. Project emissions during composting process (PE y, comp): As per paragraph 24, methane emissions during composting are calculated as follows; PE y, Comp = Qy * EFcomposting * GWP_CH4 ................................................................................... (7) Where, Parameter Details PE y, Comp Emissions during composting process (tCO2/yr) Qy Quantity of compost (ton/yr) EFcomposting Emission factor for composting of organic waste and/or manure (t CH4/ton waste treated) GWP_CH4 Global

Assumptions: i. Emissions from compost production is assumed to be “ZERO”. According to the paragraph 24 of

AMS III.F version 8, oxygen content of the composting process will be monitored, if it is less than the permissible limit i.e. 8%, emission factor for composting of organic waste (t CH4/ton waste treated) will be calculated using IPCC default values i.e., 10 g CH4/kg waste treated on a dry weight basis and 4 g CH4/kg waste treated on a wet weight basis.

Project emissions from runoff water from the composting facility (PE,y runoff): As per paragraph 25, project emissions from runoff water from the composting facility are calculated as follows; PEy,runoff = Qy,runoff * CODy,ww,runoff * Bo,ww * MCF ww,treatment * UFb * GWP_CH4....................(8) Where, Parameter Details


26

PEy,runoff Emissions from runoff water from from the composting facility (tCO2/yr) Qy,runoff Volume of runoff water in the year y (m3) CODy,ww,runoff Chemical oxygen demand of the runoff water leaving the composting facility in

the year y (tonnes/m3) Bo,ww Methane producing capacity of the wastewater (IPCC default value of 0.60 kg

CH4/kg.COD) MCF ww,treatment Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system where the runoff

water is treated (0) UFb Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties (0.94) GWP_CH4 GWP for CH4 (value of 21 is used)

Assumptions:

i. In the project activity, the runoff wastewater will be treated in existing well managed aerobic treatment system. According to the Table III.F.1, IPCC default values3 for Methane Correction Factor (MCF) (MCFww, treatment) for aerobic well managed system is zero. Therefore in the project emission from runoff water from composting facility is taken as “ZERO”.

In the project activity, the wastewater is applied in optimal amounts so as to minimize runoff from the compost pit. The runoff taking place from the compost pit is collected in a leachate pit and recycled back to the compost pit to avoid any loss of wastewater. Project emissions from the disposal/storage of these residual waste/products (PEy, res waste): In the proposed project activity, no residual or compost will be disposed in landfill or anaerobic conditions. If there is any, methane emissions from anaerobic storage and/or disposal in a landfill of the residual waste/products/compost from the biological treatment (PEy,res,waste) will be calculated as per the latest version of the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site”. Leakage (LEy): As per paragraph 27 of If the project technology is the equipment transferred from another activity or if the existing equipment is transferred to another activity, leakage effects are to be considered (LEy) In the project activity, no equipment is transferred from another activity or exiting equipment to another activity. Leakage effects are not considered. Emissions reduction (ERy): Emission reduction achieved by the project activity will be measured as the difference between the baseline emission and the sum of the project emission and leakage.Emission reduction is calculated as follows; ERy = BEy – (PEy +LEy) .....................................................................................(9) Where, Parameter Details ERy Emission reduction in year y (tCO2e) BEy Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e) PEy Project emissions in year y (tCO2e)


27

LEy Leakage emissions in year y (tCO2e)

B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation: (Copy this table for each data and parameter) Data / Parameter: GWP_CH4 Data unit: tCO2e/tCH4 Description: Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane Source of data used: IPCC Value applied: 21 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Default value

Any comment: -

Data / Parameter: Bo,ww Data unit: kg CH4/kg COD Description: Methane producing capacity of the treated wastewater Source of data used: AMS III.F /Version 08 (foot note 1 page 5) Value applied: 0.21 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Default value

Any comment: -

Data / Parameter: MCFww, treatment Data unit: % Description: Methane correction factor Source of data used: Table III.F.1. AMS III.F /Version 08 (page 5) Value applied: 0.8 for open anaerobic ponds in baseline and project activity Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

MCF value of 0.8 for anaerobic deep lagoon (depth > 2 m) Default values from chapter 6 of volume 5( Waste) in 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

Any comment: Data / Parameter: UFb Data unit: - Description: Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties Source of data used: AMS-III.F version 8, paragraph 18 Value applied: 0.94


28

Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Default value.

Any comment: Data / Parameter: Densitydiesel Data unit: Kg/liter Description: Density of diesel Source of data used: http://www.petronasjababeka.co.id/brochures/ADO-PETRONAS.pdf Value applied: 0.870 kg/liter Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

This parameter is required to calculate the emissions factor of diesel being used in the project activity. The density of diesel has been obtained from published sources.

Any comment: - Data / Parameter: EFCO2 Data unit: tCO2/ km Description: CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel use due to transportation Source of data used: Calculated based on the following inputs:

i) Vehicle Fuel Consumption (volume): 0.285 litres/km ii) Fuel Density: 0.870 kg/litre iii) CO2 emission factor from fuel use due to transportation: 3.18 tCO2 / ton fuel

Value applied: 0.00079 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

i) Vehicle Fuel Consumption (volume): 28.5 litres for 100km used. Source: http://www.greenfleet.com.au/transport/technical.asp ii) Fuel Density: 0.870 kg/litre. Source: http://www.petronasjababeka.co.id/brochures/ADO-PETRONAS.pdf ii) CO2 emission factor from fuel use due to transportation: IPCC 2006, vol2, 2006 - Table 2.2 page 2.16

Any comment: - Data / Parameter: EFcomposting Data unit: tCH4/tonwaste treated Description: Emission factor for composting of organic waste Source of data used: AMS III.F Version 8.0 (Page 8) Value applied: 0 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually

As per the methodology, this factor can be kept as zero if the oxygen content of the compost is more than 8%. Since the project proponent shall make sure through regular monitoring that the same is followed, this parameter can be taken as zero.


29

applied : Any comment: Data / Parameter: DAFw Data unit: km/truck Description: Average incremental distance for compost distribution Source of data used: Truck’s speed/distance recording meter Value applied: 0 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

The average distance travelled by waste in the baseline would be more than that in the project activity. Hence, considered to be zero. This is conservative.

Any comment:

B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

Ex- ante emissions are calculated as defined in section 6.1 as given below:

Baseline emissions: Baseline emissions are calculated following equation1 as given in table below BEy = BECH4,SWDS,y – (MDy,reg * GWP_CH4) + (MEPy,ww * GWP_CH4) + BECH4, manure,y ....(1) Where, Parameter Details Value BEy Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e) 27722BECH4,SWDS,y Methane generation potential of the solid waste composted or an-

aerobically digested 0MDy,reg Amount of methane that would have to be captured and combusted in

the year y to comply with the prevailing regulations (tonne) 0BECH4, manure,y Where applicable, baseline emissions from manure composted by the

project activities, as per the procedures of AMS-III.D 0MEPy,ww Methane emission potential in the year y of the wastewater co-

composted. (tonne) 1320GWP_CH4 GWP for CH4 (value of 21 is used) 21

Baseline emission from EFB anaerobic degradation in unmanaged dumpsites: BECH4,SWDS,y = 0 Baseline emission from biogas capture or combustion: MDy,reg = 0


30

Baseline emission from manure composting: BECH4, manure,y = 0 Methane emission potential in the year y of the wastewater co-composted: Methane emission potential of co-composted wastewater is estimated as: MEPy,ww =Qy,ww,in * CODy,ww,untreated * BO,ww * MCFww,treatment * UFb ...................................(2) Where, Parameter Details Value MEPy,ww Methane emission potential in the year y of the wastewater co-

composted. The value of this term is zero if co-composting of wastewater is not included in the project activity (tonne) 1320

Qy,ww,in Volume of wastewater (POME and POME slurry) entering the co-composting facility in the year y (m3) 97200

CODy,ww,untreated Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the co-composting facility in the year y (tonnes/m3) 0.086

BO,ww Methane producing capacity for the wastewater (IPCC default value of 0.6 kg CH4/kg.COD) 0.21

MCFww,treatment Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system in the baseline scenario (MCF value as per table III.F.1) 0.8

UFb Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties (0.94) 0.94 Project Activity Emissions: Project emissions are estimated as follows; PEy = PEy,transp +PEy,power + PEy,phy leakage + PEy,compost + PEy, runoff + PEy, res waste ..................(3) Where, Parameter Details Value PEy Project emissions in the year y 135PEy,transp CO2 emissions due to incremental transportation distances 66PEy,power CO2 emissions from electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption by the

project activity facilities 70PEy,phy leakage Methane emissions from physical leakages of the anaerobic digester 0PEy,compost Methane emissions during composting process 0PEy, runoff Methane emissions from runoff water 0PEy, res waste Methane emissions from the disposal/storage of these residual

waste/products 0 Project emissions due to incremental transportation distances; Project emissions due to incremental transportation distances are estimated as follows; PE y, transp = (Q y/CTy) * DAFw * EFCO2 + (Qy, treatment, i / CTy, treatment, i) * DAFtreatment,i * EFCO2 .......(4) Where, Parameter Details Value


31

PEy,transp CO2 emissions due to incremental transportation distances 66Q y Quantity of wastewater co-treated in the year y (tonnes) 97200CTy Average truck capacity for transportation (tonnes/truck) NA

DAFw Average incremental distance for raw solid waste/manure and/or wastewater transportation (km/truck) 0

EFCO2 CO2 emission factor from fuel use due to transportation (kgCO2/km, IPCC default values or local values may be used) 0.00079

I Type of residual waste/products and or compost Compost

Qy, treatment, i Quantity of residual waste/products and/or compost i produced in year y (tonnes) 16632

CTy, treatment, i Average truck capacity for residual waste/products/compost i transportation(tonnes/truck) 8

DAFtreatment,i Average distance for residual waste/products/compost i transportation (km/truck) 40

Estimation of EFCO2 EFCO2 will be estimated as follows: Fuel emission factor (EFCO2) Value Unit CO2 emission factor for diesel 0.00079 tCO2/km Vehicles ( trucks) fuel consumption 0.285 liter/km Fuel Density 0.870 kg/liter Diesel Emission Factor 3.18 tCO2/ton

Project emissions from electricity and fossil fuel consumption by the project activity facilities (PEy,power): Project emission from electricity and fossil fuel consumption by the project activity facilities are estimated as follows; PEy,power = PE,ydiesel + PE,yelectricity..............................................................................................(5) PEy, diesel = Qy, diesel * EFCO2.......................................................................................................(6) Parameter Details Value PEy,power CO2 emissions from electricity and fossil fuel consumption by the

project activity facilities 70PE,ydiesel CO2 emissions from diesel consumption in the year y (tCO2/yr) 70PE,yelectricity CO2 emissions from electricity consumption in the year y

(tonesCO2/yr) 0Qy, diesel Quantity of diesel consumption in the year y (liters/yr) 25,262 EFCO2 CO2 emission factor for diesel (kgCO2/lit) 2.8 EGy Power consumption in the year y (MWh/yr) - CEF elec,y Grid emission factor (tCO2/MWh) -

Estimation of Qy, diesel:


32

Equipment/ Vehicles

Fuel consumption (liter/hour)

No (Units)

Hours (days)

Days (per annum)

Hours (per annum)

Fuel consumption (liter per annum)

Payloader 0.805 1 8 300 2400 1932Lorry 1.471 1 8 300 2400 3530Turner 5.5 1 12 300 3600 19800 Total 25262

Project emissions due to physical leakages from the digester (PE y, phy leakage): PE y, phy leakage = 0 Project emissions during composting process (PE y, comp): PE y, comp = 0 Project emissions from runoff water from the composting facility (PE,y runoff): PE,y runoff = 0 Project emissions from the disposal/storage of these residual waste/products (PEy, res waste): PEy, res waste = 0 Leakage (LEy):

LEy = 0 Emission reductions (ERy): Emission reduction is calculated as follows; ERy = BEy – (PEy +LEy) .....................................................................................(10) Parameter Details Value17 ERy Emission reduction in year y (tCO2e) 27586BEy Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e) 27721PEy Project emissions in year y (tCO2e) 135LEy Leakage emissions in year y (tCO2e) 0

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

Year Estimation of Baseline emissions (tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of project activity

emissions (tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of leakage

(tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of overall emission

reductions* (tonnes of CO2 e)

2010-11 27721 135 0 27586 17 Rounded down values


33

2011-12 27721 135 0 27586 2012-13 27721 135 0 27586 2013-14 27721 135 0 27586 2014-15 27721 135 0 27586 2015-16 27721 135 0 27586 2016-17 27721 135 0 27586

Total (tonne of CO2 e)

194047 945 0 193102

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

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: Data / Parameter: Qy,ww,in Data unit: m3 Description: Volume of POME co-composted in year y Source of data to be used: Plant records Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Flow meter will be installed at the inlet of the composting facility for measurement of the influent. Continuous measurements are carried out using the flow meter and the measurements will be recorded daily.

QA/QC procedures to be applied:

Measurement frequency: Continuous Recording frequency: Daily Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year The meter will be calibrated at least once in three years, in accordance with paragraph 12(c), Annex 20, EB41

Any comment: When the meter is removed for off-site calibration, which will take place in several days, the POME will be channelled through bypass piping. The volume of POME during these few days will be calculated based on the average daily flow of the previous 3 months record

Data / Parameter: Qy,slurry,in Data unit: m3 Description: Volume of POME slurry co-composted in year y Source of data to be used: Plant records Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

A Lorry (truck tipper) shall be assigned for slurry transportation from mill to compost plant and will be carried out only when the load is filled up to the marked height level in the lorry (thus for each loading, the volume of slurry will be fixed). The specific lorry has been fixed for this purpose. Every loading shall be recorded and a log book shall be maintained for the same. . The volume can also be cross checked by subtracting the amount of POME after the decanter (measured using a flow meter) from the total effluent stream before the decanter (also measured using the flow meter). These flow


34

meters have been installed at the plant site and records are being maintained for the same.


Measurement frequency: Continuous Recording frequency: Daily Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year The dimensions of the lorry can be cross-verified during the verification site visit as calibration for the same is not possible.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: COD y, ww ,untreated Data unit: tCOD/m3 Description: COD of wastewater entering the co-composting facility Source of data to be used: Sampling Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

The monitoring of COD y, ww ,untreated will be conducted at the inlet Co-composting facility. Monthly sampling and testing using by an accredited laboratory.


Measurement frequency: Monthly Recording frequency: Monthly Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year

Any comment: -

Data / Parameter: COD y,slurry ,untreated Data unit: tCOD/m3 Description: COD of slurry entering the co-composting facility Source of data to be used: Sampling Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

The monitoring of COD y,slurry,untreated will be conducted at the inlet Co-composting facility. Monthly sampling and testing shall be done by an accredited laboratory.


Measurement frequency: Monthly Recording frequency: Monthly Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year

Any comment: - Data / Parameter: Qy,treatment,compost Data unit: tonnes/year Description: Quantity of compost produced Source of data to be used: Weighbridge records


35

Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Parameter monitored when a truck carrying compost out of facility using the weighbridge. Monthly value will be aggregated. Weighed on calibrated scale; can be cross checked with compost sales invoices.


Measurement frequency: Lot wise Recording frequency: Monthly Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year The weighbridge will be calibrated at least once in three years, in accordance with paragraph 12(c), Annex 20, EB41

Any comment: Data / Parameter: CTy, treatment compost Data unit: tonnes/truck Description: Average truck capacity for compost distribution Source of data to be used: Measurement Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Each truck’s capacity, used for compost distribution will be recorded using the weighbridge installed at the plant site


Measurement frequency: Lot wise using weighbridge Recording frequency: Lot wise Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year The weighbridge will be calibrated at least once in three years, in accordance with paragraph 12(c), Annex 20, EB41

Any comment: - Data / Parameter: DAFtreatment,compost Data unit: km/truck Description: Average distance for residual waste/compost transportation Source of data to be used: Truck’s distance recording meter Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Truck’s meter reading will be recorded prior and after the residual waste/ compost distribution trip to measure distance travelled by the truck for each distribution trip.


Measurement frequency: Lot wise Recording frequency: Lot wise Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year

Any comment: Data / Parameter: Qy, diesel


36

Data unit: litres/yr Description: Diesel fuelled equipments used in the project activity Source of data to be used: Measurement Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Quantity of diesel used by each machinery will be recorded by the operators.


Measurement frequency: Lot wise Recording frequency: Lot wise Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year

Any comment: Quantity of diesel will be cross checked with the invoices or payment receipt Data / Parameter: Moisture content in the compost Data unit: % Description: Moisture content of compost produced Source of data to be used: Measurement Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

The moisture level will be recorded daily using a hand held moisture meter. The compost pile will be turned if the moisture level reaches 45% to ensure the compost pile is in aerobic condition at all times .


Measurement frequency: Continuously (The moisture meter will record data from at least 3 different points in the windrow to ensure homogeneity of reading taken. Average value of these data will be used to determine the moisture level of the windrow.) Recording frequency: Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year The meter will be calibrated at least once in three years, in accordance with paragraph 12(c), Annex20, EB41

Any comment: Data / Parameter: pH Data unit: - Description: pH of compost pile Source of data to be used: Measurement Value of data N/A Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

The pH level during thermophilic stage will be recorded daily using a hand held pH meter. The compost pile will be turned if the pH becomes too acidic (< 7) or too alkaline (> 7) to ensure the compost pile is in aerobic condition at all times.


Measurement frequency: Sample wise (The pH will be recorded from 3 different points in the windrow to ensure homogeneity of reading taken. Average value of these data will be used to determine the pH level of the windrow.)


37

Recording frequency: Sample wise Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year The meter will be calibrated/testes for accuracy at least once in three years, in accordance with paragraph 12(c), Annex20, EB41

Any comment: - Data / Parameter: Oxygen level Data unit: % Description: Percentage of oxygen content in active windrow Source of data to be used: Measurement Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

The oxygen level during will be recorded daily using a hand held oxygen meter. The compost pile will be turned if the oxygen level drops to below 10% to ensure the compost pile is in aerobic condition at all times.


Measurement frequency: Sample wise (The oxygen level will be recorded from 3 different points in the windrow to ensure homogeneity of reading taken. Average value of these data will be used to determine the oxygen level of the windrow.) Recording frequency: Sample wise Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year The meter will be calibrated/tested for accuracy at least once in three years, in accordance with paragraph 12(c), Annex20, EB41

Any comment: - Data / Parameter: Temperature in the compost Data unit: 0C Description: Temperature content in active windrow Source of data to be used: Measurement Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

The temperature of the active windrow will be monitored and recorded daily using a hand held temperature probe. The range of temperature during this stage is between 50°C - 60°C. The compost pile will be turned when compost temperature reaches below 50 °C.


Measurement frequency: Sample wise (The temperature will be recorded from 3 different points in the active windrow to ensure homogeneity of reading taken. Average value of these data will be used to determine the temperature of active windrow.) Recording frequency: Sample wise Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year


38

The meter will be calibrated/testes for accuracy at least once in three years, in accordance with paragraph 12(c), Annex20, EB41

Any comment: - Data / Parameter: Soil application of compost Data unit: Tonnes/annum Description: Compost applied to the soil Source of data to be used: Plant records Value of data - Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

The compost is transported to the site using trucks. PP has installed a weighbridge which measures the weight of the incoming and outgoing trucks, thereby providing the value of compost transported. The same records shall be used for this parameter.


Recording frequency: Lot wise Calibration frequency (weighbridge): Annual Uncertainty level: Low Data recording: Electronic and paper Record keeping: Credit period +2 year

Any comment: -

B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan: Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. has procedures for monitoring and recording data of operation & maintenance of the plant/ equipments. The equipments used for CDM project are part of these procedures and document on maintenance and rectification done of all the equipments are maintained. Head (Plant) is responsible for the overall functioning of the project activity. PP adopts following procedures to assure the completeness and correctness of the data needed to be monitored for CDM project activity. CDM Team:

• Plant manager: Overall responsibility of compliance with the CDM monitoring plan. • Supervisor: Responsibility for completeness of data, reliability of data (calibration of meters),

and monthly report generation • Shift In-charge/ operators (technical/maintenance/ laboratory): Responsibility of daily report

generation Responsibilities: Allocation of responsibilities to ensure compliance with monitoring requirements of the methodology is given in table below S. No. Task Responsibility Shift- In-

charge Supervisor Plant

manager


39

1. Day to day data collection and record keeping Y 2. Reliability/ Verification of data collected Y 3. Report generation monthly/daily Y Y 4. Checking data for its correctness and completeness Y 5. Maintenance of monitoring equipments Y 6. Calibration of instruments Y 7. Internal audits of CDM project compliance Y 8. Emergency preparedness Y 9. Training of CDM team personnel Y

Day to day data collection and record keeping: Plant data is collected on operation under the supervision of the respective Shift-in-charge and record is kept in daily logs. Reliability of data collected: The reliability of the meters is checked by testing the meters at least once every three years by internal instrumentation department or external agencies. Documents pertaining to testing of meters would be maintained. Frequency: The frequency for data monitoring shall be as per the monitoring details in Section B.7.1 of this document. Archiving of data: Data shall be kept for two years after the crediting period. Checking data for its correctness and completeness: The CDM team is overall responsible for checking data for its completeness and correctness. Calibration of instruments: PP has procedures defined for the calibration of instruments. A log of calibration records is maintained. The respective departments in the company are responsible for the upkeep of instruments in the plant. The calibration of equipment (wherever applicable) shall be done as described in Section B.7.1 Maintenance of monitoring equipments: The operation department is responsible for the proper functioning of the equipments/ instruments and informs the concerned department for corrective action if found that facility is not operating as required. Corrective action is taken by the concerned department and a report on corrective action taken is maintained as done time to time along with the details of problems rectified. Internal audits of CDM project compliance: CDM audits shall be carried out to check the correctness of procedures and data monitored by the internal auditing team entrusted for the work. Report on internal audits done, faults found and corrective action taken shall be maintained and kept for external auditing. Report generation: After verification of the data and due diligence on correctness, if required an annual report on monitoring and estimations shall be maintained by the CDM team and record to this effect shall be maintained for verification.


40

Training of CDM team personnel: The training of the CDM team and plant personnel is carried out on CDM principles, CDM activities, monitoring of data and record keeping through a planned schedule made in advance and a record of various training programmes undertaken is kept for verification. B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) Date of completion of the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology: 14/06/2010 Person responsible for baseline determination: Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. and their associates Contact Person: Mr. Nilson Leong Exective Director Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. Street/P.O.Box: mile 4, Labuk Road/ 809 Building: No. LB 67, 1st& Ground Floor Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia - 90709 TEL/FAX: 089-211333/089-271909 E-Mail: [email protected] 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: 22/09/2006 (Purchase order date) C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: 21 years C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information: C.2.1. Renewable crediting period C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: 01/05/2011 or the date of submission of the project activity to UNFCCC, whichever occurs later


41

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: 7 years18 0 months C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: NA C.2.2.1. Starting date: C.2.2.2. Length: SECTION D. Environmental impacts D.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity: According to the Environmental Quality Act (EQA) 1974, Department of Environment, Malaysia, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not required for the proposed project activity. The project activity is ‘environmentally friendly’ as it will not cause negative impacts but contributes to the reduction of GHGs. 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: No negative environment impact is envisaged, hence, no references or procedures specified here. SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: The stakeholders meeting were held at the Fortuna Club House in Ulu Nangoh, Sandakan, Sabah on 12/07/2007. Over 70 people were invited and attended the meeting. An invitation for the proposed meeting was advertised in the local newspaper, “Daily Express” on 04/07/2007. to allow sufficient time for related parties to attend the meeting. The Stakeholders were represented by local community’s residents, East Malaysia Planters Association (EMPA), JKR Beluran, planters, neighboring millers, representatives of financial institutions, village leaders and school officials. The meeting was arranged to enable all those present to share their opinion with the palm oil industry workers about what the system and equipment will be used for, besides pertaining to the CDM project on co- composting biomass residues such as EFB with POME and POME slurry out of the special technology of the decanter system within the palm oil mill compound. 18 Renewable upto 2 times


42

Guest speakers were specifically invited on this occasion for several important objectives; (1) Clean Development Mechanism on the Kyoto Protocol for the Composting Project (2) Baselines scenario and modification to the project with or without CDM implementation (3) Introduction and Explanation of the Bio-flow Composting Plant (4) Information on the final products-slurry that was expelled from the Decanters and the benefits when

mixed and used with composting (5) Benefits from composting activity and overall contribution to the sustainable criteria (6) Possible positive and/or negative environment impact (7) During these lectures, the other following issues were discussed and explained;

• Mitigation of methane production from EFB left to decay when dumped into the palm oil plantations

• Mitigation of methane production from POME treatment system of the anaerobic and aerobic ponds

• The two stages decanter system called “Eco-D-Decanter” developed by the company in Germany

• The composting turning technology E.2. Summary of the comments received: People participated with great enthusiasm and raised a few questions, which were answered to in an appropriate manner by the project proponent. Summary of these comments is given as follows; Queries and responses from the proponent and the stakeholders: How does the semi-finished compost help to improve the crop yield? Micro-organisms and organic matters in the compost help to recondition the soil and unlock nutrients for the crops' demand, thus enhancing the crop yield. Would the 6 weeks duration period be adequate to achieve semi-finished compost? In order to facilitate and shorten the composting time, raw FFB are shredded to a predetermined length of not more than 4 inches of fiber, thus reducing their sizes for more rapid decomposition. What will the amount of carbon dioxide /methane emissions be during the composting process? The amount of CO2 generated from the action of microorganism and others is minimal compared to firing EFB. The methane will not be generated or neglected due to aerobic treatment of the composting process by keeping the aerobic condition in the piles using mechanical turners and air injection. How much EFB is co-composted by the project activity? All of EFB derived from the CPO mill will be fed to the project activity for composting. E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:

The gathering applauded the efforts and thanked for calling them for discussion. There were no adverse comments received during the stakeholder consultation meeting.


43

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY Organization: Kilang Kelapa Sawit Fortuna Sdn. Bhd. Street/P.O.Box: mile 4, Labuk Road/ 809 Building: No. LB 67, 1st& Ground Floor City: 90709 Sandakan State/Region: Sabah Postfix/ZIP: Country: Malaysia Telephone: (60)89-211333 FAX: (60)89-271909 E-Mail: [email protected] URL: Represented by: Title: Executive Director Salutation: Mr. Last Name: Leong Middle Name: - First Name: Nilson Department: - Mobile: - Direct FAX: (60)89-271909 Direct tel: (60)19-8539962 Personal E-Mail: [email protected]


44

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

No public funding from Annex 1 countries is used for the project activity


45

Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION Table: Details of existing ponds Pond Volume (m3) Depth (m) Cooling pond 8897.85 5.5Anaerobic Pond No.1 38499 5.5Anaerobic Pond No.2 36481 5.5Anaerobic Pond No.3 34462 5.5Anaerobic Pond No.4 34462 5.5Total (anaerobic pond) 143904 Aerobic pond No. 1 29080.35 5.5Aerobic pond No. 2 44127.85 5.5Total (aerobic) 73208.2


46

Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION

Please refer section B.7.2 for details. - - - -