JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final ReportOEJ/GEC JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014
Summary of the Final Report“JCM Feasibility studies「Environment Improvement throughUtilization of Biogas from POME Fermentation System」”( Implementing Entity: Nikken Sekkei Civil Engineering Ltd.
The Japan Research Institute, Ltd.)
1．Overview of the Proposed JCM Project
Study partners
Project site

Cooperation；Kubota Corporation
Tanintharyi District in the south of Republic of the union of Myanmar*(* Hereinafter Myanmar)

Category of
project

Renewable Energy

Description ofproject

We conducted a survey to aim introduction of biomass utilization business to a palm
oil mill in Tanintharyi District in the southern part of Myanmar by using a Japanesebiogas technology which has been applied to Palm Oil Mill Effluent (*POME) in
Malaysia and Indonesia.The survey includes high profitability biogas utilization
measures to promote an investment to the palm oil mill and a brief report related tobusiness practices and local contractors to enhance feasibility of the business.

Expected project
implementer

Japan

Kubota Corporation or some Japanese trading company, etc.

Host country

Yuzana Co., Ltd. (*Company Y)

Initialinvestment

413.1（mill yen）Biogas generation equipment
420.2（mill yen）Gas utilization equipment
833.3（mill yen）Total(Utility plan is CNG for working vehicles)

Date ofgroundbreaking

2016 year

Annualmaintenance cost

52.9（million yen）
※Including gas utilization equipment

Construction
period18 months

Willingness toinvestment

The local company has been seeking forsome profitable biomass utilization measureson their own, their implementation
motivation is high.

Date of projectcommencement

2018 year

Financial plan ofproject

Regarding policy on financing plan, funds owned in the group of the companies is a
first, then the local company procure necessary funds by local financing, etc.

GHG emission
reductions

About 38,971 (t-CO2/year)
1)Avoidance of Methane emissions; About 30,849 (t-CO2/year)
2)Replacement of fossil fuel like light oil, etc.; About 8,122 (tCO2/year)*The above is calculated from the facilities planning, so it is different from the JCM
methodology.

Ⅰ-15

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report

2. Study Contents(1) Project development and implementation
1) Project planninga) Implementation system for project<Construction implementation plan>
Since Company Y has recently made a decision to proceed the project with one of biogas utilization
alternatives, we are still considering a proper way accordingly. The figure below is an example
currently considered.
Contract agreement(Gas generation equipment)

Procurement

KubotaConstruction

Facility installation

Production

Tradingcompany(Gas utilization equipment)

Procurement

Equipment Company

Company Y

Construction

Production

Fig 2.1 Implementation system of project (An example)<Operation plan>
The following operation modes are considered.

Kubota(Gas generation equipment)

O & M contract
Main contractor(Trading company, etc)

Other company(Gas utilization equipment)

Company Y

Service and parts supply

Fig 2.2 Management structure of the project (An example)b) Management structure of the project implementing body and Performance
Table 2.1
Item

JCM Implementing body and equipment introduction of the project
DetailName
Location
No130, Shwe Gon Dine Road, Bahan
Head Office
YUZANA Co., Ltd.
Township, Yangon, Myanmar
JCM project
38mile Khamauk Gyi Townshipproponents
Local plant
Kawthaung Mill
Tanintharyi Division, Kawthaung
Palm millDistrict, Myanmar
Candidate of the equipment
Kubota Corporation
2-47, Shikitsuhigashi 1-chome,introduction
or Japanese trading
Naniwa-ku, Osaka Japan
company, etc.
c) Summary of the project
The proposed project is divided into two parts of the "methane fermentation equipment" and the"methane gas utilization equipment". The "methane fermentation equipment" is the "Anaerobic
membrane-type high-temperature methane fermentation (AnMBR)" method that Kubota developed.
An overview of the project is described hereafter.
Ⅰ-16

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report<Methane fermentation equipment>
The methane fermentation equipment using the thermophilic anaerobic digestion method produces
biogas from most of organic matter in POME. The equipment consists of a methane fermentation tankand its relevant equipment.
Table 2.2
Item
FFB processing
capacity of millPlanning conditions of biogas generation facilities from POME
DetailPlanning content
Remarks
Maximum
Ability of equipment
120 (t/hr)
capacity per hour
Maximum yield
About 3 months
1,800 (t/d)
per date in peak
Yield of FFB
Annual variation was
408,000(t/ｙ)
Year total
considered
Maximum peak
About 3 months
1,080 (t/hr)
date
POME amount ofprocessed
Consider the annual
Year total
244,800 (m3/y)variation
POME water quality
Determined by research
Average
60,000 (mg/L)
and literature(COD Cr)
Methane generation method

AnMBR*

By Kubota Corporation* Anaerobic membrane-type high-temperature methane fermentation

2) CNG equipment

1) Biogas facilities
BiogasPurification・Compression

CNG
supplyGas holder

POME

ScreenStorage tankof rawmaterial

Methanefermentationtank

Methane membrane

Fig. 2.3 Basic flow of utilization and biogas generation (Case of CNG use)

Ⅰ-17

Methanedrainage

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report<Biogas utilization equipment>
We considered a plural biogas utilization measures corresponding to situation of the counter party.
The most economical measure was to utilize biogas to produce EFB pellet as drying fuel. Thisbusiness included sale of the EFB pellet. In the final meeting, however, the counter party choseutilizing biogas as vehicle fuel despite of less economical advantage than the EFB pellet. The reason
was that the business characteristics of the EFB pellet were quite difference the palm oil business
which is a main business of the counter party. Moreover, uncertainty of the EFB pellet business suchas selling price and its market size seemed to affect their decision making.
To utilize biogas as vehicle fuel, it is necessary of both equipment of gas refinery and injection. The
vehicle improvement to enable use of the gas fuel is also necessary. Through hearings in the local, we
found that a local company could do the vehicle improvement on the price level of about 2000 USD
per a truck. We have estimated that the amount of the biogas production on this project is enough to
supply fuel to 262 trucks (out of total 400 trucks) which the counter party owns.
Table 2.3 Object of study for biogas utilization
Biogas utilization measures
Summary

In theCompany Y

1) Fuel for working vehicle used

To utilize biogas as fuel of working vehicle ownedin the plantation (CNG)

by Y Corporation.

2) Fuel for the EFB pellet

In an EFB pellet production facilities, the biogas is

productionused for drying EFB and pelletizing.

3) Power supply Workers’
households and others4) Sale of gas fuel to such as

For workers’ households in the Palm plantation andschools, etc. the electric power, generated from thebiogas, is supplied.
As general fuel, to sell the gas filled into cylinder.

Kawthaung City
For external5) Power supply to the

To sell the power generated by using the biogas tosurrounding area

the neighboring town (Kawthaung).

Ⅰ-18

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Reportd) Benefits
Table 2.4 Effect of biogas utilization for POME processing and working vehicle
Item
DetailPlanned figures
Remarks
maximum amount of
6,680,000 (Nm3/y) Conversion ratio 78％
Amount of gas gas per year
generation
maximum amount of
4,010,000 (Nm3/y)methane gas per year
(1)Released methane
1,469 (t/y)
Conversion ratio 40％
GHG
emission from the ponds
reduction＝(1)×21(Methane*Non-Energy
coefficient)
30,849 (t-CO2/y)(2)Reductions
source*Different from the value
methodology
The reduction by (3)Reduction of Diesel
3,100 (kL/y)Study results
fuelalternative consumption(CNG car)
8,122(t-CO2/y)(4)CO2 reduction＝(3)×2.62 (Light oil)
※Energy source
Non-Energy source andCO2 reduction
38,971(t-CO2/y)＝(2)+ (4)Energy source
Set from research and≒60,000 (mg/L)
Current condition
literature
Water
quality
improvement
78% conversion of COD
After the introduction(COD Cr)
About 6,600(mg/L)
×50% reduction byof the equipment
sedimentatione) Evaluation of business profitability
Table 2.5 Prerequisites of financial analysis
Content
Setting basis

Item
Project period

Depreciation

The upper limit for 10 years
Concrete building（Factory）:
Declining balance depreciation at 3%

By study team
By Myanmar government laws andregulations

Machinery and equipment・Machinery and equipment: Decliningbalance depreciation at 6.25%

Ditto

Corporate tax

25％

Ditto

Commercial tax

5% and some exception
Working capital is assumed to be
fixed.

Ditto

Working capital

Exchange rate-

Trade statistics by Ministry of Finance"foreign exchange rates"（2015.1.4～
1.10）
Set by the study team from document
published by Myanmar central bank.

1 kyat＝0.12 yen
1 US dollar＝115 yen

In case of in CNG vehicle, intended for 10 years, IRR is 23% if there is no equipment assistance by
JCM, IRR when equipment cost is assumed to be half price by JCM has been estimated to be 47%. In
addition, Payout time with JCM support is estimated 2years and 11months. In the last meeting of thisresearch, an executive officer of the counter party, being in charge of the palm business, commented tostart to realize the CNG project in this proposal.

Ⅰ-19

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report

Table 2.6 Investment efficiency of projects, including the gas utilization measures
Payout time (year)
Utilization measures ofmethane gas
With JCM
Without JCM
2years and1. CNG Fuel for working
vehicle11months
3 years
2. Pelletizing of EFB
1year and
(Palm shell)Less than 1 year
4months

IRR（％）（10years）
With JCM

Without JCM

47%

23%

59%

120%

f) Financial planning

Regarding financial planning, fund of the partner’s company group is the first, the next policy
is to be raised financing by the partner company.（For not determined the evaluation of
Myanmar and its companies by financial institutions of Japan, private and public financing ofJapan is difficult.）g) Risk Analysis

As risks associated with business, there are country risk, credit risk on the partner company,
various risks due to lack of agreement, risk of damage or delay or the like in the procurement
and risk by defects in the contract work. Because those that can be quantified are small, othercredit investigation, to take full advantage of the hedge measures such as trade insurance.
Since the description contents of essentially agreement is internationally effective, to reduce
as much as possible the risk by contract.
2) Permits and Licenses for the project development and implementation(As contractor of construction)
Because it does not progressed consultation to contract, details are not yet determined. Even if theJapanese companies undertake a set of construction, the owner of the equipment should takeconstruction approval, etc. For Japanese companies, it is necessary to take the permission of theconstruction industry from Myanmar government.
(Environmental impact assessment)
In Myanmar, the enforcement bylaws of the new Foreign Investment Law of January 2013, in
response to that EIA is defined investment areas becomes a condition of approval, the rules onenvironmental impact assessment is currently under consideration. In this draft, the businesscorresponding to the current content, such as the following, be submitted materials surveyed
considered the environmental impact on the related organizations are described. These contents arecommon, in a state where not specified the business or the scale of additional circumstance unabledefinite decision.

Ⅰ-20

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report(a) Modification of terrain, natural ecosystems and natural landscape(b) Development of renewable energy and non-renewable energy resources(c) Activities and actions with the potential to give the emissions and damage, deterioration against
benefits of ecosystem(d) Activities and actions that can affect against social and cultural environment(e) Activities and actions that can affect to conservation of natural resources protection area, history
and culture(f) Introduction of new plant and animal species and life forms, including the genetically modified(g) Application techniques that can be expected to considerably affect the environment(h) Activities that may affect a high probability to national security(i) Use and production of biologic al and non-biological material(j) Those corresponding to other criteria such as defined by the National Environmental Protection
Committee
Source) Rules of the environmental impact assessment (Draft)

Myanmar environmental protection Ministryof Forestry3) Advantage of Japanese technology
A covered lagoon is currently a common system for biogas capture from the POME at palm oil millsin the Southeast Asia, but has some issues such as the low productivity of biogas caused byuncontrollable temperature and insufficient mixing in the lagoon digester. On the contrary, theproposed system (Kubota's system) has an advantage on the high biogas productivity by employing athermophilic digester having an aerobic membrane, which has already been used at palm oil mills in
Malaysia and Indonesia.

Ⅰ-21

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report

Table2.7 Comparison of the proposed method and the conventional method for this project
A method
B method
C method
Item
Cover Dragoon
Conventional tank system
The proposed scheme

1. Appearance

2. System image

3. Fermentation

temperature zone

Mesophilic fermentation

Mesophilic fermentation(34～37℃)(34～37℃)

High temperature
fermentation (50～55℃)

≒40％
Poor

≒50～60％Good

72*～82％
Superior

36,000 kWh/day(Ave 1,500 kW)

50,000 kWh/day(Ave 2,100 kW)

65,000 kWh/day(Ave 2,700 kW)≒6.1 million USD

3.5～7 million USD**

・It is more effective than・It is the most effective
・Drainage water quality is

4. Conversion ratioof from COD of
POME to biogas
5. The amount ofenergy obtained
from biogas(Model case; COD
60,000mg / L in
POME 1080m3 /d)
6. Initial cost
(Including also
generator)
7. Advantage

8. Shortcoming≒4.9

million USD・Initial cost is thecheapest
・Simple introduction
・Unstable fermentation
・Danger, such as in astorm
・Sheet is aging

the left・Relatively complex

mechanism

the best

・Most complex

mechanism

4) MRV structure
Kubota, when it has been introduced through facilities directly or contractor is likely that connects amaintenance contract with some kind of ways. Therefore, directly or indirectly, Kubota it is possible toimprove the responsibility and technical support for the MRV such technology by also implementing
monitoring. In addition, when the Japanese trading company, etc. to participate as prime contractoralso, Japanese companies have a policy that mainly performs MRV.

Ⅰ-22

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report

Data, etc.
■Manager of the■Main contractor
・Trading company, etc.

Palm Mill・Y Company■Kubota＝O & M contract(Plan)
・Automatically recorded data
(POME amount, methane
emissions, etc.)
・Manual data (FFB amount,
Quantity of palm oil, etc.)

Reporting of monitoring results
Reporting of monitoring results■Manufacture of the gas utilizationequipment
・Manual data (CNG

consumption in working
vehicles and actual distancerun by the vehicles.)■Third-party organization(Myanmar research firm or University, etc.)
・Confirmation of monitoring methods andresults■Japan・Myanmar Joint Committee(The installation scheduled for future)

Fig. 2.4 Conceptual diagram of MRV system (An example)
Depending on the potential of the measured potential and the COD concentration of the direct
measurement of the amount of POME flow meter, monitoring items is determined.

Item

POME
amountActualmeasurement・
Estimation
Possible
Actualmeasurement・
Estimation
Not possible

Table 2.8 Monitoring items
COD concentration
Measurable
Not measured【Option 1】【Option 2】
・COD Concentration
・POME Amount of emission
・POME Amount of emission
・Power, the amount of gas
・Power, the amount of gas【Option 3】
・FFB input amount・Power, the amount of gas【Option 4】
・FFB input amount・Power, the amount of gas

5) Environmental integrity and Sustainable development in host country
POME from the palm mills is currently released into the field at the still high COD from precipitation
ponds. The proposed project, because it intends to extract the organic matter from the waste water asbiogas containing methane, can obtain the following effects such as environmental improvement, thenit is considered that the environmental integrity at the host country will be enough guaranteed .

Ⅰ-23

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report

Table 2.9 Environmental impact of before and after the project introduction (Excerpt)
Classification
Air quality

Water
environment

Soilenvironment
other
Friendship

Environmental
load

Environmental
element(1) Air

Impact・2(Equipment introduction)
Evaluation of business・Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia generated in ・Impact of air pollution isthe biogas extraction process, is removed
reduced.
in the process. ＊Biological(Improve)desulfurization, etc.
(2) Noise・Noise does not occur in the biogas
・Noise of the generator
extraction equipment.
occurs.
・Mechanical noise is generated in the power（Deteriorate）
generation use of methane gas. 60db (A)degree in the package type.
(3) Stench・Odor in EFB yard is reduced by stopping・Occurrence of bad
the application of POME to EFB.
smell can be prevented,
・Odor, POME pounds are eliminated, notemployee environment
generated by being processed in a closed
improvement
tank.
（Improve）(1) Water quality
・CODcr removal rate is estimated as 90%
・Improve organic mattersuch as by organic extraction andconcentration, etc. of
precipitation effects biogas.
drainage.
（Improve）(2)Groundwater・Effects of osmosis water from the EFB yard ・Groundwaterand POME pound of ground is eliminated.
contamination isprevented from.
（Improve）
・Soil
・Effects of osmosis water from the EFB yard ・Soil contamination is
and POME pound of ground is eliminated.
prevented from.
（Improve）
・Landscape・POME pounds are eliminated・Improvement in the・Equipment is installed such as reaction tanklead.
of φ about 33m H about 15m.
（Improve）(1)Solid waste
・Waste generated from bio-gas tank, but the ・At present, it is notcomposting and the like, it is possible topossible to evaluate thereduce the influence by the farmland todifference.
Palm Garden.
（Null）(2) Greenhouse ・Greenhouse gases, are reduced by the fuel・Lead to a significant
gas
alternative in the case of emissions andreduction.
biogas utilization from POME ponds.
（Improve）

6) Toward project realization (planned schedule and possible obstacles to be overcome)a）To enhance the accuracy of emissions and water quality values trough a year, such as in P / S
survey.
→By using the measured values of the loss GHG reductions by the correction coefficient due to
MRV methodology, it can be prevented.
b）The officials of the other companies, and invited to visit to Kubota plant in Malaysia→To show the sites to the partner company to enhance the persuasiveness of negotiations.
c）Continuation of quotient negotiations toward the project contract

Ⅰ-24

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report（2）JCM methodology development①Eligibility criteria
This methodology can be applied to the project that meets all of the criteria as follows.
Table 2.10

Eligibility criteria
Content

Criteria 1

Anaerobic digesters and system that is fuelled by the biogas are to be installed.

Criteria 2

The materials to be fed into the anaerobic digesters are organic waste including
septage that would have been disposed at a landfill site in the absence of the project
activity.

Criteria 3

Anaerobic digester for wet thermophilic fermentation (50 to 55 degree Celsius) is to
be installed.

Criteria 4

Anaerobic digester which has anaerobic membrane is to be installed.

Criteria 5

The project secures organic waste as the materials of the project activity and has aproper maintenance system that outlines a maintenance plan and equipment formonitoring activities.
Source：Study TeamThe policy for establishing the above eligibility criteria is described as follows.
Table 2.11 Policy for establishing eligibility criteria
Grounds for establishment
Criteria 1

To identify the target technology covered by this methodology.

Criteria 2

In this methodology, the word “reference emissions” is defined as “emissions fromorganic effluent which is treated in an open ended system, when the project is notconducted”. Thus, materials put into the anaerobic digesters need to be limited asorganic effluent, which are treated in an open ended system when project is notconducted.

Criteria 3

To give an advantage for Japanese technologies in the GHG emission reduction.

Criteria 4Same as above.

Criteria 5

To make the GHG emission reduction effective by realizing continuous
management.
Source：Study TeamThe project which will be covered by this study plans to introduce Japanese anaerobic digester systemwith wet thermophilic fermentation and meets all the criteria above.

Ⅰ-25

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report②Calculation of GHG emissions (including reference and project emissions)
In this study, we developed methodologies with reference to small-scale methodologies, AMS-III.H(Version 16.0).
In the mill targeted by this project, organic wastewater drained in the process of producing palm oil(Palm Oil Mill Effluent; POME) is finally discharged in the river after the pond (or utilized for wateringin the palm garden in the dry season). In Myanmar, there is no rule or standards to regulate the quality ofindustrial wastewater as of January 2015. Unless otherwise Myanmar government introduces rule or
standards to regulate the quality of industrial wastewater or operators of factories starts introducing
technologies of effluent treatment by themselves, it is expected that the amount of organic effluent withhigh concentration will increase, with expanding of economic activities in the country. Thus, in thismethodology, we developed the calculation method with setting reference scenario as “organic effluent
from the factory is treated in an open ended system, when the project is not conducted”.
① Calculations of reference emissions
REy = REtreatment,y+ REdischarge,y+ REpower
REy

Reference emissions in year y (tCO2e)

REtreatment,yCH4 emissions from wastewater treatment systems in the reference scenario(tCO2e) (R1)

REdischarge,yCH4 emissions from treated wastewater discharged into sea, river or lake in thereference scenario (tCO2e) (R2)

REpower,yCO2 emissions on account of electricity or fossil fuel used in the reference
scenario (tCO2e) (R3)② Calculations of the project emissions
Project emissions are calculated by totaling 1. project CH4 emissions from effluent treatment
system without biogas plant, which is affected by the project, 2. project CH4 emissions from
effluent discharged into the sea, river or lake, and 3. CO2 emissions from electricity and fuel usedby the project facilities.
PE y = PEtreatment,y + PEdischarge,y + PEpower,yPEy

Project emissions during the period of year y (tCO2e)

PEtreatment,yProject CH4 emissions from effluent treatment system without biogas plant, whichis affected by the project (tCO2e) (P1)

PEdischarge,yProject CH4 emissions from effluent discharged into sea, river or lake (tCO2e) (P2)

PEpower,yCO2 emissions from electricity and fuel used by the project facilities (tCO2e) (P3)③ Calculations of emission reductions
Emission reductions in year are calculated by deducting project emissions from reference emissions.
ERy = REy - PEy
ERy

Emission reductions in year y (tCO2)

REy

Reference emissions in year y (tCO2)

PEy

Project emissions in year y (tCO2)

Ⅰ-26

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report③Data and parameters fixed ex ante
Table 2.12

Parameters fixed prior to project implementation as a default value(1)No.
1Parameter
CODinflow,i,RS

Description of data
Concentration of COD in
POME flows in to thetreatment system in thereference scenario (mg/L)

Value
60,000mg/mL

Sourcemonitored data

2

CODoutflow,i,RS

Concentration of COD in
POME flows out from thetreatment system in thereference scenario (mg/L)(To be obtained)

monitored data

3

MCFtreatment,RS,i

Methane correction factor
for reference wastewater

Refer to the Table 5.4
in the report

IPCC2006 Guideline

4

Bo,ww

CH4 producing capacity of
the wastewater (t-CH
4/t–COD)

0.25t-CH4/t-COD

IPCC2006 Guideline

5

UFRS

Model correction factor toaccount for model

0.89

SBSTA 2003

6

GWPCH4Global Warming Potential
for CH421

IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report:
Climate Change
2007

7

ƒQ

Model correction factor toaccount for model

0.5

Set based on “IPCC
Good PracticeGuidance andUncertainty
Management in
National
Greenhouse Gas
Inventories”

8

QRS

Amount of POME in thereference scenario

97,920 m3/monthmonitored data

9

PRS

Amount of FFB used in thereference scenario

34,000t/monthmonitored data

Ⅰ-27

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report

Table 2.13

Parameters fixed prior to project implementation as a default value(2)No.

Parameter

Description of data

Value

Source10

CODdischarge,RS

Concentration of COD in

13,300mg/mL

monitored data

Methane correction factor

Refer to the Table 5.4

IPCC2006 Guideline

for reference wastewaterin the report

CO2 emissions factor of-

POME discharged into
the river in the reference
scenario (mg/L)
11
12

MCFdischarge,RSEFelectricity

electricity (tCO2/MWh)

Each of regulatory
value set by thegovernment of
Myanmar, result of
the calculation in the
project conducted in
the past, or result oforiginal
calculation

13

EFFF,RSCO2 emissions factor of

0.0686diesel (tCO2/TJ)

Regulatory value set
by the governmentof Myanmar

14
15

MCFtreatment,RS,i
UFPJ

Methane correction factor

Refer to the Table 5.4

IPCC2006 Guideline

for reference wastewaterin the report

Model correction factor

1.12

SBSTA 2003

2

Set based on “IPCC

to account for model
16

ƒCOD

Model correction factor
to account for model

Good PracticeGuidance andUncertainty
Management in
National
Greenhouse Gas
Inventories”

As mentioned above, in this methodology, parameters are set to calculate GHG emission withconservative way, when amount of POME or concentration of COD in POME could not be measured.
Specifically, in calculation of reference emissions, calculation formula is set to halve the amount of
POME, which is calculated from αRS (factor of amount of POME per FFB) by multiplying 0.5 which isa model correction factor set by IPCC guideline, when the amount of POME could not be measured.
Ⅰ-28

JCM Feasibility Study (FS) 2014 – Final Report

In the same way, in calculation of project emissions, calculation formula is set to double theconcentration of COD, which is calculated with designed value, by multiplying 2 which is a model
correction factor by IPCC guideline, when concentration of COD in POME could not be measured.
With these calculation formulas, conservativeness of the result of the calculation is fully secured.

Ⅰ-29