Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 83

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

ON THE PDA

Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Facility for the Lilo-an Public Market

FUNDED BY ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK, MANILA

Republic of the Philippines Province of Cebu Municipality of Lilo-an

the Philippines Province of Cebu Municipality of Lilo-an Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Department of Environment and Natural Resources Environmental Management Bureau Region 7 Office, Mandaue City

and Natural Resources Environmental Management Bureau Region 7 Office, Mandaue City March 2004 – March 2006
and Natural Resources Environmental Management Bureau Region 7 Office, Mandaue City March 2004 – March 2006

March 2004 – March 2006

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary

5

Introduction

7

Rationale of the report

7

Background of the project

7

Project rationale

7

Summary table of project phases

8

Phase I – Project pre-phase

9

Timeline of Phase I

9

Outset situation of the project

9

Reporting to ADB

11

Project concept paper

11

Project proposal

11

Social preparation activities

11

Administrative and legal requirements

11

Official ceremonies

12

Phase II – Preparation phase of project implementation

13

Timeline of Phase II

13

Official start of the PDA – LoA signing between ADB and Lilo-an

13

Social preparation activities

14

Organizational chart of the overall project

14

Inner project circle – project champions

14

Organizational chart of the Lilo-an project office / project task force

15

Information drive seminar

16

Technical project activities

16

Procurement procedure and public bidding

16

Adjustments on the original WTF design - including of a second RBC unit

17

Including of renovation of the public market’s toilets

17

Legal requirements

17

ECC

application

17

MoA between municipality of Lilo-an and the contractor

18

Phase III – Phase of physical ground development

19

Timeline of Phase III

19

Technical project activities

19

Groundbreaking ceremony

19

WTF construction works proper

20

Inauguration ceremony

22

Social preparation activities

24

Cooperative

24

Information drive follow up seminar

24

Phase IV – Running-in phase of WTF and final social preparations

25

Timeline of Phase IV

25

Practical issues encountered during the WTF running-in phase

25

Power supply of the WTF

25

Operation of the wastewater pumps

26

Maintaining and cleaning of the collecting sewer at the market

26

Final set up and flow chart of Lilo-an WTF

27

Monitoring the running-in performance of the WTF through a thesis study

29

Integrating of a thesis of an undergraduate chemistry student into the PDA

29

Results of the thesis

29

Discussion on the thesis study on the WTF running-in performance

30

Social preparation activities

30

O&M training of cooperative

30

MoA draft on transfer of WTF O&M to the cooperative

31

LGU

forum

32

Cost recovery scheme

33

Original cost recovery scheme

33

ADB proposal: recovery of full project costs within 10 years time

34

Alternative cost recovery scheme

34

Project budgeting

36

Summary of the project budget

36

Handling of the budgeting by the Municipality of Lilo-an

37

Summary

38

Conclusions and lessons learnt

40

List of attachments

43

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project completion report summarizes an Asian Development Bank (ADB) funded Pilot and Demonstration Activity (PDA) on the construction of a decentralized wastewater treatment facility (WTF) in Lilo-an, a third class municipality in the Prov- ince of Cebu, Philippines. Lilo-an was suffering for a long time from the deteriorated quality of coastal water, namely high coliform cell counts, which are an unambiguous indicator for fecal contamination, had been reported repeatedly in the local newspa- per. The project was implemented in the period of time from March 2004 to March 2006. The report provides an overview of the technical aspects of the project as well as of the social preparation activities accompanying the PDA.

The project came into existence as the project coordinator, who is based as consult- ant at the DENR/EMB-7 Office in Mandaue City, was able to bringing together the funding agency and the implementing agency by filing of a project proposal. When beginning with the PDA proper, a well organized and highly effective project infra structure was established. The functions of these project committees -and particularly of the group forming the inner circle of the project (“project champions”)- proved to be vital for successful project implementation and are being described. Several IEC ac- tivities and official ceremonies were held throughout the project in order to keep the project partners involved and updated. Additionally numerous smaller information drive activities were conducted on a more informal basis.

From the technical point of view, the PDA proved that a $50,000 budget is good for the construction of a WTF with a capacity of 60 m³ per day. As an added value to the project, the renovation of the market’s toilets also was included in the PDA. The WTF was based on the so-called Rotating Biological Contactor and was put up within the rather congested and densely populated area of Lilo-an town center. Aside from wastewater effluents from the market itself, the facility also serves wastewater com- ing from a nearby residential area. The WTF proved to be efficient in terms of BOD 5 removal. It will be discussed that during the running-in period of the WTF several practical issues came up, with the consequence that eventually some compromises in the WTF design had to be made. Still there was an immediate positive effect on coliform cell counts along the Lilo-an coast line, which shows that sanitation and the health situation for the residents could be improved in the area.

Several legal and bureaucratic requirements have been dealt with during the project. In fact when this PDA had started, multiple interactions and learning processes were learnt on how to deal with local bureaucracy. Complications concerning the handling of project funds by the municipality lead to additional efforts exerted by the project partners. A “double bureaucracy” was sensed with regards to the two accounting de- partments of Lilo-an and at ADB, which had to be complied with. An Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) had also to be secured for the project.

In order to establish a viability of this project, a user fee system was being estab- lished for the facility, in order to come up with the shortest possible cost recovery scheme. In a conservative proposal a 26 years cost recovery period was computed. However along the way ADB insisted that a cost recovery system within 10 years should be elaborated in order to make it more attractive for others to follow. Within this scheme the group came up with some innovative ideas to be able to cover op- eration and maintenance (O&M) of the facility as well as the expected cost recovery in 10 years.

The Lilo-an market vendors, which are the primary beneficiaries of this project, had already their market vendors’ association. With the information meetings that were provided to them during the PDA, they have voluntarily and willingly spun-off from their existing association to what is now known as the Lilo-an Community Multi Pur- pose Cooperative. The name was purposely made with the intention that its member- ship will not only come from the market vendors, but also from the community of the surrounding blocks that have also contributed to the wastewater feeding into the de- centralized WTF. At present there are 100 members of this cooperative, expectedly it will be doubling its number in a few months. Right now the cooperative is quite happy and satisfied in taking O&M of the WTF and the market toilets, of course with the blessings of the LGU.

Although the focus is on the collection WTF user fees, the project team together with the cooperative have come up with a wide variety of schemes in order to be able to reinforce the earnings that can be derived from it. The most prominent income gen- erator scheme by now –enjoyed by the cooperative- is the collection of user fees from the renovated public market toilets. From its initial operation just about half what was collected monthly goes to the O&M, while the rest becomes savings and funds for the cooperative, thus a cost recovery within 10 years is coming within reach.

With this initial result and the wide opportunities for earning the cooperative in fact is becoming really enthusiastic about this project, the basis to make it sustainable and successful in the long run. This positive response by the people on paying for cleanli- ness have erased some doubts that the misconception that people are already satis- fied with their polluted environment could not be reversed. The PDA demonstrated that the issue of sanitation, which usually represents for common people the lowest level, can be upgraded to attract people to profit generation, showing that environ- ment and business in fact can go hand in hand into a joint venture.

business in fact can go hand in hand into a joint venture. Mandaue City, May 5,

Mandaue City, May 5, 2006

The “project champions” at the Lilo-an light- house, March 21, 2006.

Second from left the contractor, Mr. Jesselito V. Baring, in the middle Mrs. Pye S. Roble, Lilo-an MLGOO, second from right Dr. Andreas König, project coordinator from DENR/EMB-7.

Dr. Andreas König EMB-7 in-house expert

second from right Dr. Andreas König, project coordinator from DENR/EMB-7. Dr. Andreas König EMB-7 in-house expert

INTRODUCTION

Rationale of the report

This project completion report summarizes an Asian Development Bank (ADB) funded Pilot and Demonstration Activity (PDA) on the construction of a decentralized wastewater treatment facility in Lilo-an, a third class municipality in the Province of Cebu, Philippines. The project was implemented with a total budget of $50,000 in the period of time from March 2004 to March 2006.

The report provides an overview of the technical aspects of project. Furthermore special emphasis is given to the social preparation activities accompanying the PDA, which proved to become a vital part of the project. Obstacles being encountered dur- ing project implementation are also discussed.

Background of the project

Lilo-an has been suffering from the deteriorated quality of coastal water. 1 High coli- form cell counts in its coastal waters has been reported repeatedly in the local news- paper. The poor hygiene of the coastal water is not only a nuisance for the residents, but it also affects their tourism industry. The Lilo-an beaches used to be a highly popular destination of weekend visitors from Cebu City. However, due to current wa- ter pollution, the number of visitors has dropped dramatically and the tourism industry such as restaurants, transportation, souvenir shops, and numerous small beach ven- dors have faced a serious customer decrease.

High coliform cell counts in water is an unambiguous indicator for fecal contamina- tion, caused by wastewater effluents of domestic origin. In this case, the wastewater coming from the Lilo-an public market is considered to be the largest source of this pollution. The public market is equipped with only a septic tank that is insufficient to maintain proper hygienic conditions of the coastal water.

Lilo-an, like other Philippine municipalities, cannot afford to construct a centralized wastewater treatment system with an extensive collection system and a treatment plant. A decentralized wastewater treatment, which is far less expensive than a cen- tralized system, is considered to be more suitable for this small municipality.

In March 2004, the President of the Philippines signed the "Philippine Clean Water Act", meaning that the country has made a major step toward wastewater treatment, which, previously has not been taken care of in the country. Wastewater treatment will become a “hot issue” in the Philippines. Thus, this PDA could be a timely demon- stration activity.

Project rationale

Technically this project is about the construction of a decentralized wastewater treat- ment facility (WTF) at the Lilo-an public market area. The neighboring residential area also was connected to the WTF. The WTF was designed to treat approximately 60 m³ of wastewater per day. Additionally, this project will include the renovation of the toilets at the public market to further increase the hygiene condition in the place.

1 Lilo-an is a municipality with a population of approximately 70,000, located on the east coast of Cebu Island, some 19 km from Cebu City.

It is expected that this WTF will clean the discharged water from the market, and as a consequence, the quality of coastal water will be improved. Lilo-an expects that visi- tors will come back to its beaches and boost its tourism industry when the coastal water become clean again.

There are also socio-economic aspects in this project. For ensuring sustainable op- eration and maintenance (O&M) of the WTF, the market vendors will organize a co- operative, which will collect WTF user fees, and operate and maintain the WTF by using the money collected by those fees. Even though the project is funded by an ADB grant, a projected cost recovery scheme for recovering the initial project budget is presented, as a model for future PDA.

Summary table of project phases

Table 1 summarizes briefly the project and the major milestones accomplished during implementation. The table illustrates that the PDA as a whole can be divided into four project phases. The so-called “project pre-phase” (or Phase I), which is the phase of elaborating the project proposal and thus happened to be before ADB started their financial support, is also included in this project completion report. The official start of the project proper was with the beginning of Phase II, upon signing of the Letter of Agreement between ADB and the LGU of Lilo-an. In the following the four project phases will be discussed extensively.

Tab. 1: Summary table of project phases.

No.

Timeline

Duration

Project phase

Major accomplishments

I

Mar ’04 – Sep ‘04

7

months

Project pre-phase

Introduction of project idea to ADB and LGU

 

Elaborating and approval of project proposal

II

Oct ’04 – May ‘05

8

months

Preparation phase of project imple- mentation (start of project proper)

Setting up of project structure and project committees

 

Compliances with legal requirements (public bidding procedure, environmental clearance)

III

Jun ’05 – Nov ‘05

5

months

Phase of ground development

WTF construction carried out and completed

 

Social preparation activities conducted

IV

Dec ’05 – Apr ‘06

5

months

Running-in phase of WTF and pro- ject end

Adjusting and optimizing of WTF operation

Monitoring of WTF performance via a thesis of a chemistry student

Final social preparation activities (O&M train- ing, IEC activities, turn-over of WTF O&M)

PHASE I – PROJECT PRE-PHASE

Timeline of Phase I

The phase of elaborating the project idea until the official kick-off ceremony of the project is seen as a project pre-phase and lasted six months (Table 2).

Tab. 2: Timeline of project pre-phase.

Time-

Project activities - technical -

Project ac- tivities - social -

Official

Legal

Budget-

Reporting

line

ceremo-

requirements

ing

to ADB

nies

Mar ‘04

Elaborating

       

Project con-

project idea

cept paper

Apr

Preparing of

Introducing

       

project pro-

project to

posal

council and

to mayor

May

Preparing of

       

Submitting of

project pro-

project pro-

posal

posal

Jun

     

Council resolu- tion: certification of availability of project site

   

Aug

     

No Objection Let- ter from DENR

   

Sep ‘04

   

Kick-off

     

ceremony

Outset situation of the project

Figure 1 illustrates the outset situation of the Lilo-an WTF project. With ADB there was a funding agency willing to give a $50,000 grant for a PDA on sanitation on one side, and with the municipality of Lilo-an there was an LGU in need of support to im- proving their sanitation in their public market area on the other side. Local political figures at Lilo-an already showed the necessary awareness since the deteriorated water quality along the coast line was already featured repeatedly in local newspa- pers. A site map of the location is shown in attachment 1.

The graph emphasizes the bridging of the gap between the funding agency ADB and the implementing agency (Lilo-an). By filing of a project concept paper and later on a project proposal, and furthermore by conducting of several additional coordinating activities, it was possible to close the existing gap and bring the project into exis- tence. Figure 2 gives some visual impressions about the Lilo-an public market and the environmental impact caused by the wastewater effluent.

OutsetOutset situationsituation foforr thethe WTFWTF projectproject

ADB Manila

Funding agency

Supports projects on sanitation via Water for All program

$50,000 grant

available for

pilot projects

(PDA)

DENR/EMB-7 DENR/EMB-7 Consultant Consultant Elaborating Elaborating project idea project idea Filing of project
DENR/EMB-7
DENR/EMB-7
Consultant
Consultant
Elaborating
Elaborating
project idea
project idea
Filing of project
Filing of project
concept paper
concept paper
Filing of project
Filing of project
proposal
proposal
“Decentralized
“Decentralized
WTF facility for
WTF facility for
Lilo-an Public
Lilo-an Public
Market”
Market”

Lilo-an Municipality Implementing agency

Deteriorated coastal water quality due to public market effluents

Poor sanitation:

nuisance and health impact on residents, negative effects on local economy

“Political will” to host PDA

Fig. 1: Outset situation of Lilo-an WTF project.

host PDA Fig. 1: Outset situation of Lilo-an WTF project. Fig. 2: Lilo-an public market. The
host PDA Fig. 1: Outset situation of Lilo-an WTF project. Fig. 2: Lilo-an public market. The
host PDA Fig. 1: Outset situation of Lilo-an WTF project. Fig. 2: Lilo-an public market. The
host PDA Fig. 1: Outset situation of Lilo-an WTF project. Fig. 2: Lilo-an public market. The

Fig. 2: Lilo-an public market. The wastewater effluents are being collected by an open rim, incompletely treated via a passage through a septic tank, finally to get discharged into the Lilo-an coastal waters. The market has a capacity of approx. 100 vendors.

Reporting to ADB

Project concept paper

To get the ball rolling, in March 2004 the consultant of the DENR/EMB-7 Office in Mandaue City, who later happened to be the coordinator of the project, filed a three pages project concept paper on a proposed wastewater treatment facility (WTF) at Lilo-an public market. ADB reacted that the proposed project has good chances to get approved as a so-called Pilot and Demonstration Activity (PDA) within the Water for All program.

Project proposal

ADB signaled to go on with filing a more extensive project proposal. The proposal was a ten pages document, which had to fulfill some formal requirements set by ADB. The project proposal was submitted to ADB in May 2005. The approval process by ADB took a few of weeks only. The maximum budget available for such a PDA of $50,000 was granted.

Social preparation activities

During the time of elaborating the project proposal document, representatives of the municipality of Lilo-an were informed about the possibility of an upcoming wastewater treatment project, namely by discussing matters with the mayor, councilors, the mu- nicipal engineer and the planning & development engineer (Figure 3). It was soon becoming obvious that there was a political will to host such a project.

that there was a polit ical will to host such a project. Fig. 3: Site visit
that there was a polit ical will to host such a project. Fig. 3: Site visit

Fig. 3: Site visit of EMB-7 personnel and of Lilo-an representatives at the already identified construction site for the proposed decentralized WTF. The concrete construction in the ground is the septic tank, which is currently used as a primitive wastewater treatment.

Administrative and legal requirements

Upon informal approval of the project proposal, ADB requested two legal documents before they would issue the formal approval papers. One of these requirements was a resolution from Lilo-an municipal council documenting that the council is favorable on hosting the project in the municipality. This was done by securing a council resolu- tion declaring the availability of the project site for the construction of the new WTF (attachment 2). The other requirement is a No Objection Letter (NOL,) concerning the proposed project, which was issued by the DENR Central Office in Manila (attach- ment 3).

Official ceremonies

Official ceremonies were part of the project from its early stages on, partly to signal the official support of the LGU and to underline the significance of the activity, partly to create a certain level of public awareness. It should be added that public aware- ness activities actually are part of the socio-economic requirements for such projects according to Philippine regulations (e.g. for securing environmental permits).

On September 20, 2004 the official project kick-off ceremony was being held at the future construction site of the WTF (Figure 4). Participants at the ceremony were the Presidential Asst. for the Visayas, the Lilo-an mayor, several councilors, the DENR/EMB-7 Regional Director, and by a number of market vendors as the future project beneficiaries. The ceremony was attended by a crowd of approx. 30 and was intended to signal to the local people the start of the project.

to signal to the local peo ple the start of the project. Fig. 4: Lilo-an Mayor
to signal to the local peo ple the start of the project. Fig. 4: Lilo-an Mayor
to signal to the local peo ple the start of the project. Fig. 4: Lilo-an Mayor
to signal to the local peo ple the start of the project. Fig. 4: Lilo-an Mayor

Fig. 4: Lilo-an Mayor Dr. Maria B. Sevilla, Presidential Asst. for the Visayas Mr. Felix Guan- zon, DENR/EMB-7 Regional Director Jun E. Villafaňe, Lilo-an Councilor Jimmy C. Magla- sang, and EMB-7 in-house expert Dr. Andreas König address the attendants of the official project kick-off ceremony, held at the future WTF site.

PHASE II – PREPARATION PHASE OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Timeline of Phase II

In October 2004 started the project proper. Phase II, the so-called “phase of project preparation” lasted nine months (Table 3). In fact the original project plans scheduled the beginning of the WTF construction works to December 2004 already, meaning that in the original planning this eventually rather lengthy Phase II was intended to take short time only. However, as soon as it turned out that a number of legal and bu- reaucratic requirements had to be complied with before the WTF construction could start, it became clear to the project partners that it would not be possible to hold on to this original project schedule. These unforeseen delays will be discussed under “technical project activities”.

Tab. 3: Timeline of Phase II, preparation phase of project implementation

Time-

Project activities - technical -

Project activities - social -

Official cere-

Legal

Budget-

Reporting

line

monies

requirements

ing

to ADB

Oct ‘04

Filing of in- ception report

Setting up

LoA signing

LoA between ADB and Lilo- an, prepared by ADB

1 st project

Project incep-

of project

by mayor;

install-

tion report

 

infra struc-

official project

ment

ture

start

($10,000)

Nov

Collecting

Awareness

       

quotations

seminar

from possible

Public Mar-

contractors

ket

Mar ‘05

Pre bidding,

   

Public bidding procedure acc. to CoA rules

 

Reporting the bidding proc- ess to ADB

bidding,

awarding

Apr

     

Council resolu- tion: authoriza- tion of mayor to sign MoA with contractor

   

May ‘05

Preparation of IEE docu- ment

 

MoA signing

ECC applica- tion at DENR; ECC issuance MoA prepared by Lilo-an

   

w/ contractor

Official start of the PDA – LoA signing between ADB and Lilo-an

The signing of the Letter of Agreement (LoA) between ADB and the mayor of Lilo-an signaled the official project start (attachment 4). This was also the point of time when the first project installment of $10,000 was released by the funding agency. The LoA was being prepared by ADB and regulates the project implementation arrangements between the funding agency ADB and the implementing agency, the municipality of Lilo-an.

Social preparation activities

Organizational chart of the overall project

The setting up of the project infra structure was one of the first things being accom- plished and soon turned out to be very useful for project implementation. Figure 5 shows the overall organizational chart of the Lilo-an WTF project. The main stake- holders are:

ADB as the donor agency

the municipality of Lilo-an as implementing agency

the market vendors as beneficiaries, and

the contractor JV Baring Consultants (selection process for contractor see be- low)

the coordinator, who is based at DENR/EMB-7

OrganizationalOrganizational chartchart ofof LiloLilo--anan WTPWTP projectproject

OrganizationalOrganizational chartchart ofof LiloLilo--anan WTPWTP projectproject

OrganizationalOrganizational chartchart ofof LiloLilo--anan WTPWTP projectproject

Donor agency Donor agency Donor agency Donor agency ADB Manila ADB Manila ADB Manila ADB
Donor agency
Donor agency
Donor agency
Donor agency
ADB Manila
ADB Manila
ADB Manila
ADB Manila
Water Sector
Water Sector
Water Sector
Water Sector
Committee
Committee
Committee
Committee

Coordinator

Coordinator

Coordinator

Coordinator

DENR/EMB-7 Cebu

DENR/EMB-7 Cebu

DENR/EMB-7 Cebu

DENR/EMB-7 Cebu

Regional Director

Regional Director

Regional Director

Regional Director

Cebu DENR/EMB-7 Cebu DENR/EMB-7 Cebu Regional Director Regional Director Regional Director Regional Director

Implementing agency

Implementing agency

Implementing agency

Implementing agency

Municipality of Lilo-an

Municipality of Lilo-an

Municipality of Lilo-an

Municipality of Lilo-an

Municipal Mayor

Municipal Mayor

Municipal Mayor

Municipal Mayor

Mayor Municipal Mayor Municipal Mayor Municipal Mayor   Project office Project office Project office
 

Project office

Project office

Project office

Project office

MLGOO

MLGOO

MLGOO

MLGOO

Decision makers

Decision makers

Decision makers

Decision makers

Implementers Implementers Implementers Implementers

Implementers

Implementers

Implementers

Implementers

Implementers Implementers Implementers Implementers Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor JV Baring
Implementers Implementers Implementers Implementers Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor JV Baring
Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor JV Baring JV Baring JV Baring JV Baring
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
JV Baring
JV Baring
JV Baring
JV Baring
Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Market vendors’ Market vendors’ Market vendors’
Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries
Market vendors’
Market vendors’
Market vendors’
Market vendors’
association
association
association
association
President
President
President
President
Members
Members
Members
Members

Case Officer

Case Officer

Case Officer

Case Officer

In-house expert

In-house expert

In-house expert

In-house expert

Fig. 5: Overall organizational chart of the PDA.

Inner project circle – project champions

As already mentioned before, the gap between the funding agency in Manila and the implementing agency and the beneficiaries of the project in Lilo-an is very wide. In other words, ADB and the coordinator would be loosing the beneficiaries during pro- ject implementation, if there is no further support coming from other partners, which are closer to the municipality.

Fortunately for this PDA, Lilo-an municipality staff as well as the contractor were pro- active in project implementation. An “inner project circle” was formed, which con- sisted of the Municipal Local Government Operations Officer (MLGGO) based in Lilo- an municipal hall, the contractor based in Cebu City, and the project coordinator based in the DENR office in Mandaue City. The team met more or less on a weekly basis to discuss project matters straight on and for brainstorming activities. Based on experiences from this project, the establishing of such a “group of project champions” proved to be an efficient and successful tool in implementing the project.

It was advantageous that the group included one member –impersonated by the co- ordinator- feeling comfortable to coordinate project matters directly with ADB (e.g. filing of project proposal and project reports, coordinating implementation adjust- ments, arrangement of budget issues), and with the Lilo-an MLGOO a “local counter part”, who was close to the beneficiaries in the implementing agency, thus being fa- miliar with coordinating things at the LGU level (mayor, councilors, accountants, local residents, etc.). Additionally the contractor Mr. Jesselito Baring was introducing many creative ideas, which were very useful for following through with the project.

In other words, from the point of view of the donor agency ADB the project coordina- tor was the champion of the project, since he has been the project’s initiator, he was the one coordinating with ADB, as well as he was the figure holding the project to- gether. From the point of view of the project beneficiaries, the market vendors, the Lilo-an MLGOO and the contractor were championing the project, since they are the ones “more visible” for them by approaching them in social preparation activities.

Organizational chart of the Lilo-an project office / project task force

The composition of the so-called project task force is shown in Figure 6. The initial meeting was held at Lilo-an Municipal Hall on August 30, 2004. As can be seen from Figure 6, the Lilo-an project office was a well structured group, which in fact was identical with the municipality’s environmental committee. This group met weekly, thus project updates could be introduced and discussed on a regular basis with the help of this committee.

amonisImplementers

Decision maImplementers

Decision maImplementers

OrganizationalOrganizational chartchart ofof LiloLilo--anan projectproject tasktask forceforce

OrganizationalOrganizational chartchart ofof LiloLilo--anan projectproject tasktask forceforce

OrganizationalOrganizational chartchart ofof LiloLilo--anan projectproject tasktask forceforce

Municipal Mayor

Municipal Mayor

Municipal Mayor

Maria B. Sevilla

Maria B. Sevilla

Maria B. Sevilla

Final decision making

Final decision making

Final decision making

Project Office

Project Office

Project Office

Cnclr. Jimmy Maglasang

Cnclr. Jimmy Maglasang

Cnclr. Jimmy Maglasang

Chair on

Chair on

Chair on

environmental committee

environmental committee

environmental committee

Pye S. Roble

Pye S. Roble

Pye S. Roble

Municipal Local Government

Municipal Local Government

Municipal Local Government

Operations Officer

Operations Officer

Operations Officer

Social preparation

Social preparation

Social preparation

 

Engr. Remidius Udtohan

Engr. Remidius Udtohan

Engr. Remidius Udtohan

Municipal Engineer

Municipal Engineer

Municipal Engineer

Technical preparation

Technical preparation

Technical preparation

Cooperative

Cooperative

Cooperative

Alfredo Anoos

Alfredo Anoos

Alfredo Anoos

President

President

President

Cnclr. Adrian Pilones

Cnclr. Adrian Pilones

Cnclr. Adrian Pilones

markets & slaughterhouses

markets & slaughterhouses

markets & slaughterhouses

& slaughterhouses markets & slaughterhouses project project project coordinator coordinator coordinator

project

project

project

coordinator

coordinator

coordinator

Dionesia Ochea Dionesia Ochea Dionesia Ochea Municipal Municipal Municipal Agriculturist Agriculturist
Dionesia Ochea
Dionesia Ochea
Dionesia Ochea
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Agriculturist
Agriculturist
Agriculturist

Cnclr. Roberto Motus

Cnclr. Roberto Motus

Cnclr. Roberto Motus

Chair on cooperatives

Chair on cooperatives

Chair on cooperatives

Engr. Epifanio Jordan

Engr. Epifanio Jordan

Engr. Epifanio Jordan

Municipal Planning &

Municipal Planning &

Municipal Planning &

Development Engr.

Development Engr.

Development Engr.

Link to

Link to

Link to

Chair of committee on

Chair of committee on

Chair of committee on

Fig. 6: Chart of the Lilo-an project office.

The project task force basically consists of two levels, the decision makers and the implementers. The level of the decision makers is made up of three councilors, spearheaded by Jimmy C. Maglasang, the chairman of the environmental committee. He is assisted at this level by the chairman on markets and by the chairman on co- operatives.

There are two main implementers, the MLGOO and the municipal engineer. Together with the municipal agriculturist the MLGOO mainly is responsible for the project’s so- cial preparation activities. In cooperation with the municipal planning engineer, the municipal engineer provides the technical preparation. The Lilo-an market vendors also have a representative inside the committee in person of their market vendors president (later on cooperative president).

The linkage of the project office to the coordinator, and thus indirectly to ADB, is im- personated by the MLGOO (see also “inner project circle”).

Information drive seminar

On November 25, 2004, an information drive seminar was held at Lilo-an Public Mar- ket (“attendance sheet” see attachment 5). Dissemination of information on the pro- ject among the Lilo-an residents basically was one of the main tasks of the municipal- ity. EMB-7 office and the contractor provided assistance. As an example, during the November 25 activity the coordinator and the contractor together with the MLGOO introduced technical and environmental aspects of the project to the market vendors, as well as the basic idea of income generation by forming a market vendors coopera- tive for WTF operation.

Technical project activities

Procurement procedure and public bidding

Two quotations from two possible contractors have been procured in November 2004. One was submitted by JV Baring Consultants, a local contractor based in Cebu City. The company is well known in the region, since it was already quite often in- volved in the construction of new or in upgrading of existing WTF. The other quota- tion was procured from BORDA, a German NGO engaged in sanitation projects. While BORDA nowadays have a field office in Manila, during the time of procuring quotations for this project their nearest office was located in Yogyokarta, Indonesia.

Both applications were technically and financially viable. Eventually the quotation from JV Baring was selected by the project task force based on technical and practi- cability reasons.

This preliminary selection of the contractor eventually had to be confirmed by a for- mal approval procedure. The issue came up as soon as the municipality officials real- ized that the first installment of the ADB project funds was deposited in Lilo-an bank account. Lilo-an officials then claimed that in this case the project budget has to be handled like a local money, and local money is subject to following the rules of the Commission of Audit (CoA). Thus, as one consequence, the selection of the contrac- tor of the project must pass the regular public bidding procedure.

ADB first insisted that their project funding is not to be seen as local money, even though technically it is deposited on a local bank Lilo-an account. After a period of two months, where the coordinator was facilitating the discussion of the issue be- tween Lilo-an and ADB, it eventually turned out that it would become inevitable to fol- low the requirements of the municipality, and thus to undergo a public bidding proc- ess according to official LGU bidding requirements, including public notice, pre- bidding, bidding proper and formal awarding.

This process took place during the months of March and April 2005. In the end the municipality’s screening committee opted in favor of the quotation submitted by JV

Baring Consultants (attachment 6). The wastewater treatment technology is based on the so-called Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC). A brief overview on the options available in wastewater treatment and a basic description of the RBC technology is given in the attachments 7 and 8.

Adjustments on the original WTF design - including of a second RBC unit

The WTF design originally proposed by the contractor considered the operation of one RBC unit only. However, it soon deemed necessary that two RBC units must be operated at the WTF site, since within the immediate vicinity of the public market’s discharge point, another culvert was detected, which collects and discharges waste- water from the neighboring residential area.

In order to create a noticeable and sustainable positive environmental impact by this project, the only viable option was to also include this second wastewater line into the already proposed (and by ADB already approved) WTF system. Therefore, different form the original proposal, a second RBC unit was added to the WTF design. It was negotiated with the contractor to incorporate that design change into his new quota- tion, without exceeding the total project budget of $50,000.

ADB eventually agreed to these technical adjustments. In order not to exceed the ceiling amount of $50,000, an amount of $5,000, which originally was allocated for social preparation activities by the municipality, was re-allocated to the contractor’s budget. This approach was reasonable, since several of the scheduled IEC activities were already being held by that time. Furthermore the municipality regarded it as their project contribution to support such activities on their own budget, if necessary.

Including of renovation of the public market’s toilets

As an added value to the project, and for making the improvements in sanitation in the area more complete, the renovation of the existing toilets in Lilo-an Public Market also was included into the project. The increased positive effects on the sanitary situation, moreover this CR renovation was also meant for income generation of the market vendors’ cooperative (see discussion of Phase IV).

Legal requirements

ECC application

After having passed the public bidding procedure and having selected the contractor, the project still could not start with WTF construction, since another delay was com- ing up, which had to do with environmental clearances for the WTF.

Originally DENR/EMB-7 considered the Lilo-an WTF as a mitigating measure, as it is aimed to cleaning the wastewater effluents from the market, which are polluting the shore line for decades. In view of that, as environmental clearance document a so- called Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC), which is a permitting document with few requirements only, would be sufficient.

However in April 2005 it turned out that Philippine environmental regulations request to secure a so-called Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the construc- tion of new WTF with a treatment capacity of more than 30 m³ wastewater per day. Since the Lilo-an WTF was designed for treating daily 60 m³ of wastewater, it was inevitable to comply with said regulations.

The application for securing an ECC has to fulfill several detailed and rather exten- sive requirements, thus applying for an ECC takes some time. Among the require- ments is the filing of a so-called Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) manual, which is a document where substantial project information has to be consolidated. Usually an IEE would be prepared by an especially hired environmental consultant. However, since the project coordinator as an employee of DENR was familiar with the administrative and legal requirements, in this particular case the 30 pages IEE manual could be filed by the coordinator, with support from the contractor and the municipality staff.

After a couple of weeks for preparation of the IEE manual, the requested documents for ECC application were being submitted to DENR/EMB-7 end of May 2005. As dur- ing the initial document screening process no major objections were being made by EMB-7 personnel, the fact of officially submitting the ECC application to DENR was already seen as fulfillment of the requirements for the start of WTF construction.

The ECC application itself underwent the usual screening and permitting procedure by DENR/EMB-7 and lasted several months. The ECC application eventually was approved by DENR (attachment 9) and the respective documents were signed by the EMB-7 director and the Lilo-an mayor in August 25, 2005 (Fig. 7).

director and the Lilo-an mayor in August 25, 2005 (Fig. 7). Fig. 7: ECC signing at

Fig. 7: ECC signing at EMB-7 office, Left Dr. Maria B. Sevilla, Mayor of Lilo-an, right Engr. Alan C. Arranguez, DENR/EMB-7 Regional Director

MoA between municipality of Lilo-an and the contractor

After all the discussed requirements had been fulfilled, the end of this project phase was marked by the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) between the Lilo- an mayor and the contractor JV Baring Consultants. For the purpose of giving the mayor the authority for the MoA signing, the municipal council issued another council resolution. The MoA document was being prepared by the municipality of Lilo-an, ac- cording to their own local guidelines (first page of MoA see attachment 10). April 28, 2005, which was the day of the MoA signing, also marked the day of the start of ground development.

PHASE III – PHASE OF PHYSICAL GROUND DEVELOPMENT

Timeline of Phase III

In May 2005 the construction phase proper eventually got off the ground. The occa-

sion was officially marked by the ground breaking ceremony. The timeline of Phase

III is shown in Table 4.

Tab. 4: Timeline of the phase of physical ground development.

Time-

Project activities - technical -

Project activi- ties - social -

Official

Legal

Budgeting

Reporting

line

ceremo-

require-

to ADB

nies

ments

May ‘05

   

Ground

     

breaking

ceremony

Jun

Start of WTF construction works

Setting up of new coopera- tive

   

2 nd project installment

 

($15,000)

Aug

On going

Meeting with

       

WTF con-

project benefi-

struction

ciaries

Sep

Preparing of mid term re- port

     

3rd project

Midterm

installment

report

($15,000)

Oct

On going

CDA seminar

       

WTF con-

for preparation

struction

of cooperative

Nov ‘05

End of WTF construction works

 

Inaugura-

Official regis- tration of new cooperative

   

tion of WTF

Technical project activities

Groundbreaking ceremony

The WTF’s ground breaking ceremony was held at the project site in April 28, 2005 (Figure 8). The activity was led by Mayor Maria B. Sevilla and attended by Lilo-an councilors, the market vendors and representatives from DENR/EMB-7. The MoA signing between the mayor and the contractor was conducted earlier the same day.

Fig. 8: Groundbreaking ceremony with the EMB-7 consultant and project coordinator Dr. An- dreas König
Fig. 8: Groundbreaking ceremony with the EMB-7 consultant and project coordinator Dr. An- dreas König

Fig. 8: Groundbreaking ceremony with the EMB-7 consultant and project coordinator Dr. An- dreas König and the Lilo-an Mayor Dr. Sevilla. Right picture shows officials from the munici- pality of Lilo-an and DENR/EMB-7 together with representatives from the market vendors.

WTF construction works proper

The pictures shown in Figure 9 document the progress of the WTF construction works. The construction proper started in June with soil moving activities and plumb- ing works. After that the concrete wastewater tanks were being erected, and eventu- ally the RBC units got in place. Finally the motors and pumps including the electrical wirings were installed. For minimizing possible odor emissions, the RBC units were covered with hoods. The first test run of the facility was conducted on November 22, 2005. In parallel the public market toilets were being renovated (Fig. 10).

the public market toilets were being renovated (Fig. 10). June 2005 July 2005: Erecting concreted reactor

June 2005

market toilets were being renovated (Fig. 10). June 2005 July 2005: Erecting concreted reactor tanks and

July 2005: Erecting concreted reactor tanks and fences

2005 July 2005: Erecting concreted reactor tanks and fences June: Earth moving and plumbing works August

June: Earth moving and plumbing works

tanks and fences June: Earth moving and plumbing works August 2005: Erecting concreted reactor tanks and

August 2005: Erecting concreted reactor tanks and fences

September 2005: Completion of concreting works October 2005: On going installation of RBC November 11:

September 2005: Completion of concreting works

September 2005: Completion of concreting works October 2005: On going installation of RBC November 11: Installation

October 2005: On going installation of RBC

concreting works October 2005: On going installation of RBC November 11: Installation of wastewater pumps in

November 11: Installation of wastewater pumps in septic tank (wastewater collection)

of wastewater pumps in septic tank (wastewater collection) November 15: Installation of electrical wir- ings October

November 15: Installation of electrical wir- ings

November 15: Installation of electrical wir- ings October 2005: Installation of rotating discs of RBC reactor

October 2005: Installation of rotating discs of RBC reactor

October 2005: Installation of rotating discs of RBC reactor N o v e m b e

November 8: Installation of RBC motors

l l a t i o n o f R B C m o t o

November 15: Filling wastewater in RBC tanks

o f R B C m o t o r s November 15: Filling wastewater in

November 22: Final polishing works

November 22: First WTF test run November 22: WTF effluent during test run Fig. 9:

November 22: First WTF test run

November 22: First WTF test run November 22: WTF effluent during test run Fig. 9: Photo

November 22: WTF effluent during test run

Fig. 9: Photo documentation of the WTF construction works.

Fig. 9: Photo documentation of the WTF construction works. Fig. 10: Renovated toilets at Lilo-an public
Fig. 9: Photo documentation of the WTF construction works. Fig. 10: Renovated toilets at Lilo-an public
Fig. 9: Photo documentation of the WTF construction works. Fig. 10: Renovated toilets at Lilo-an public

Fig. 10: Renovated toilets at Lilo-an public market. Operated and maintained by the Lilo-an Community Multi Purpose Cooperative (see discussion of Phase IV).

Inauguration ceremony

The inauguration ceremony of the WTF was held on Wednesday November 23, 2005, at the project site (Figure 11). Aside form Lilo-an officials, the ceremony was also attended by two representatives from ADB Manila, Mr. Florian Steinberg (ADB housing and development specialist) and Mr. Bert van Ommen (ADB consultant), who were accompanying the PDA as counter part from ADB. With that day the WTF started its operation (publications about the inauguration see attachments 11, 12).

Dr. Maria B. Sevilla, Mayor of Lilo-an Mr. Bert van Ommen, ADB consultant Dr. Andreas

Dr. Maria B. Sevilla, Mayor of Lilo-an

Dr. Maria B. Sevilla, Mayor of Lilo-an Mr. Bert van Ommen, ADB consultant Dr. Andreas König,

Mr. Bert van Ommen, ADB consultant

Sevilla, Mayor of Lilo-an Mr. Bert van Ommen, ADB consultant Dr. Andreas König, DENR/EMB-7 in-house expert

Dr. Andreas König, DENR/EMB-7 in-house expert and project coordinator

König, DENR/EMB-7 in-house expert and project coordinator Ribbon cutting ceremony Mr. Florian Steinberg, ADB

Ribbon cutting ceremony

expert and project coordinator Ribbon cutting ceremony Mr. Florian Steinberg, ADB representative Engr. Jun. Erasmo

Mr. Florian Steinberg, ADB representative

cutting ceremony Mr. Florian Steinberg, ADB representative Engr. Jun. Erasmo E. Villafa ň e, DENR/EMB- 7

Engr. Jun. Erasmo E. Villafaňe, DENR/EMB- 7 admin chief

Engr. Jun. Erasmo E. Villafa ň e, DENR/EMB- 7 admin chief Inauguration site Blessing of the

Inauguration site

E. Villafa ň e, DENR/EMB- 7 admin chief Inauguration site Blessing of the facility Fig. 11:

Blessing of the facility

Fig. 11: Pictures form the WTF inauguration ceremony.

Social preparation activities

Cooperative

The Lilo-an market vendors’ association is an existing and well established group of vendors. The members proved to be very open towards the idea of creating a specifi- cally formed WTF cooperative as a spin off from this association. The point of starting a cooperative lies in the fact that a cooperative has the option to go into income gen- eration, which would not be possible for an association.

The founding members of the cooperative attended the mandatory seminar of the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) in Cebu City. Aside from being a formal requirement, participating in this seminar also represents a vital aspect concerning the cooperative’s sustainability, since the members were taught how to organize themselves, how handle their budget, how to keep transparency in their records and procedures, etc. Furthermore the CDA later on will audit the cooperative and monitor their funds in order to prevent mismanagement. The successfully passing of the CDA seminar in October 2005 was the official go signal for the cooperative to come into existence. In November 9, 2005, the CDA issued the official certificate of registration for the new ”Lilo-an Community Multi Purpose Cooperative” (attachment 13).

There are 100 cooperative members at this point of time, what is a rather big number considering they exist for a short time only. A second batch on another 100 members is already scheduled for participating in the CDA seminar. This number still possibly will increase further due to the ongoing renovation and expansion of the Lilo-an pub- lic market, and by including neighboring residents and small businesses (bakeries, etc.).

Information drive follow up seminar

For further supporting the process, in August 16, 2005, a seminar was held at mu- nicipal hall for the project beneficiaries (Figure 12). 10 market vendors, the coopera- tive president, the council chair on market and slaughterhouse, and the municipal engineer attended the meeting. Speakers were the project coordinator, the contractor and the Lilo-an MLGOO. Basic matters concerning WTF maintenance, WTF coopera- tive, and WTF and toilet user fees were discussed, as well as the mechanism on the cooperative can earn from the operation of the new facilities.

can earn fr om the operation of the new facilities. Fig. 12: IEC activity with market
can earn fr om the operation of the new facilities. Fig. 12: IEC activity with market

Fig. 12: IEC activity with market vendors at Lilo-an municipal hall. Right picture, back row, from right: market vendor’s association president Anoos, councilor Pilones, standing the con- tractor Jesselito Baring.

PHASE IV – RUNNING-IN PHASE OF WTF AND FINAL SOCIAL PREPARATIONS

Timeline of Phase IV

The final project phase started in December 2005 after the WTF inauguration and lasted until the official project end in March 2006. The project completion report even- tually was prepared during the month of April. The timeline of the final Phase IV is shown in Table 5.

Tab. 5: Timeline of Phase IV of the PDA.

Time-

Project activities - technical -

Project ac- tivities - social -

Official

Legal

Budgeting

Reporting

line

ceremo-

requirements

to ADB

nies

Dec ‘05

WTF O&M training of cooperative members Student the- sis: monitor- ing of WTF

On going IEC activities with cooperative members

       

Feb ‘06

See above

On going IEC activities with cooperative members

       

Mar

See above

LGU Forum

 

MoA draft on turn over of WTF O&M to coopera- tive and on ordi- nance for WTF user fees

   

Apr

Preparing of

   

Accreditation of

4 th project installment

Project

final report

cooperative as

Completion

NGO

($10,000)

Report

Practical issues encountered during the WTF running-in phase

Power supply of the WTF

The power supply of the WTF was an issue, which took quite some time to be re- solved. The local power supplier Visayan Electricity Company (VECO) insisted on installing an own transformer for the WTF, even though the contractor and the mu- nicipal engineer said that this would not be necessary since the facility does not con- sume that much power. The installation of a new transformer would have come to a cost of 80,000 Pesos, which would have been outside the total project budget. ADB also could not agree to give additional budget for a new transformer, since this would have been a general infra structure development, not belonging to the PDA itself.

In order to keep the facility operational in the time after inauguration in November 23, 2005, electric power was being tapped from a neighboring household. Eventually VECO agreed that the already existing transformer of the public market could be tapped. This opened up another issue, as it turned out that there were so many illegal

wire tappings at the public market’s transformer. After these had been sorted out, the WTF finally was connected to the power grid in February 8, 2006. A positive side ef- fect of this clearing of illegal tappings was to be seen right away in the municipality’s electricity bill, which dropped by approx. 20 %.

Operation of the wastewater pumps

Another issue related to power supply was that in this residential area of Lilo-an town center a single phase power line is available only. However for this type of facility an “industrial type” three phased power line would be preferable. To install a three phased power line would have come at a much too high price, thus for practical rea- sons there was no choice but to make use of the available single phase line.

Basically the facility can be operated with single phase power, but for some special demands the shortcomings are getting obvious. As an example, the wastewater pumps, which are installed inside the septic tank, and which have the task of the ver- tical transport of the collected wastewater to the RBC, are not operating continuously, but are regulated by a floater, which is getting activated dependant on the water level inside the wastewater collection tank.

With the available single phase electricity line the wastewater pumps are not creating enough power in the moment they are being activated, thus they cannot carry out the required vertical wastewater transport. As a consequence the wastewater pumps, which in the original design were being installed in the third chamber of the three chamber septic tank, now had to be transferred to the wastewater collection tank, which is located closer to the WTF overhead tank.

While the problem with the vertical wastewater transport has been solved by these adjustments, as a consequence the compromise had to be made that the WTF now is being operated without a primary settling tank. This means that the RBC is now burdened with more solids and thus with a higher organic load compared to the de- sign with primary settling tank. In order to ensure satisfactory wastewater effluent quality, the WTF maintenance must focus on regular cleaning of the RBC disks. An- other measure is to frequently channel the sludge, which settles inside the RBC tanks, to the septic tank, where anaerobic stabilization will take place.

Maintaining and cleaning of the collecting sewer at the market

After the WTF was getting operational, it soon turned out that plastic littering at the public market area would become a major subject of WTF maintenance. As it can be seen from the pictures (Figure 13), these plastics are causing the clogging up of the screens, which are installed for filtering the wastewater before it enters the collection tank. Screening of solids from the raw sewage is necessary in order to protect the wastewater pumps, which will stuck up as soon as plastics would get inside.

As counter measures the system of the installed screens was being improved and the personnel for WTF O&M was being trained to regularly clean the screens and the canal from these litters (see below). As a long term measure the solid waste man- agement at the public market should be improved. In fact some IEC activities were already being conducted in this respect.

Fig. 13: Solid wastes from the market are clogging up the screens (green color), which
Fig. 13: Solid wastes from the market are clogging up the screens (green color), which

Fig. 13: Solid wastes from the market are clogging up the screens (green color), which filter the wastewater before reaching the collection tank with the wastewater pumps. Right picture shows cleaning of the sewer canal from the debris.

Final set up and flow chart of Lilo-an WTF

Figure 14 shows the Lilo-an WTF in his final set up as photographed in April 2006. Visible are the overhead wastewater holding tank with connecting pipes to the under- ground wastewater collection tank, the electric control panel (grey), the two covered RBC units and their motors. The two “chimney-like” structures are meant to conduct potential odors to higher levels in order to protect the immediate neighbors. The pic- tures in Figure 14 also document the visual appearance of both the raw wastewater (after screening) inside the collection tank and the effluent quality at the discharge pipe.

tank and the effluent quality at the discharge pipe. Final set up of Lilo-an WTF Lilo-an

Final set up of Lilo-an WTF

quality at the discharge pipe. Final set up of Lilo-an WTF Lilo-an WTF influent (collection tank)

Lilo-an WTF influent (collection tank)

set up of Lilo-an WTF Lilo-an WTF influent (collection tank) Final set up of Lilo-an WTF

Final set up of Lilo-an WTF

WTF influent (collection tank) Final set up of Lilo-an WTF Lilo-an WTF effluent (discharged to the

Lilo-an WTF effluent (discharged to the sea)

Fig. 14: Pictures from the final set up of the Lilo-an WTF in April 2006.

Figure 15 presents the actual flow-chart of the facility in April 2006. Wastewater from the market and from the residential area is being collected via the respective two sewerage lines. While the average wastewater generation is assumed to be 60 m³ per day, according to observations made by the contractor, at special market days the wastewater generation can reach up to 100 m³. After screening the wastewater is directed to the underground wastewater collection tank (interceptor tank). From there the wastewater is pumped vertically to the overhead wastewater tank.

Rotating Biological Contactors Rotating Biological Contactors 0verhead tank 0verhead tank Influent Influent Filter
Rotating Biological Contactors
Rotating Biological Contactors
0verhead tank
0verhead tank
Influent
Influent
Filter
Filter
feed
feed
tank
tank
line
line
Gravity
Gravity
Effluent for disposal or
Effluent for disposal or
flow
flow
recycling
recycling
feed
feed
Sludge return to septic tank
Sludge return to septic tank
Wastewater from market and houses
Wastewater from market and houses
Interceptor tank
Interceptor tank
Three chamber septic
Three chamber septic
with 2 pumps
with 2 pumps
tank with 2 pumps
tank with 2 pumps

Fig. 15: Flow chart of the Lilo-an WTF operation.

From the overhead tank the wastewater reaches the RBC tanks via gravimetric flow. The two RBC are being operated by one unit of 1 hp motor, respectively, at a rotating speed of 1 rotation per minute. The average retention time of the wastewater inside the two RBC tanks is 10 hours (continuous operation mode). The setting can be op- erated either in parallel or in serial mode.

After having passed the RBC treatment process, the wastewater is directed to a filter tank (cloth filters), then overflows to the final holding tank. From the final holding tank the wastewater can be taken for recycling purposes, e.g. for flushing, gardening, or it can be directed via the discharge pipe to the shoreline for disposal.

The public market’s old three chamber septic tank, which already existed before the project (see Fig. 3, page 10), is still included in the WTF design. Sludge which might accumulate at the bottom of the RBC tank, can be directed via separate sludge return pipes to the first chamber of this septic tank, which then acts as an anaerobic stabi- lizer for the WTF’s surplus sludge. Once the third chamber starts filling up, wastewa- ter pumps are activated to direct these liquor back to the overhead tank and thus to the RBC. This completes a closed loop system for sludge management.

Two pairs of 2 hp wastewater pumps are being operated inside the interceptor tank and inside the third chamber of the septic tank. While one of the pumps is activated, respectively, the other pump of the pair is acting as a back up. The operation of all these pumps is regulated by floating switch controls. This system shall prevent over- flowing of wastewater at the site, as the pumps will be stopped once the receiving overhead tank is filled up.

Anticipated frequent maintenance works would be:

Daily cleaning of canals and raw wastewater influent screens from debris

Biweekly cleansing of the rotating disks from surplus sludge

Weekly cleaning of cloth filters

Biweekly directing of surplus sludge sediments at the bottom of the RBC tanks to the three chamber septic tank (manual opening of valves)

Weekly routine check up and lubrication of motors and pumps

Monitoring the running-in performance of the WTF through a thesis study

Integrating of a thesis of an undergraduate chemistry student into the PDA

Within the PDA the EMB-7 laboratory was assigned to assess the WTF performance over the running-in period. An undergrad chemistry student from the University of San Carlos (USC), Cebu City, was showing interest to do these studies in the course of her thesis. ADB agreed that the including of the thesis into the project would be fully in line with the PDA’s rationale, and therefore approved the respective budget reallocation.

In return for giving support to the student’s thesis, the resulting benefits for the PDA can be summarized: (1) the university rendered all of their analytical data to EMB-7 and thus to the PDA, (2) the generation of a comprehensive data base for quantifying the PDA’s positive environmental impact (USC plus EMB-7 monitoring data), and (3) the general benefit and perspective of an academe participation in the PDA.

The thesis of Ms. Chariz Peñalber with the title “Quality assessment of influents and effluents from a wastewater treatment facility” was submitted to the University of San Carlos, Cebu City, in March 2006 (approval sheet see attachment 14). The study was honored with the BPI-DOST Science Award in March 14, 2006.

Results of the thesis

According to the results from the thesis, in terms of BOD 5 removal the treatment effi- ciency of the WTF unambiguously was good over the period of study. This is seen in the overall BOD 5 removal efficiency of 65% for the RBC treatment and 74% for the whole WTF (including foregoing primary settling tank treatment). There is also an in- creasing trend in terms of COD removal efficiency, but COD removal needs more time for undisturbed WTF operation to be able to develop full capacity for wastewater treatment. Given the technical limitations of the WTF, removal of organics during the study period is considered satisfactory.

The data set was insufficient as to make generalizations on the behavior of the pa- rameters ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and phosphate within the study period. More con- clusive results have been achieved when data were averaged and comparison was made between characteristic levels in influent and effluent samples. Table 6 contains a summary of the characteristics of influent and effluent discharge from the WTF in terms of the different test parameters indicated.

No nitrogen removal is observable during the treatment process as nitrate and nitrite both did not exist in considerable amounts. However, since ammonia was present in significantly higher amounts than its other nitrogenous counterparts (nitrate and ni- trite) a removal of about 3.35% was considered noting also that the RBC was actually designed to partially nitrify ammonia, as stated in the design criteria of the Lilo-an

WTF. Phosphorus removal of around 18% was perfectly in line with literature data. Furthermore, bacteriological analysis of the coastal waters conducted by the DENR– EMB-7 showed a significant improvement of over 99.8% for total coliform and over 97.8% for fecal coliform bacteria.

Tab. 6: Summarized influent and effluent characteristics from Lilo-an WTF, consolidated data of 8 samplings covering the whole study period (data taken from thesis study).

Parameter

Influent Ave Conc (RSD, %)

Effluent Ave Conc (RSD, %)

Experimental % Removal/Difference

Ammonia

Nitrite

Nitrate

Phosphate

BOD 5

COD

36.87

35.64

3.35

0.14

1.54

no removal

1.38

0.59

no removal

6.14

5.03

18.16

123

50

59.08

overall

30

75.61

at end of study period

241

171

29.37

overall

87

63.96

at end of study period

Discussion on the thesis study on the WTF running-in performance

In the first 12 weeks after the inauguration, which happened to be the study period, the power supply controversy with VECO could not be resolved (page 24). Therefore the electricity for the WTF had to be imported from a neighboring household in order to enabling the student to carry out the study within the deadline given by the univer- sity. Since this was an expensive type of power supply, the WTF usually was shut off at night time, i.e. most of the study period a continuous WTF operation was not pos- sible. This limits the interpretation of the data collected during the study. However some important information on the WTF performance still could be retrieved.

As for the removal efficiency for organic pollutants, i.e. BOD 5 and COD, some further improvements of the WTF performance are expected when the facility will be operat- ing continuously and undisturbed for a longer period. According to the WTF design, eventually a BOD 5 removal efficiency of 85 – 90 % and a COD removal efficiency of 75 – 80 % could be achieved. The WTF also should be capable for nitrogen removal, however this still has to be proven. While removal of ammonia would be desirable from the environmental point of view, from the regulatory side this is still no issue in the Philippines due to lacking effluent standards. However this might change in the future as soon as the respective effluent standards would be implemented.

Social preparation activities

O&M training of cooperative On December 8, 2005, a training on operation and maintenance (O&M) of the WTF was conducted for the members of the Lilo-an Community Multi Purpose Coopera- tive. 10 cooperative members participated in the activity (Figure 18).

During the morning session, which was being held at Lilo-an municipal hall, theoreti- cal background, technical sketches and blue prints of the WTF were discussed by the use of power point presentations. In the afternoon session a hands-on training was conducted at the project site. Training contents were basic O&M of the WTF, such as handling the electrical control board, manual cleaning of pipes and screens, basic maintenance of motors and pumps, and manual cleaning of the RBC disks. The cooperative members participated in the activity with much interest and many questions concerning the O&M of the facility were raised. Similar activities, but on a more informal level maintenance briefing, are still on going, since quite naturally with time more practical issues will come up, once the facility is in permanent operation. The contractor is making himself (or his staff, resp.) available as soon as further questions or complaints will be raised. Usually upcoming issues are directed to him via the cooperative president.

issues are directed to him via the cooperative president. Fig. 16: O&M training of WTF for
issues are directed to him via the cooperative president. Fig. 16: O&M training of WTF for
issues are directed to him via the cooperative president. Fig. 16: O&M training of WTF for
issues are directed to him via the cooperative president. Fig. 16: O&M training of WTF for

Fig. 16: O&M training of WTF for cooperative members

MoA draft on transfer of WTF O&M to the cooperative

Various issues were being tackled in the course of the PDA, most of them could be resolved in a satisfactory manner within the project’s time span. All but one more is- sue is left hanging at the end of the project period concerning the council resolution on the turn-over of O&M of the facility to the Lilo-an Community Multi Purpose Coop- erative. The respective council resolution and MoA signing was already scheduled long before, but some politically motivated delays inside the council prevented to re- solve the issue by now, even though the big majority of the council in fact is in favor of the MoA.

The respective MoA has been drafted and at this point of time there is already an of- ficial communication from the council, informing the cooperative president that said

MoA was referred to the Joint Committee on Ordinances and Legal Matters and Mar- ket and Slaughterhouse, for appropriate consideration (attachment 15). Thus it can be expected that there should be movements in this matter soon. It should also be noted that the council already issued an official document for accreditation of the Lilo- an Community Multi Purpose Cooperative as a NGO (attachment 16).

The arrangements as suggested by the MoA draft (attachment 17) are that the mu- nicipality will stay the owner of the facility, as stated in the LoA with ADB and as re- quested by the New Clean Waster Act (LGU have the responsibility for implementing sanitation measures). For this reason only the WTF O&M will be transferred to the cooperative. In return the cooperative will avail the rights to claim user fees for the WTF as well as for the renovated public market toilets.

In fact the cooperative members are very positive towards the proposed MoA, which also would enact the ordinance for WTF user fees. According to them they would be willing to pay the proposed fee of P5 per market vendor and day. It is quite apparent that the cooperative members, being small time business men themselves, seen a positive profit from the operation (see “cost recovery”). An advantage is that the al- ready implemented Lilo-an market vendors fees are included in the existing code, thus only an amendment is needed.

LGU forum

As the PDA’s final major social preparation activity, in March 16, 2006, a LGU forum was held at San Fernando Rey Parish Pastoral Center in Lilo-an. Out of the 51 mu- nicipal mayors from Cebu Province, eventually three were attending the activity. The Regional Director of DILG-7, Dr. Pedro Noval, and the chair of the environmental committee of the City of Lapu-Lapu, Councilor Amores, were also attending. Some mayors sent their representatives, so that in total approx. 40 participants were pre- sent. In the afternoon a site visit of the WTF rounded up the activity (Figure 17).

site visit of the WTF rounded up the activity (Figure 17). Fig. 17: Site visit of
site visit of the WTF rounded up the activity (Figure 17). Fig. 17: Site visit of

Fig. 17: Site visit of the participants of the LGU forum.

By conducting the LGU forum at the end of the PDA there was another lesson learnt that sanitation issues obviously still are not on top of the agenda of the municipalities in Cebu Province, or one might say in the Philippines. This one can conclude directly from the rather low turn-out of the invited LGU representatives. This is because of the motion that the establishment of a WTF is purely an expense and not an income generating option. This project may reverse this trend. Nevertheless those attending showed real interest in the project, and since a video was taken the LGU forum still can be considered a useful IEC activity.

Cost recovery scheme

Original cost recovery scheme

The project is funded by an ADB grant, thus no returning of the project costs is re- quired after project completion. However it is one of the most interesting aspects of the PDA to quantify a possible cost recovery by implementing user fees for the new facilities. This is seen as a valuable lesson to learn for future sanitation projects, which then might be based on loan funding. Cost recovery can be one of the attrac- tion for future projects.

Table 7 presents the original cost recovery scheme. While in the project proposal the computation was based on 100 market vendors, for this computation the number of vendors was increased to 120 due to renovating and enlarging activities at Lilo-an public market. The cost recovery model is based on a WTF user fee of P5 per vendor and day, to which the Lilo-an vendors actually were agreeable during the consulta- tions.

Tab. 7: Model for possible recovery of project costs by implementing of WTF user fees. Com- putation based on 120 market vendors (cooperative members), each paying P5 per day.

YearYear

YearYear

operaopera--

operaopera--

tiontion ofof

tiontion ofof

WTPWTP

WTPWTP

FeeFee

FeeFee

incomeincome

incomeincome

fromfrom WTPWTP

fromfrom WTPWTP

usersusers

usersusers

MaintenanceMaintenance costscosts

MaintenanceMaintenance costscosts

SpareSpare partsparts

SpareSpare partsparts

ElectricityElectricity

ElectricityElectricity

LaborLabor

LaborLabor

CostCost recoveryrecovery

CostCost recoveryrecovery

AccumulAccumul--

AccumulAccumul--

AnnualAnnual

AnnualAnnual

atedated

atedated

CostCost

CostCost

recoveryrecovery

recoveryrecovery

inin US$US$

inin US$US$

(56P)(56P)

(56P)(56P)

11 11

216,000216,000

216,000216,000

24,00024,000

24,00024,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

84,00084,000

84,00084,000

120,000120,000

120,000120,000

1,5001,500

1,5001,500

22

22

216,000216,000

216,000216,000

36,00036,000

36,00036,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

228,000228,000

228,000228,000

2,7862,786

2,7862,786

33

33

216,000216,000

216,000216,000

36,00036,000

36,00036,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

336,000336,000

336,000336,000

4,0714,071

4,0714,071

44

44

216,000216,000

216,000216,000

36,00036,000

36,00036,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

444,000444,000

444,000444,000

5,3575,357

5,3575,357

55

55

216,000216,000

216,000216,000

36,00036,000

36,00036,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

552,000552,000

552,000552,000

6,6436,643

6,6436,643

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

1010

1010

216,000216,000

216,000216,000

36,00036,000

36,00036,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

1.092,0001.092,000

1.092,0001.092,000

13,07113,071

13,07113,071

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

1515

1515

216,000216,000

216,000216,000

36,00036,000

36,00036,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

1,632,0001,632,000

1,632,0001,632,000

19,50019,500

19,50019,500

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

:: ::

2626

2626

216,000216,000

216,000216,000

36,00036,000

36,00036,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

72,00072,000

2,820,0002,820,000

2,820,0002,820,000

50,35750,357

50,35750,357

As it can be seen from Table 7, with 120 market vendors paying daily P5, an annual income from collection of user fees of P216,000 would amount. The annual costs for spare parts of the facility and electricity bills are estimated to P24,000 in the first year and P36,000 in the following years. Labor costs for hired local WTF personnel and contractor’s staff are given to P72,000 per year (according to the contractor). Based on these figures the annual cost recovery would be P84,000 in year 1 and P72,000 in the following years. Therefore, for cost recovery of the initial investment for the WTF of $50,000, a time span of 26 years would be necessary.

This is a crude computation only, e.g. not taking into account yearly inflation rates and general development of prices. However the table at least is able to provide some estimate what amounts of money are involved in the WTF user fee based cost recovery, and what time spans are to be anticipated for realistic cost recovery.

ADB proposal: recovery of full project costs within 10 years time

This original proposal was deliberately prepared as a conservative cost recovery es- timate, and in this way accepted by ADB. However all project partners certainly were aware that a 26 years period for full cost recovery actually could not be seen as a useful approach to attract future loan based WTF projects. Two and a half decades just is too long a time span in order to convince local political leaders. Thus it was proposed by ADB to come up with an alternative cost recovery scheme, which still would be based on the experiences made in this PDA, but which would also enable to recover 100% project costs within 10 years time.

Basically this target would be still achievable by applying the scheme described in Table 6, i.e. requesting P5 WTF user fees per vendor and day, however the minimum number of market vendors needed to generate the required income was computed to 215. While a number of 215 vendors is out of reach for a market like Lilo-an with its available space of 1 ha only, some markets of bigger capacity would already be able to fulfill this requirement. In the medium term even in Lilo-an a number of 200 plus cooperative members is possible by including neighboring residents, small busi- nesses and tricycle drivers in the Lilo-an Community Multi Purpose Cooperative. In fact the cooperative president has already plans to approach said groups of citizens.

Alternative cost recovery scheme

As an alternative to the original, conservative cost recovery estimate, some “busi- ness-like” ideas can also be included into the picture. Basically these ideas are about to introduce some incentives for the market vendors for generating a certain income based on the new facilities (Figure 18).

EnhancedEnhanced costcost recoveryrecovery schemescheme Renovation of public market toilets by project funds
EnhancedEnhanced costcost recoveryrecovery schemescheme
Renovation of public market toilets by project funds
Cooperative will operate, maintain and clean the toilets
Cooperative will collect user fees
Money lending
P475 per day?
P5
WTP user
P4
P4
P4
Cooperative caring about
WTP maintenance
fees per
O&M
O&M
O&M
vendor
Earnings
Earnings
Earnings
per day
Treating of septage?
Recycling of
P1
Residents
treated wastewater
Cooperative share
Townhouses
Businesses

Fig. 18: Proposal for the new and enhanced cost recovery scheme.

The business like approach is based on the computation that 215 vendors, each daily paying P5 user fees, would generate a total income of P1,075 every day, which even- tually would lead to recovery of $50,000 in 10 years, while the small market in Lilo-an with its 120 vendors only is able to generate P600 per day. In other words in Lilo-an the cost recovery is short of P475 per day. There are now some ideas how to fill this financial gap.

According to Figure 20, the main component meant for fuelling the O&M fund is that the Lilo-an Community Multi Purpose Cooperative operates the newly renovated pub-

lic toilets at the market. Cooperative members take over cleaning and maintenance of the toilets, in return asking small user fees of P1 for urinal and P2 for bowl. As one can say from experiences from the first few months of toilet operation, this has been

a great success so far. The income for the cooperative (operating costs already de- ducted) in the period of time between November 24, 2005, and January 25, 2006, amounted to P21,650 (Figure 19), i.e. more or less P360 income per day. Thus the income of the toilets alone can already almost equal the lacking amount of P475.

alone can already almost equal the lacking amount of P475. Fig. 19: Income of the Lilo-an
alone can already almost equal the lacking amount of P475. Fig. 19: Income of the Lilo-an

Fig. 19: Income of the Lilo-an Community Multi Purpose Cooperative for toilet operation from November 24, 2005, to January 25, 2006.

Other income could be expected by collecting WTF user fees also from the neighbor- ing small businesses (e.g. bakeries, town houses) and residents, which are also con- nected to the WTF. These neighboring small businesses and residents can be of- fered the chance to also join the cooperative by availing cooperative shares.

If the market vendors are able to maintain the WTF to a certain degree on their own,

i.e. in case there is no need to call for maintenance staff from JV Baring Consultants each time when there is a minor problem with the RBC, the cooperative can save money for O&M, what again would increase the income of the cooperative.

In the same way, if the WTF is kept well maintained by the vendors, the effluent qual- ity of the treated wastewater supposedly should be good enough so that the water could be resold for flushing and gardening purposes (water recycling). Another option would be that the “WTF management” could offer to treat contents from septic tanks, which are subject to get treated prior discharge by the New Clean Water Act.

All of these opportunities for income generation mainly depend on how much the co- operative members eventually will identify themselves with the WTF project. In other words, the more they care for their project or “business”, the better the potentially achievable results. This participating approach should prepare some basis for im- proving the rate of project cost recovery. However concrete results can be expected at soonest in a few years from now.

PROJECT BUDGETING

Summary of the project budget

Table 8 indicates what budget was allocated for which of the project partners. The applied currency conversion rate was 56 Pesos = 1 US$.

Tab. 8: Summary of the project budget.

 

Pesos

US$

Construction costs for the WTF (including labor)

2,630,000

46,964

Organization of Lilo-an market vendors (social preparation activities)

140,000

2,500

EMB-7 (laboratory costs, shared with University of San Carlos)

30,016

536

Total

2,800,016

50,000

Different from the budget breakdown given in the project proposal, the share of the contractor was increased by $5,000 to $46,964 due to the enlargement of the WTF (see “Adjustments on the original WTF design”, page 16). With his budget the con- tractor constructed the WTF, operated and maintained the WTF during the running-in phase, and conducted O&M trainings. Furthermore the contractor was participating in the weekly project meetings in Lilo-an (see “inner project circle”, page 13), servicing the transportation from Cebu City to Lilo-an with his private vehicle.

Said amount of $5,000 was deducted from the project budget of the municipality (ori- ginally $7,500), which was able to manage their social preparation activities with their residual $2,500 budget. Aside from organizing and conducting several IEC activities and one WTF O&M training, the municipality used their budget for activities such as the kick-off ceremony, groundbreaking ceremony, inauguration ceremony, and the LGU forum (attachment 18). Also the MLGOO’s flight ticket for the participating in the ADB ICLEI seminar in August 2005 in Manila was paid from project funds.

P30,016 were allocated to EMB-7 for monitoring the performance of the WTF during the running period, and to monitor the effect on the environmental impact area, the

Lilo-an shore line. Thus the budget mainly was dedicated for sampling activities and laboratory analyses. As these analyses partly were conducted in the chemistry labo-

ratory of the University of San Carlos, Cebu City (see “Integrating of a thesis 24), the P30,016 budget was shared between EMB-7 and the university.

The arrangement was made that the student carried out the analyses of the parame- ters ammonia, nitrate and phosphate in the university’s chemistry laboratory, while the EMB-7 laboratory conducted analyses for BOD 5 , COD, TSS, and coliform bacte- ria. In the end the EMB-7 laboratory consumed P16,296 for carrying out the analy- ses, while the USC chemistry laboratory issued a bill of P12,020 (attachments 19, 20). Additionally a gross amount of P1,500 was approved for the public transportation of the student (and the sampling gear) from Cebu City to Lilo-an. Thus all in all a budget of P29,816 was being used for monitoring the WTF performance.

”, page

Handling of the budgeting by the Municipality of Lilo-an

Concerning the handling of the project budget, the funding agency ADB and the im- plementing agency, the municipality of Lilo-an, have different points of view, which in the end could not be fully brought in line with each other.

The issue starts from the fact that ADB transfers the four installments of the project funds to a local bank account of the municipality of Lilo-an, for further disbursement to the contractor, etc. For this very reason municipality officials claim that in such a case they have no choice but to follow local disbursement rules for handling the money. This has consequences on the payment of national taxes from the project funds, what basically is the core of the disagreement between ADB and Lilo-an.

From the municipality’s perspective, after disbursement of a certain amount of project funds to the contractor this money is already regarded as the contractor’s income, and the income of the contractor is subject to taxation. It is the system of an LGU to withhold the respective amounts due for VAT and IT from the money they disburse to the contractor, and forward the respective amounts directly to BIR. This is a LGU rou- tine to prevent tax evasion by a contractor and to speed up the tax return to BIR. In other words it is the contractor’s income which is being taxed by this procedure, the municipality is just the one facilitating this process for the reasons mentioned above.

From the point of view of ADB their project funds can never be subject to taxation. Therefore, when the municipality of Lilo-an states the payment of VAT and IT on their statements of expenditure which they submit to ADB, the respective amounts will be disallowed by the ADB controlling and subsequently be deducted from the disburs- able project funds on ADB’s project budget processing sheet.

The issue could not be resolved. As a consequence some fraction of the $50,000 project budget will not be disbursed by ADB and will be “lost” for the PDA. In the statement of receipts and disbursements on the WTF project budget, which the mu- nicipality of Lilo-an accounting issued in December 31, 2005, it is stated that out of the total cash of P1,915,328.53 ($34,202.30) received from ADB until that point of time, an amount of P87,060.39 ($1,554.65) was being deducted and remitted to BIR. Since the amount deducted for VAT and IT is only 4.5% of the amount disbursed by ADB, this did not affect the project significantly.

It is another routine of the LGU accounting to keep 10% retention from that money they disburse to the contractor. These 10% retention are payable on project comple- tion and represent an insurance of the LGU against possible incomplete surrendering of services by the contractor. Since the municipality eventually will release this money for the project, this procedure will not limit the availability of project funds.

Proof of liquidation of the project budget (first, second, and third installment), i.e. statements of expenditure and disbursement vouchers issued by the municipality of Lilo-an, official receipts of the contractor JV Baring Consultants, as well as the ADB processing budget sheet from April 11, 2006, are attached to this report. The fourth and final project installment is due to get released upon submission of this report.