1.	Page 11 of the PDD, section B.2, table 2 – applicability conditions of the methodology doesn’t comply with the present project activity described in the section A.2 description of the small scale project activity – This section states that – the anaerobic open lagoon has been used as an existing waste water treatment system, however Project proponent has selected the applicability condition (d) from the methodology version 15 – (Introduction of biogas recovery and combustion to an anaerobic wastewater treatment system such as anaerobic reactor, lagoon, septic tank or an onsite industrial plant; ) which is contradictory with the description states in the PDD.
2.	Page 16-22, Section B.5 of the PDD, paragraph 2 for proving addtionality refers the Attachment A to appendix B - investment barrier is applied in conjunction with Guidance on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (EB 51 annex 58) – Project proponent has argued the project addtionality on the basis of benchmark analysis i.e. sub-step 2 b   however project proponent required to follow the step 3 of the addtionality tool.
           
3 Section B. 5 serious CDM considerations, page 20 of the PDD states the following step which are contradictory as mentioned below: 
a)	First minutes of meeting available in Dec 2005 from the PP , however the awareness and internal discussion held on 26 December 2005 
b)	16 June 2006 – LOI proposed from JCF , however in further steps there is no mention of signing ERPA
 
c)	Refer date 23 August 2007 , the decision illustrate the list of 11 CDM committees and the project has to be effective from 1st September 2007 onward however there was no concrete action has been taken from Dec 2005 – Dec 2007
d)	First minute of meeting available from PP as stated in table December 2005 by PP however advisory  services proposal invited by PP in Nov 2008 and finalized in August 2009 , it’s a gap of approximately 3 years in taking the parallel CDM action.