Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVM v.1.2 para 198 (a)).
Issue: the verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project (staring date of operation, periods of downtime and overhaul, etc.)

2: Scope: The verification report does not state how the DOE verified the information flow for the listed parameters. (VVM v.1.2 para 206)
Issue: the verification report does not state how the DOE verified the information flow for the following parameters as per requirements of para 206 of VVM version 1.2: ID3: COD POME,y; ID9 i: CTy,EFB; ID9 ii: DAFEFB; ID9 iii: CTy,comp; ID9 iv: DAFy,comp; and ID11: CODrun-off-water .

3: Scope: The verification report does not indicate that the information provided in the monitoring report has been cross-checked with other sources such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analyses. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (a) and (b))
Issue: the verification report does not indicate how the DOE cross-check the data for the following parameters: ID3: COD POME,y; ID9 i: CTy,EFB; ID9 ii: DAFEFB; ID9 iii: CTy,comp; ID9 iv: DAFy,comp; and ID11: CODrun-off-water .

4: Scope: The verification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified and/or emission factors, default values and other reference values have been correctly applied. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (d) & (e))
Issue 1: the verification report does not determine if default values, IPCC values and other reference values have been justified and correctly applied.
Issue 2: the project consumed gasoline and diesel, but in the calculation of emission reductions only diesel reference values (NCV, density, emission factor) are applied. The DOE has not determined if this approach is justified and correct.
Issue 3: density values for diesel is taken from Energy Statistics Working Group Committee, IEA, Paris, Nov 2004. No assessment is contained in the verification report on justification and correctness of this value, and on whether its application is line with para 17(b) of the General Guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies.

5: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan? (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue 1: the DOE has not provided an assessment on whether or not monitoring instruments have been calibrated as per requirements of the registered Monitoring Plan (i.e. instruments' calibration will occur at intervals determined on the basis of instrument manufacturers' recommendations, stability, purpose, usage and history of repeatability). No info is contained in the verification report on manufacturer's recommendations against which calibrations have been assessed.
Issue 2: for the parameters QPOME,y and Qrunoffwater,y a declaration of conformity is provided instead of a calibration certificate. The verification report does not indicate if the use of declaration of conformity is justified for assessing validity of calibration, considering that the flow meters may have been installed and used earlier than the issuance of the declarations.

6: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment of the compliance with EB 52 Annex 60 'Guidelines for assessing compliance with the calibration frequency requirements' for the calibration delay. (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue: date of calibration of spectrophotometer used for COD runoff is 03.09.2009, which is 47 days after the starting date of the monitoring period. The DOE has not provided any assessment on the compliance with EB52 Annex 60.