18:23 14 Nov 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE did not determines whether the proposed alternative monitoring arrangements for the non-conforming monitoring period apply conservative assumptions or discount factors to the calculations to the extent required to ensure that GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals will not be overestimated as a result of the deviation. Please refer to paragraph 283 of the VVS for PA version 3.0.
The project participants applied the proposed arrangements for missing data of LFG flow and methane concentration from Table 1 of the Appendix of the "Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream" version 03.0. However, this approach can only be applied if the project complies with paragraph 3 of the Appendix. The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated that the proposed arrangement complies with paragraph 3 of the Appendix of the methodological tool "Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream" version 03.0.
2: The DOE did not verify the information flow of each parameter required by the registered monitoring plan (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) including the values in the monitoring report. Please refer to paragraph 364 of the VVS for PA, version 3.0.
The PP indicated in the monitoring report that the periodical measurement of the methane concentration in the exhaust gas of the flare was not conducted within the frequency specified in the methodology and monitoring plan, and applied default values of flare efficiency following the approach from the methodological tool “Project emissions from flaring”. However, the DOE has neither validated this approach nor whether this approach is a temporary deviation or a permanent change to the monitoring plan.
1: The DOE did not determines whether the proposed alternative monitoring arrangements for the non-conforming monitoring period apply conservative assumptions or discount factors to the calculations to the extent required to ensure that GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals will not be overestimated as a result of the deviation. Please refer to paragraph 283 of the VVS for PA version 3.0.
The project participants applied the proposed arrangements for missing data of LFG flow and methane concentration from Table 1 of the Appendix of the "Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream" version 03.0. However, this approach can only be applied if the project complies with paragraph 3 of the Appendix. The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated that the proposed arrangement complies with paragraph 3 of the Appendix of the methodological tool "Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream" version 03.0.
2: The DOE did not verify the information flow of each parameter required by the registered monitoring plan (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) including the values in the monitoring report. Please refer to paragraph 364 of the VVS for PA, version 3.0.
The PP indicated in the monitoring report that the periodical measurement of the methane concentration in the exhaust gas of the flare was not conducted within the frequency specified in the methodology and monitoring plan, and applied default values of flare efficiency following the approach from the methodological tool “Project emissions from flaring”. However, the DOE has neither validated this approach nor whether this approach is a temporary deviation or a permanent change to the monitoring plan.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: