Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the values of the monitored parameters used to calculate baseline, project and leakage emissions as well as other parameters required by the applied methodology and the registered monitoring plan. (PS v7, para 194, 195 (a)(c )(d)(e)(f))
Issue: Parameter kWhproject is missing from the Section D.2. of the monitoring report.

2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain a description of the equipment used to monitor each parameter including details on accuracy class and calibration information (frequency, dates of calibration and validity) as specified by the monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan. (PS v7, para 252 (b))
Issue: The Monitoring report does not provide the information of the calibration of the equipment. It makes reference to section B.1.3 calibration table for serial number and validity of calibration, however the monitoring report does not have the aforementioned table.

3: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain emission factors, IPCC default values, and/or other reference values used in the calculation of emission reductions.(PS v7 para 252(g)).
Issue: For the values for parameter CODy, removed,i in Section D.1, the monitoring report makes reference to Annex 3 of the PDD, however the PDD does not have such information.

4: 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 (VVS v2, para 243)
Issue: The monitoring plan in the PDD version 9 requires the calibration for all flare monitoring/combustion equipment (page 32) and equipment to monitor parameters Tx,in (Temperature of air/thermal oil at the inlet to burner X of the drying system) and Tx,out (Temperature of air/thermal oil heated by burner X of the drying system) be calibrated according to manufacturer’s specifications (at least once in three years). However, the verification report has not provided information on how the DOE verified the calibration of the equipment that monitors: (i) the flare temperature; (ii) parameters Tx,in and Tx,out.

5: Scope: The verification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved and/or determine that calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage as appropriate have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document. (VVS v2, para 246 (c), 284 (i))
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified the emission reduction calculation, in particular:
(a) The PD page 38 states that during the crediting period, it will be demonstrated “that the technology implemented does not increase the amount of methane produced per unit of COD removed… compared with the technology used in the baseline”. The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified this requirement, considering the demonstration is not shown in the monitoring report, and the Verification Report page 41 shows that the actual methane produced per unit of COD removed is higher than that of calculated ex-ante (i.e. 0.243 tonnes of CH4/tonnes of COD against 0.17 tonnes of CH4/tonnes of COD);
(b) The parameter MEPy,treatment (Methane emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant in the year “y”), required to calculate parameter PEy,fugitive,ww, is not calculated as per the equation 6 of the methodology. Furthermore, as the parameter is considered as the quantity of the CH4 flared (Verification Report page 32), the DOE is required to explain how the calculation of PEy,fugitive,ww done by the PP has considered the fugitive emissions from the the UASB reactor, and the approach taken by the PP is more conservative.

6: 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. (VVS v2, para 246 (d))
Issue: As per the page 12 of the PDD version 9, the facility uses a drying system on-site which is powered by heavy fuel oil for operation. During the registration stage, it is also shown that the ex-ante emission reductions calculation considers the residual fuel oil as the baseline fuel. Hence the DOE is requested to explain how the emission factor for coal is appropriate to be used in the baseline emission calculation under AMS-I.C.