Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification and certification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the revised monitoring plan as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 392.
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it verified the following parameters in accordance with the monitoring plan, methodology and applicable tool which require continuous measurement, as there were periods/gaps identified without measuring equipment in place as per the Appendices 2 and 3 of the monitoring report:
(a) MMFL:
- For T trans1 in 1# flare, the equipment was removed for calibration on 19/05/2014 but it was only installed back on 21/05/2014. It was again removed for calibration on 06/05/2015 and only put back on 03/06/2015.
- For T trans2 in 2# flare, the equipment with SN C3106879004031 was moved to Phase 2 on 20/10/2014. Hence it is not clear what equipment measured this parameter from 20/10/2014 onwards. Furthermore, there is no information of equipment with SN C4000000445747 in Appendix 3.
- For P trans in 1# flare, DP trans in 1# flare and DP trans in 2# flare (SN 5000953), the equipment was moved to Phase 2 on 20/10/2014 and put back on 15/05/2015.
- For V-cone in 2# flare, the equipment was removed for calibration on 03/05/2015 but it was only installed back on 06/05/2015.
- For DP trans in 2# flare, it is not clear if the calibration date of 19/05/2014 is for equipment with SN 5000953 (as per Appendix 3) or SN 5476650 (as per Appendix 2). Furthermore, there is no information of equipment with SN 5476650 in Appendix 3.
(b) Tflare:
- For Thermal couple 1 in 1# flare (top), the equipment with SN C3106879004040 was removed for calibration on 19/05/2014 but it was only installed back on 21/05/2014. There is no information on the subsequent calibration either. Furthermore it is not clear if/when the equipment with SN SN-2 was installed.
- For Thermal couple 2 in 1# flare (middle), Thermal couple 1 in 2# flare (top) and Thermal couple 2 in 2# flare (middle), the equipment was removed for calibration on 19/05/2014 but it was only installed back on 21/05/2014. It was again removed for calibration on 06/05/2015 and only put back on 03/06/2015.
- For Thermal couple 3 in 1# flare (low) and Thermal couple 3 in 2# flare (low), the equipment was removed for calibration on 21/05/2014 but it was only installed back on 23/05/2014. It was again removed for calibration on 06/05/2015 and only put back on 03/06/2015.
(c) MMELEC: For V-cone in 3# engine and V-cone in 4# engine, the equipment was removed for calibration on 03/05/2015 but it was only installed back on 06/05/2015.
(d) GENy and CONSELEC,PJ: For 380 V Power meter, the equipment was removed for calibration on 17/09/2014 but it was only installed back on 25/09/2014.

2: Scope: The verification and certification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and does not provide an statement on how the DOE verified the information flow for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 393 and 409 (e).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified:
(a) the determination of default value for flare efficiency in the provided emission reductions spreadsheet, in particular how it has verified the correctness of the application for each default value. The monitoring report has provided the conditions to be fulfilled for each default value and the manufacturer's specification. However from the spreadsheet it is not clear what represent the flow, the flare temperature and the flaring time/duration in hour h;
(b) the parameter HEATy, in particular how it has verified the reading by crosschecking with aggregated monitoring data and the calibration records, as well as recalculating the reported value and confirming the involved meters are performed by qualified third party, considering the heat system has not yet been installed;
(c) the PCNMHC. The monitoring report and verification report state that the concentration is below 1%, however neither has reported how many samples have been taken for this monitoring period and the results of all the samples applicable in this monitoring period.

3: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an assessment and close out of any CARs, CLs or FARs issued, nor/or if appropriate, an assessment of remaining issues from the previous verification period as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 409 (g) (h).
Issue: he DOE is requested to explain how it closed the following CAR/CL:
(a) CL02, in particular how the THBL,y has been considered in the monthly ER calculation and the inclusion of MEk,y in Section E as responded by the PP whereas section E of the monitoring report has not provided this parameter;
(b) CAR02 without any PRC, considering the DOE has concluded that the rated capacity of 1.87 was a typo.