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). (VVS v2, para 228 (a))
Scope: The verification report does not describe the reasons for the phased-implementation delay and/or does not present the expected implementation dates. (VVS v2, para 228 (a))
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it concluded that the implementation and operation of the project activity is consistent with the registered PDD, in particular as the geo-coordinates of the project activity described in the monitoring plan are different with those in the registered PDD.

2: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the accepted revised monitoring plan. (VVS v2 para 235)
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it concluded that parameters have been monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan in the registered PDD, in particular parameter Qww,discharge,y (outlet). As per the PDD page 49, there is a monitoring instrument in point 7 for this parameter, however the Verification Report page 33 states that there is no separate flow meter installed to monitor the discharged wastewater after the digester, and the value used in this case is the same as recorded for (Qww,y). Furthermore, the DOE is also requested to explain why this is not considered as deviation to the monitoring plan, and how this approach is conservative.

3: Scope: The verification 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 (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports (VVS v2, para 236, 284 (e)).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it verified the following parameters:
(a) Qww,y, in particular how the error identified during the calibrations in 2011 and 2012 (0.48% and 1.66%) that was higher than the maximum permissible error (+/-0.3%), as shown in the spreadsheet, has been taken into account;
(b) CODww,untreated,y, CODww,treated,y and CODww,discharge,y, in particular how he error identified during the calibration in 2013 (1.65%) that was higher than the maximum permissible error (+/-0.2%), as shown in the spreadsheet, has been taken into account;
(c) wCH4,y, in particular for the delayed calibration period, how the application of paragraph 283 of the VVS version 07.0 has been complied with in the absence of the information on maximum permissible error of the meters;
(d) Tbiogas and Pbiogas, in particular: (i) to clarify the statement in the Verification Report page 42 that states the temperature and pressure of biogas is required only to determine the density of the methane, and the PP has installed flow computing at each point which provides biogas output in normalized flow (Nm3). The monitoring report page 29 states that the temperature and pressure of the produced biogas were measured continuously with the volume to allow for normalization. The monitoring report hence says that they are not used to determine the density of the methane; (ii) how the DOE concluded that the PP has kept provision of applying maximum error of the instrument to the measured values taken during the period between the scheduled date of calibration and the actual date of calibration as per paragraph 283 of VVS version 07.0 considering it is not shown in the spreadsheet.

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 DOE is requested to clarify and provide information on calibration of meters that monitor the following parameters:
(a) wCH4,y (SN 2160913), that covers the period of 20/04/2014-31/07/2014;
(b) wCH4,y (SN 29193), that covers the period of 18/10/2011-13/03/2012;

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 concluded that the emission reduction calculations are correct in particular:
(a) the COD removed for aerobic poor managed ponds. The spreadsheet shows that it is calculated as multiplication of efficiency of the ponds and COD removed in the anaerobic ponds instead of the COD inlet of the aerobic poor managed ponds;
(b) the CODww,discharge,BL,y that applies the value of CODww,discharge,PJ,y instead of being calculated based on monitored COD inlet and efficiencies of baseline ponds.