Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to explain how it has concluded that the implementation and operation of the registered CDM project activity has been in accordance with the description in the registered PDD in line with paragraph 357 of VVS-PA, version 01.0, in particular:
(a) The operation of the project activity as per the PDD considered the landfill to close in 2017. However, as per the monitoring report, the closing date has been postponed, which implies the landfill still receiving the waste. This may result in more LFG generated beyond 2017, hence may have impact on the additionality of the project activity;
(b) The default value of flare efficiency was used during the monitoring period, as the continuous monitoring of the flare efficiency has not been implemented. However, as per the PDD (page 23), default values for the flare efficiency can be used in case of the continuous system is unavailable for maintenance, or failure, which is not the case during this monitoring period.
(c) The DOE needs to explain:
(i) How, through the confirmation of the project owner by teleconference, it concluded that no changes have been observed or identified which may impact the additionality as there was no change in the effective output capacity, no addition of component nor extension of technology, no addition nor removal of project sites of the project activity, no change of values of the actual operational parameter relevant to determination of emission reductions which are within the control of the PP; no change has been observed or identified that may impact the scale of the project activity or applicability of baseline and monitoring methodology;
(ii) The justification that the alternative means (teleconference and email) are sufficient for the purpose of verification, in line with paragraph 343 of VVS-PA, version 01.0.


2: For the following parameter:
(a) The manufacturer specification of the flare: As the specification is not described in the PDD, the DOE is requested to explain how it has verified the manufacturer specification of the flare used in the determination of the flare efficiency default value. Please refer to paragraph 376(e) of VVS-PA, version 01.0;
(b) Operation of the energy plant: As per the page 20 of the verification report, the DOE has verified the figures reported in the final MR and the ER calculation spreadsheet and confirmed that the figures reported are consistent with the figures in the data sources. However, the ER calculation spreadsheet does not show figures of this parameter.



3: The DOE is requested to explain how the provision for the delayed calibrations of meters in paragraph 369 of VVS-PA, version 01.0, has been correctly applied, in particular:
(a) For parameter LFGflare,y: The deduction is done to parameter MDflare,y, as shown in the ER spreadsheet, instead of the parameter LFGflare,y itself. It is to be noted that parameter LFGflare,y is used twice in the formula to calculate MDflare,y.
(b) For parameter LFGtotal,y: Page 25 of the verification report mentions that due to the delay of calibration of flow meter used to monitor LFGtotal,y during the period from 03/05/2017 to 30/11/2017, maximum accuracy of the instrument has been deducted for ER calculation. However, the monthly spreadsheet or the ER spreadsheet does not show the deduction has been done.