Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the implementation status of the project (including a brief description of the installed technology and/or equipments, relevant dates of project activity e.g. date of construction, commissioning, continued operation periods, etc.) during the monitoring period under consideration. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (a) (i) & EB 54 Annex 34).
Issue: The monitoring report does not contain information on relevant dates for the project activity as construction, start of operation of the project and each of the two flares installed.

2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the values of the monitored parameters. (EB 54 Annex 34)
Issue: The monitoring parameter "Regulatory requirements relating to landfill gas projects"is not reported in the monitoring report and assessed by the DOE.

3: 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). (VVM v.1.2 para 198 (a)).
Issue: The verification report states that "The project began the installation and testing of the flares from March 2009, but started regular operation in May 2009" while the monitoring report indicates that flare 2 only started to work regularly on 11.10.2009. Please clearly indicate in the verification report how the DOE confirmed the dates when the operation started for each one of the flares installed.

4: Scope: The verification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan (VVM v.1.2 para 206)
Issue: The parameters FVRG,h, fvi,h, Flare efficiency in hour h are listed in the verification protocol however an assessment on how the DOE confirmed the reported values is not provided. For parameter Flare efficiency in hour h, the DOE is requested to indicate whether it has confirmed the use of default values of flare efficiency in relation to the applied Tool requirements, as reported in the monitoring report for the mentioned parameter. In addition, for the monitoring parameter "temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare", the verification report does not contain an assessment on any excessively high temperature at the sampling point (above 700 ºC) as referred in the monitoring plan.

5: Scope: The verification report does not state how the DOE verified the information flow for the listed parameters. (VVM v.1.2 para 206)
Issue: The CER sheet shows monitored values of pressure and temperature of the landfill gas reported every 30 minutes however the verification report does not indicate how the DOE verified the recording frequency of both monitoring parameters.

6: 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? (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue: The verification report does not provide an assessment on how it confirmed the calibration frequencies reported in the monitoring report for all meters (except for electricity meter and gas analyzers) as per EB 52 Annex 60 (Para 8), applied methodology and monitoring plan.

7: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment of the compliance with EB 52 Annex 60 'Guidelines for assessing compliance with the calibration frequency requirements' for the calibration delay. (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue: The verification report states that Modcon System Ltd. calibrates the gas analyzers according the manufacturer requirement every three months and that calibrations complied with applied methodology and Tool. However, based on the three months frequency required by manufacture, the calibrations conducted on 15/04/2010 and 22/07/2010 for meters GA 1, FA 1 and FA 2 indicate a delay in relation to the previous calibrations. Although for meter GA 1 the excel sheet in "Ganey Hadas Adjusted" shows that errors were applied to the recorded values during the monitoring period, the delay and the assessment of correctness of error applied by project participants were not included in the verification report. Additionally, the calibration delay and application of error for meters FA 1 and FA 2 are not assessed by the DOE in the verification report. In relation to pressure and temperature meters of landfill gas and thermocouples TT2 and TT3, the calibration date reported is 05/01/09 and the calibration frequency stated in monitoring report is yearly (the due date is before the end of monitoring period), however the verification report does not provide an assessment on this calibration delay and application of error in recorded data as per EB 52 Annex 60.