Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: 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 further substantiate how it concluded that the monitoring system and all applied procedures are completely in compliance to the revised approved monitoring plan in line with VVS version 05.0 paragraph 233, in particular:
(a) the measurement of wcarbon,y, which was not carried out on weekly basis as required by the revised monitoring plan (e.g. the first measurement was taken on 10/12/2007 and the second was only taken on 22/01/2008; the second measurement was taken on 22/01/2008 while the third was only taken on 31/01/2008, which is more than 7 days (one week));
(b) the approved temporary deviation applicable for this monitoring period defines that energy consumption by compressor will be monitored through meter, however the spreadsheet shows that it is calculated based on name plate capacity;
(c) the metering diagram of the project. In section C.4 of VR (page 68), the DOE states that metering diagram is in the MR with all monitoring points. However, the Monitoring Report has not provided the metering diagram related to the monitoring of electricity;
(d) the calibration frequency for gas flow measurement. The frequency is stated as both yearly (PDD page 31) and once every 6 months (PDD page 59), whereas it was done on annual basis in practice. Please clarify.

2: 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 further explain how it verified the following parameter in line with the VVS version 05.0 paragraph 244:
(a) the total power generated by captive power plant, power imported and power exported to grid (Monitoring Report page 17) and the gas processed at Uran, to calculate parameter QFy, and NCV appearing in the spreadsheet that is used to calculate EFFCTy and EFfacility,y, as there is no information provided in the Verification Report;
(b) EFFCTy and EFfacility,y being calculated based on power generation by captive power plant only, whereas the MR page 17, PDD pages 10 and 38 also indicate the use of electricity from the grid.

3: 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 further explain how the following has been verified in line with the VVS version 05.0 paragraph 242:
(a) The parameter QFy (unit in kWh) is the energy consumed by end use facility in year y to process gas recovered from FGRU. As shown in the spreadsheet, this parameter is calculated from Power consumed for at Uran plant (column E of sheet "% Flare of the total gas proces), Gas processed at Uran (column B of sheet "% Flare of the total gas proces)and actual gas recovered. While the information on the calibration of gas flow meters has been provided, the information on the calibration of meters that are used to monitor/measure the electricity consumption has not been provided. Furthermore, The DOE is requested to further explain how it has properly closed CAR E1. In response to CAR E1 point 2, the PP states that all meters for power generation, power import and power export are calibrated and calibration record is available. However, neither MR nor VR provides information on calibration of these meters;
(b) Parameter wcarbon,y is measured with gas chromatography on weekly basis. However, there is no information on the calibration of this equipment.

4: Scope: The verification report does not contain an indication whether data were not available because activity levels or non-activity parameters were not monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan? In such cases, does the verification report detail the actions taken by the DOE to ensure that the most conservative assumption theoretically possible has been made (VVS v2 para 246(a))
Issue: In regard to the parameter wcarbon,y, which requires weekly measurement as per the revised monitoring plan, the DOE acknowledges that only 75 measurements were taken instead of 82 (CAR D1). However, as there measurement was not done in accordance with the revised MP, the DOE is requested how the requirement of VVS version 05.0 paragraph 245(a) has been complied with (i.e. the DOE shall either raise a CAR for the project participants to comply with the requirements of appendix 1 of the Project standard or submit a request for deviation prior to submitting the request for issuance, if appropriate).