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). (VVM v.1.2 para 198 (a)).
Issue: The DOE is requested to report on the implementation status of the project activity, for example, the starting date of operation of the project activity.

2: Scope: The verification report does not indicate that the information provided in the monitoring report has been cross-checked with other sources such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analyses. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (a) and (b))
Issue: It has been reported in the Verification Report (page 16) that the parameter SBO_S is continuously measured by steam flow meter S-101 and the reported values in final MR/ER spreadsheet and monthly data sheet are found to be consistent and correct. However, it is also noted that this meter (S-101) was malfunctioning from 01/03/2008 to 23/11/2008 (page 8, section B.3, Monitoring Report) and undergoing repairing (page 11 of the Verification Report) whereas page 11 of the Verification Report also states that the measurement of the repaired meter S-101 (with serial no. 91H529942820) is considered from 06/09/2008, which is not consistent with the information as reported by the PP, i.e. the meter worked correctly after 23/11/2008 (page 19 of the Monitoring Report). This inconsistency should be rectified.

3: 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. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (c) & 221 (h))
Issue: The DOE is requested to provide the information on how it has verified that the baseline emissions (i.e. EGnet) was calculated as per the revised monitoring plan (page 30 of the approved revised PDD), where it is stated that EGnet = EGgross - ECA - ECB. Explanation is requested on column E in each worksheet of the CER calculation spreadsheet, i.e. "P1312 Nagamas Monthly Data MAR-DEC08 5.1.0_12.07.27.xls", for example, it is noted that EG is taken as "0" when EGgross is "0" even when EC_A and EC_B are not "zero". Furthermore, as per the revised monitoring plan approved on 11/05/2012, a standby boiler and standby turbine is included in the project boundary following the clarification SSC WG 336. The SSC WG 336 requires that (c) No emission reductions are attributed to any operation of the back up unit(s)/systems(s) during the
crediting period; (e) The energy output from the main unit and the backup unit(s)/system(s) shall be continuously metered separately with calibrated equipment. The revised monitoring plan (page 38) also stated that the project participant will monitor and record the operation of both main and standby units during the monitoring period and only the operational configuration No.3 and No.4 will contribute CER from the project activity (i.e. if standby boiler is in operation, no CERs can be claimed for boiler and turbine; if main boiler and standby turbine are in operation, only CERs from the boiler can be claimed; if main boiler and main turbine are in operation, CERs from the boiler and turbine can be claimed). However, it is noted that during this monitoring period, the quantity of high pressure steam used for low pressure applications (SLP) from the main turbine and backup turbine is not able to be distinguished. In particular during the period from 04/11/2008 to 23/11/2008, as well as the period from 25/12/2008 to 29/12/2008, it appears that the CERs are claimed for the SLP during standby turbine was in operation. DOE is requested to provide further information on how it verified that the SSC WG 336 and the statement in Section B.7.2 of the revised monitoring plan is satisfied.

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? (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue: The DOE is requested to provide the information on how it has verified that the calibration of metering equipment for parameters (including ECA,ECB, PBout S, TBout S, PTout S and TBout) was carried out in line with the revised monitoring plan, i.e. annual frequency, particularly for the period 01/03/2008 to 11/03/2008 for ECA and ECB, and 01/03/2008 to 24/03/2008 for PBout S, TBout S, 01/03/2008 to 10/03/2008 for PTout S, and 01/03/2008 to 04/03/2008 for TBout.