08:48 28 Dec 24
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 as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 244.
Issue: The monitoring report shall include the explanation that the power generation system was not in operation during the monitoring period, as indicated by the DOE in the verification report while addressing CAR1.
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions, leakage (if any), and emission reductions, including reference to formulae and methods used as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 253.
Issue: The PDD states, on page 26 that Option A from the gaseous stream tool is applied, meaning that the volumetric flow of the gas is on a dry basis, and volumetric fraction is on a wet/dry basis and the absolute humidity is not calculated, as the gaseous stream is considered dry, which will be demonstrated by a gas temperature of less than 60°C (333.15 K) at the flow measurement point. The monitoring report shall indicate how the temperature of the gas was measured and how it was assured that the values recorded are below 60ºC.
3: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain a comparison of the actual CERs claimed in the monitoring period with the estimate in the PDD, and explanation on any significant increase, including all information (i.e. data or parameters) that is different from that stated in the registered PDD) as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 256 and 257.
Issue: The monitoring report justifies the increase of almost 38% between the estimated and measured ERs on the basis of the different models to estimate LFG emissions applied between the first and the second crediting periods. However, this justification is not feasible since the monitoring period covers only ERs genertaed in the second crediting period that were estimated using only the methodological tool "Emissions from solid waste disposal sites".
4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an opinion on the cause of any increase of the actual GHG emission reductions as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (d).
Issue: The DOE shall further substantiate the rationale on accepting the justifications from the PP on the increase of CERs since the monitoring period covers only the second crediting period, where the estimatives of LFG emissions were made using only the methodological tool "Enissions from solid waste disposal site".
5: Scope: The verification and certification 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 for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 393 and 409 (e).
Issue:1) With respect to monitoring of the parameter "Management of SWDS", the DOE has indicated it had verified data on MSW by reviewing two documents (references 31 and 32). The DOE shall explain if these documents contain changes to the original design of the landfill that could potentially increase the methane generation.
6: Scope: The verification and certification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 403 (d).
Issue: The PDD states, on page 26 that Option A from the gaseous stream tool is applied, meaning that the volumetric flow of the gas is on a dry basis, and volumetric fraction is on a wet/dry basis and the absolute humidity is not calculated, as the gaseous stream is considered dry, which will be demonstrated by a gas temperature of less than 60°C (333.15 K) at the flow measurement point. The DOE shall provide an assessment on how it has verified that the temperature of the LFG was correctly measured and how it was confirmed that the values recorded are below 60ºC.
7: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an assessment and close out of any CARs, CLs or FARs issued, nor/or if appropriate, an assessment of remaining issues from the previous verification period as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 409 (g) (h).
Issue: The DOE has raised CAR 01, requesting the PP to reflect in the monitoring report that the power generation system was not in operation at the time of on-site inspection. However, the version of the monitoring report submitted does not contain such explanation.
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 as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 244.
Issue: The monitoring report shall include the explanation that the power generation system was not in operation during the monitoring period, as indicated by the DOE in the verification report while addressing CAR1.
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions, leakage (if any), and emission reductions, including reference to formulae and methods used as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 253.
Issue: The PDD states, on page 26 that Option A from the gaseous stream tool is applied, meaning that the volumetric flow of the gas is on a dry basis, and volumetric fraction is on a wet/dry basis and the absolute humidity is not calculated, as the gaseous stream is considered dry, which will be demonstrated by a gas temperature of less than 60°C (333.15 K) at the flow measurement point. The monitoring report shall indicate how the temperature of the gas was measured and how it was assured that the values recorded are below 60ºC.
3: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain a comparison of the actual CERs claimed in the monitoring period with the estimate in the PDD, and explanation on any significant increase, including all information (i.e. data or parameters) that is different from that stated in the registered PDD) as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 256 and 257.
Issue: The monitoring report justifies the increase of almost 38% between the estimated and measured ERs on the basis of the different models to estimate LFG emissions applied between the first and the second crediting periods. However, this justification is not feasible since the monitoring period covers only ERs genertaed in the second crediting period that were estimated using only the methodological tool "Emissions from solid waste disposal sites".
4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an opinion on the cause of any increase of the actual GHG emission reductions as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (d).
Issue: The DOE shall further substantiate the rationale on accepting the justifications from the PP on the increase of CERs since the monitoring period covers only the second crediting period, where the estimatives of LFG emissions were made using only the methodological tool "Enissions from solid waste disposal site".
5: Scope: The verification and certification 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 for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 393 and 409 (e).
Issue:1) With respect to monitoring of the parameter "Management of SWDS", the DOE has indicated it had verified data on MSW by reviewing two documents (references 31 and 32). The DOE shall explain if these documents contain changes to the original design of the landfill that could potentially increase the methane generation.
6: Scope: The verification and certification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 403 (d).
Issue: The PDD states, on page 26 that Option A from the gaseous stream tool is applied, meaning that the volumetric flow of the gas is on a dry basis, and volumetric fraction is on a wet/dry basis and the absolute humidity is not calculated, as the gaseous stream is considered dry, which will be demonstrated by a gas temperature of less than 60°C (333.15 K) at the flow measurement point. The DOE shall provide an assessment on how it has verified that the temperature of the LFG was correctly measured and how it was confirmed that the values recorded are below 60ºC.
7: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an assessment and close out of any CARs, CLs or FARs issued, nor/or if appropriate, an assessment of remaining issues from the previous verification period as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 409 (g) (h).
Issue: The DOE has raised CAR 01, requesting the PP to reflect in the monitoring report that the power generation system was not in operation at the time of on-site inspection. However, the version of the monitoring report submitted does not contain such explanation.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: