Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the values of the monitored parameters. (EB 54 Annex 34)
Issue: The Section D.2 of the monitoring report refers to Annexure 1 of the monitoring report for the information of the date of the calibration for meters to measure parameters FEED WATER INLET TEMPERATURE (serial number 00253306) and FLOW RATE TFH (serial number 264 DRGS RRR A1). However, Annexure 1 of the monitoring report does not provide such information.

2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain emission factors, IPCC default values, and/or other reference values used in the calculation of emission reductions. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (a) (v)).
Issue: For the value of fixed ex-ante parameter Methane Emission from Natural Gas Production and leakage in Transport and distribution, the monitoring report states the value of 0.8224 kgCH4/GJ, in accordance with the registered PDD. However, the spreadsheet applied a value of 0.8244 kgCH4/GJ.

3: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment that all physical features of the proposed CDM project activity proposed in the registered PDD are in place and/or that the project participant has implemented and operated the proposed CDM project activity as per the registered PDD or the approved revised PDD. (VVM v.1.2 para 196)
Issue: For the Steam Generating Module Specification, the registered PDD specifies the water inlet temperature as 240 degree C, whereas the Monitoring Report specifies it as 30 degree C.

4: 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: (1) The revised monitoring plan prescribes parameter MCHO TFH (Total heat supplied by Thermic fluid heater of project activity) to be calculated as m x Cp x (Delta T), with “Delta T” being the difference between inlet and outlet temperature of thermic fluid. However, the spreadsheet has not shown that "Delta T" is the product of the difference between inlet and outlet temperature of thermic fluid; (2) The parameter MCHO TFH (Total heat supplied by Thermic fluid heater of project activity) to be calculated as m x Cp x (Delta T), with m is calculated based on hourly flow rate of the thermic fluid (parameter FLOW RATE TFH) multiplied by full operating hours (24 hours) and full operating days each month (28, 30 or 31 days). The DOE has not justified how the calculation of appropriate (i.e. considering operational hours per each month, instead of total measured value of MCHO TFH). Furthermore, considering the monitoring report reports the downtime during the monitoring period.

5: Scope: The verification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified and/or emission factors, default values and other reference values have been correctly applied. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (d) & (e))
Issue: The Verification Report pages 28 and 29 states that the methane emission factor, Nitrous oxide emission factor, methane leakage rate, etc. have been correctly applied based on the IPCC default values. However, the spreadsheet applied a methane leakage rate of 0.8244 kgCH4/GJ while the PDD and Monitoring Report mention the value as 0.8224 kgCH4/GJ.

6: Scope: The verification report does not contain information on all CARs, CLs and FARs and/or provide an assessment and close out of any CARs, CLs or FARs issued. (VVM v.1.2 para 192, 194)
Issue: (1) The CAR 8 (d) required a report showing the electricity produced by the baseline dedicated power plant(s) have been reduced at the same amount as the electricity generated by the project activity cogeneration plant. The CAR was closed as the PP provided the report that explains that the project activity has generated electricity that would have been produced by the baseline FO power plant. However, the reduction which shall be estimated estimated using the historic generation of the baseline dedicated power plant(s) and electricity production of the dedicated power plant(s) has not been provided, in line with note 1 on page 18 of the methodology; (2) The CAR-13 (i)1 concluded the specific of the thermic fluid as 0.547 kcal/kg C. However, the spreadsheet applied a specific heat of thermic fluid of 0.649 kcal/kg C. Furthermore, the Monitoring Report and registered PDD specify the specific heat of thermic fluid as 0.497 - 0.651 BTU/lb.

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 page 23 and 24 mention that there has been a delay in calibration of measuring equipments, and in accordance with EB52 Annex 60, the project participant has conservatively and correctly applied the maximum permissible errors of the instruments to the measured values of the respective parameters. However, neither the Verification Report nor the spreadsheet shows the period of the delayed calibrations and application of the maximum permissible errors, for each parameter for which the delayed calibration occurred.