06:43 30 Jan 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain explanation with regard to application of formulae in the spreadsheet. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (b) (iii)).
Issue:
The DOE has explained that FE, Flare combustion efficiency, has been measured by a gas quality analyzer (methane content in exhaust gas) and an hour counter (operating hours). However, the CERs calculation spreadsheet only includes the value of FE for each month during the MP. It is not included an explanation with regard to application of formulae in the spreadsheet to calculate the flare efficiency. The DOE is requested to include an explanation with regard to application of formulae in the spreadsheet to calculate the flare eficiency.
2: Scope: It is not clear how the DOE verified that the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied methodology. (VVM v.1.2 para 200, 203 & 221(d))
Issue:
The DOE has stated that there is no difference between LFGtotal and LFGflare and has explained that the flow meter is positioned on the main pipe before the LFG is separated into two pipes to fed each flare. However, the methodology requires a separate measure of the total quantity of landfill gas generated (LFGtotal,y) as well as the quantity fed to the flare (LFGflare,y). Please provide further details on how the DOE has verified that the amount of gas measured in the main pipe is the same that the amount of gas fed to the flares.
3: Scope: It is not clear how the DOE has verified that 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 secretariat has observed that: (i) The MR explains that the main equipment at the site consists in two enclosed flares that are operated alternately. (ii) The DOE has verified that the commissioning date for both flares is 13/11/2008 (VR pg A-4 and A-5). (iii) The DOE has stated that the calibration of the gas analyzer is covered by valid calibrated certificates for the whole 1st MP and provides the calibration dates as follows:
BM11071: 28/06/2008, 17/12/2008, 10/12/2009, 10/12/2010
BM11259: 14/01/2009, 18/01/2010.
However, it is not clear how the DOE has verified that the calibration of each gas analyzer was valid during the period of time each flare was in operation. In particular, please clarify how verified that the calibration of the gas analyzer BM11259 was valid during the time this spare flare was in operation.
1: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain explanation with regard to application of formulae in the spreadsheet. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (b) (iii)).
Issue:
The DOE has explained that FE, Flare combustion efficiency, has been measured by a gas quality analyzer (methane content in exhaust gas) and an hour counter (operating hours). However, the CERs calculation spreadsheet only includes the value of FE for each month during the MP. It is not included an explanation with regard to application of formulae in the spreadsheet to calculate the flare efficiency. The DOE is requested to include an explanation with regard to application of formulae in the spreadsheet to calculate the flare eficiency.
2: Scope: It is not clear how the DOE verified that the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied methodology. (VVM v.1.2 para 200, 203 & 221(d))
Issue:
The DOE has stated that there is no difference between LFGtotal and LFGflare and has explained that the flow meter is positioned on the main pipe before the LFG is separated into two pipes to fed each flare. However, the methodology requires a separate measure of the total quantity of landfill gas generated (LFGtotal,y) as well as the quantity fed to the flare (LFGflare,y). Please provide further details on how the DOE has verified that the amount of gas measured in the main pipe is the same that the amount of gas fed to the flares.
3: Scope: It is not clear how the DOE has verified that 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 secretariat has observed that: (i) The MR explains that the main equipment at the site consists in two enclosed flares that are operated alternately. (ii) The DOE has verified that the commissioning date for both flares is 13/11/2008 (VR pg A-4 and A-5). (iii) The DOE has stated that the calibration of the gas analyzer is covered by valid calibrated certificates for the whole 1st MP and provides the calibration dates as follows:
BM11071: 28/06/2008, 17/12/2008, 10/12/2009, 10/12/2010
BM11259: 14/01/2009, 18/01/2010.
However, it is not clear how the DOE has verified that the calibration of each gas analyzer was valid during the period of time each flare was in operation. In particular, please clarify how verified that the calibration of the gas analyzer BM11259 was valid during the time this spare flare was in operation.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: