Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain a description of the monitoring systems, quality assurance and/or quality control system employed by the project activity, data collection procedures (information flow including data generation, aggregation, recording, calculation and reporting), organizational structure, roles and responsibilities of personnel, emergency procedures for the monitoring system, and/or line diagrams showing all relevant monitoring points). as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 246.
Issue: The Monitoring Report (MR, page 13) has confirmed that "this project is connected with another activity from the CDM project" ... "(Reference 2285)", and "the measures related to electric engines generators also appear as monitored parameters in the project mentioned above". However, information is not provided from the Figure 4 (page 12, MR) and Figure 5 (page 16, MR) and the general description regarding the exact interconnections between the two CDM projects. Information shall be provided to clarify this matter and it should be clarified whether the monitoring system for these two projects would interfere with each other's.

2: 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:
2.1. The DOE has verified that the instrument that monitors the parameter “fvCH4, G, h” was installed on 17/08/2012 (page 17 of Verification Report). However, for the same parameter, page 22 of the Verification Report lists three instruments, none of which appears to have an installation date of 17/08/2012. Kindly please clarify the information inconsistency, noting that for the period of time prior to 17/08/2012, the PP has reported monitored data for this parameter (Column K, CER spreadsheet).

2.2. The applied methodology (AMS.III.H.ver.9) requires that "in all cases, the amount of methane recovered, fuelled, flared or utilized shall be monitored ex post, using continuous flow meters." and "The fraction of methane in the gas should be measured with a continuous analyser or, alternatively, with periodical measurements at a 95% confidence level" (para.36). It is noted that the required "amount of methane" is a concept of accumulative quantity instead of an instant flow velocity, whereas it appears that the reported values of gas flow amounts refer only to instant hourly flow rates. Kindly clarify please.

3: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified by the applied methodology, the standardized baseline and/or the monitoring plan as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 400.
Issue: It has been reported that for the calibration of instruments that measure parameters TFlare1 and TFlare2, "Temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare required, to determine the flare combustion efficiency (for Flare 1 and 2)”, it could only be calibrated the 17/08/2011, because EMCALI had some problems at hiring. Since during the period 14/09/2010 to 17/08/2011 the instruments were not calibrated, it was applied to calculate the emissions reduction at the maximum possible error of the instrument (Monitoring Report, Page 9, 19-20, and Verification Report, Page 19-20). Furthermore, the DOE has noted calibration delayed for parameter No.1 (fvCH4FG,h) and No.9 (fcCH4,G,h) and confirmed that “the calibration delays have been correctly conducted by the PP, in accordance with relevant UNFCCC requirements”. Information is required on how the DOE has concluded the verification by following one of the two conservative approaches as defined by VVS version 9.0 para. 395, as the PP/DOE has not provided the information showing whether the error identified during the delayed calibration test was greater than that of the maximum permissible error of the measuring instrument. Kindly please provide the information.

4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved nor/or confirm that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 403 (c) and 409 (j).
Issue:
4.1. It appears that the PP/DOE has calculated the "amount of methane" using the instant flow rates (hourly) in m3/h multiplied by the hourly average volumetric fraction of methane (V/V) based on the example calculation presented on page 25, 28 of the MR. Kindly please specify whether the reported hourly values of flow rates (in column C, M, for example, of the CER spreadshet) represents cumulative amount of flow during the concerned hour, or an instant flow rate.

4.2. The PP/DOE has followed the "Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 4.0)" (the tool) to calculate the grid emission factor. Information is required with regard to the following aspects related to the calculation:

4.2.1. As this is the first monitoring period, the PP/DOE should provide information to confirm how the "project electricity system" has been defined by presenting the connected electricity systems following step 1 of the tool.

4.2.2. In calculating the Build Margin emission factor, the PP/DOE has not shown how it has been "updated annually, ex post, including those units built up to the year of registration of the project activity" (para. 68b of the tool), noting that the project was registered in September 2009 whereas in identifying SET[(>=)20] (para.71b of the tool), it appears that the list (page 32 of MR) has included power plants that were built up to December 2011 (this is after CDM registration). Kindly please the clarify.