Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification and certification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the revised monitoring plan as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 392.
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how the monitoring of the parameter LFGflare,y has been in line with the monitoring plan or the applied methodology, in particular that it is monitored continuously, considering the monitoring report page 26 shows that there were periods without instrument in place (07/08/2010-30/08/10 and 06/08/2012-02/09/2012). Furthermore, without the meter in place, how the DOE verified the correctness of the values shown in the ER calculation during those period.

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: The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified:
(a) The values of parameters LFGthermal,y, LFGelectricity,y and LFGthermal,y in light of the result of the mass balance that has been carried out. For example, in the sheet "Mass Balance Check" of the emission reductions calculation. For May-10 the meter FIQ 101 dry (column I) shows a total of LFG collected of 4,507,052 Nm3, and the meter FIQ-A shows usage of LFG for thermal generation of 4,859,504 Nm3, which is higher than the collected LFG, without any other usage. And the baseline emissions are calculated based on the LFG thermal (higher value);
(b) The application of flare efficiency of 50%. In doing so the DOE is requested to clarify/explain: (i) the conditions to claim efficiency of 50%. The monitoring plan describes that in order to claim 50% efficiency, the flare has to be on for more than 20 minutes. However in the monitoring report, to claim such efficiency, the temperature has to be more than 500 degree C; (ii) in case of 50% efficiency is claimed, how it verified that the flare was detected for more than 20 minutes in hour h as per the monitoring plan;
(c) LFGflare,y in particular during the period of missing data (2011/10/03, 2012/06/26 and 2012/09/22 as per the CL03), how the DOE verified that the project emissions are not underestimated due to the absence of the data.

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: The DOE is requested to explain how the delayed calibration of the following instruments have been taking into account in the calculation of the emission reductions as per the paragraphs 395 and 396 of the VVS version 09.0:
(a) AT-101(A) (SN A6C0599T), period of 19/04/2011-16/10/2012;
(b) AT-A(A) (SN A6C0598T), period of 19/04/2011-06/09/2011. Furthermore, considering the calibration of the equipment was valid until 18/04/2011 but it was used until 06/09/2011, the DOE is also requested to clarify whether there was a calibration done for this equipment after the one in 2006 in order to see the result of the delayed calibration test (VVS version 09.0 paragraph 395(b)) and to comply with paragraph 397 of the VVS version 09.0;
(c) TI-305B(A) (SN 51100202), period of 06/08/2013-13/08/2014. Furthermore, considering the calibration of the equipment was valid until 05/08/2013 but it was used until 13/08/2014, the DOE is also requested to clarify whether there was a calibration done for this equipment after the one in 2012 in order to see the result of the delayed calibration test (VVS version 09.0 paragraph 395(b)) and to comply with paragraph 397 of the VVS version 09.0;
(d) TI-101 (SN 06003606), periods of 04/06/2010-04/08/2010, 05/08/2012 and 06/08/2014-18/08/2014;
(e) TI-303 (SN 06003618), periods of 04/06/2010-20/07/2010, 21/07/2012-05/08/2012 and 06/08/2014-07/08/2014;
(f) TI-A(B) (SN 06503212) and PI-A(B) (SN 06503212), period of 03/06/2010-11/08/2010. Furthermore, considering the calibration of the equipment was valid until 02/06/2010 but it was used until 11/08/2010, the DOE is also requested to clarify whether there was a calibration done for this equipment after the one in 2008 in order to see the result of the delayed calibration test (VVS version 09.0 paragraph 395(b)) and to comply with paragraph 397 of the VVS version 09.0.

4: 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 is requested to how it had appropriately closed the CAR 07. In particular considering the flare efficiency of 50% in some instances is also claimed whenever the temperature is below 500 degree C. For example, in sheet "MDflared" for 11/10/2013 hour 15, it is shown that TI-304A read temperature of 440.4 whereas TI-305B read 511.8. Even though TI-304A temperature was lower than 500 degree C, flare efficiency of 50% is used.