19:05 19 May 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Inconsistent information are presented in the monitoring report regarding the description of project system:
(1) Page 19 of the monitoring report indicate there are separate flow meters for biogas sent to gas engine and biogas sent to gas boiler; whereas
(2) Diagrams in page 5 and 8 of the monitoring report implies one single biogas connection to an single recipient named as “enclosed flare/Boiler system”.
It is not clear how many recipients of the biogas are combusting biogas and how many are flaring biogas, as well as the corresponding monitoring points. In accordance with paragraph 258 of PS for PA version 2, the project participants shall describe the monitoring system and provide line diagrams (graphical schemes) showing all relevant monitoring points.
2: Regarding the monitoring of three wastewater COD parameters (CODww,untreated,y, CODww,treated,y, CODww,discharge,PJ,y):
(1) The achieved precision of parameter CODww,treated,y (i.e. from 13.21% to 34.69%) and the achieved precision of parameter CODww,discharge,PJ,y (i.e. from 7.42% to 72.19%) does not meet the required precision of 10%. The lower/upper bound of confidence limits have been applied in claiming emission reductions. However, the vintage of the precision failure is beyond the first two years of the crediting period and the achieved precision also beyond a limit of 15%, thus not in line with paragraph 18(c) of the Sampling Standard version 09 and the discounting approach by the lower/upper bound in paragraph 18(b) of the same standard is not applicable to this request for issuance. The DOE shall provide information on how it has validated this deviation from the Sampling Standard.
(2) The specific raw data of each sampled measurement (i.e. measurement result, entity and date etc.) are not provided. Therefore, it is not clear (a) how the statistic values (sample size, standard error and precision etc.) are derived; and (b) how the distribution of the sample measurements within each year is representative of the year-average COD values.
1: Inconsistent information are presented in the monitoring report regarding the description of project system:
(1) Page 19 of the monitoring report indicate there are separate flow meters for biogas sent to gas engine and biogas sent to gas boiler; whereas
(2) Diagrams in page 5 and 8 of the monitoring report implies one single biogas connection to an single recipient named as “enclosed flare/Boiler system”.
It is not clear how many recipients of the biogas are combusting biogas and how many are flaring biogas, as well as the corresponding monitoring points. In accordance with paragraph 258 of PS for PA version 2, the project participants shall describe the monitoring system and provide line diagrams (graphical schemes) showing all relevant monitoring points.
2: Regarding the monitoring of three wastewater COD parameters (CODww,untreated,y, CODww,treated,y, CODww,discharge,PJ,y):
(1) The achieved precision of parameter CODww,treated,y (i.e. from 13.21% to 34.69%) and the achieved precision of parameter CODww,discharge,PJ,y (i.e. from 7.42% to 72.19%) does not meet the required precision of 10%. The lower/upper bound of confidence limits have been applied in claiming emission reductions. However, the vintage of the precision failure is beyond the first two years of the crediting period and the achieved precision also beyond a limit of 15%, thus not in line with paragraph 18(c) of the Sampling Standard version 09 and the discounting approach by the lower/upper bound in paragraph 18(b) of the same standard is not applicable to this request for issuance. The DOE shall provide information on how it has validated this deviation from the Sampling Standard.
(2) The specific raw data of each sampled measurement (i.e. measurement result, entity and date etc.) are not provided. Therefore, it is not clear (a) how the statistic values (sample size, standard error and precision etc.) are derived; and (b) how the distribution of the sample measurements within each year is representative of the year-average COD values.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: