Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain information on calibration of monitoring instruments (frequency, relevant dates of calibration and/or validity) as specified by the monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (a) (iv) & EB 54 Annex 34)
Issue: The calibration/installation dates provided in the monitoring report do not cover the whole monitoring period for the monitoring instruments of TFlare, Pressure and Temperature of the Landfill gas in La Pradera I and La Pradera II (ex Curva de Rodas) Landfills.

2: Scope: The verification report does not state how the DOE verified the information flow for the listed parameters. (VVM v.1.2 para 206)
Issue: the verification report does not provide an assessment of the Tflare & Flare Efficiency applied during the monitoring period considering the following indications of the Tool:
a) Page 14: An excessively high temperature at the sampling point above 700 ºC) may be an indication that the flare is not being adequately operated or that its capacity is not adequate to the actual flow.
b) Page 10: For continuous monitoring of flare efficiency, 0% of flare efficiency is to be used if the temperature of the exhaust gas of the flare (Tflare) is below 500 °C during more than 20 minutes during the hour h. The same is required by the monitoring plan as "If the temperature is less than 500 °C or no temperature records exist, the flare efficiency shall be assumed to be zero".

3: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether 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:
i. Calibration dates of flow meters are inconsistent between monitoring report and verification report.
ii. For parameters "Methane fraction in the landfill gas" and "Volumetric fraction of O2 in the exhaust gas of the flare", it is not clear if DOE has confirmed which is the calibration frequency of the instrument required by manufacture and if the same has been followed.
iii. The date of calibration/replacement for thermocouple of La Pradera II is inconsistent between the monitoring report and verification report.
iv. Additionally the DOE does not indicate how it verified the installation dates of the thermocouples, which are not stated in the monitoring report.