Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: It is not clear how the DOE verified the reliability/achieved precision.
For example, the formula in spreadsheet Sample size calculation in cells D28 and D29 are not in line with the provision as per the appendix 4 of the Guideline: Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and PoAs (v.4), as it is observed that the formula in cell D28 does not include z-value but include a factor 0.5, and formula in cell D29 compares the achieved precision with z-value. Refer to paragraphs 346 – 347 of the VVS for PoA v2.

2: The PP/DOE are requested to clarify the ER calculation in particular as below. Refer to paragraphs 359 – 360 of the VVS for PoA v2:
a. In column AG of Sales Database spreadsheet, the value of “Cumulative treatment capacity of the system based on # units installed / supplied (Ltrs)” does not reflect the actual installed unit. For example, it is observed that the S.No. 6164 and S.No. 6221 have installed 3 and 2 UltraFLO units (i.e Ty,i = 3 and Ty,i = 2) respectively, but the respective cells AG5434 and AG5489 show the cumulative treatment capacity only based on one unit, i.e. 340,000 L.
b. In column AC of Sales Database spreadsheet, the value for UltraTAB is always 1 regardless the number of units supplied shown under column E and the UltraTAB is the only type to apply the value column E to the column AG calculation (for example, the S.No. 5740 and S.No. 5741).
c. The formula in column AD of Sales Database spreadsheet includes figures “3050” and “3185” which purpose is not explained.
d. The verification report page 36 states that “the CME has also applied formula in the ER sheet to ensure that the Ny,I multiplied by Ry,I does not exceed the maximum output of the unit [per unit]” as per the same provision reported in the monitoring report page 21. However, it is not clear how and where such provision has been applied in the ER sheet.
e. The operation days considered in the ER calculation include non-school days. However, the ER calculation considers both boarding and non-boarding persons.

3: The DOE is requested to address the issue as per paragraphs 349 – 350 of the VVS for PoA v2.
The verification report page 9 states that the verification team selected the sample size as 11 institutions for the purpose of e-site inspection institution visit to check the acceptability of CME’s sampling results, whereas the verification report pages 6 and 10 state that 11 system were checked. The DOE is requested to clarify how the actual acceptance sampling was conducted, given that one institute might have installed move than one system (for example, the Sales Database spreadsheet row 5404 demonstrates that the institute S. No. 6134 has installed 8 UltraFlo systems (i.e. Ty,i is 8)).