CDM project activity/programme of activities issuance request review form (CDM-ISSR-FORM) (Version 03.0)

Project title of the project activity or programme of activities (PoA) for which issuance is requested	Dehydration and incineration of sewage sludge in Singapore (3042)
DOE that requested for issuance and date of request	JACO (23 Jan 12)
Please indicate, in accordance with paragraphs 65 of the CDM modalities and procedures, for which reason(s) you request review
Incompetence
Please indicate reasons for the request for review
1) The DOE has verified that the calibration of the sludge weighbridge complies with the monitoring plan, considering that calibration is conducted quarterly by a certified third-party and that the accuracy of the weigh bridge is within ±10kg for the 30 ton range. However, a 20-day delay is observed between 1st calibration (08 Aug 2010) and 2nd calibration (28 Nov 2010), which means that the calibration validity does not cover the period  8-27 November 2010.  The DOE is requested to clarify how the requirements of EB52 Annex 60 has been applied to the calibration delay observed for the sludge weighbridge. Please refer to Paragraph 184 (a) (ii). 2) For the period 13 September 2010 - 20 April 2011, monitored data of the parameter  "Stack gas volume flow rate (SGy)" from the 5 trains (i.e. sludge treatment plant) installed at the project site were not available due to gas flow meters malfunctioning. The design gas flow rate at current level of Dry Sludge and Dewatered Sludge of 581.78 Nm3/min.train has been used instead, in order to calculate the total volume of stack gas (i.e. 581.78 Nm3/hour.train multiplied by hours of operation of the plants). The DOE is requested to clarify: i) how the design value of 581.78 Nm3/min.train has been derived and verified to be correct and appropriate, considering that the registered PDD assumed a value of approximately 766 Nm3/min.train; ii) how the data about the plants' operation hours have been obtained and verified to be correct and appropriate; and iii) how it has been verified that the PP approach is the most conservative assumption theoretically possible, or why a deviation has not been requested before submitting the request for issuance, in line with the requirement of paragraph 208 (a) of VVM 1.2.   Please refer to Paragraph 208 of VVM 1.2.. 3) For the period 21 to 30 April 2011, monitored data of the parameter  "Stack gas volume flow rate (SGy)" are available from trains 1-4 only, as the stack flow meter of train 5 was under repair. For the train 5, the average of values monitored from trains 1-4 is used instead [6,318,547 Nm3.train5 = AVERAGE (6,824,552 Nm3.train1, 6,759,423 Nm3.train2, 5,807,588 Nm3.train3, 5,882,623 Nm3.train4)]. The DOE is requested to clarify how it has been verified that the PP approach is the most conservative assumption theoretically possible, or why a deviation has not been requested before submitting the request for issuance, in line with the requirement of paragraph 208 (a) of VVM 1.2. Please refer to Paragraph 208 of VVM 1.2..
Date	24 May 12