Post on 30-Nov-2021
transcript
Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
Verification Report
May 31, 2018
ICF Consulting Canada, Inc.
400 University Avenue, 17th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1S5
This page intentionally blank
Statement of Verification Issued in Toronto, Ontario
May 31, 2018
CSA Reductions Registry
5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada, L4W 5N6
Introduction
Blue Source Canada, a third-party project consultant to Refrigerant Management Canada
(“RMC”) engaged ICF Consulting Canada, Inc. (“ICF”) to review the Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Offset Project Report: Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance
Destruction Project, dated May 25, 2018 and supporting evidence, covering the period January
19, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (“Project Report”). The greenhouse gas (“GHG”) Assertion
made within the Project Report specifies a claim for 25,570 tonnes CO2e over the aforementioned
period, which resulted from the destruction of ozone-depleting substances. The claim consists
exclusively of 2017 vintage credits, all ozone depleting substances (“ODS”) included within the
project report period were destroyed during this time period.
The Responsible Party, RMC, is responsible for the preparation and presentation of the
information within the GHG Assertion. Our responsibility is to express our opinion as to whether
the GHG Assertion is materially correct, in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian
Standards Association Reductions Registry (“CSA Registry”) and the quantification methodology
(adapted from the American Carbon Registry (ACR) Methodology for the Quantification,
Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Reductions and Removals
from the Destruction of Ozone Depleting Substances and High-GWP Foam, version 1.1,
September 2017) described in the Project Report.
Scope
We completed our review in accordance with the ISO 14064 Part 3: Greenhouse Gases:
Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (ISO,
2006). As such, we planned and performed our work in order to provide a limited, but not absolute
assurance with respect to the GHG Assertion. Our review criteria were based on the Project
Report and the requirements of the CSA Registry. We reviewed Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Offset Project Report: Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance
Destruction Project, May 25, 2018; GHG Assertion; and associated documentation. We
developed the verification procedures based on the results of a risk assessment that we
conducted during the planning stage. The verification procedures are defined in the Verification
Plan and the details of any data sampling that was conducted are provided in the Sampling Plan
(both plans are appended to the Verification Report). We believe our work provides a reasonable
basis for our conclusion.
Conclusion
Based on our review, it is our opinion to a limited level of assurance that the GHG emissions
reductions contained in the GHG Assertion are materially correct and presented fairly in
accordance with the relevant criteria.
Julie Tartt
Senior Manager
Lead Verifier
ICF Consulting Canada, Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 1
1. Verification Summary
Lead Verifier: Julie Tartt
Associate Verifier: Homaira Siddiqui
Technical Expert: Robert Lanza, P.E.
Internal Peer Reviewer: Duncan Rotherham
Verification Timeframe: April 2018 to May 2018
Site Visit Date: April 26, 2018
Objective of the verification: Limited assurance on GHG Assertion
Assurance being provided to: Canadian Standards Association Reductions Registry
(“CSA Registry”)
Standard being verified to: ISO 14064-3:2006 Specification with guidance for the
validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions
Verification criteria employed: CSA Registry requirements;
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Offset Project
Report: Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting
Substance Destruction Project, dated May 25, 2018
(adapted from the American Carbon Registry (ACR)
Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting,
and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Reductions and Removals from the Destruction of Ozone
Depleting Substances and High-GWP Foam, version 1.1,
September 2017).
Verification scope – Gases: CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-115, HCFC 22
Project Title: Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
Location: Veolia - Port Arthur, Texas, USA
SUEZ – Swan Hills, Alberta, Canada
Refrigerant Services Inc. – Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,
Canada
Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc. – Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 2
Project Start Date: February 3, 2008
Credit Start Date: January 19, 2017
Credit Duration Period: January 19, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Project Report Temporal
Period: January 19, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Verification Summary: One immaterial misstatement was detected in the final GHG
Assertion.
Limited level assurance Verification Statement issued.
Main Contact Julie Tartt
(Verifier) Senior Manager, ICF Consulting Canada, Inc.
400 University Avenue, 17th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1S5
416.341.0127
julie.tartt@icf.com
Main Contact Nancy Larsen
(Reporting Company) Manager, Environmental Services
Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Institute of Canada
2350 Matheson Blvd. E., Suite 101, Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5G9
905.602.4700, ext. 239
nlarsen@hrai.ca
Main Contact Kelsey Locke
(Project Consultant) Carbon Solutions Analyst
Blue Source Canada
Suite 1605, 840-7th Ave SW, Calgary AB T2P 3G2
403.262.3026 ext. 228
kelseyl@bluesourcecan.com
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 3
2. Project Information
Refrigerant Management Canada, (“RMC”) has developed the necessary documentation detailing
project activities to support their claim for emissions reductions to be registered on the Canadian
Standards Association Reductions Registry. Blue Source Canada, a third-party project consultant
to RMC, has engaged ICF Consulting Canada, Inc. (“ICF”) to provide a third-party verification of
the emission reduction asserted by RMC related to the project activities discussed herein. The
quantification of the emission reductions associated with the project is defined by the Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Reduction Offset Project Report: Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone-
Depleting Substance Destruction Project, dated May 25, 2018 (“Project Report”). The Project
Report describes the emission reduction claim (“GHG Assertion”) made by RMC related to this
project.
The Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project (“the Project”) covered by this verification
engagement involves the creation of 2017 vintage emissions reductions achieved through the
collection and destruction of ozone depleting substances (“ODS”) – specifically, CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-115, HCFC 22. The ODS are collected throughout Canada, and aggregated
at Refrigerant Services Inc. (“RSI”) and Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc. (“Fielding”) where
the composition of the ODS collected is determined. The ODS is then aggregated into larger tanks
and transported to the Veolia destruction facility, located in Port Arthur, Texas or the SUEZ
destruction facility, located in Swan Hills, Alberta.
This is the sixth instance in which ICF has been engaged by RMC for verification services
pertaining to this Project.
This document describes the terms and scope of this verification. It serves to communicate the
findings of the verification.
3. Verification Procedures
The scope of the verification was defined during the verification planning stage and is detailed in
the Verification Plan, which is appended to this document. The Verification Plan also describes
ICF’s verification process that was executed through the course of the verification, and identifies
the specific verification procedures that were planned and executed through the process.
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 4
Procedure Date
Verification Kick-Off Meeting April 23, 2018
Verification Procedures Conducted April 2018 – May 2018
Site Visit April 26, 2018
Internal Peer Review May 25, 2018
Final Verification Report Issued May 31, 2018
3.1 Site Visit
The site visit to Fielding was conducted by Homaira Siddiqui and Julie Tartt on April 26, 2018.
The site visit was a key step in planning and executing the verification. During the course of the
site tour, ICF interviewed key site operations personnel regarding the operations and data
management for the Project.
Fielding staff interviewed included:
Stasi Killip, Customer Support Specialist
Mike Bourguignon, Director, Q.C. and Laboratory
Jerrad Jamurath, Refrigerant Supervisor
Kelsey Locke from Blue Source was also in attendance for the site visit.
The site visit included a review of all greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions sources and sinks in the
Project to identify and categorize each one as well as a review of Fielding’s collection and
sampling operation followed by physical observation of the facility. Subsequently, a review of data
management and controls processes was discussed and observed on site.
3.2 Summary of Project Changes
The GHG assertion now includes both mixed and non-mixed ozone depleting substances (“ODS”)
in the quantification of the GHG Assertion. Changes to the quantification methodologies resulting
from the inclusion of mixed ODS has been outlined in the Project Report and used to calculate
GHG emissions sources.
3.3 Data Management and Control System Review
The Verification Team developed a thorough knowledge of the data management and control
systems utilized in the Project through the review of the Project Report, observations during the
site visit, and interviews with key Project personnel. The data flow diagram shown on the following
pages outlines the flow of Project data and the custody of control.
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada
Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 5
Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project – 2017
Refrigeration Recovery and ResaleLegend
Exc
el C
alc
ula
tor
Op
era
tio
ns/
Da
ta M
ana
gem
ent
Bas
elin
e
Cat
ego
ry
CFC: ODS Composition, ODS Mass, Moisture Level, High Boiling Residue, Default Vapour Composition, Other Estimated Parameters
Refrigerant Use
ODS Composition (% Purity) ODS Mass Destroyed
Variables/Parameters used to calculate GHG components
Emission Source
Variable/Parameter
Field/On-site CaptureSystem
Other Data System
2nd or 3rd Party Data
(name)
Manual transfer of
data
Electronic transfer of
data
Non-Mixed ODS Lab Analysis
(RSI)
Single Weigh Scales - ISO
(Veolia, SUEZ)
Mixed ODS Lab Analysis
(RSI)
Moisture LevelHigh Boiling
Residue
Mixed ODS Lab Analysis
(Fielding)
RSI/RMC Tags
Weigh Tickets(Veolia, SUEZ)
Remtec/SUEZ Invoices
500lb Weigh Scales -
Cylinders(RSI)
Weigh Scales - ISO
(RSI)
RSI/RMC Tags
Export Notice to
Environment Canada
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada
Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 6
Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project – 2017
Refrigeration SubstituteTransportation and Destruction E
xce
l Ca
lcu
lato
rO
pe
rati
on
s/ D
ata
Man
age
men
tP
roje
ct
Cat
ego
ry
CFC, CO2: Refrigerant Use, Reference Factor
Default factor as described in the Project Report, adapted where relevant from the Protocol
ODS Transport Vehicles
Fuel Usage in
Destruction
Electricity Usage
Electricity Usage
ODS/CO2
ReleaseRefrigerant Use
Refer to Baseline Emission
Refrigerant Use
Refer to Baseline Emission
ODS: Refrigerant Use, Reference Factor
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada
Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 7
4. Verification Findings
4.1 Misstatements
The misstatement section, below, includes an approximated value of the asserted quantity
affected by each misstatement, described as a percentage of the total assertion. These values
should be relied upon only for determining if misstatements breach the materiality threshold and
not for any other purpose.
Table 4.1-1: Misstatements
Procedure Misstatement Title Final Status
B1: Documentation of Boundaries – Offset Project Plan and Offset Project Report
NA No misstatements detected
B2: Demonstration of Applicability
NA No misstatements detected
O1: Confirmation of Contractual Relationships
NA No misstatements detected
D1: Data Collection and Quality Controls
NA No misstatements detected
C1: Appropriate and Consistent Calculation Methodology
NA No misstatements detected
C2: Re-Performance of Calculation
Transcription errors from gas chromatograph ODS composition results
Immaterial misstatement in final GHG Assertion
A1: Final GHG Assertion NA No misstatements detected
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada
Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 8
Misstatement Title Misstatement Description
Transcription errors from
gas chromatograph ODS
composition results
ICF noted transcription errors in ODS composition data from
RSI gas chromatograph reports into the Emission Reduction
Calculator. ICF sampled 10-20 cylinders data for 6 out of 8 ISO
tanks of gas chromatograph readings indicating the ODS
composition on individual cylinders shipped to RSI, against data
recorded in the Emission Reduction Calculator. The sampling
process revealed a number of transcription-related issues such
as decimal place errors and inaccurate composition data input.
Recalculation of the emissions reduction claim from sample
cylinder data identified an immaterial discrepancy of less than
0.01% (overstatement) in the GHG Assertion.
4.2 Materiality
There was one immaterial misstatement representing less than 0.01% detected in the 2017 GHG
Assertion. This does not result in a breach of materiality (greater than 5% of the total GHG Assertion).
4.3 Other Findings
Through the course of the verification, the data management systems and controls employed in
the quantification of emissions reductions for the Project were reviewed, as detailed in the
Verification Plan procedures. These systems were found to be effective in the calculation of the
GHG Assertion.
The approaches used to measure and calculate the emissions reductions in the Assertion are
adapted as outlined in the Project Report from the American Carbon Registry (ACR) Methodology
for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Reductions and Removals from the Destruction of Ozone Depleting Substances and High-GWP
Foam, version 1.1, September 2017.
The 2016 Verification report completed by ICF identified no misstatements.
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada
Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 9
5. Verification Team
Since 1969, ICF has been serving major corporations, all levels of government, and multilateral
institutions. Globally, approximately 500 of our 5,000 employees are dedicated climate change
specialists, with experience advising public and private-sector clients. ICF has earned a reputation
in the field of climate change consulting for its analytical rigour, in-depth expertise, and technical
integrity through scores of GHG emissions-related assignments over the past two decades.
Over the past ten years, ICF Consulting Canada, Inc., a fully owned subsidiary of ICF, has
established a GHG Verification Body and carried out hundreds of facility-level GHG verifications
and verifications of emissions reductions projects. The Verification Body has developed the
necessary internal controls to ensure qualified and competent staffing uphold the principles of the
relevant standard while quality control processes are utilized to assure data integrity is maintained
and safeguarded. ICF’s clients choose ICF for its strong brand, technical expertise, and rigorous
methodological approach.
The Verification Team assigned to this verification consists of experienced GHG verifiers.
Lead Verifier – Julie Tartt
Julie Tartt has a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Sciences from the University of
Guelph (1997) and has completed supplementary verification training, receiving a certificate of
training for Greenhouse Gas Verification using ISO 14064 on December 15th, 2011.
Julie is the Manager of ICF’s Verification Management System (VMS) and is also a Lead Verifier
– she led and managed the development of ICF’s ANSI-accredited ISO 14064 VMS. Verification
Body. Julie has been working with ICF’s Verification Body since 2010 and has worked on
verifications under several regulatory reporting programs including British Columbia, Ontario, and
Quebec’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulations, and Alberta’s Specified Gas Emitters
Regulation. Facility compliance reports verified have included natural gas pipeline and natural
gas processing linear facility operations, coal mining, electricity generation, and cogeneration
facilities. Emissions reduction project verifications have included wind electricity generation,
landfill gas capture and utilization, aerobic composting, and tillage management projects.
Additionally, she has provided verification services for organizations reporting to the Carbon
Disclosure Project and The Climate Registry, as well as voluntary emissions reductions projects.
Julie also has extensive experience managing and administering large, multi-client, carbon
market modeling and analysis studies nationally and at the provincial level.
Associate Verifier – Homaira Siddiqui
Homaira Siddiqui is a junior sustainable energy consultant, working with the Climate Change and
the Energy Efficiency groups in ICF’s Toronto office. She works on projects focusing on
conservation potential studies, technology assessments, energy analysis and modelling, program
incentive evaluation, greenhouse gas (GHG) verification and energy efficiency program design
and delivery in Ontario and Alberta. Homaira has acted as an associate verifier for offset projects
for multiple clients, where she performed site visits, conducted risk assessments, developed
verification and sampling plans, re-performed emissions calculations, and produced final
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada
Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 10
deliverables for verifications of emission reductions. Previous and current projects include: landfill
gas recapture, organic waste composting, ozone depleting substances, and energy efficiency in
the refiner stage of pulping. She holds a Master’s Degree in Chemical Engineering (Environmental
Engineering) from the University of Western Ontario. Homaira is a registered energy manager in
training with the Association of Energy Engineers, actively pursuing her CEM designation.
Technical Expert – Robert Lanza, P.E.
Robert Lanza is a Senior Chemical Engineer with 30 years of experience in conducting
environmental assessments and regulatory compliance audits of private sector and government
facilities; managing preparation of Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental
Assessments; preparing environmental permit applications; providing regulatory development
and environmental program management support to Federal agencies, and providing assistance
in preparing technical analyses and carbon dioxide storage and greenhouse gas emission
calculations for the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA.). Mr. Lanza was lead researcher for a study on the
collection and destruction ODS (in appliances and bulk) for the Multilateral Fund. The project
scope was to review the systems and procedures in place in developed countries to collect and
destroy unwanted ODS contained in household appliances and in bulk containers in order to
provide guidance on how best to establish appropriate management systems for the treatment of
unwanted ODS in developing countries. Mr. Lanza also provided engineering support in preparing
a report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Significant New Alternatives Program on
substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and on available destruction technologies for
ozone-depleting substances, including rotary kiln incineration, thermal destruction in cement kilns
and lime kilns, and non-thermal chemical treatment technologies. Mr. Lanza is a Lead Author of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006 Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Guidelines (2006 GL) for Petrochemical and Carbon Black Production and a Contributing Author
to the 2006 GL for Iron and Steel and Metallurgical Coke Production. Mr. Lanza is a licensed
Professional Engineer in Maryland.
Internal Peer Reviewer – Duncan Rotherham
Duncan Rotherham is the Vice President and Managing Director of ICF Consulting Canada, Inc.
He has over twenty years of experience providing a wide range of services to the utility, oil and
gas, manufacturing, and chemical sectors. Duncan is a Lead Verifier in ICF’s Verification Body
and has worked on multiple third-party assurance engagements under Alberta’s Specified Gas
Emitters Regulation (SGER) including compliance verifications for coal and natural gas power
generation, in-situ bitumen recovery, natural gas processing and sulphur handling and
petrochemical manufacturing facilities. In addition, Duncan has worked on emissions reduction
(offset) verification engagements for a range of project types in the UNFCCC CDM, voluntary and
Alberta offsets markets including wind electricity generation, acid gas injection, enhanced oil
recovery, agricultural tillage management, landfill gas capture, HFC23 abatement, and N2O
abatement. Duncan is a certified environmental management system lead auditor with extensive
auditing experience in the industrial sector. He has carried out over 40+ environmental audits of
projects in the US and Canada. Duncan was the lead auditor of the first industry-wide audit for
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada
Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 11
the Canadian natural gas transmission and distribution systems and a key member of the ICF
Audit Team for GHG audit at BP (British Petroleum) and has served as an auditor in support of
BP Amoco’s project to verify their 1990, 1999 and 2000 inventories of GHG emissions.
Verification Report Refrigerant Management Canada
Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 12
Appendices
Verification Plan
Sampling Plan
Conflict of Interest Checklist
ICF Page 1
Verification Plan
Refrigerant Management Canada, Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction
Project
1 Introduction
This document provides details on the verification scope and process that is planned to conduct
a limited level verification of the 2017 Refrigerant Management Canada’s Ozone Depleting
Substance Destruction Project (the “GHG Assertion”) for the Refrigerant Management Canada,
Refrigerant Management Canada’s Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project, (the
“Project”). An overview of operations at the Project will be provided in the Verification Report.
A Verification Risk Assessment was conducted during the verification planning stage; the results
will be provided in Section 6 of the final Verification Plan. These results were used to inform the
development of the verification procedures outlined in Section 6 of the final Verification Plan.
Additionally, the results of the Risk Assessment informed the development of the Sampling Plan,
which will be included in the Verification Report.
The Verification and Sampling Plans will be updated through the course of the verification as
additional information becomes available.
The verification conclusion will be documented in the Verification Statement and the verification
findings will be further described in the Verification Report. The final Verification and Sampling
Plans will be appended to the Verification Report to provide information related to the verification
scope and process.
2 Verification Scope
2.1 Objective
The primary objective of this verification engagement is to provide assurance to The Canadian
Standards Association Reductions Registry (“CSA Registry”) that the GHG Assertion is reliable,
and of sufficient quality.
2.2 Parties and Users
The person or organization that has overall control and responsibility for the GHG Project, as
defined in Section 2.13 of ISO 14064-2:2006, is the “Project Proponent”. For this verification
Refrigerant Management Canada (“RMC”) is the Project Proponent.
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 2
The person or persons responsible for the provision of the GHG Assertion and the supporting
information, as defined in Section 2.24 of ISO 14064-3:2006, is the “Responsible Party”. For this
verification, RMC is also the Responsible Party.
RMC hired a second-party consultant, Blue Source Canada ULC to document, quantify and
manage their GHG Assertion. RMC is also working with second-party collection service providers,
Fielding Chemical Technologies, Inc. (“Fielding”) and Refrigerant Services Incorporated (“RSI”)
to conduct crucial Project activities.
ICF Consulting Canada, Inc., the “Verifier” or “ICF”, has been engaged to provide a third-party
verification of the GHG Assertion. The Lead Verifier, Associate Verifier and Technical Expert,
compose the ICF “Verification Team”.
The “Intended User” is defined in Section 2.22 of ISO 14064-2:2006 as the individual or
organization identified by those reporting GHG-related information that relies on that information
to make decisions. The CSA Registry is the Intended User of the information contained within the
Verification Statement.
2.3 Scope
The verification will be conducted in accordance with ISO 14064-3: Specification with guidance
for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions.
The Verification and Sampling Plans were developed based on the relevant criteria described in
the following:
Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction, Offset Project Report January 19, 2017 –
December 31, 2017, May 25, 2018 (“Project Report”)
Canadian Standards Association Reductions Registry Public Review Protocol
American Carbon Registry Methodology for the Quantification, Monitoring, Reporting, and
Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Reductions, and Removals from the
Destruction of Ozone Depleting Substances and High-GWP Foam, September 2017
(“Protocol”)
The following table defines the scope elements specified for the Project.
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 3
Scope Element ISO 14064-3 Definition Project Specific
Boundary The Project boundary,
including legal, financial,
operational and
geographic boundaries
The Project collects ODS from locations
across Canada and transfers them to the
Veolia Incineration Facility in Port Arthur,
Texas or to SUEZ Waste Treatment in
Swan Hills, Alberta for destruction.
Infrastructure and
Activities
The physical
infrastructure, activities,
technologies and
processes associated with
the Project
Destruction of ozone depleting substances
that would otherwise be released to the
atmosphere.
GHG Sources GHG sources to be
included Baseline:
Release of ODS Project:
Transportation of ODS
Use of substitute refrigerant
GHG Types Types of GHGs to be
included
Chlorofluorocarbon -11
Chlorofluorocarbon -12
Chlorofluorocarbon -113
Chlorofluorocarbon -115
Hydrocholorfluorocarbon 22
Reporting Period Vintage of credits to be
included
January 19, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 4
2.4 Materiality
During the course of the verification, individual errors, omissions or misrepresentations
(collectively referred to as misstatements) or the aggregate of these misstatements will be
evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively.
Materiality defines the level at which misstatements in the GHG Assertion or any underlying
supporting information precludes the issuance of a limited level of assurance.
The Lead Verifier is responsible for applying professional judgment to determine if qualitative
misstatements could adversely affect the GHG Assertion and subsequently influence the
decisions of the Intended User, in which case, the misstatements are deemed to be material.
Quantitative misstatements will be calculated individually to determine the impact of the
misstatement as a percentage of the GHG Assertion.
All misstatements that are outstanding at the conclusion of the verification are documented in the
Verification Report and classified on an individual basis as either material or immaterial.
Materiality Threshold
The materiality threshold is defined as 5% of the total reported emissions reductions in the GHG
Assertion. Individual misstatements and the aggregate of individual misstatements will be
analyzed to determine if the materiality threshold has been breached.
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 5
2.5 Principles
ISO 14064 defines six principles that should be upheld in the development of the GHG Assertion.
These principles are intended to ensure a fair representation and a credible and balanced account
of GHG-related information. The verification procedures developed and executed during the
course of this verification will present evidence such that each of these principles is satisfied.
Relevance
Appropriate data sources are used to quantify, monitor, or estimate emissions sources.
Appropriate minimum thresholds are used to justify the exclusion or the aggregation of minor
GHG sources or the number of data points monitored.
Completeness
All emissions sources relevant to the Project are included within an identified source category.
Consistency
Uniform calculations are employed between reporting periods. Emissions calculations for each
emissions source are calculated uniformly. If more accurate procedures and methodologies
become available, documentation should be provided to justify the changes and show that all
other principles are upheld.
Accuracy
Measurements and estimates are presented, without bias as far as is practical. Where sufficient
accuracy is not possible or practical, measurements and estimates are used while maintaining
the principles of conservativeness and transparency.
Transparency
Information is presented in an open, clear, factual, neutral and coherent manner that facilitates
independent review. All assumptions are stated clearly and explicitly and all calculation
methodologies and background material are clearly referenced.
Conservativeness
Appropriate parameters affecting the Project’s emissions sources are utilized in the calculation of
the GHG Assertion. When parameters or data sources are highly uncertain, the choice of
parameter or data source utilized results in an underestimation of the GHG Assertion. Note that
any error, underestimation or overestimation, would be evaluated as a potential material error.
2.6 Limitation of Liability
Due to the complex nature of the operations within the Project and the inherent limitations of the
verification procedures employed, it is possible that fraud, error, or non-compliance with laws,
regulations, and relevant criteria may occur and not be detected.
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 6
3 Verification Team
The qualifications of the Verification Team and Internal Peer Reviewer are provided in the
Statement of Qualifications
Lead Verifier, Julie Tartt
The Lead Verifier is responsible for all activities conducted within the verification, including
overseeing the development of the Verification and Sampling Plans and the execution of the
verification procedures. The Lead Verifier is the lead author of the Verification Report and
executes the Verification Statement at the conclusion of the engagement.
Associate Verifier, Homaira Siddiqui
The Associate Verifier works under the direction of the Lead Verifier to conduct the verification
procedures.
Internal Peer Reviewer1, Duncan Rotherham
The Internal Peer Reviewer is not a member of the Verification Team and does not participate in
the verification until the draft Verification Report and draft Verification Statement have been
prepared. The Internal Peer Reviewer conducts an internal assessment of the verification to
ensure the verification procedures have been completed, the results of the verification have been
thoroughly documented, any issues or misstatements have been investigated and the verification
evidence is sufficient to reach the verification conclusion described in the Verification Statement.
1 Note: the Internal Peer Reviewer is not a member of the Verification Team, but is listed here to keep the list of
personnel involved in the engagement in one place.
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 7
4 Verification Process
The ICF approach for conducting verification of a GHG Assertion follows the tasks outlined in the
following diagram. Although these tasks are generally completed sequentially, the order may be
modified according to circumstances such as scheduling and data availability.
4.1 Pre-Engagement
Prior to submitting a proposal to conduct this verification, the following pre-planning steps were
taken:
The results of any previous business engagements or verifications with the Project
Proponent were reviewed to determine if any previous unresolved conflicts may preclude
ICF from engaging in the verification;
The Project Proponent’s motivation for completing the verification was established; and
A Conflict of Interest procedure was initiated that documents whether any perceived or
real conflicts were found when considering threats due to:
- Advocacy
- Financial Interest
- Familiarity/Sympathy
- Intimidation
- Self-Review
- Incentives
Following the acceptance of the proposal and signing of a contract for services, the Verification
Team was selected. The Verification Team for this engagement comprises the individuals
identified in Section 3.
Pre-Engagement Approach
Execution of
Verification Completion
1. Selection of Lead
Verifier
2. Initiate Conflict of
Interest Procedure
3. Pre-Engagement Planning and Proposal Development
4. Contract
Execution
5. Initiate Verification Tracking
6. Selection of
Verification Team
7. Communication
with Project
Proponent
8. Kick-off Meeting
9. Verification Risk
Assessment
10. Draft Verification and Sampling Plan
11. Site Visit
12. Conduct
Verification
Procedures
13. Issue Clarification
& Data Request
14. Revise & Finalize
Verification and
Sampling Plan
15. Address and Evaluate Outstanding Issues
16. Evaluate Evidence
17. Hold Verification
Findings Meeting (if
necessary)
18. Draft Verification
Report & Statement
19. Internal Peer
Review
20. Completion of COI
21. Issue Verification
Report & Statement
22. Close Verification
File
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 8
4.2 Approach
An extensive knowledge of the Project Proponent’s business, the relevant industry, and the details
of the Project itself are required to conduct a thorough verification that can lead to a conclusion.
The initial information collected about the Project Proponent and the Project formed the basis of
the preliminary draft Verification Plan. The development of this final Verification Plan is an iterative
process; that is, the process will be completed several times through the course of the verification
and the resulting plan will be updated as new information became available.
There are three types of risk associated with the GHG Assertion defined in ISO 14064-3:
Inherent Risk
Control Risk
Detection Risk
The process of designing the Verification Plan began with the development of Verification Risk
Assessment for both the Project as well as the Project Proponent. The steps in this process
included:
Reviewing the GHG Assertion, and the methodologies employed by the Project;
Reviewing information on the industry and the specific Project under review;
Assessing the likelihood that a material misstatement might exist in the GHG Assertion, if
no controls were used to prevent misstatements in the GHG Assertion (i.e., inherent risk);
Assessing the control environment and the corporate governance process (i.e., control
risk); and
Reviewing each emissions source identified in the Project, and evaluating the contribution
of each source to the GHG Assertion and the associated potential material misstatement
for each.
The results of the Verification Risk Assessment inform the development of the verification
procedures, which will be documented in Section 6 of this final Verification Plan. A summary of
the Verification Risk Assessment will be provided in Section 6 of this final Verification Plan. The
Sampling Plan and the Verification Risk Assessment will be reviewed by ICF’s designated
Technical Expert to ensure the verification procedures address each of the risks identified. The
draft Verification Plan will be provided to the Project Proponent before proceeding with the
verification.
4.3 Execution of Verification
With draft Verification and Sampling Plans in place, the verification procedures will be executed.
This process involves collecting evidence, testing internal controls, conducting substantive
testing, and developing a review file. Over the course of the verification, the draft Verification and
Sampling Plans may change; the final Verification and Sampling Plans provided in the Verification
Report reflect the verification parameters and procedures that were actually executed.
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 9
Site Visit
The site visit to Fielding will be conducted by Julie Tartt and Homaira Siddiqui on April 26, 2018.
The following Fielding staff will likely be interviewed:
Katelyn Imrie, Vice President, HVAC/R
Stasi Killip, Customer Support Specialist
Mike Bourguignon, Director, Q.C. and Laboratory
Jerrad Jamurath, Refrigerant Supervisor.
Kelsey Locke from Blue Source Canada will also attend the site visit.
The site visits are a key step in planning and executing the verification. During the course of the
site tour, ICF interviews key operations personnel regarding the operations and data management
for the Project.
The site visits include a review of all greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions sources and sinks in the
Project to identify and categorize each one as well as a review of Fielding’s collection and
sampling operation followed by physical observation of the facility. Subsequently, a review of data
management and controls processes will also be discussed and observed on site.
Health and Safety Requirements
No specific health and safety requirements were necessary however ICF practiced standard
safety precautions while on site.
Collecting Evidence and Review of Documentation
Sufficiency and appropriateness are two interrelated concepts that are fundamental to the
collection of verification evidence. The decision as to whether an adequate quantity (sufficiency)
of evidence has been obtained is influenced by its quality (appropriateness).
Through the execution of the verification procedures described in the Verification Report, the
Verification Team will review three key forms of evidence including physical, documentary and
testimonial:
Management documentation: policies, programs, and procedures related to the
collection, safeguarding, and management of the data supporting the GHG Assertion;
Records: records comprise time-sensitive data, correspondence, and files including: the
Project Report, Emission Reduction Calculator; Project Report; Certificates of
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 10
Destruction; Chemical Analyses; Weigh Scale Meter Calibration reports; Destruction
Efficiency testing;
Interviews: the interviews will provide information regarding operations and data
management and will provide evidence to support the sufficiency of data controls; and
Computer systems: data systems, lab analysis and scale records used to capture and
manage the GHG-related data and to calculate the GHG Assertion.
Testing and Assessment of Internal Controls
The Verification Team will develop a sufficient understanding of the GHG information system and
internal controls to determine whether the overall data management system is sound and if it
supports the GHG Assertion. This assessment will seek to identify any weakness or gaps in the
controls that pose a significant risk of not preventing or correcting problems with the quality of the
data and examining it for sources of potential errors, omissions, and misrepresentations. It will
incorporate an examination of three aspects of the Project Proponent’s internal controls: (1) the
control environment, (2) the data systems, and (3) the control and maintenance procedures.
Assessment of Data
The Verification Team will develop a sufficient understanding of the GHG information system
and internal controls to determine whether the overall data management system is sound and if
it supports the GHG Assertion. This assessment will seek to identify any weakness or gaps in
the controls that pose a significant risk of not preventing or correcting problems with the quality
of the data and examining it for sources of potential errors, omissions, and misrepresentations.
It will incorporate an examination of three aspects of the Project Proponent’s internal controls:
(1) the control environment, (2) the data systems, and (3) the control and maintenance
procedures.
Clarification and Data Request
To facilitate information flow between the Verification Team and the Project Proponent, a
consolidated request for additional information will be developed through the course of the
verification and issued to the Project Proponent. This “Clarification and Data Request” will be
used to document information requests and summarize the responses. It will also be used to
document the Verification Team’s assessment of each response.
Developing a Review File
A review file (the “File”) comprised of documents, records, working papers and other evidence
collected and created during the course of the review that support the review conclusions will be
developed for this verification. This evidence stored in electronic format will serve to provide
support for the verification conclusion, provide evidence that the verification was conducted in
accordance with the criteria set forth in this document, and aid the Verifier in conducting current
and future reviews.
The File will include:
The GHG Assertion and supporting documentation, as submitted to the CSA Registry;
Decisions on the level of materiality and the results of the Verification Risk Assessment;
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 11
Documentation on the Project Proponent’s internal controls;
Descriptions of the controls assessment work and results;
Documentation of the substantive testing procedures that were carried out and the results;
Copies of any correspondence with the Project Proponent or other parties relevant to the
review;
The Verification Team’s working papers;
The Clarification and Data Request with documented responses from the Project
Proponent; and
Client data (copies of relevant records, spreadsheets, and other data files).
The File is the property of ICF and access to it is normally restricted to the Verifier and the Project
Proponent. ICF will retain and safeguard the file for a minimum of seven years.
4.4 Completion
This engagement will be formally closed after the verification has been executed and the
Verification Report has been finalized.
Preparing the Verification Report
The purpose of the Verification Report is to document the verification findings. All misstatements
are described and compared to the materiality threshold individually and in aggregate. The
Verification Statement, which presents ICF’s verification conclusion, is included in the Verification
Report.
Internal Peer Review Process
Prior to releasing the Verification Report and Verification Statement, an internal review process
is conducted by the Internal Peer Reviewer. This process ensures that:
All steps identified as being required to complete the verification were completed;
Any identified material or immaterial misstatements identified have been either:
- corrected by the Project Proponent and reflected in the GHG Assertion; or
- documented in the Verification Report, if misstatements persist at the
conclusion of the verification.
All required documentation detailing the verification process has been prepared,
delivered, and retained.
Closing the Engagement
The verification engagement will be closed out upon delivery of the final Verification Report.
5 Verification Schedule
The following schedule is planned for the verification (subject to change with agreement between
the Verifier and the Project Proponent).
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction Project
ICF Page 12
Description Scheduled Date
Verification Kick-Off Meeting April 23, 2018
Draft Verification Plan to Project Proponent April 23, 2018
Site Visit April 26, 2018
Initial Clarification & Data Request May 3, 2018
Draft Verification Statement and Report May 27, 2018
Final Verification Statement and Report May 31,2018
Date Draft Verification Plan originally sent to Project: April 23, 2018
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substances Destruction Project
ICF Page 13
6 Verification Risk Assessment
The process for completing a Verification Risk Assessment was described in Section 4.2. The following table describes the
inherent and control risks analyzed by the Verification Team and the corresponding verification procedure(s) outlined in Section
5 of the Verification Report that have been designed to address these risks.
Description of Inherent Risks Inherent
Risk Evaluation
Description of Control Risks
Control Risk Evaluation
Verification Procedure(s)
Baseline ODS Refrigerant (Note: these inherent, control risks and procedures also apply to Project emissions)
Scale may not provide the accurate mass of tank prior to ODS destruction
High Scale may be improperly calibrated and may not follow standards and maintanence tolerances, recommended by the protocol used as guidance
High Review scale calibration reports and frequency of calibration
ODS full tank mass measurments may take place more two days prior to commencement of destruction
High Third party may not properly monitor scale records
Medium Review date of scale measurements to ensure it meets guidance requirement of no more than two days prior to and after ODS destruction
Scale may not provide the accurate mass of tank after ODS destruction
High Scale may be improperly calibrated and may not follow standards and maintanence tolerances, recommended by the protocol used as guidance
High Review scale calibration reports and frequency of calibration
Empty tank mass measurments may take place more two days after the conclusion of ODS destruction
High Third party may not properly monitor scale records
Medium Review date of scale measurements to ensure it meets guidance requirement of no more than two days prior to and after ODS destruction
Percentage ODS composition is may be inaccurate - compositional analysis may not be completed using proper procedures
High Sampling and composition analysis may be incomplete or standard procedures may be overlooked
High Assess sampling procedures at RSI and Fielding (for ODS composition) and Fielding (for moisture content, high boiling residue) including determination
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substances Destruction Project
ICF Page 14
of ineligible and eligible ODS in the mixed samples.
Inadequate ODS sampling frequency may lead to inaccurate and irrelevant lab results
High N/A (Not relying on client controls)
N/A (Not relying on client controls)
Assess for principle of conservativess in the factors used and assumptions applied for the quantification of emission reduction credits
Measurement of moisture content may be inaccurate
High Measurements may be incomplete or standard procedures may be overlooked
Medium Assess sampling procedures at RSI and Fielding (for ODS composition) and Fielding (for moisture content, high boiling residue) including determination of ineligible and eligible ODS in the mixed samples.
Measurement of High Boiling Residue may be inaccurate
High Measurements may be incomplete or standard procedures may be overlooked
Medium Assess sampling procedures at RSI and Fielding (for ODS composition) and Fielding (for moisture content, high boiling residue) including determination of ineligible and eligible ODS in the mixed samples.
Emission Offset Claim / Project Level
Normal operational changes at the Project may lead to significant changes in emissions during the reporting period.
Medium N/A (Not relying on controls)
Interview Project operations personnel regarding changes to equipment inventory or changes in operation that have occurred in the time period covered by the GHG Assertion
Medium N/A (Not relying on controls)
Compare the quantification methodologies utilized for the current vintage credits against those used in previous vintage credits
Medium N/A (Not relying on controls)
Review Project Report for evidence of applicability for each requirement described by the Protocol
Medium N/A (Not relying on controls)
Compare each emissions source and sink listed in the Project Report to those listed in the Protocol considering all equipment and activities
Negligible emission sources may not meet the definition and threshold for "negligible" or may
Low N/A (Not relying on controls)
Through the site visit and understanding of the Project, evaluate
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substances Destruction Project
ICF Page 15
have changed in magnitude from previous reporting periods.
any emissions sources or sinks that are not considered by the Protocol.
Low N/A Evaluate the appropriateness and quantification of any negligible emissions sources;
Methodologies and calculations for reporting may have changed from previous periods
Medium N/A (Not relying on controls)
Compare emission sources on the current calculation workbook with those in previous years
Medium N/A (Not relying on controls)
Compare the quantification methodologies utilized for the current vintage credits against those used in previous vintage credits
Data used to quantify emissions is consolidated from several systems.
Medium Consolidated records may be incomplete
Medium
Develop a data life cycle diagram, or data map for each major GHG emissions source/sink and confirm with Project operations and GHG reporting personnel
Medium Consolidated records may be incomplete
Medium
Observe or interview Project operations personnel regarding the operation of data transfer systems during site tour, including manual data entry procedures and associated controls
Quantification of emissions within the GHG program requires the use of specific accepted methodologies.
Medium N/A (Not relying on controls)
Review quantification formulae and estimation calculations prescribed by the Protocol against those described in the Project Report and utilized in the calculation workbook for each GHG emissions source/sink
Accepted quantification methodologies may not be correctly implemented.
Medium N/A (Not relying on controls)
Calculate emissions reduction claim from original, second-party or third-party data.
Quantification of emissions may contain arithmetic errors
Low N/A (Not relying on controls)
Calculate emissions reduction claim from original, second-party or third-party data.
Information may be missing from the GHG Assertion.
Low N/A (Not relying on controls)
Review GHG Assertion against guidance documents for completeness
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substances Destruction Project
ICF Page 16
Information may be incorrectly transcribed into the final GHG Assertion
Low N/A (Not relying on controls)
Compare calculated values to those in the GHG Assertion for transcription accuracy
Low N/A (Not relying on controls)
Review asserted emissions reductions shown in Project Report and GHG Assertion compared to values calculated in the calculation workbook
The GHG Assertion has been prepared by a second-party consultant.
Medium Consolidated records may be incomplete
Medium Interview Project Proponent regarding data consolidation and management practices
Medium Consolidated records may be incomplete
Medium Review Project Report regarding data sources, transcription and data security
Data is entered into a centralized data management system manually, which poses a risk of transcription error.
Low N/A (Not relying on controls)
Interview Project personnel responsible for quantifying emissions reductions regarding data metering and validation, data storage, data security, and any manual data entry or transcription
A change in the ownership structure of the Project has occurred since the prior reporting period or since crediting began.
N/A (Not relying on controls)
Review of documents proving the ownership of the assets creating the emissions reductions
N/A (Not relying on controls)
Review of contracts binding Project Proponent to other project partners
N/A (Not relying on controls)
Ensure temporal coverage of current assertion in project contracts.
A verification or re-verification has identified material or significant non-material discrepancies.
High N/A (Not relying on controls)
Determine if misstatements detected in previous GHG Assertions are oustanding or have been addressed in the 2015-2016 GHG Assertion
Verification Plan Refrigerant Management Canada Ozone Depleting Substances Destruction Project
ICF Page 17
The Project employs complex processes, relies on numerous measurement points, and/or complicated quantification procedures.
High N/A (Not relying on controls)
Compare raw data records, invoices against data in calculation workbook for consistency
High N/A (Not relying on controls)
Review supporting documents from external sources
The guidance document lists several eligibility criteria that should be met by the project
High N/A (Not relying on controls)
Interview key Project personnel regarding the application of applicability criteria.
Incorrect application of emission factors and default parameters used to quantify emission reductions
High N/A (Not relying on controls)
Compare emission factors used in calculations against reference documents cited in Protocol and Project Report
The detection risk is a measure of the risk that the verification procedures will fail to detect material misstatements, should
such misstatements exist. The verification procedures will be developed to address inherent and control risks, while ensuring
the level of detection risk is sufficiently low to reach a verification conclusion at a limited level of assurance.
The results of the Verification Risk Assessment will be utilized by the Verification Team to develop the verification procedures,
which are outlined in Section 5 of the Verification Report.
ICF Page 1
Sampling Plan
Refrigerant Management Canada, Ozone Depleting Substance Destruction
Project
The following table defines the sampling plan used to support verification procedures for the
reporting period of January 19, 2017 to December 31, 2017.
Emission Source/ Sink Category
Relative Size of Emission Source/ Sink Category (to overall Assertion)
Data Source (Type of Evidence)
Sample Size/Amount (Indicate if qualitative in nature)
Baseline
Refrigeration 100% ODS analysis from RSI and Fielding gas chromatographs and RSI/RMC tags
Records for 6 out of 8 ISOs were provided
ODS mass from kiln weigh tickets, A-Gas invoices to Veolia, and SUEZ invoices to RMC
100% of tickets and invoices for all 8 ISO tanks
HBR content and moisture level in ISO tank samples from Fielding reports
100% of certificate of analysis from GC for all 8 ISO tanks
Project
Transportation and Destruction
0.5% ODS analysis from RSI gas chromatographs and RSI/RMC tags
Records for 6 out of 8 ISOs were provided
ODS mass from kiln weigh tickets, A-Gas invoices to Veolia, and SUEZ invoices to RMC
100% of tickets and invoices for all 8 ISO tanks
Refrigeration Substitute
99.5% ODS analysis from RSI gas chromatographs and RSI/RMC tags
Records for 6 out of 8 ISOs were provided
ODS mass from kiln weigh tickets, A-Gas invoices to Veolia, and SUEZ invoices to RMC
100% of tickets and invoices for all 8 ISO tanks
Conflict of Interest Checklist
Question Yes No
1. Can the verifying organization or the Verification Team members directly benefit from a financial interest in the Project Developer or the Project Developer’s Project?
X
For example: • Owning shares of the Project Developer; • Having a close business relationship with the Project Developer; • Contingent fees relating to the results of the engagement; • Potential employment with the Project Developer; or • Undue concern about the possibility of losing the verification or other fees from the Project Developer.
2. Can the verifying organization or Verification Team members be in a position of assessing their own work?
X
For example: • Provided GHG consultation services to the project; • Provided validation for the project; • If providing non-GHG work for the company, consideration needs to be given as to how potential and perceived conflicts of interest can be managed; • A member of the verification team was previously employed with the company.
3. Does the verifying organization or a member of the Verification Team, or a person in the chain of command for the verification, promote or be perceived to promote, a Project Developer's position or opinion to the point that objectivity may, or may be perceived to be, compromised?
X
For example: • Dealing in, or being a promoter of, GHG credits on behalf of a Project Developer; or • Acting as an advocate on behalf of the Project Developer in litigation or in resolving disputes with third parties.
4. Is one or more of the Verification Team too sympathetic to the Project Developer's interests by virtue of a close relationship with a Project Developer, its directors, officer or employees?
X
For example: • A person on the Verification Team has a close personal relationship with a person who is in a senior GHG compilation role at the Project Developer; or • The Verification Team or a person of influence on the Verification Team has accepted significant gifts or hospitality from the Project Developer.
5. Is a member of the Verification Team or a person in the chain of command deterred from acting objectively and exercising professional skepticism by threats, actual or perceived, from the directors, officers or employees of the Project Developer?
X
For example: • The threat of being replaced as a third party verifier due to a disagreement with the application of a GHG quantification protocol; • Fees from the Project Developer represent a large percentage of the overall revenues of the verifying organization; • The application of pressure to inappropriately reduce the extent of work performed in order to reduce or limit fees; or • Threats of litigation from the Project Developer.
The declaration made in this statement is correct and truly represents ICF Consulting Canada, Inc. and the members of the Verification Team. Dated this thirty-first day of May, 2018.
Julie Tartt Senior Manager Lead Verifier ICF Consulting Canada, Inc. Toronto, Ontario