METHANE RECOVERY IN WASTEWATER … · PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM ... Methane Recovery in ......

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board

METHANE RECOVERY IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT

PROJECT MX07-W-21, SONORA, MÉXICO

UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism Simplified Project Design Document

for Small Scale Project Activity

DOCUMENT ID: MX07-W-21 VER 1, 19 JUNE 2007


1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) Version 03 - in effect as of: 22 December 2006

CONTENTS

A. General description of the small scale project activity B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period D. Environmental impacts E. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the proposed small scale project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring Information


2

Revision history of this document Version Number

Date Description and reason of revision

01 21 January 2003

Initial adoption

02 8 July 2005 • The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since version 01 of this document.

• As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest version can be found at <http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents>.

03 22 December 2006

• The Board agreed to revise the CDM project design document for small-scale activities (CDM-SSC-PDD), taking into account CDM-PDD and CDM-NM.


3

SECTION A. General description of small-scale project activity A.1 Title of the small-scale project activity:

Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment, Project MX07-W-21, Sonora, México, Ver 1, 19 June 2007.

A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity: Purpose: This project will recover methane from biogenic matter in livestock processing plant wastewater by introducing methane recovery and combustion to an existing anaerobic treatment system (lagoons). Explanation of GHG emission reductions: The proposed project activities will recover GHG emissions in an economically sustainable manner, and will result in other environmental benefits, such as improved water quality and reduced odour. In simple terms, the project proposes to move from a high-GHG-emitting open air lagoon, to a lower-GHG-emitting anaerobic digester with capture and combustion of resulting biogas. Contribution to sustainable development: Worldwide, agricultural operations are becoming progressively more intensive to realize economies of production and scale. The pressure to become more efficient drives significant operational similarities between facilities of a “type,” as inputs, outputs, practices, and technology have become similar around the world.

This is especially true in abattoir operations which can create profound environmental consequences, such as greenhouse gas emissions, odour, and water/land contamination (including seepage, runoff, and over application).

A.3. Project participants:

Name of Party involved (*) ((host) indicates a host Party)

Private and/or public entity(ies) project participants (*)

(as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the Party involved

wishes to be considered as

project participant (Yes/No)

México (host) • AgCert International plc • AgCert México Servicios

Ambientales, S. de R.L. de C.V. No

A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity: A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity: A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

The host party for this project activity is México.


4

A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:

The project will be located in Sonora.

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

The project sites are shown in Figure A1 with specifics detailed in Table A1.

A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this small-scale project activity : The physical location of each of the sites involved in this project activity is shown in Figure A1 and listed in Table A1.

Alimentos Grole S.A. de C.V. has one facility in Sonora:

• Rastro TIF #67 (3280013) is a mixed species animal meat processing plant located in Ciudad Obregon. This facility processes primarily swine meat but also processes some beef cattle. The plant is in operation approximately 9.5 hours per day, 52 weeks per year. The plant is in regulatory compliance. Two anaerobic lagoons are present at this facility. The primary lagoon measures 3m x 58m x 88m and the secondary lagoon measures 2.5m x 30m x 30m.


5


6

Figure A1. Project Activity Site in Sonora, México


7

Table A1. Detailed physical location and identification of project sites

Site Name Address Town/State Contact Phone GPS AgCert Site ID

Rastro TIF #67 Calle Base y Canal alto, Predio Santa Rosa

Ciudad Obregon, Sonora, Mexico

Miguel Humberto Olea Ruiz 52-644-410-7900 27º 31’ 32.96” N

109 º 52’ 56.34” W 3280013


8

A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology/measure of the small-scale project activity:

The project activity described in this document is classified as a Type III, Other Project Activities, Category III.H./Ver. 5, option iv, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment.

The project activity will capture and combust methane gas produced from the existing anaerobic wastewater treatment systems in Sonora, México.

The technology to be employed by the project activity includes the installation of a cover on an existing lagoon to allow for capture and combustion of biogas emitted. The system will be comprised of a lined and covered lagoon creating a digester with sufficient capacity and Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) to reduce the volatile solids loading in the effluent. The cover consists of a synthetic high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane, which is secured to the liner by means of an anchor trench around the perimeter. HDPE is the most commonly used geomembrane in the world and is well suited for use in this project. HDPE is an excellent product for large applications that require UV, ozone, and chemical resistance. The digester has been designed to permit solids residue removal without breaking the gas retention seal. Processed effluent from the digester(s) will be routed to a secondary and tertiary lagoon system, as needed, and captured biogas will be routed to a combustion system to destroy methane gas produced. Maintenance procedures have been developed to ensure proper handling and disposition of the digester sludge.

The flaring combustion system is automated to ensure that all biogas that exits the digester and passes through the flare (and flow meter) is combusted. Pressure control devices within the gas handling system maintain proper biogas flow to the combustion system. A continuous ignition system ensures methane combustion whenever biogas is present at the flare. Two (2) sparking electrodes provide operational redundancy. If biogas is present in the flare, it is immediately ignited by the sparking system. If biogas is not present, the igniter sparks harmlessly approximately every 3 seconds. This continuous ignition system is powered by a solar module (solar-charged battery system) that operates independently from the power grid. With a fully charged battery, the module will provide power to the igniter for up to two weeks without sunlight. The component parts are verified functional on a periodic basis in accordance with manufacturer and other technical specifications. Technology and know-how transfer: AgCert, as project developer, is implementing a multi-faceted approach to ensure the project, including technology transfer, proceeds smoothly. This approach includes careful specification and design of a complete technology solution, identification and qualification of appropriate technology/services providers, supervision of the complete project installation, staff training, ongoing monitoring (by the project developer) and developing/implementing a complete Monitoring Plan. As part of this process, the project developer has specified a technology solution that will be self-sustaining (i.e., highly reliable, low maintenance, and operate with little or no user intervention). The materials and labour used in the base project activity are sourced from the host country whenever economically and technically feasible.

By working so closely with the facility staff on an ongoing basis, the project developer will ensure that all installed equipment is properly operated and maintained, and will carefully monitor the data collection and recording process. Moreover, by working with the staff over many years, the project developer will ensure that the staff acquires appropriate expertise and resources to operate the system on an ongoing/continuous basis.


9

A.4.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:

ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS OVER THE RENEWABLE 7 YEAR CREDITING PERIOD

YearsAnnual estimation of emission reductions in

tonnes of CO2eYear 1 9,869Year 2 9,869Year 3 9,869Year 4 9,869Year 5 9,869Year 6 9,869Year 7 9,869Total estimated reductions (tonnes CO2e) 69,080Total number of crediting years 7Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 9,869

A.4.3 - Estimated Emission Reductions over chosen Crediting Period

A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity:

There is no official development assistance being provided for this project.

A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a large scale project activity:

Based on paragraph 2 of Appendix C of the Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small-Scale CDM project activities,1 this project is not debundled. There are no other registered large-scale CDM project activities with the same project participants, in the same project category and technology/measure whose project boundary is within 1 km of another proposed small-scale activity.

1http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/pac/howto/SmallScalePA/sscdebund.pdf


10

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the small-scale project activity:

The project activity is a Type III, Other Project Activities, Category III.H./Ver. 5, option iv, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. The project is a small scale project because it comprises methane recovery from agro-industries and project emission reductions will not exceed 60 kt CO2eq annually. B.2 Justification of the choice of the project category: The simplified methodologies are appropriate because the project activity site is considered an agro-industry and GHG emissions calculations can be estimated using internationally accepted IPCC guidance.

As specified in option iv of the methodology, the proposed project activity will introduce methane recovery and combustion to an existing anaerobic wastewater treatment system, in this case, an anaerobic lagoon. This simplified baseline methodology is applicable to this project activity because without the proposed project activity, methane from the existing anaerobic treatment system would continue to be emitted into the atmosphere. Based on historical animal processing rates and baseline estimates, the estimated emission reductions of the project activity will not exceed 60 kt CO2e in any year of the crediting period as shown in Section A.4.3. B.3. Description of the project boundary: The project boundary is illustrated in Figure B1. It describes the basic layout of the project facility in a schematic format. The proposed project boundary considers the GHG emissions that come from wastewater practices, including the GHG resulting from the capture and combustion of biogas. The physical boundary of the project activity is located at the GPS coordinates listed in table A.1. The project activity site uses a system of two lagoons. Proposed changes include the construction of a sealed cover on existing lagoons that capture the resulting biogas which is then combusted. As required in the methodology, the project boundary is the physical, geographical site where the wastewater and sludge treatment takes place.


11

Figure B1. Project Boundary B.4. Description of baseline and its development: The amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere in the absence of the project activity can be estimated by referring to UNFCCC-approved methodology AMS III.H, Version 5, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. The baseline for this project activity corresponds with section 6, option iv, of the methodology, which is the existing anaerobic wastewater treatment system without methane recovery and combustion. Open anaerobic lagoons are the current system and estimated emissions are determined as follows:


12

Step 1 – Calculate emissions from untreated wastewater

MEPy,ww,treatment = Qy,ww *CODy,ww,untreated *Bo,ww * MCFww,treatment Equation B12

Where:

MEPy,ww,treatment = Methane emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant in the year y, tonnes

Qy,ww = Volume of wastewater treated in the year y, m3

CODy,ww,untreated = Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatment reactor/system with methane capture in the year y, tonnes/ m3

Bo,ww = Methane producing capacity of the wastewater (IPCC default value for domestic wastewater of 0.21 kg CH4 / kg COD)

MCFww, treatment = Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system that will be equipped with methane recovery and combustion (MCF lower value in Table III.H.1)

Step 2 – Calculate emissions from sludge

MEPy,s,treatment = Sy, untreated *DOCy,s,untreated *DOCf *F*16/12* MCFs,treatment

Equation B23

Where:

MEPy,s,treatment = Methane emission potential of the sludge treatment system in the year y, tonnes

Sy,untreated = Amount of untreated sludge generated in the year y, tonnes

DOCy,s, untreated = Degradable organic content of untreated sludge generated in the year y, fraction. It shall be measured by sampling and analysis of the sludge produced, and estimated ex-ante using the IPCC default values of 0.05 for domestic sludge (wet basis, considering a default dry matter content of 10 percent) or 0.09 for industrial sludge (wet basis, assuming dry matter content of 35 percent).

DOCf = Fraction of DOC dissimilated to biogas, fraction (IPCC default is 0.54)

F = Fraction of CH4 in landfill gas (IPCC default is 0.55)

2 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p.4 http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_UOWMJU5ZNUE0SGBGAZZNVFU9HVOV99 3 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p.4 http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_UOWMJU5ZNUE0SGBGAZZNVFU9HVOV99 4 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5, Chapter 3 Solid Waste Disposal, p.3.13. 5 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5, Chapter 3 Solid Waste Disposal, p.3.26.


13

16/12 = Molar ratio of methane to carbon

MCFs,treatment = Methane correction factor for the sludge treatment system that will be equipped with methane recovery and combustion (MCF higher value of 1.0 in Table III.H.1)

Step 3 – Calculate baseline emissions from lagoons

BEy = MEPy,ww,treatment *GWP_CH4 + MEPy,s,treatment * GWP_CH4 Equation B36

Where:

BEy = Baseline emissions in the year y, tonnes CO2e



GWP_CH4 = Global warming potential of methane (21)

B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered small-scale CDM project activity: Anthropogenic GHGs, specifically methane, are released into the atmosphere via decomposition of biogenic matter in livestock processing plant wastewater. Currently, this biogas is not collected or destroyed.

The proposed project activity intends to improve current wastewater management practices. These changes will result in the mitigation of anthropogenic GHG emissions, specifically the recovery of methane, by collecting and combusting the biogas.

There are no existing, pending, or planned national regulatory requirements that govern GHG emissions from agro-industry operations (specifically, meat processing activities) as outlined in this PDD. The project participants have solicited information regarding this issue during numerous conversations with local and state government officials and through legal representation and have determined there is no regulatory impetus for producers to upgrade current wastewater treatment systems beyond the recommended open air anaerobic lagoon. The following paragraphs discuss the Mexican meat processing industry and how conditions hinder changes in current practices.

Assessment of barriers:

Absent CDM project activities, the proposed project activity has not been adopted on a national or worldwide scale due to the following barriers:

a) Investment Barriers: This treatment approach is considered one of the most advanced systems in the world. Only a few countries have implemented such technology because of the high costs involved in the investment compared to other available systems. Though costs vary according to

6 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p.6 http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_UOWMJU5ZNUE0SGBGAZZNVFU9HVOV99


14

required lagoon size and other factors, initial costs to install an anaerobic digester system can run in the tens of thousands of US dollars.7 Although the generation of electricity with biogas may be an attractive concept, the initial costs to install a generator system can cost as much as, if not more than, the initial costs of an anaerobic digester system.8

Mexican meat processors face the same economic challenges as producers in other nations due to increased worldwide production and low operating margins. Meat processing facility owners focus on the bottom line. Odour benefits, potential water quality enhancements, and the incremental savings associated with heating cost avoidance, are rarely enough to compel owners to upgrade to an (expensive) advanced treatment system. Unless the treatment upgrade activity affords the producer the means to (partially) offset the practice change cost (via the sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits, for instance) the prevailing practice will remain the common method of wastewater treatment – and all GHG biogas will continue to be emitted.

Producers view the treatment system as a stage that is outside of the production process and have difficulty financing changes that should be undertaken. Even banks have been unwilling to finance such activities absent government guarantees or other incentives.

b) Technology barriers: Anaerobic digester systems have to be sized to handle projected effluent volumes with a Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) consistent with extracting all methane from the effluent. These systems become progressively more expensive on a ‘per cubic meter’ basis as production is decreased. Moreover, operations and maintenance requirements involved with this technology, including a detailed monitoring program to maintain system performance levels, must also be considered. 9 Worldwide, few anaerobic digesters have achieved long-term operations, due primarily to inappropriate operations and maintenance.

An analysis was performed to assess whether the basis in choosing the baseline scenario is expected to change during the crediting period and the results follow:

a) Legal constraints: There is no expectation that Mexican legislation will require future use of digesters due to the significant investments required. Further, there is no expectation that México will pass any legislation which deals with the GHG emissions in regard to livestock processing plant wastewater treatment. Indeed, the developer is aware of no Latin American or other worldwide location requiring either the use of digesters or the constraints of agricultural GHG emissions. Qualitatively, this is the most likely “risk” area associated with possible changes in the baseline scenario. Overarching environmental regulations have to balance creating a legislative framework that enables agricultural production against social pressures to make industrialized meat processing operations “good neighbours.” México has successfully grown this sector, building upon low operating costs and technically expert labour.

b) Common practice: While past practices cannot predict future events, it is worth noting that the site included in this project activity has been in existence for many years, during which time, the prevailing wastewater management practice was open lagoons.

7 http://www.mrec.org/pubs/25145.pdf 8 http://www.mrec.org/pubs/25145.pdf 9 http://www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf p.39-42.


15

B.6. Emission reductions: B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: Baseline Emissions Baseline emissions are calculated as described in section B.4. Project Emissions

The amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere due to the project activity and within the project boundaries can be estimated by referring to UNFCCC-approved methodology AMS III.H, Version 5, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. The project emissions for this project activity are defined as the amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere during the crediting period due to the project activity. In this case an anaerobic digester is considered the project activity and estimated emissions are determined as follows:

Step 4 – Calculate emissions from treated wastewater for project

PEy,ww,treated = Qy,ww *CODy,ww,treated *Bo,ww * MCFww,final* GWP_CH4 Equation B410

Where:

PEy,ww,treated = Emissions from degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater in the year y, tonnes CO2e


CODy, ww, treated = Chemical oxygen demand of the treated wastewater in the year, tonnes/m3

Bo,ww = Methane producing capacity of the wastewater (IPCC default of 0.21 kg CH4 / kg COD)

MCFww, final = Methane correction factor based on type of treatment and discharge pathway of the wastewater, fraction (MCF higher value in Table III.H.1)


Step 5 – Calculate total amount of organic material removed in lagoon system

PEy,s,final = Sy,final *DOCy,s,final *MCFs,final * DOCf*F*16/12* GWP_CH4 Equation B511

10 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p.2-3. http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_UOWMJU5ZNUE0SGBGAZZNVFU9HVOV99


16

Where:

PEy,s,final = Methane emissions from the anaerobic decay of the final sludge generated in wastewater system in year y, tonnes CO2e

Sy,final = Amount of final sludge generated by the wastewater system in the year y, tonnes

DOCy,s,final = Degradable organic content of the final sludge generated by wastewater treatment in the year y, fraction. This shall be measured by sampling and analysis of the sludge produced, and estimated ex-ante using the IPCC default values of 0.05 for domestic sludge (wet basis, considering a default dry matter content of 10 percent).

MCFs, final = Methane correction factor of the landfill that receives the final sludge, estimated as described in category AMS III.G.

DOCf = Fraction of DOC dissimilated to biogas, fraction (IPCC default is 0.512)

F = Fraction of CH4 in landfill gas (IPCC default is 0.513)

16/12 = Molar ratio of methane to carbon


Step 6 – Calculate emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant

MEPy,ww,treatment = Qy,ww *CODy,ww,untreated *Bo,ww * MCFww,treatment

Equation B114

Where:



CODy,ww,untreated = Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatment reactor/system with methane capture in the year y, tonnes/ m3

Bo,ww = Methane producing capacity of the wastewater (IPCC default value for domestic wastewater of 0.21 kg CH4 / kg COD)

MCFww, treatment = Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system that will be equipped with methane recovery and combustion (MCF higher value in Table III.H.1)

11 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p.3. http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_UOWMJU5ZNUE0SGBGAZZNVFU9HVOV99 12 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5, Chapter 3 Solid Waste Disposal, p.3.13. 13 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5, Chapter 3 Solid Waste Disposal, p.3.26. 14 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p.4 http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_UOWMJU5ZNUE0SGBGAZZNVFU9HVOV99


17

Step 7 – Calculate fugitive emissions from capture and flare inefficiencies

PEy,fugitive,ww = (1-CFEww) *MEPy,ww,treatment *GWP_CH4 Equation B615

Where:

PEy,fugitive,ww = Fugitive emissions through capture and flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic wastewater treatment in year y, tonnes CO2e

CFEww = Capture and flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion equipment in the wastewater treatment (a default value of 0.9 shall be used, given no other appropriate value)



Step 8 – Calculate fugitive emissions from capture and flare inefficiencies in sludge treatment

PEy,fugitive,s = (1-CFEs) *MEPy,s,treatment *GWP_CH4 Equation B716

Where:

PEy,fugitive,s = Fugitive emissions through capture and flare inefficiencies in the sludge treatment in the year y, tonnes CO2e

CFEs = Capture and flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion equipment in the sludge treatment (a default value of 0.9 shall be used, given no other appropriate value)



15 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p.4. http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_UOWMJU5ZNUE0SGBGAZZNVFU9HVOV99 16 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p.4. http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_UOWMJU5ZNUE0SGBGAZZNVFU9HVOV99


18

Step 9 – Calculate total fugitive emissions

PEy,fugitive = PEy,fugitive,ww + PEy,fugitive,s Equation B817

Where:

PEy,fugitive = Emissions from methane release in capture and flare systems in the year y, tonnes CO2e

PEy,fugitive,ww = Fugitive emissions through capture and flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic wastewater treatment in year y, tonnes CO2e

PEy,fugitive,s = Fugitive emissions through capture and flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic sludge treatment in year y, tonnes CO2e

Step 10 – Calculate emissions from methane dissolved in treated wastewater

PEy,dissolved =Qy,ww *[CH4] y,ww,treated * GWP_CH4 Equation B918

Where:

PEy,dissolved = Emissions from dissolved methane in treated wastewater in the year y, tonnes CO2e


[CH4] y,ww,treated = Dissolved methane content in the treated wastewater (tonnes/m3). Aerobic wastewater default = 0; anaerobic wastewater default = 0.0001 tonnes/m3




19

Step 11 – Calculate total project emissions

PEy =PEy,power + PEy,ww,treated + PEy,s,final + PEy,fugitive + PEy,dissolved

Equation B1019

Where:

PEy = Project emissions in the year y, tonnes CO2e

PEy,power = Emissions from electricity or diesel consumption in the year y, tonnes CO2e

PEy,ww,treated = Emissions from degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater in the year y, tonnes CO2e

PEy,s,final = Emissions from anaerobic decay of the final sludge produced in the year y, tonnes CO2e (If the sludge is controlled combusted, disposed in a landfill with methane recovery, or used for soil application, this term can be neglected, and the final disposal of the sludge shall be monitored during the crediting period.)

PEy,fugitive = Emissions from methane release in capture and flare systems in the year y, tonnes CO2e

PEy,dissolved = Emissions from dissolved methane in treated wastewater in the year y, tonnes CO2e

Step 12 – Calculate emission reductions

ERy =BEy –(PEy – Leakagey) Equation B1120

Where:

ERy = Emission reductions, tonnes CO2e/year

BEy = Baseline emissions, tonnes CO2e/year

PEy = Project emissions, tonnes CO2e/year

Leakagey = Leakage emissions, tonnes CO2e/year

Leakage

In accordance with the methodology, leakage calculations are not required since the technology being employed in this project is not transferred from or to another activity.



20

B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation: Accurate data collection is essential. The facilities included in this project activity use a standardized industry database package which captures a wide range of incremental production data to manage operation and enable them to maximize both productivity and profitability. AgCert uses some data collected from this system. AgCert has a QA/QC system that ensures data security and data integrity. Spot audits of data collection activities are conducted on a regular basis. AgCert has a data management system capable of interfacing with producer systems to serve as a secure data repository. Project activity data-related uncertainties will be reduced by applying sound data collection quality assurance and quality control procedures. Table B.1. lists data and parameters available at the time of validation. Table B.1. Data / Parameter Values and References Data / Parameter: GWP CH4 Data unit: Description: Global Warming Potential of Methane Source of data used: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The

Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996)

Value applied: 21 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Comments: Data / Parameter: Bo.ww Data unit: Kg CH4 / kg COD Description: Methane producing capacity of the treated wastewater Source of data used: IPCC default value for domestic wastewater as cited in UNFCCC AMS-

III.H, V.5 methodology Value applied: 0.21 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Comments:


21

Data / Parameter: MCF Data unit: Fraction Description: Methane correction factor Source of data used: IPCC default value as cited in UNFCCC AMS-III.H, V.5 methodology Value applied: MCFww, treatment = 0.8 (baseline) and 1.0 (project) for anaerobic deep lagoon

MCFww, final = 0.4 for discharge of wastewater to aerobic treatment poorly managed (project) MCFs, treatment = 1.0 for sludge treatment system (baseline and project)

Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Comments: Data / Parameter: CFE Data unit: Description: Capture and flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion

equipment Source of data used: Default value specified in UNFCCC AMS-III.H., V.5 methodology, p.4 Value applied: CFEs = 0.9

CFEww = 0.9 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

The 0.9 default value specified in Item 12(a) of the methodology will be adopted. The biogas flow rate and flare combustion temperature will be monitored to ensure the flare is operating in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

Comments: Data / Parameter: DOC Data unit: Fraction Description: Degradable organic content of the untreated or final sludge generated by

wastewater treatment Source of data used: IPCC default values as cited in UNFCCC AMS-III.H., V.5 methodology,

p.3 Value applied: DOCy,s,untreated = 0.09

DOCy,s,final = 0.09 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Measured by sampling and analysis of the sludge provided

Comments:


22

Data / Parameter: DOCf Data unit: Fraction Description: Fraction of DOC dissimilated to biogas Source of data used: IPCC default values as cited in UNFCCC AMS-III.H., V.5 methodology,

p.3 Value applied: 0.5 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Comments: Data / Parameter: F Data unit: Fraction Description: Fraction of CH4 in landfill gas Source of data used: IPCC default values as cited in UNFCCC AMS-III.H., V.5 methodology,

p.3 Value applied: 0.5 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Comments: Data / Parameter: PEy,power

Data unit: Tonnes CO2e Description: Emissions from electricity or diesel consumption in the year y Source of data used: Facility records Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Comments: Data / Parameter: Qy,ww

Data unit: m3

Description: Volume of wastewater treated in the year y Source of data used: Facility records Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Comments:


23

Data / Parameter: CODy,ww, untreated

Data unit: Tonnes/m3

Description: Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatmenreactor / system with methane capture in the year y

Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Measured at facility during assessment

Comments: Data / Parameter: CODy,ww, treated


Description: Chemical oxygen demand of the treated wastewater in the year y Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:


Comments:

Data / Parameter: Sy, final

Data unit: Tonnes

Description: Amount of final sludge generated by the wastewater treatment in the year ySource of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:


Comments:

Data / Parameter: Sy, untreated

Data unit: Tonnes

Description: Amount of untreated sludge generated in the year y Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:


Comments:


24

Data / Parameter: CH4, y, ww, treated


Description: Dissolved methane content in the treated wastewater Source of data used: Refer to AMS.III.H. methodology Value applied: Aerobic wastewater default = 0

Anaerobic wastewater default = 0.0001 (10e-4 tonnes/m3) Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied:

Comments:

B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

Emission factors for the baseline are calculated as described in Section B.4. To estimate total yearly baseline methane emissions, the selected emission factors are calculated by determining the methane emission potential of untreated wastewater and untreated sludge.

Table B.2. Baseline Emissions (Methane shown in metric tonnes of CO2e)

Methane emission potential of untreated wastewater in tonnes CH4 year-1 (MEy,ww,treatment) 497.2

Methane emission potential of untreated sludge in tonnes CH4 year-1 (MEy,s,treatment) 0Global warming potential of methane (GWP_CH4) 21Total annual baseline emissions in tonnes of CO2e (BEy) 10,442.0

Rastro TIF #67 (3280013)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Expected Growth % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Baseline Emissions (CO2e/year) 10,442.0 10,442.0 10,442.0 10,442.0 10,442.0 10,442.0 10,442.0 73,094.0

Rastro TIF #67 (3280013)

Total


25

Emission factors for the project activity are calculated as described in Section B.6.1. To estimate total yearly project methane emissions, the types of emissions listed in Table B.3 are summed.

Table B.3. Project Activity Emissions (Methane shown in metric tonnes of CO2e)

Emissions through electricity or diesel consumption (PEy,power) 0.0Emissions through degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater (PEy,ww,treated) 458.8Emissions through anaerobic decay of the final sludge produced (PEy,s,final) 0.0Emissions through methane release in capture and flare systems (PEy,fugitive) 114.7Emissions through dissolved methane in treated wastewater (PEy, dissolved) 0.0

Total annual project emissions (PEy) 573.5

Rastro TIF #67 (3280013)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Expected Growth % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Project Emissions (CO2e/year) 573.5 573.5 573.5 573.5 573.5 573.5 573.5 4,014.2

Rastro TIF #67 (3280013)

Total

Since the technology used does not consist of equipment from another activity nor is the existing equipment transferred to another activity, leakage does not need to be considered as per the methodology. B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions: Table B.4. Total Emission Reductions

YearEstimation of

project activity emissions(tCO2e)

Estimation of baseline emissions (tCO2e)

Estimation of leakage (tCO2e)

Estimation of overall emission reductions

(tCO2e)1 573 10,442 0 9,8692 573 10,442 0 9,8693 573 10,442 0 9,8694 573 10,442 0 9,8695 573 10,442 0 9,8696 573 10,442 0 9,8697 573 10,442 0 9,869

Total (tonnes CO2e) 4,014 73,094 0 69,080

Table B.4. Total Emission Reductions (tonnes CO2e)


26

B.7 Application of a monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan: B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: AgCert has designed and implemented a unique set of data management tools to efficiently capture and report data throughout the project lifecycle. On-site assessment (collecting Geo-referenced, time/date stamped data), supplier production data exchange, task tracking, and post-implementation auditing tools have been developed to ensure accurate, consistent, and complete data gathering and project implementation. Sophisticated tools have also been created to estimate/monitor the creation of high quality, permanent ERs using accepted UNFCCC methodologies.

By coupling these capabilities with an ISO-based quality and environmental management system, AgCert enables transparent data collection and verification. AgCert employs an internal QA audit process that ensures monitoring activities are conducted in accordance with the monitoring plan and verifies the accuracy of data reported. All data will be archived electronically and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years.

Flow metering devices used are designed to continuously and accurately measure biogas flow and accumulate a running total. The wetted parts of the metering devices were designed to withstand corrosive environments, such as biogas. Meters are received from the factory fully-calibrated and retain calibration for the service life of the unit, making meter accuracy permanent. Accuracy is not affected by low or varying line pressures. The flow meters retain calibration within 1% of full scale for the service life of the unit. Periodic maintenance will be performed based on manufacturer specifications. Other equipment calibrations are accomplished using procedures developed by AgCert as part of the Monitoring Plan (Annex 4). The automated flaring combustion system is designed as specified in Section A.4.2. Manufacturer specifications state the acceptable range of biogas flow is from 1 m3/hour to 170 m3/hour. In addition, the manufacturer states that at a combustion temperature greater than 200o Celsius, the flare’s methane destruction efficiency is equal to or greater than 90%. Flow rate and temperature will be monitored as specified in Table B.5 to ensure compliance with the manufacturer specifications. Methane concentration is determined using a Bacharach Model Fyrite (or equivalent) gas analyzer. The process is described in the Monitoring Plan. The measuring equipment is calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer specifications. The equipment is accurate to within 0.5%. Table B.5. Data to be monitored Parameter: Qy,ww

Unit: m3

Description: Volume of wastewater treated in the year y Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Measured and recorded monthly

QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any):

Any comment:


27

Parameter: Sy, untreated

Unit: Tonnes Description: Volume of untreated sludge generated in the year y Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Measured and recorded as necessary


Any comment: Parameter: Sy, final

Unit: Tonnes Description: Volume of final sludge generated in the year y Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:



Any comment: Parameter: CODy,ww,untreated

Unit: Tonnes/m3

Description: Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatment system in the year y

Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:



Any comment:


28

Parameter: CODy,ww,treated

Unit: Tonnes/m3 Description: Chemical oxygen demand of the treated wastewater in the year y Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:



Any comment: Parameter: DOCy,s,untreated

Unit: Fraction Description: Degradable organic content of untreated sludge generated in the year y Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:



Any comment: Parameter: DOCy,s,final

Unit: Fraction Description: Degradable organic content of the final sludge generated by wastewater

treatment in the year y Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:



Any comment:


29

Parameter: Sf, end use

Unit:

Description: End use of final sludge generated Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:



Any comment: Parameter: CH4, y, ww, treated

Unit: Tonnes/m3

Description: Dissolved methane content in the treated wastewater Source of data: Refer to AMS.III.H. methodology Value of data: Aerobic wastewater default = 0

Anaerobic wastewater default = 0.0001 (10e-4 tonnes/m3) Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Default value used.


Any comment: Parameter: Pressurebiogas

Unit: Kg/cm2

Description: Pressure of biogas produced Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Measured and recorded periodically


Any comment:


30

Parameter: MC

Unit: Percentage Description: Methane content of biogas Source of data: Gas analyzer Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Measured and recorded monthly. Methane concentration is determined with CO2 content measurement and is obtained with a gas analyzer. A range of ± 10% points is sufficient to determine uncertainties. For example, the nominal percentage of CH4 in biogas is approximately 65%. Readings between 55% and 75% indicate proper operation of the digester. Measuring equipment is calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer specifications.


Any comment: Parameter: Biogasamount

Unit: m3

Description: Amount of biogas recovered Source of data: Continuous flow meter Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:



Any comment: Parameter: CFEww

Unit: Percentage Description: Efficiency of flaring process Source of data: Refer to AMS.III.H. number 12, option a Value of data: 0.90 Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Measured and recorded upon initial installation. Initial flare efficiency testing will be performed by trained personnel using calibrated equipment and a third-party verified test protocol. For enclosed flares, as per the methodology, a continuous check of compliance with the manufacturers’ specification of the flare device (temperature, biogas flow rate) will be done. If in any specific hour any of the parameters is out of the range of specifications, 50% of the default value will be used for this specific hour. For open flares, 50% of the default value will be used since it is not possible to monitor flare efficiency. If at any given time the temperature of the flare is below 500oC, 0% default value will be used for this period.


Any comment: See the parameters listed under “Flaring Tool Required Parameters” which allow the 0.90 value to be used.


31

Parameter: Temperatureflare

Unit: Degrees Celsius Description: Temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Measured and recorded continuously. Temperature of the exhaust gas stream is measured by a Type N thermocouple. A temperature above 5000C indicates that a significant amount of gases are still being burnt and that the flare is operating.


Thermocouples should be replaced or calibrated annually.

Any comment: Data will be archived electronically or on paper and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years.

B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan: A Monitoring Plan (see Annex 4) has been developed to ensure accurate measurement of required parameters, including biogas produced, and proper operation of the digester equipment. A detailed Operations & Maintenance (O & M) Manual for the applicable methodology has also been developed. The instructions in this manual exceed the requirements outlined in the approved methodology outlined in Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities as it applies to proposed project activity.

Further, AgCert has a trained staff located in the host nation to perform O&M activities including but not limited to monitoring and collection of parameters, quality audits, personnel training, and equipment inspections. The associated O & M Manual has been developed to provide guidance (work instructions) to individuals that collect and/or process data. AgCert staff will perform audits of operations personnel on a regular basis to ensure proper data collection and handling.

B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) The final draft of the application of the methodology was completed on 19/06/2007. The entity determining the baseline and monitoring methodology is AgCert International plc who is the project developer as well as a project participant. Contact information is listed in Annex 1.


32

SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1 Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: The starting date for this activity is 08/05/2006. C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: The expected life of this project is 23y –4m. C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information: The project activity will use a renewable crediting period C.2.1. Renewable crediting period C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period:

The starting date of the crediting period is 01/09/2007.

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: The length of the crediting period is 7y-0m. C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: C.2.2.1. Starting date: C.2.2.2. Length:


33

SECTION D. Environmental impacts D.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity: An environmental impact analysis is not required for this type of GHG project activity.

Environment:

There are no negative environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project activity.

Beyond the principal benefit of mitigating GHG emissions (the primary focus of the proposed project); the proposed activities will also result in positive environmental co-benefits. They include:

Reducing atmospheric emissions of Volatile Organics Compounds (VOCs) that cause odour,

Lowering the population of flies and associated enhancement to on-site bio-security thus reducing the possible spread of disease.

The combination of these factors will make the proposed project site more “neighbour friendly” and environmentally responsible.

D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: No action required. SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:

AgCert invited stakeholders to a meeting to explain the UNFCCC CDM process and proposed project activity. These meetings were held on January 27, 2005 in Ciudad Obregon, Sonora, México.

AgCert issued invitations to government officials at the federal, state, and local levels. Furthermore, AgCert published announcements of the meetings in the newspaper, which cover Sonora.

These public announcements appeared in:

1. El Imparcial, Sonora on January 17 and 25, 2005.

All invitations were in the Spanish language. The meeting was attended by project participants and producer representatives. A full list of attendees and the meeting minutes are available on request.

Leo Perkowski of AgCert International gave a presentation, which covered the following topics: purpose of the meeting, background on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC CDM process, process and responsibilities of the project, participants, equipment to be used for evaluation and audits, information


34

management system, an example of a project, benefits from the project (environmental and economic), and where to get further information.

Miguel Cervantes, the Executive Secretary for the Mexican Committee for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gases (COMEGEI), gave a presentation which covered in detail climate change, global warming, the CDM process, and the Mexican government’s role in project development.

AgCert has also participated as a speaker and described in detail this project in the Mexican government sponsored CDM workshops being presented throughout México.

E.2. Summary of the comments received:

After the presentations, attendees were afforded the opportunity to ask questions regarding the proposed project activities.

Overall, the comments from the attendees at the stakeholders’ meeting were positive and supportive of the project.

E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:

No action required.


35

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY Project Participant:

Organization: AgCert México Servicios Ambientales, S. de R.L. de C.V. Street/P.O. Box: Homero 1804-1405 Building: Col. Chapultepec Morales City: México City State/Region: D.F. Postfix/ZIP: 11570 Country: México Telephone: FAX: E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.agcert.com Represented by: Title: Salutation: Mr. Last Name: Calenda Middle Name: First Name: Tony Department: Regulatory Mobile: +1 (321) 745-9546 Direct FAX: +1 (321) 723-8308 Direct tel: +1 (321) 409-7848 Personal E-Mail: [email protected]

Project Developer and Participant: Organization: AgCert International plc Street/P.O. Box: Blackthorn Road Sandyford Building: Apex Building City: Dublin 18 State/Region: Postfix/ZIP: 18 Country: Ireland Telephone: FAX: E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.agcert.com Represented by: Title: Director of Regulatory Affairs Salutation: Mr. Last Name: Perkowski Middle Name: S. First Name: Leo Department: Regulatory Mobile: +1 (321) 432-3081 Direct FAX: +353 (0) 1 245-7450 Direct tel: +353 (0) 1 245-7400 Personal E-Mail: [email protected]


36

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

There is no official development assistance being provided for this project.


37

Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

Rastro TIF #67 (3280013) Baseline Input

Year: 2007Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Flow rate, m3/month 19,407.0 19,407.0 20,249.0 22,632.0 15,339.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 232,883 m3/year

OD leaving digester, kg/m3 12.71 12.71 14.11 11.3 12.71 12.71 12.71 12.71 12.71 12.71 12.71 12.71 12.7092 kg/m3

COD, kg/month 246,663 246,663 285,713 255,742 194,959 246,663 246,663 246,663 246,663 246,663 246,663 246,663

Annual COD loading of waste water: 2,956,380 kgs CODAnnual wastewater flow rate: 232,883 m3/year Qy,ww sludge generated: 0.00 tonnes/yeaSy,untreated

COD of wastewater 0.0127 tonnes/m3CODy,ww,treated

Project Input

Year: 2007Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Flow rate, m3/month 19,407.0 19,407.0 20,249.0 22,632.0 15,339.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 19,407.0 232,883 m3/year

COD leaving digester, kg/m3 1.12 1.12 1.35 1.01 0.99 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.1168 kg/m3

COD, kg/month 21,678 21,678 27,235 22,858 15,232 21,678 21,678 21,678 21,678 21,678 21,678 21,678

Annual COD loading of waste water: 260,423 kgs CODAnnual wastewater flow rate: 232,883 m3/year Qy,ww sludge generated: 0 tonnes/ye Sy,untreated

COD of wastewater 0.0011 tonnes/mCODy,ww,treated


38

Annex 4

MONITORING PLAN

Monitoring: Monitoring activities will be conducted as specified by AMS III.H, Version 5: Methane recovery in wastewater treatment.21

The calculation of emission reductions will be based on the amount of methane recovered and flared (monitored ex-post). In addition, the project emissions and leakage, if applicable, will be deducted from the emission reductions calculated from the methane recovered and combusted.

Project emissions are determined by multiplying the methane flow rate in the biogas with the flare efficiency for each hour of the year.

Flare efficiency is defined as the fraction of time in which the gas is combusted in the flare multiplied by the efficiency of the flaring process.

The monitoring methodology involves monitoring of the following parameters after project implementation.

For determination of project emissions:

• Methane (CH4) recovered, fuelled or flared will be monitored using in-line flow meters.

• The fraction of methane in the gas will be measured periodically using a CO2 gas analyzer.

• Temperature and pressure will be measured periodically to determine the density of methane combusted.

• Chemical oxygen demand (COD) will be measured periodically by collecting samples from the digester influent and effluent (at the digester entrance and exit ports). If equipment is available, analysis will be conducted on-site by AgCert personnel. In all other cases, an independent laboratory will conduct the analysis.

• The end-use of final sludge exiting the biodigester will be monitored to ensure proper disposition (i.e. soil application).

• Flare parameters are monitored as specified in the “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane (EB28, Annex 13)”22

For determination of flare efficiency:

• Flaring efficiency for open flares will be the 50% default value specified in the flaring tool since efficiency of open flares cannot be monitored.

o If at any time the flare is not operational, a flare efficiency default value of 0% will be used for that time period.

• Flaring efficiency for the enclosed flare will be determined by using option (a) specified in the flaring tool. To use the 90% default value, continuous monitoring of compliance with manufacturer’s specification of the flare will be performed. To accomplish this, a thermocouple will be installed on the flare and will work in conjunction with the continuous flow meter.

21http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_UOWMJU5ZNUE0SGBGAZZNVFU9HVOV99 22 http://cdm.unfccc.int/EB/028/eb28_repan13.pdf


39

o If at any time the parameters are out of range of manufacturer specifications, a 50% default value will be used for that time period.

o If at any time the flare is not operational, a flare efficiency default value of 0% will be used for that time period. Not operational is defined as any one of the following:

The flare is not burning.

There is no record of the temperature of the exhaust gas of the flare.

The recorded temperature of the exhaust gas of the flare is less than 500oC.

Date post:	04-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhthuy
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times