GOLD STANDARD VALIDATION REPORT

Transcription

1 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a GOLD STANDARD VALIDATION REPORT PECS COMPANY LIMITED OMDURMAN LANDFILL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING PROJECT REPORT NO. CDM.13.VAL.014a KBS Certification Services Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office: , Om Shubham Tower, Neelam-Bata Road, N.I.T., Faridabad , Haryana India. Contact us at: Tel.: , , , Fax: Webpage:

2 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a Date of this issue:26/02/2015 Organisational Unit: Climate Change Division, KBS Gold Standard Passport First GS Passport: KBS Ref. No.:CDM.13.VAL.014a Client: PECS Company Limited Final GS Passport: Version: 01 Version: 03.1 Date: 21/10/2013 Date: 26/02/2015 Summary of validation: PECS Company Limited has commissioned KBS to perform the GS validation of the proposed CDM project activity: Project Title: Omdurman Landfill Municipal Solid Waste Composting Project Methodology Applied: ACM0022 (Version 1.0.0) Waste Handling and Disposal Sectoral Scopes: 01 & 13 Validity of methodology/ies (for RfR): Valid The scope of the validation is defined as an independent and objective review of the project GS Passport, the project s sustainability and monitoring plan and other relevant documents. The information in these documents is reviewed against the latest version of Gold Standard Toolkit v2.2. The report is based on the assessment of the GS Passport undertaken through stakeholder consultations, application of standard auditing techniques including but not limited to desk review, follow up actions (e.g., on site visit, electronic (telephone or ) interviews) and also the review of the applicable GS requirements. The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have provided KBS with sufficient evidence to determine the project s fulfillment of all the stated criteria. In our opinion, the project meets all applicable Gold Standard requirements. Will be recommended to the Gold Standard with a request for registration Is not recommended for registration Validation Status: Findings not closed Project type: Large scale Draft validation report Subject: GS Validation Validation Team: Team Leader: Akhilesh Joshi Local Expert: Yaquob Abdalla Technical Expert (TA 1.1, 13.1): Asim Kumar Jana Technical Review Team: Manager T&C Technical Reviewer: Sanjay Kandari Date: 24/02/2015 Technical Expert (TA 1.1,13.1): Gagandeep Kakkar Authorized by: Name: Kaushal Goyal, Managing Director Date: 27/02/2015 Rev Number: Date: 0 01/12/ /02/ /02/2015 Name: Gagandeep Kakkar Date: 26/02/2015 Final validation report Document Distribution No Distribution without permission from the Client Limited Distribution Unrestricted Distribution Page 2 of 111

3 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a ACM BE BOK CAR CDM CER CL COP DOE DNA DR EB EF ERs FAR FOD GHG GSC IPCC KP LSC LE LoA ISO MOP MoC MoV MP MSW PA PDD PE PLF PP PS PO PCP QA/QC RfR SWDS T&C UNFCCC Abbreviations Approved Consolidated Methodology Baseline Emissions Bank of Khartoum Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Certified Emission Reduction Clarification request Conference of Parties Designated Operational Entity Designated National Authority Document Review Executive Board Emission Factor Emission Reductions Forward Action Request First Order Decay Greenhouse gas(es) Global Stakeholder Consultation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Kyoto Protocol Local Stakeholder Consultation Leakage Emissions Letter of Approval/Authorization International Organization for Standardization Meeting of Parties Modalities of Communication Means of Verification Monitoring Plan Municipal Solid Waste Project Activity Project Design Document Project Emissions Plant Load Factor Project Participant Project Standard Purchase Order Project Cycle Procedure Quality Assurance/Quality Control Request for Registration Solid Waste Disposal Site Technical & Certification United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Page 3 of 111

4 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a Table of Content 1. Validation Opinion Introduction Objective Scope Methodology Review of PDD, Passport and Additional Documentation Site Visit Major Milestones in validation Use of the Validation Protocol Findings Internal Quality Control Validation Findings Approval Authorization Sustainable Development Modalities of Communication Project Design Document Assessment of variation between webhosted PDD and final PDD Project Description Baseline and monitoring methodology Additionality Application of Monitoring Methodology and Monitoring Plan Environmental Impacts Local Stakeholder Comments Global Stakeholder Consultation Process Description of how and when the PDD was made publicly available Compilation of all comments received No comments were received Explanation of how comments have been taken into account No comments were received Stakeholder Feedback Round and Grievance Mechanism Grievance Mechanism Sustainability Assessment Do no harm assessment Monitoring of do no harm assessment Sustainability Development Matrix References Annexes: Annex 1: Validation Protocol Annex 2: Detailed Findings Annex 3: Certificate of Competence Page 4 of 111

5 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a 1. Validation Opinion KBS Certification Services Pvt. Ltd. has been contracted by PECS Company Limited to perform a GS validation of the project: Project title: Omdurman Landfill Municipal Solid Waste Composting Project Host Party: Republic of Sudan The validation was performed in accordance with the applicable Gold Standard guidance and host country criteria, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. The proposed CDM project activity will result in reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change. In our opinion, the project meets all relevant Gold Standard, CDM criteria and all relevant host country criteria. The project correctly applies methodology ACM0022: Waste Handling and Disposal Version It is demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario. The emission reductions attributable to the project are hence additional to any thatt would occur in the absence of the project activity. The total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be 327,525 tco2e over 7 year crediting period during 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2021, averaging 46,789 tco2e annually. The emission reduction forecast has been checked and it is deemed likely that the stated amount is achievable given the underlying assumptions do not change. The project will be recommended by KBS for request for registration with the Gold Standard. Authorized Signatory Signature Name: Kaushal Goyal Place: Faridabad, India Date: 27/02/2015

6 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a 2. Introduction 2.1 Objective PECS Company Limited has commissioned KBS to perform the validation of the project: Omdurman Landfill Municipal Waste (MSW) Composting Project with regard to the relevant requirements for Gold Standard (GS) project activities. The purpose of validation is to ensure a thorough, independent assessment of proposed project activities submitted for registration as a proposed GS project activity against the applicable Gold Standard requirements. In particular, the project's baseline, the monitoring plan (MP) and the project s compliance with relevant GS and host country criteria are validated in order to confirm that the project design as documented is sound and reasonable and meets the stated requirements and identified criteria. The validation is seen as necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders of the quality of the project and its intended generation of emission 2.2 Scope The scope of the validation is defined as an independent and objective review of the project design document, the project s baseline study and monitoring plan and other relevant documents. The information in these documents is reviewed against Gold Standard requirements, UNFCCC rules and associated interpretations. KBS has employed a rule-based approach in the validation, focusing on the identification of significant risks for project implementation and the generation of ERs. Page 6 of 111

7 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a 3. Methodology 3.1 Review of PDD, Passport and Additional Documentation The validation is performed primarily as a document review of the publicly available project document version 01 dated 08/11/2013 and the subsequent versions 2, 3, 4 and 5 dated 08/04/2014, 12/05/2014, 30/06/2014, 22/10/2014 (final version) and GS passport. The assessment is performed by a validation team using a validation protocol attached as Annex 1. The cross checks between information provided in the PDD, GS Passport and information from sources other than those used, if available, the validation team s sectoral or local expertise and, if necessary, independent background investigations. 3.2 Site Visit The site visit was undertaken by B.Rampradap (Previous Team Leader and Technical Expert, until 16/10/2014) and Yaquob Abdalla (Local Expert): Location: Omdurman, Khartoum State, Republic of Sudan Dates: 11/02/2014 Key points discussed: Name of person, Designation, Organization interviewed Project Design and Implementation, Project boundary,sustainable Development Mohammed Tawfig Hana Hamadalla Mohamed Managing Director, PECS Company Limited Senior Researcher, Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources Baseline and Additionality Christophe Assicot Managing Director, CVDT Monitoring Arrangement, data management and QA QC procedures Local Stakeholders Consultation Process Concerns of local stakeholders Project O & M and Project Technology ReedaAhamed Oman Aman Hussain Ebrahim Sayed Aladeen Mohammed Nazar Hameed Mohammed Anutalib AsamElamen DfaallaAlidfa Mohammed Yahia Mohammed Hussain Ali A. Abbas Reeda Ahamed Oman Aman Hussain Ebrahim Sayed Aladeen Mohammed Consultancy Engineer, PECS Company Limited Engineer, PECS Company Limited Engineer, PECS Company Limited Engineer, PECS Company Limited Khartoum Khartoum Khartoum Khartoum Khartoum Khartoum Advisor, NL Embassy, Khartoum Electrical, PECS Company Limited Engineer, PECS Company Limited Engineer, PECS Company Limited Engineer, PECS Company Limited Page 7 of 111

8 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a 3.3 Major Milestones in validation Validation Contract 06/11/2013 Publication of PDD 08/11/2013 On site verification 11/02/2014 Draft Validation Report 01/12/2014 Final Validation Report 26/02/ Use of the Validation Protocol The validation protocol used for the assessment is designed in accordance with the version 05.0 of Validation and Verification Standard. It serves the following purposes: Reference to available information relating to projects or technologies similar to the proposed project activity under validation; Review, based on the approved methodology being applied, of the appropriateness of formulae and accuracy of calculations. Organises, details and clarifies the requirements the project is expected to meet; and Documents both how a particular requirement has been validated and the result of the validation (reporting). The validation protocol consists of several tables. The different columns in these tables are described below. Checklist Question Ref ID Means of Verification (MoV) The various requirements are linked to checklist questions the project should meet. Lists any references and sources used in the validation process. Full details are provided in the table at the bottom of the checklist. Explains how conformance with the checklist question is investigated. Examples of means of verification are document review (DR) or interview (I). N/A means not applicable. Validation Assessment The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist question and/or the conformance to the question. It is further used to explain the conclusions reached. The completed validation protocol for this project is attached as Annex 1 to this report. 3.5 Findings Draft and/or Final Conclusion This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (Y), or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) due to noncompliance with the checklist question (See below). Clarification Request (CL) is used when the validation team has identified a need for further clarification. As an outcome of the validation process, the validation team can raise different types of findings A Clarification Request (CL) is raised if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met Where a non-conformance arises the validator shall raise a Corrective Action Request (CAR). A CAR is issued, where: The project participants have made mistakes that will influence the ability of the project activity to achieve real, measurable additional emission reductions; The CDM requirements have not been met; There is a risk that emission reductions cannot be monitored or calculated. A Forward Action Request (FAR) is raised during validation to highlight issues related to project implementation that require review during the first verification of the project activity. FARs shall not relate to the CDM requirements for registration. Page 8 of 111

9 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a Corrective Action Requests and Clarification Requests are raised in the draft validation protocol and detailed in a separate finding document (Annex 2). In this document, the project participant is given the opportunity to resolve the outstanding CARs and respond to CLs and FARs. 3.6 Internal Quality Control Following the completion of the assessment process and a recommendation by the assessment team, the validation opinion prepared by Team Leader is independently reviewed by internal Technical Reviewer. TR reviews if all the KBS procedures have been followed and all conclusions are justified in accordance with applicable standards, procedures, guidance and CDM decisions. The TR either is qualified for the technical area within the CDM sectoral scope(s) applicable to project activity or is supported by qualified independent technical expert at this stage. The Technical Reviewer will either accept or reject the recommendation made by the assessment team. The findings can be raised at this stage and PP must resolve them within agreed timeline. The opinion recommended by Technical Reviewer will be confirmed by Manager Technical & Certification and finally authorized by the Managing Director on behalf of KBS as final validation opinion. The Technical Reviewer and Manager T&C may be same person. Page 9 of 111

10 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a 4. Validation Findings 4.1 Approval Discussion: The project s host Party is - Republic of Sudan. Republic of Sudan fulfils the requirements to participate in the CDM. Republic of Sudan has ratified the Kyoto protocol and established a DNA as the participating requirements for CDM under the Kyoto Protocol. The Letter of Approval was issued by Higher Council of Environment & Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment, Forestry & Physical Development, Republic of Sudan on 20/03/2011. The authenticity of the letter of approval from Republic of Sudan has been confirmed by checking the original LoA. Since the letter has been issued by the respective DNA of the Host Party for the specific CDM project, the DOE considers that the LoA is in accordance with paragraphs 39 [(a) to (d)] to 42 of VVS V5 /27/. The proposed project does not involve any public funding from an Annex I Party, and the validation did not reveal any information that indicated that the project could be seen as a diversion of official development assistance (ODA) funding towards the host country. Further, PECS has given a declaration stating that the project does not avail any diversion of ODA. Project participant Party involved Approval LoA received PECS Company Limited Republic of Sudan (Host) Date of LoA 20/03/2011 /4/ Reference Number LoA issued by LoA received directly from Validation of authenticity N.A Higher Council of Environment & Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment, Forestry & Physical Development, Republic of Sudan Project Participant The validation team has no doubts about the authenticity of LoA based on the interview with the personnel of the DNA of host party Higher Council of Environment & Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment, Forestry & Physical Development, Republic of Sudan. Findings: No finding has been raised in this context. Opinion: The LoA of host Party was reviewed and confirmed the following: (a) Republic of Sudan is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol on February 2005; (b) Participation is voluntary; (c) the project under validation will contribute to the sustainable development of Republic of Sudan, (d) the project title is in line with the title mentioned under section A.1 of the PDD. Page 10 of 111

11 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a LoAs have been verified to be unconditional with respect to all the above confirmed aspects. The validation team has confirmed that the LoA has met the requirements of of the VVS V5 /27/. The validation of approval and authorization has been done on the basis of and of VVS V5 /27/ and validation team confirms that the proposed project activity meets the requirement of 38 and 45 of VVS V5 /27/. 4.2 Authorization Discussion: Republic of Sudan is the host country and has ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 02/11/ ; which has been checked from The Letter of Approval /4/ dated 20/03/2011 /4/ was received from the PP, which was issued by the DNA of Republic of Sudan. Findings: No finding has been raised in this context. Opinion: The validation team confirms that; (a) The participation of PECS Company Limited has been approved by a DNA of Republic of Sudan which is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol. (b) The authenticity of the LoA /4/ has also been confirmed as described in section 4.1 above. (c) No other entity has been listed in the PDD /2/ (section A.3 of Annex 1) other than the PP as mentioned in the LoA /4/. 4.3 Sustainable Development The project s host Party is - Republic of Sudan. The LoA from the host party s DNA has confirmed the contribution of the project to the sustainable development. The validity of the LoA has been cross checked by the validation team (refer section 4.1 of this validation report). In addition, the project contributes for environmental well being through composting the organic waste under aerobic conditions. This leads to the reduction of methane emissions into the atmosphere that would occur from decomposition of organic waste at the landfill site. Findings: No finding has been raised in this context. Opinion: The validation of contribution to sustainable development has been done on the basis of 51 of VVS V5 /27/ and validation team confirms that the proposed project activity meets the requirement of 50 of VVS V5 /27/. 4.4 Modalities of Communication Discussion: The Modalities of Communication (MoC) /5.1/, signed on 20/11/2014, was received from the PP (i.e. PECS Company Limited). The validation team has directly checked the legal/corporate identity of the PP by verifying the company certificate of incorporation /6/ of the PP issued by Commercial Registrar General, 1 Page 11 of 111

12 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a Ministry of Justice along with written confirmation from PECS /5.2/ stating that all corporate and personal details, including specimen signatures, are valid and accurate. Since, the confirmation letter has been provided by PP having contractual relationship with DOE, it is deemed acceptable as per 55 of VVS V5 /27/. PECS Company Limited has authorized Mr. Mohamed Tawfig as the primary authorized signatories in the MoC. The personal identity, specimen signature, contact details and employment status of the focal point have been checked and confirmed through interview with the focal point at the time of site visit conducted at PP s office and found consistent with the MoC. Moreover, the name of the PP mentioned in the LoA is also same in the MoC. The PP has correctly completed the latest version of form F-CDM-MOC including its Annex 1 with the details consistent with PDD and the evidence provided for identity check. The given MoC statement complies with all relevant forms and requirements ( 61 of VVS V5) /27/. Findings: No finding has been raised in this context. Opinion: Based on the due diligence performed the validation team confirms that the MoC statement for this given project activity meets the requirement of 53 and 59 of VVS V5 /27/. 4.5 Project Design Document The PDD applied the Project design document form for CDM project activities /31.2/, version 05, which is a valid form available on UNFCCC/CDM website at the time of submission of request for registration. The validation team confirms that the PDD is completed in accordance with the latest available PDD template /31.2/. Findings: CAR-16 has been raised and closed successfully. Please refer Annex2 of this report, where same is discussed in detail. Opinion: In the opinion of the assessment team, the PDD /2/ is in accordance with applicable PDD form and guidance and valid. Table below describes the key revisions between the final PDD /2/ against the first version /1.1/ published for the international stakeholder consultation. 4.6 Assessment of variation between webhosted PDD and final PDD PDD Section no. PDD Template Section A.2.4 Section A.3. Section B.2. Section B.4 Section B.5 Brief description of the changes PDD has been revised to latest template version 05 from the webhosted PDD template version The geographical locations of the project activity has been updated based on location of actual project site, where project is implemented. Details of major equipment s added and load factor is revised based on equipment specification provide by supplier. Justification provided for applicability of tool Project and leakage emissions from composting and justification to applicability condition two(2), Four(4), Six(6) and seven(7) has been further elaborated for clarity. Relevant national and sectoral policies for identification of baseline scenario has been explained. Justification has been elaborated for elimination of alternative M1 and M5. Clarification on not using investment analysis for demonstration of additionality has been added. Date of investment decision (board resolution) for project equity investment and other relevant milestones has been added. Explanation on Page 12 of 111

13 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a applicability of Investment barrier has been further elaborated. Section C.2.2 Crediting Period start date has been changed to 01/01/ Project Description Discussion: The proposed GS project activity is a landfill Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) composting project. The purpose of the project activity involves the production of the compost from organic waste part of municipal solid waste collected from households around Khartoum region. The municipal solid waste will be sorted in a 960 t/d MSW sorting facility (during first stage of implementation) built on site then the selected biodegradable fraction will be arranged into linear windrows and turned periodically by turning machines for aerobic composting. Water will be added along the process to maintain activity without causing anaerobic conditions. After completion of the maturation and screening by means of trommel, the final product will be bagged and sold as organic soil conditioner. The project scenario falls within sectoral scope 13 Waste handling and disposal - and consists of the construction and operation of a composting plant with an initial processing capacity of around 475 tons /19/ fresh organic MSW/day. In a second stage, processing capacity of composting plant is expected to reach 990 tons organic feedstock per day as pre-sorting of 2000 t/d MSW will be performed at 3 waste transfer stations namely Khartoum (capacity 800t/d MSW), Omdurman (capacity 800t/d MSW) and Khartoum Bahari (capacity 400t/d MSW). By 2020, a third stage will bring the total processing capacity of composting plant to about 1,200 tons organic feedstock per day, through the addition of 400 t/d MSW pre-sorting equipment at transfer stations. The scenario prior to the implementation of the project activity is the disposal of the municipal solid waste on a landfill site without capture of the landfill gas, where decomposition of biodegradable fraction of the waste under anaerobic conditions leads to methane generation. Existing municipal waste management system in Khartoum State consists of 3 waste transfer stations (Khartoum, Khartoum Bahari and Omdurman) from where the waste is transported by trucks and deposited onto 3 landfill sites (namely Tayba, Hatab and Omdurman). Looking at the height, area, environmental conditions and different colours of waste, because of degradation, on digging in depth the assessment team confirms that the MSW is being dumped to degrade anaerobically. The technical details mentioned in section A.3 of the PDD /2/ were found to be accurate and complete with respect to the information as verified from the copy of Technical details mentioned in the contract /9/ of project equipments submitted by PP. Further, the consistency of the project description and technical details of the project activity was also cross checked during on-site interview with the personnel of PECS Company Limited namely Mr. Mohammed Tawfig and Christophe Assicot, a part of on-site validation and document review process during the site visit and found appropriate. The unique identification of the project as provided in the section A.2.4 of the PDD is Latitude ( N) N, Longitude ( E) E /22/. The project through composting the waste under aerobic conditions will lead to the reduction of methane emissions into the atmosphere that would otherwise occur from decomposition of waste at the landfill site. Methane is a greenhouse gas with global warming potential 25 times higher than carbon dioxide. Thus, the project activity is expected to generate the annual average GHG emission reductions of approximately 46,789 tco 2 and a total emission reduction of 327,525 tco 2 e during the Renewable crediting period of 7 years. The project activity has started its operation and the same is confirmed through site visit. The validation of the project activity has been carried out by physical inspection (site visit) reviewing available documents considered for implementation of the project. Page 13 of 111

14 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a The project activity contributes to the sustainable development criteria of the host country in terms of social, economical, technological and environmental benefits achieved due to the project activity and hold all statutory clearances till date. Based on the information furnished by the project participants, no diversion of ODA contributes to the financing of the project. The starting date of project, project duration and crediting time are presented in the table below. Starting date of project Expected project operational lifetime Crediting period 30/03/2009 (Contract signed between PECS and the sorting equipment supplier /9/ ). This can be treated as the earliest date on which the PP has committed expenditures related to project specific implementation and construction as per the Glossary of CDM Terms /31.3/. The validation team has checked the other contracts made by PP with contractors and confirmed the same. 25 years (Life Time Statement issued by the equipment provider, Engineering Tasks Group (ENTAG) /17/ ) 7 years renewable crediting period /2/. Findings: CL-01, CL-03, CAR-02, CAR-09, CL-10, CAR-15 were raised and closed successfully. Please refer Annex 2 of this report, where same is discussed in detail. Opinion: The validation team conducted document review and onsite interviews/ inspection of this project activity. Based on the same the validation team confirms that the PDD contains a clear description of the project activity that provides a clear understanding of the precise nature of the project activity. This description is also found to be accurate and complete. The PDD satisfies the requirements of 64 of VVS V5 /27/.The details of the site visit conducted by the validation team can be referred in section 3.2 of this report. 4.8 Baseline and monitoring methodology General requirement Discussion: The proposed project activity falls under the large scale and it applies the large scale approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology ACM0022 Alternative Waste Treatment Processes Version /32/,the following tools relevant for the project activity as referred in the methodology 1. Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (version 05) 2. Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption (version 01) 3. Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion(version 02) 4. Emissions from solid waste disposal sites (version ) 5. Project and leakage emissions from composting (version 01) Findings: No findings has been raised. Opinion: Page 14 of 111

15 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a a) The validation team is of opinion that consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology is approved by UNFCCC and PDD has used the version of the applied baseline and monitoring methodology that is valid at the time of request for registration. b) The PDD has mentioned and correctly applied the tools and guidance relevant as per applied methodology Applicability of selected methodology to the project activity Discussion: Applicability conditions in ACM0022 version This methodology applies to project activities where fresh waste, originally intended for disposal in a SWDS, is treated using any (combination) of the waste treatment options listed in methodology Table 1, i.e. composting or co-composting, anaerobic digestion, thermal treatment or mechanical treatment. Applicable types of wastes that may be treated: Types of waste specified in the scope and applicability section of the methodological tool Project and leakage emissions from composting, e.g. composting MSW, agricultural wastes and digestate ; or run-off wastewater, excluding hospital and industrial waste. Justification as mentioned in PDD The fresh organic MSW, originally intended for disposal in a SWDS, is treated through composting. Only fresh organic MSW is treated by the project. The waste to be composted is the biodegradable fraction of the fresh municipal solid waste collected from households around Khartoum region. According to the Waste content as provided by Khartoum cleaning project (Ministry of Environment) /19/, organic materials account for 49.5% of the total waste. Means of Validation The project activity involves the treatment of fresh organic waste to compost /19/. All organic waste used to prepare compost are actually intended for disposal in a SWDS. The project activity is only involved in generating compost and the same is confirmed by the assessment team at the time of site visit and based on the review of contract signed by PP with the sorting equipment supplier /9/ and the feedback report from the buyer /20/ of compost generated by the project activity. Therefore, the project activity is in compliance with the applicability condition. The project activity utilizes only fresh organic waste. The assessment team has confirmed the list of organic waste involved in the project activity from the land lease agreement /10/ signed by PP with the municipality of Khartoum state. Also, the MSW composition used for the basis of the design of the waste sorting equipment /9/ includes a higher percentage of organic waste. During the site visit the assessment team has interviewed the plant personnel and confirmed the composition of organic waste used in composting. Moreover, the university of Khartoum faculty of agriculture has issued an analysis result of compost /18/ which includes the Page 15 of 111

16 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a Applicable waste by-products: Glass, aluminum, ferrous metals and plastics from waste sorting stages; Run-off wastewater Specific applicability conditions for the treatment option: Any applicability conditions specified in the methodological tools Emissions from solid waste disposal sites Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption Project and leakage emissions from composting Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion Emissions reductions from the use of waste byproducts are not claimed under the proposed GS project activity. The proposed GS project is composting of municipal solid waste. The compliance with the applicability conditions of the other four methodological tools is as below: The project activity is the type of Application B: The GS project activity avoids or involves the disposal of waste at a SWDS. MSW is treated with an alternative option, composting, and is then prevented from being disposed of in a SWDS. The project s source of electricity consumption is Scenario C: Electricity consumption from the grid and (a) fossil fuel fired captive power plant(s), as the project is grid connected and has an installed backup diesel generator onsite. There isn t any captive renewable power generation on-site. The project activity follows the approach given in the Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion to calculate the project CO2 higher percentage of Organic matter and Organic Carbon. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the applicability condition. The waste by products such as glass and metal sorted out from the solid waste are not considered for claiming emission reduction. The assessment team has confirmed the same based on the review of the PDD /2/ and ER spreadsheet /3/. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the applicability condition. The proposed GS project activity involves the generation of compost based on the treatment of Organic fresh waste from the Municipal solid waste. As specified in the specific applicability condition the project has considered the project and leakage emission from composting of MSW. The assessment team has confirmed the same based on the review of the PDD /2/ and ER spreadsheet /3/. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the applicability condition of the applicable tools. Page 16 of 111

17 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a The project activity involves the construction of a new plant to implement one or several of the alternative waste treatment options provided in Table 1 of in methodology. Neither organic fresh waste nor products and by-products from the waste treatment plant established under the project activity are stored on-site under anaerobic conditions. For example, no organic materials are stored in a stockpile that is considered a SWDS; emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the composting process. Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream is not used as the project activity doesn t involve run-off wastewater management. The proposed GS project is a greenfield plant applying the composting of waste treatment option. In the project plant, waste or by-products are not stored on-site under anaerobic conditions. Fresh Municipal solid waste collected from households around Khartoum region will be first deposited in tipping area, sorted in the sorting facility then the selected biodegradable / organic fraction will be arranged into linear windrows and turned periodically by turning machines for aerobic composting. Water will be added along the process to maintain activity without causing anaerobic conditions. After completion of the maturation and screening by means of trommel, the final product will be bagged and sold as The proposed GS project activity is a new plant which utilizes the organic waste of the MSW for generation of compost by means of treatment. The assessment team has reviewed the contract signed by the PP with the supplier of the sorting equipment /9/ and composting equipment /14/ of project activity and confirmed that the project activity is a new facility. Further, the assessment team has confirmed during the site visit that there is no existing compost generation unit found operational in project area. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the applicability condition. The project activity area includes tipping area where the MSW were directly unloaded from the truck and the organic waste were segregated in the sorting equipment and then sent for compost and maturation windrows for treatment. Further, compost plant includes a final product processing area. The assessment has reviewed the general lay out /21/ of the composting plant and physically verified the location of the entire process area and confirmed that there is no storage of organic waste, products and by products of MSW within the project area. Page 17 of 111

18 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a Any run-off wastewater is treated within the project boundary; The project does not reduce the amount of waste that would be recycled in the absence of the project activity. Under this methodology, emission reductions can only be claimed for the baseline scenarios indicated above. If project participants wish to claim emission reductions from the use of the products or by-products in other activities than those specified above, then they may request registration for a separate project activity, organic soil conditioner. The proposed GS project does no generate run-off wastewater Feedstock for the composting activity consists only of organic materials that cannot be recycled; therefore the project does reduce the amount of waste that would be recycled in absence of the project activity. Moreover the project involves segregation of organics prior to composting in a newly established sorting plant, which will increase the amount of waste recycled. In the absence of the project activity, all waste entering the Omdurman landfill would be disposed of on the landfill. Emission reductions are only claimed for the baseline methodology scenario M3. Emissions reductions from the use of waste by-products are not claimed under the proposed GS project activity. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the applicability condition. The actual owner of the land is the Khartoum state of Republic of Sudan /10/. PP has signed a lease agreement with the Khartoum state to construct and operate the project activity only for the treatment organic waste from the MSW supplied by Khartoum state. PP has no authority to treat any run off waste within the project boundary. The assessment team has reviewed the land lease agreement /10/ and general plant layout /21/ and noted that there is no inclusion of wastewater treatment facility. The same physically verified and confirmed by the assessment team at the time of site visit. In the absence of the project activity, the MSW from the Khartoum State are directly sent for landfill. None of the waste available from the MSW is recycled by the Khartoum state. The Khartoum state has made a lease agreement with the PP for the supply of the MSW for the treatment of organic solid waste to compost and it is clear from the agreement that the prior to the project activity there is no recycling of organic waste. Thus, the assessment team confirms that the there is no possibility of reduction in the recycling of organic waste due to the implementation of this project activity. The emission reduction are claimed only for the treatment of organic waste to compost and the waste by products such as glass and metal sorted out from the solid waste are not considered for claiming emission reduction. The assessment team has Page 18 of 111

19 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a applying a relevant methodology. In the particular case where heat is generated from combustion of a product or by-product from the waste treatment options and used in the cement industry, the emission reductions for this use shall not be claimed under this methodology but in a separate project activity, applying the relevant methodology (e.g. ACM0003). In the case that applicable laws or regulations require the use of the waste treatment option(s) implemented under the project activity, the compliance rate of such laws and regulations should be below 50% in the period for which issuance of CERs is requested in order to claim emission reductions for that period. No emissions reductions from heat generated from combustion of a product or by-product from the waste treatment options and used in the cement industry are claimed under the proposed GS project There is no environmental regulation that mandates the treatment of the waste in the Host Country; see section B.4 for details. confirmed the same based on the review of the PDD /2/ and ER spreadsheet /3/. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the applicability condition. The project activity involves the generation of compost from the organic waste of MSW and there is no heat generated during the process /19/. So, there is no possibility of claiming emission reduction due to heat generation. Therefore the applicability condition is not relevant for this project activity. The assessment team confirmed through its local expertise and review of applicable acts /35/ that there is no environmental regulation that mandates the treatment of the waste in the Host Country; see section B.4 for details. The validation team has assessed the applicability requirements and cross-verified with the supporting information and interviewed the PP, in consultation with local expertise and confirms that the project activity meets all the applicability conditions of the methodology ACM0022, version /32/ and other applicable tools. Findings: CAR 04 and CAR-12 was raised in this context and closed successfully. Please refer Annex 2 of this report, where same is discussed in detail. Opinion: The selected methodology is applicable to the project activity and selected version of the methodology is valid at the time of submission for registration. For each of the applicability condition listed in the methodology ACM0022, version /32/, the steps taken to assess the relevant information contained in the PDD has been clearly described. Thus, it can be concluded that the proposed GS project activity falls under the large scale project activity and the PDD and project description justifies the applicability criteria of the applied methodology ACM0022, version satisfactorily. Based on the above discussion, the validation team confirms that the proposed GS project activity conforms to 73 of VVS V5 /27/ Project boundary Discussion: Project activity boundary is the physical, geographical site where the sorting of municipal solid waste and composting of the waste takes place including all installations, processes or equipment related to the composting unit.the project boundary is adequately described in the PDD /2/ in Section B.3. The project Page 19 of 111

20 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a boundary includes the solid waste disposal site where the waste is disposed in the baseline, the site of the composting treatment process, on-site electricity use and on-site fuel use. The project boundary does not include facilities for waste collection and transport. At the time of site visit, the project activity was found commissioned /16/. Based on the site visit and review of the General plant layout /21/, the validation team confirms that the project boundary as described in the PDD /2/ is appropriate. The validation team was able to confirm that all the identified emission sources which are impacted by the project activity are addressed by the approved methodology /32/ and can be seen in the table below. Hence a clarification of revision to or deviation from the approved methodology /32/ is not requested. Findings: No findings has been raised in this context. Opinion: The major GHG emission reduction occurring within the project boundary is CO 2, N 2 O and CH 4. No other gases are involved during the project activity. The local expert also confirmed that there is no restriction to treatment of compost in the host country /35/. The same has been verified during the course of validation. This has been validated in accordance with of VVS V5 /27/.Thus, the validation team is of the opinion that the project boundary has been correctly identified in the PDD /2/ in line with 82 of VVS V5 /27/ Baseline identification Discussion: The project activity is installation of a Landfill Municipal Solid Waste Composting Project, the PP has identified the plausible baseline scenario in accordance with approved methodology ACM0022 (version 1.0.0) /32/. In accordance with Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality /30.1/ the selection of most plausible baseline scenario and additionality has been demonstrated in a stepwise manner. The validation of the steps is as follows - STEP 0. Demonstration that a proposed project activity is the First-of-its-kind (optional) Justification as mentioned in PDD for Step 0 This step is optional and skipped by the project participants. Assessment Team Opinion In accordance to the Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality this step is optional. Therefore, the justification mentioned in the PDD is appropriate. STEP 1. Identification of alternative scenarios; Justification as mentioned in PDD for Step 1a Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity Assessment Team Opinion Baseline alternative as per Methodology M1: The project activity without being registered as a CDM project activity. Justification as mentioned in PDD M1 is a realistic alternative scenario and it will be further discussed. This is the same as scenario S1 from the Combined The project activity is a large scale project activity and it generates compost based on the treatment of the organic waste of the MSW. PP used 100% equity for project Page 20 of 111

21 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a M2: Disposal of the fresh waste in a SWDS with a partial capture of the LFG and flaring of the captured LFG; M3: Disposal of the fresh waste in a SWDS without a LFG capture system; M4: Part of the fresh fraction of the solid waste is recycled and not disposed in the SWDS; M5: Part of the fresh fraction of the solid waste is treated aerobically and not disposed in the SWDS; M6: Part of the organic fraction of the solid waste is incinerated and not disposed in the SWDS; Tool mentioned above. There is no landfill in Sudan that is equipped with LFG capture equipment. M2 is eliminated. This corresponds to the existing situation prior to the proposed CDM project. Continuation of existing scenario is a credible alternative and will be further discussed. This is the same as scenario S3 from the Combined Tool mentioned above The proposed CDM project will utilize the organic waste fraction in municipal solid waste that is not recyclable. Therefore M4 is not a plausible alternative to the proposed CDM project, and is eliminated. This corresponds to the proposed CDM project activity and is therefore not an alternative scenario. M5 is eliminated. No incineration facility is available on site or in the Host Country. The construction of a new incineration plant would be affected more strongly by barriers faced by the proposed activity. So, the selection of the M1 alternative by the PP as realistic is considered appropriate. The assessment team has physically verified the landfill site and interviewed the officials of the Khartoum municipality. Based on the interview and verification the assessment team has confirmed that the technology of partial capture of the LFG and flaring of the captured LFG is not available and not a common practice in the host country. Since, the host country itself has not initiated the LFG flaring technology, the same has not been considered as a feasible alternative for the project activity. Thus the elimination of alternative M2 by PP is appropriate. The assessment team has physically verified the landfill site and interviewed the officials of the Khartoum municipality. Based on the interview and verification the assessment team has confirmed that the disposal of the fresh waste in a SWDS without a LFG capture system is the prevailing practice in the host country. The validation of the barrier analysis is further discussed in following section of this report. So, the selection of the M3 alternative by the PP as realistic is appropriate. The assessment team has physically verified the landfill site and interviewed the officials of the Khartoum municipality. Based on the interview and verification the assessment team has confirmed that the technology of recycling fresh fraction of solid waste is not available and is not a common practice in the host country. Since, the host country itself has not initiated the process of recycling fresh fraction of solid waste, the same has not been considered as a feasible alternative for the project activity. Thus the elimination of alternative M4 by PP is appropriate. The MSW generated by the Khartoum state was disposed in the SWDS without any aerobic treatment. Moreover, the proposed CDM project activity itself is a aerobic treatment of organic fraction of MSW to produce compost. There is no other aerobic treatment process available in host country as confirmed from interview with the officials of the Khartoum municipality. Therefore, the M5 shall not be an alternative and the elimination of the same by PP is appropriate. The assessment team has physically verified the landfill site and interviewed the officials of the Khartoum municipality. Based on the interview and verification the assessment team has confirmed that the incineration of organic fraction of solid waste is not available Page 21 of 111

22 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a M7: Part of the organic fraction of the solid waste is gasified and not disposed in the SWDS; CDM project activity, as confirmed by the UNEP s International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management: For environmentally sound incineration, air pollution control equipment must be serviced regularly by highly specialized personnel. Monitoring equipment is costly and requires aggressive maintenance and servicing by trained technicians. In summary, when incineration is done in a manner that has low adverse health and environmental impacts, it is expensive. When it is done poorly (with low financial costs) it can be expensive in terms of human health and environmental impacts. Given these conditions, incineration with or without energy recovery does not appear to be a sound option for most situations encountered in developing countries. It is not surprising, therefore, that there are few examples of successful MSW incineration in such countries and several examples of premature attempts to adopt this technology. For example, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, New Delhi, and Sao Paulo, among other cities, have had to shut down incinerators due to high costs or environmental considerations. Consequently, alternative M6 is eliminated. Thermal gasification of MSW is a chemical process that generates a gaseous, fuel-rich product that can produce either heat or electricity. The project is located on the Omdurman landfill which is remote from energy consumption sources. Besides, gasification should be considered conservatively as emerging technology, still under developmentand with variable track records. M7 is not a credible alternative scenario and is eliminated. and is not a common practice in the host country. The same is not considered as a feasible alternative for the project activity. Thus, the elimination of alternative M6 by PP is appropriate. The assessment team has physically verified the landfill site and interviewed the officials of the Khartoum municipality. Based on the interview and verification the assessment team has confirmed that the gasification technology is not available and not a common practice in the host country. Since, the host country itself has not initiated the gasification technology to gasify the organic fraction of solid waste, the same has not been considered as a feasible alternative for the project activity. Thus the elimination of alternative M7 by PP is appropriate. Page 22 of 111

23 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a M8: Part of the organic fraction of the solid waste is treated in an anaerobic digester and not disposed in the SWDS; M9: Part of the organic fraction of the solid waste is mechanically or thermally treated to produce RDF/SB and not disposed in the SWDS. Anaerobic digestion is particularly appropriate for wet wastes, while composting is often appropriate for drier feedstocks. Waste-water with high biodegradable content and high temperature, such as industrial waste-water, is more suitable for anaerobic processes. In addition, the process generates biogas which can be used as energy while the project is located on the Omdurman landfill which is remote from biogas. RDF is a fuel produced by shredding and dehydrating MSW with a waste converter technology. RDF consists largely of combustible components of municipal waste such as plastics and biodegradable. M9 is a plausible alternative scenario. The assessment team has physically verified the landfill site and interviewed the officials of the Khartoum municipality. Based on the interview and verification the assessment team has confirmed that the technology related to anaerobic digester for treating organic fraction of the solid waste is not available and not a common practice in the host country. In addition, anaerobic digestion is more suitable for wet waste or wastewater with high biodegradable content, which is not the case, as project will use MSW or dry waste. Thus the elimination of alternative M7 by PP is appropriate. Since the treatment of the MSW for the production of RDF is possible, the same has been considered as a feasible alternative for the project activity. The validation of the barrier analysis is further discussed in following section of this report. So, the selection of the M9 alternative by the PP as realistic is appropriate. The assessment on baseline alternative conducted by the validation team in the above table has revealed that M1, M3 and M9 are the feasible alternatives considered by the PP. As per the local expert inputs the assessment team confirms that all the alternatives are in compliance with the mandatory applicable legal and regulatory requirements of the host country. Therefore, the assessment team confirms that the selections of feasible alternatives are appropriate. However, the assessment team opinion on the selection of single suitable baseline alternative is available in the section of this report. Findings: CAR-05 and CL-11 has been raised and closed successfully. Please refer Annex2 of this report, where same is discussed in detail. Opinion: The validation team confirms that the project activity complies with the requirements of paragraphs 97 to 100 of VVS, V5 /27/ Algorithms and/or formulae used to determine emission reductions Discussion: The GHG emissions reduction calculations are transparently documented and appropriate assumptions regarding the expected amount of net thermal energy generation have been used to forecast emission reductions. ER y = BE y PE y - L y Where: ER y Emission reductions in year y (t CO2e) Page 23 of 111

24 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a BE y PE y L y Baseline Emissions in year y (t CO2) Project Emissions in year y (t CO2e) Leakage Emissions in year y (t CO2e) Baseline Emissions Baseline emissions are determined according to methodology /32/ equation 1 and comprise the following sources: A. Methane emissions from the SWDS in the absence of the project activity; B. Methane emissions from the treatment of organic wastewater in the absence of the project activity; C. Energy generated or electricity consumed by the grid in the absence of the project activity; D. Natural gas used from the natural gas network in the absence of the project activity. In the case that legislative or regulatory requirements mandate the use of any (combination) of the waste treatment options t that are being implemented in the project activity, then the rate of compliance with these requirements in the host country required to be monitored (RATE compliance,t,y ). This rate is then used to adjust the baseline emissions calculation, according to equation 1. ( BE + BE + BE + BE ) BE y = CH4,t,y WW,y EN,t,y NG,t,y DFRATE, t,y (1) With: DF t 1 RATE = 0, if RATE, if RATE < 0.5 compliance,t,y compliance,t,y RATE, t,y (2) compliance,t,y 0.5 As discussed in section B.4 of the PDD, there is only no waste treatment alternative available in the host country which is mandated by the host country government, as confirmed from the Environment Protection Act 2001 /35/. Hence, the type of alternative waste treatment option t is hitherto omitted. Furthermore, the discount factor to account for RATE Compliance,t,y is considered zero(0), as there is currently no requirement that mandates the use of alternative waste treatment option in Sudan /35/. Therefore, DF RATE,y equals 1. It is also confirmed from project description and technology employed, that the project activity does not involve any wastewater treatment (option B), energy generation (option C), or the use of natural gas (option C). Consequently, baseline emission sources B, C and D are excluded and equation (1) above is simplified as follows: BE y = BE CH4,y (1) Procedure (A): Baseline emissions of methane from the SWDS (BE CH4,y ) Since the project activity is involved in the processing of the waste which in the baseline scenario was being disposed in the SWDS and hence the project is eligible for claiming emission reductions for avoidance of methane emissions. Therefore, the baseline emissions have been calculated in accordance with the Tool Emissions from solid waste disposal sites (Version ) /30.4/ First order decay (FOD) model has been used to calculate the amount of methane generated from disposal of waste at the SWDS, which is considered appropriate. The model calculates the methane generation occurring in year y (a period of 12 consecutive months) based on the waste streams of waste types j (Wj,x) disposed in the SWDS over a specified time period (years). The baseline emissions are calculated as follows: Page 24 of 111

25 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a Equation (3): BE 16 y k j ( y x) k j CH 4, SWDS, y = ϕ (1 f y) GWPCH OX F DOCf y MCFy Wj x DOCj e e y 4 (1 ),, (1 ) 12 x= 1 j Determining the model correction factor (φy) Baseline emissions are calculated, therefore project participants may choose between the following two options to calculate φ y : Option 1: Use a default value or Option 2: Determine φ y based on specific situation of the project activity. Project Participants has applied Option 1, default values for different applications and climatic conditions. Accordingly, default value for application B under dry condition is selected. Determining the amounts of waste types j disposed in the SWDS (Wj,x) The amount of different waste types has been determined through sampling and the mean from the samples has been calculated using equation below to determine the value of Wj,x for the yearly model: W j,x = W x. P j,x (4) The fraction of the waste type j in the waste for the year x has been calculated according to equation below:, =,, (5) Project emissions The project emissions in year y has been calculated for each alternative waste treatment option implemented in the project activity as follows: PE y = PE COMP,y + PE AD,y + PE GAS,y + PE RDF_SB,y + PE INC,y (6) Where: PE y = Project emissions in year y (tco 2 e) PE COMP,y = Project emissions from composting or co-composting in year y (tco 2 e) PE AD,y = Project emissions from anaerobic digestion and biogas combustion in year y (t CO 2 e) PE GAS,y = Project emissions from gasification in year y (tco 2 e) PE RDF_SB,y = Project emissions associated with RDF/SB in year y (tco 2 e) PE INC,y = Project emissions from incineration in year y (tco 2 e) Parameters Applicability in accordance with the proposed CDM project activity Project emissions from composting or co-composting in year. PE COMP,y Validation Opinion The project involves the composting of organic waste from MSW. Therefore, this is applicable. Page 25 of 111

26 Validation Report (VVS) Template (CDM-D-32) Version 5.0 Effective CDM.13.VAL.014a Project emissions from anaerobic digestion and biogas combustion in year y. PE AD,y Project emissions from gasification in year y (PE GAS,y ) Project emissions associated with RDF/SB in year y (PE RDF_SB,y ) Project emissions from incineration in year y PE INC,y No No No No No anaerobic digestion is taking place or biogas combustion. Therefore not applicable. Not applicable as gasification is not taking place Not applicable as RDF/SB production is not taking place Not applicable as incineration is not taking place The project does not involve anaerobic digestion, biogas combustion, gasification, RDF/SB or incineration, therefore above equation can be simplified as: PE y = PE COMP,y (6) Project emissions from composting or co-composting (PE COMP,y ) Project emissions associated with composting or co-composting (PE COMP,y ) has been calculated according to the methodological tool Project and leakage emissions from composting. The project emissions from composting (PE COMP,y ) are determined as follows: PE COMP, y = PE EC,y + PE FC,y + PE CH4,y + PE N2O,y + PE RO,y (7) The project activity does not involve co-composting therefore in accordance with the Tool, the above equation can be simplified as follows: PE COMP, y = PE EC,y + PE FC,y + PE CH4,y + PE N2O,y (7) Determination of project emissions from electricity consumption (PE EC,y ) The composting activity involves electricity consumption from the grid or from a fossil fuel fired on-site power plant, PE EC,y has been calculated using the latest approved version of the Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption /30.2/, where the project emission source j referred to in the tool is composting. When applying this tool, if monitored data for electricity consumption is not available, then electricity consumption from composting (EC PJ, comp,y ) may be determined based on a default value for the specific quantity of electricity consumed per ton of waste composted (SEC comp,default ), according to equation below. The Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption /30.2/ also provides options to calculate emission based on non-monitored parameters, including a default emission factor for the emissions per MWh of electricity consumed and an option to estimate electricity consumption based on the rated capacity of the captive power plant (if applicable). EC PJ,comp,y = Q y * SEC comp,default (8) The project is connected to the grid and has installed a backup diesel generator. The generic approach as per the Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption is: PE EC,y = (9)