Verification Report. Główny Instytut Górnictwa (Central Mining Institute) 1 st

Transcription

1 Verification Report Główny Instytut Górnictwa (Central Mining Institute) 1 st Periodic Verification of Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Project under JI Track 1 Monitoring period 1: to Report No March 2011 TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Carbon Management Service Westendstrasse Munich - GERMANY

2 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 1 of 18 Report No. Date of first issue Version Revision date No. of pages No.: February March Subject: 1 st Verification under JI track 1 Executing Operational Unit: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH, Carbon Management Service Westendstrasse Munich, Federal Republic of Germany Project Participant : Główny Instytut Górnictwa (client) Plac Gwarków Katowice JSW S.A. KWK Borynia ul. Węglowa Jastrzębie Zdrój The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. 4-33, Komachi, Naka-ku Hiroshima, , Japan Project Title Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Monitoring period: Period, in total from to with the following annual subperiods: 1 st subperiod: to nd 2 subperiod: to rd 3 subperiod: to First Monitoring Report (version/date) Version 1 / Final Monitoring Report (version/date) Version 6 / 01/03/2011

3 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 2 of 18 Summary: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH has performed the 1 st Periodic Verification (combined with an Initial Verification) of the approved JI project (Track 1): Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland. The project has been approved by the Polish Ministry of Environment on 05/02/2010. The project comprises the use of CMM for the production of heat and electricity. The heat is generated by two gas boilers with a firing capacity of 1.2 MW each and the electricity is produced by a CHP unit with an electrical capacity of 1.8 MW. In the project only the reductions from the burned CMM are claimed. Główny Instytut Górnictwa (Central Mining Institute) as project participant is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emission data and the reported GHG emission reductions. A document review, followed by a site visit was conducted to verify the information submitted by the project participants regarding the present verification period. Based on the assessment carried out, the verifier confirms the following: the project is fully implemented according to the approved PDD (version 2.4, November 6, 2009) the project has been operated in accordance with the approved PDD. the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan as defined in the approved PDD. the installed equipment essential for generating emission reductions ran reliably during the monitoring period and the meters were calibrated appropriately; the calculation of emission reductions is based on conservative assumptions and the most plausible scenarios in a transparent manner. the project was generating emission reductions. It generated less ERUs than planned due to a decrease in coal production and a serious underground accident in 2008 The verifier can confirm that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements. This confirmation is based on a detailed check on raw data and calculated data using all cross-checking options. Our opinion refers to the project GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions reported, determined using the valid and approved project baseline, its monitoring plan and its associated documents. Based on the information we have checked and evaluated, we confirm the following emission reductions: Subperiod Amount 31/03/2008 till 31/12/2008 8,106 t CO2e 01/01/2009 till 31/12/ ,620 t CO2e 01/01/2010 till 31/08/ ,645 t CO2e Totally 43,371 t CO 2e Assessment Team Leader: Technical Reviewer: Karin Wagner Thomas Kleiser Assessment Team Members: Javier Castro Dr. Albert Geiger, Olena Maslova Certification Body responsible: Thomas Kleiser

4 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 3 of 18 Abbreviations ACM Approved Consolidated Methodology AIE Accredited Independent Entity BM Build Margin CAR Corrective Action Request CM Combined Margin CMP Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol CO 2e Carbon dioxide equivalent CAR Corrective action request CR Clarification Request DFP Designated Focal Point EF Emission Factor EIA / EA Environmental Impact Assessment / Environmental Assessment ER Emission Reduction EUR Emission Reduction Units FAR Forward Action Request FSR Feasibility Study Report GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) GWP Global Warming Potential IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRL Information Reference List JI Joint Implementation KP Kyoto Protocol MP Monitoring Plan MR Monitoring Report NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OM Operational Margin PDD Project Design Document PP Project Participant QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control TÜV SÜD TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change DVM Determination and Verification Manual

5 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 4 of 18 Main Documents (referred to in this report) Methodology (name / version) ACM0008, Version 03 Scope 8; 10 Technical Area 8.1, 10.3 Approved PDD: Version 2.4 from 06/11/2009; LOA from 05/02/2010 Revised Monitoring Plan: n.a. Version Date Published Monitoring Report Revised Monitoring Report Project documentation link: n/a

6 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 5 of 18 Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction Objective Scope GHG Project Description Methodology Verification Process Verification Team Review of Documents On-site Assessment and follow-up Interviews Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions Resolution of Clarification, Corrective Action and Forward Action Requests Internal Quality Control Verification Results FARs from Determination / Previous Verification Project Implementation Compliance of the Monitoring System with the Monitoring Plan Assessment of Data and Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Summary of Findings Verification Statement Annex 1: TÜV SÜD Verification Protocol Annex 2: Information Reference List

7 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 6 of 18 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objective The Główny Instytut Górnictwa has commissioned (contract from ) an independent verification by TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH (TÜV SÜD) of the approved JI Track 1 project: Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland. This report summarizes the findings of the JI verification (Track 1) of the period March 31 st, 2008, to August 31 st, The objective of the verification work is the systematic, independent and documented evaluation of a greenhouse gas emission reduction against JI requirements (Track 1) as well as specific regulations as set by the national guidelines and procedures for approving of JI projects in Poland. According to this assessment TÜV SÜD shall: ensure that the project activity has been implemented and operated as per the final PDD Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland (Version 2.4 from 06/11/2009), and that all physical features (technology, project equipment, monitoring and metering equipment) of the project are in place, ensure that the published MR (IRL6) and other supporting documents provided are complete, verifiable and in accordance with applicable JI requirements, ensure that the actual monitoring systems and procedures comply with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan, evaluation of the data recorded and stored as well as of the calculated emission reductions. 1.2 Scope The verification scope encompasses an independent and objective review and ex-post determination of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions by the Accredited Independent Entity. The verification is based on the submitted monitoring report, the determination report and the previous verification reports (if any). These documents are reviewed against the approved project design document including its monitoring plan, the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, the JI Guidelines as well as related rules and guidance by the CMP and JISC and specific national requirements (if any). TÜV SÜD applies a detailed, methodology specific protocol, which considers fully the JI Determination and Verification Manual (DVM) submitted December Based on the requirements in the DVM, TÜV SÜD has applied a rule-based approach for the verification of the project. The principles of accuracy, materiality, completeness, relevance, reliability and credibility were combined with a conservative approach to establish a traceable and transparent verification opinion. The verification considers both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions. The verification is not meant to provide any consultancy towards the client. However, stated requests for clarifications, corrective and/or forward actions may provide input for improvement of the monitoring activities. 1.3 GHG Project Description Project activity: Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland

8 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 7 of 18 UNFCCC registration number: Project Participants: n/a Główny Instytut Górnictwa, JSW S.A., KWK Borynia and the Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. Location of the project: Slaskie Province, Poland (Geo-coordinates: , ) Date of approval: Starting date of the crediting period: The purpose of this project is the avoidance of methane emissions into the atmosphere at the Borynia coal mine. Coal mine methane is burned for electricity production (internal use) and heat generation (internal use). 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Verification Process The verification process is based on the approach depicted in the Determination and Verification Manual (DMV) issued by JISC in Standard auditing techniques have been adopted for the verification process. The verification team performs first a desk review, followed by an on-site visit, which results in the completion of a protocol that includes all the findings. The next step involves the evaluation of the findings through direct communication with the PPs and the preparation of the verification report. Afterwards the verification report and other supporting documents undergo an internal quality control by the CB climate and energy before submission to the JISC. 2.2 Verification Team The appointment of the verification team takes into account the technical area(s), sectoral scope(s) and relevant host country experience required amongst team members for verifying the ERs achieved by the project activity in the relevant monitoring period for this verification. The verification team consisted of the following members: Name Qualification Coverage of scope Coverage of technical area Host country experience Karin Wagner ATL Dr. Albert Geiger GHG-A Olena Maslova GHG-A Karin Wagner is an ATL in the Carbon Management Service department of TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH in Munich, Germany. She holds a M.Sc. in geological sciences and has gathered experience in environmental consulting for the mining industry before joining TÜV SÜD. Karin Wagner specializes in the assessment of CDM / JI projects in the sector of mining/mineral production, waste handling and disposal as well as renewable energies. Dr. Albert Geiger is a GHG verifier for CO 2 -emission reduction projects of the scopes 8, 10 and 13 at the department Environmental Service of TÜV SÜD. He has done more than 15 CDM and JI projects and holds a PhD in geological sciences. He does environmental consulting in soil and water protection as well as waste management at TÜV SÜD since 1999.

9 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 8 of 18 Olena Maslova is an auditor (Determiner/Verifier) and assessment team leader in the Carbon Management Service department of TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH in Munich, Germany. She is chemical engineer and host country expert for projects in Central and Eastern Europe. Due to her further master degree at the university of applied science in the Federal Republic of Germany she is also familiar with Germany s current environmental legislation. Olena Maslova specializes in the assessment of CDM / JI projects in the sector of chemical industries and waste handling and disposal. 2.3 Review of Documents The Monitoring Report version 1 (IRL6) submitted by the PP was made publicly available on the TÜV SÜD website on the 27/09/10 before the verification activities started. The published MR was assessed based on all the relevant documents. The aims of the desk review were: verification of the data completeness and the information presented in the MR, check of the MR compliance with respect to the monitoring plan depicted in the approved PDD (frequency of measurements, the quality of the metering equipment including calibration; and QA/QC procedures), evaluation of the data management and QA/QC system in the context of their influence on the generation and reporting of emission reductions. A complete list of all documents reviewed is available in Annex 2 of this report. 2.4 On-site Assessment and follow-up Interviews During 06 till 08/10/2010, TÜV SÜD performed a physical site inspection including on-site interviews with the project participants (IRL 4-5) to: confirm the implementation and operation of the project, review the data flow for generating, aggregating and reporting of the monitoring parameters, confirm the correct implementation of procedures for operation and data collection, cross-check the information provided in the MR with other sources, check the monitoring equipment against the monitoring plan presented in the PDD and the applied methodology, including calibrations, maintenance, etc., review the calculations and assumptions used to obtain the GHG data and ER, check if the QC/QA procedures are in place for preventing and correcting of errors or/and omissions in the reported data. A list of the persons interviewed during this verification activity is included in Annex Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions Among several evidences submitted, the following relevant and reliable evidence material has been used by the audit team during the verification process (see Annex 2): - Licenses - Raw data - Data from cross-checking instruments - Handwritten Journals - Analysis - Calibration documents - Quality assurance and quality control documents (Monitoring Manual)

10 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 9 of 18 Sufficient evidences and data covering the full verification period is available to validate the figures stated in the final MR. The source of the evidences and data will be discussed in chapter 3 of this report. The protocol gives a clear reference to sources assessed and is the basis for the conclusions of the audit team. Specific cross-checks have been done in cases when further sources were available. The monitoring report figures were checked by the audit team against the raw data. It can be confirmed that no data transfer errors were detected. 2.6 Resolution of Clarification, Corrective Action and Forward Action Requests The objective of this phase of the verification process is to resolve any outstanding issues, which require clarification for TÜV SÜD s conclusion on the reported GHG emission reduction. The findings raised as Forward Action Requests (FARs) (if any) indicated in previous reports (determination/verification) were discussed and resolved during this phase through communication between the PP and TÜV SÜD. Concerns raised during the desk review, the on-site audit assessment and the follow up interviews are documented together with the according responses provided by the project participants in Annex 1 (verification protocols) to guarantee the transparency of the verification process. A Corrective Action Request is raised where TÜV SÜD identifies: non-conformities in monitoring and/or reporting with the monitoring plan and/or methodology; that the evidence provided is not sufficient to prove conformity; mistakes in assumptions, data or calculations that impair the ER calculations; FARs raised during determination or previous verifications that are not solved until the onsite visit. A Clarification Request is raised where TÜV SÜD does not have enough information or the information is not transparent in order to confirm a statement or data. A Forward Action Request is raised where TÜV SÜD identifies that monitoring and/or reporting require special attention or adjustments for the next verification period. Information or clarifications provided as a response to a CAR, CR or FAR can also lead to a new request. 2.7 Internal Quality Control As a final step of the verification process, the verification documents including the verification report and the annexes have to undergo an internal quality control by the Certification Body (CB) climate and energy, i.e. each report has to be finally approved either by the Head of the CB or the Deputy (a Veto person can be used). In case one of these two persons is part of the assessment team, the approval can only be given by the person who is not a part of the assessment team. If the documents have been satisfactorily approved, the Request for Issuance is submitted to the JISC along with the relevant documents. 3 VERIFICATION RESULTS In the following sections, the results of the verification are stated. The verification results relate to the project performance as documented and described in the approved PDD and the final Monitoring Report (IRL7). The verification findings for each verification subject are presented below and in details in the Verification Protocol in the attached annex 1.

11 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 10 of FARs from Determination / Previous Verification Not applicable 3.2 Project Implementation The project has been implemented as described in the approved PDD: - 2 gas boilers (firing capacity 1.2 MW each) - 1 CHP unit (electrical capacity 1.8 MW) The gas boilers are running since the beginning of the crediting period (since 31/03/2008). The CHP unit started appr. 2,5 month later, the 23/06/2008. TÜV SÜD confirms that: - the project has been implemented according to the approved PDD. 3.3 Compliance of the Monitoring System with the Monitoring Plan The monitoring meters have been implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan presented in the approved PDD. The parameters relevant in the context of monitoring and calculating emission reductions are listed below. For more details please see the protocol on annex 1. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Means of verification/comments: Cross-check MM ELEC /CMMPj,ELEC,y tch4 Methane sent to CHP Data from flow meter and methane analyser or in case of failure calculated from the generated electricity (emergency procedure PM-7 of the Monitoring Manual, IRL 25) Check of the electronic data and handwritten records The cross-check has shown no inconsistences of the raw data with the figures used for the calculation of emission reduction Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Means of MM HEAT / CMMPj,HEAT,y tch4 Methane sent to boilers Data from flow meter and methane analyser or or in case of failure calculated from the generated heat (emergency procedure PM-8 of the Monitoring Manual, IRL 25) Check of the electronic data and handwritten records

12 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 11 of 18 verification/comments: Cross-check The cross-check has shown no inconsistences of the raw data with the figures used for the calculation of emission reduction Data / Parameter: CONS ELEC, pj Data unit: MWh Description: Additional electricity consumption for capture and destruction of methane Source of data used: Electricity meter Means of Check of the handwritten journals / electronically data verification/comments: Cross-check The cross-check has shown no inconsistences of the raw data with the figures used for the calculation of emission reduction Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Means of verification/comments: Cross-check Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Means of verification/comments: Cross-check GENy MWh Electricity generation by project Electricity meter Check of the electronic data and handwritten records The cross-check has shown no inconsistences of the raw data with the figures used for the calculation of emission reduction HEATy GJ Heat generation of the project 01/01/2008 till 13/11/2009 :C calculated from methane amount and calorific value Since 13/11/2009: measured according to the PDD Check of the calculation routines and formula/parameters applied The cross-check has shown no inconsistences in the figures/formula used for the calculation of the parameter Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Means of verification/comments: Cross-check PCCH4 % Concentration (in mass) of methane in extracted gas (%), measured on wet basis IR measurement Check of the handwritten journals / electronically data The cross-check has shown no inconsistences of the raw data with the figures used for the calculation of emission reduction Data / Parameter: PCNMHC Data unit: % Description: NMHC concentration (in mass) in extracted gas Source of data used: Chemical Analysis by Główny Instytut Górnictwa (Central Mining Institute). The Central Mining Institute is accredited. Means of Presentation of the accreditation certificate. Analysed content less than 1%.

13 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 12 of 18 verification/comments: Cross-check NA The calibration status of all monitoring instruments has been demonstrated to TÜV SÜD by providing the calibration protocols and passports (IRL 18,19). According to these documents all used meters were calibrated according to the requirements during the monitoring period. The monitoring activities are strictly organised and written down in a Monitoring Manual (IRL 25). The responsibilities are determined and quality assurance measures are implemented onsite. The clear distribution of the monitoring duties has been demonstrated by the staff during the on-site visit. The monitoring staff consists of engineers which are well familiar with the project equipment according to our on-site findings. However, since the brief instructions at the beginning of the project only one training has been carried out. Hence, FAR 1 has been raised. There are no deviations from the approved Monitoring Plan. TÜV SÜD confirms that: - all parameters of the approved Montioring Plan have been measured or calculated according to the approved emergency procedures. - the function of the monitoring equipment, including its calibration status, was in order within the whole verification period. - the evidence and records used for the monitoring are maintained in a traceable manner (journals, electronic media) - sufficient training of the staff has been conducted.

14 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 13 of Assessment of Data and Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions All information needed of the assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions was available (IRL 8, 9, 20-23). The input data of the calculations have been checked against the raw data. The verifier confirms that there are no deviations between raw data and input data. The data were consistent and no errors have been found. Some of the data have been calculated using the emergency procedures from the approved PDD. It has been clearly demonstrated that these data are more conservative than the measured data (see CAR 1). The NMHC have been analysed regularly by a certified laboratory (Accreditation Certificate,IRL 23). The analysed contents were always less than 1%. Hence, in accordance with the Methodology and the PDD the NMHCs were not considered in the calculations. The manual transfer of data to the excel sheets has been cross checked. No mistakes have been detected. Furthermore, all formulae used in the calculations have been checked against the approved PDD. The formulae comply fully with the formulae of the registered PDD. No deviations have been found. All the emission factors and default values are explicitly mentioned in the monitoring report. The values comply fully with the defaults in the registered PDD. TÜV SÜD confirms that: - Data sources used for calculating emission reductions are clearly identified, reliable and transparent - that the most conservative rawdata are used in calculations. - that the input data are viable and consistent with raw data. The applied manual data transfer is correct. - the methods and formulae used to obtain the baseline, project and leakage emissions are appropriate and without any mistakes. - the calculation of emission reductions is based on conservative assumptions and the most plausible scenarios in a transparent manner.

15 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 14 of 18 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The verifier can confirm that the published MR and related documents are complete and verifiable in accordance with the JI requirements. All the findings raised by the verification team, the responses by the PPs and the conclusion of the audit team are presented in Annex 1. The means of verification and resulting changes in the MR or related documents are summarized in the table below: Corrective Action Request 1: Please demonstrate by using the measured data that the values gained by the emergency procedures are more conservative than the directly measured data. Do the same for MM (see below). CAR 1, means of verification Raw data CAR 1, changes in the MR or related documents No changes in the MR. Corrective Action Request 2: In the excel calculation sheet the data of dk max max are not correct (d k is the scalar adjustment factor and not the specific gravity of methane). Please revise the calculations and provide a max max separate table showing the calculation of TH BL, d k and TH BL x d k (details see Methodology p. 13 ff). CAR 2, means of verification PDD CAR 2, changes in the MR or related documents Revison of the MR. Corrective Action Request 3: The starting date of the first monitoring period has to be consistent with the beginning of the crediting period (31/03/2008). Please correct. CAR 3, means of verification PDD, findings in the desk review and in the on-site audit in October 2010 CAR 3, changes in the MR or related documents Revison of the MR. Corrective Action Request 4: According to your MR v. 3 the gas burners got their commission the 21 st of November However, in the tables MD HEAT values start the 31/03/2008. Please explain why the values do not start the 21 st of November CAR 3, means of verification Findings of the on-site audit in October 2010 CAR 3, changes in the MR or related documents Revison of the MR Please describe the measurement and the recording procedures in the MR in detail. Clarification Request 1: Please clarify the hourly monitoring frequency in the MR as a power meter typically has continuous (i.e. cumulative) monitoring frequencies. CR 1, means of verification PDD, findings of the on-site audit in October 2010 CR 1, changes in the MR or related documents HEAT

16 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 15 of 18 Revison of the MR. Clarification Request 2: Please add to the tables in chapter C the internal ID s (e.g. JI-001), the company name and the type of the meter, the location, the serial number and the measurement range. CR 2, means of verification Evidence by documents (IRL 17, 25) CR 2, changes in the MR or related documents Revison of the MR. Clarification Request 3: Please show that the involved meter companies have the permission to give the labels of legislation (electricity and heat meter). CR 3, means of verification Findings of the on-site audit in October 2010 CR3, changes in the MR or related documents No changes in the MR Clarification Request 4: Please present for all monitored parameters a summary of the monthly data. Please explain the differences between the electronic data and the handwritten data. Please show for every parameter that the taken calculation input values are the most conservative values. CR 4, means of verification Findings of the on-site audit in October 2010 CR 4, changes in the MR or related documents Revison of the MR. Clarification Request 5: Please describe for all parameters the transfer and the protection procedures of the input data in the MR. CR 5, means of verification Findings of the on-site audit in October 2010 CR 5, changes in the MR or related documents Revison of the MR. Clarification Request 6: Please present the calibration protocols of the turbine flow meter S/N and the technical specifications of the heat meter. CR 6, means of verification Findings of the on-site audit in October 2010 CR6, changes in the MR or related documents Revison of the MR. Clarification Request 7: Please present a document of the laboratory proving the uncertainty levels of the NMHC Analysis. Please present the accreditation certificate of the lab. CR 7, means of verification Documents of the lab. CR 7, changes in the MR or related documents Revison of the MR.

17 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 16 of 18 Clarification Request 8: Please describe the yearly results of the NMHC analysis in the MR. If NMHC < 1% than the NMHC should not be considered in the calculations. Please revise the calculations accordingly. CR 8, means of verification Analysis and Methodology CR 8, changes in the MR or related documents The calculations have been revised Yearly training of the staff concerning the monitoring procedures should be implemented. Forward Action Request 1: FAR 1, means of verification Check during the next audit FAR 1, changes in the MR or related documents n/a

18 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 17 of 18 5 VERIFICATION STATEMENT TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH has performed the 1 st Periodic Verification (combined with an Initial Verification) of the approved JI project (Track 1): Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland. The project has been approved by the Polish Ministry of Environment on 05/02/2010. The project comprises the use of CMM for the production of heat and electricity. The heat is generated by two gas boilers with a firing capacity of 1.2 MW each and the electricity is produced by a CHP unit with an electrical capacity of 1.8 MW. In the project only the reductions from the burned CMM are claimed. Główny Instytut Górnictwa (Central Mining Institute) as project participant is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emission data and the reported GHG emission reductions. A document review, followed by a site visit was conducted to verify the information submitted by the project participants regarding the present verification period. Based on the assessment carried out, the verifier confirms the following: the project is fully implemented according to the approved PDD (version 2.4, November 6, 2009) the project has been operated in accordance with the approved PDD. the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan as defined in the approved PDD. the installed equipment essential for generating emission reductions ran reliably during the monitoring period and the meters were calibrated appropriately; the calculation of emission reductions is based on conservative assumptions and the most plausible scenarios in a transparent manner. the project was generating emission reductions. It generated less ERUs than planned due to a decrease in coal production and a serious underground accident in 2008 The verifier can confirm that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements. This confirmation is based on a detailed check on raw data and calculated data using all cross-checking options. Our opinion refers to the project GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions reported, determined using the valid and approved project baseline, its monitoring plan and its associated documents. Based on the information we have checked and evaluated, we confirm the following emission reductions:

19 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 18 of 18 Reporting period: From to Verified emissions: Period to : Baseline emissions: 11,606 t CO 2e Project emissions: 3,500 t CO 2e Leakage emission: 0 t CO Emission reductions: 8,106 t CO 2e Period to : Baseline emissions: 18,580 t CO 2e Project emissions: 4,960 t CO 2e Leakage emission: 0 t CO 2e Emission reductions: 13,620 t CO Period to : Baseline emissions: 27,847 t CO 2e Project emissions: 6,202 t CO 2e Leakage emission: 0 t CO Emission reductions: 21,645 t CO 2e 2e 2e 2e Total Emission Reductions: 43,371 t CO 2e Munich, Munich, Thomas Kleiser Certification Body climate and energy TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Karin Wagner Assessment Team Leader

20 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Annex 1: TÜV SÜD Verification Protocol

21 Table of Content 1. Project Activity Implementation Technology Organization Quality Management System Remaining FARs from previous Verifications (or forwarded issues of validation report) Monitoring Plan Implementation Parameters Parameters measured directly with instruments Parameters measured through sampling Parameters obtained through external sources and accounting data Other parameters not included in the methodology/tool but included in the PDD Data Processing and ER calculation Additional assessment Internal Review Peculiarities Further additional requirements Data Reporting Compilation and Resolutions of CARs, CRs and FARs Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-1

22 1. Project Activity Implementation 1.1. Technology Location (s) Description / Address PDD Description Verified Situation Conclusion BORYNIA Coal Mine Jastrzebie Zdroj, Wojewodztwo Slaskie CHP: GE Jenbacher J 612 GS 2 Boilers a 1.2 MW Address verified during on-site audit GSP coordinates n/a n/a Technical Equipment Main Components Description PDD Description Verified Situation Conclusion CHP: GE Jenbacher J 612 GS 2 Boilers a 1.2 MW CHP: GE Jenbacher JMS 612 GS-S, LC with generator AVK 2 Boilers a 1.2 MW Component 1 Technical Features 1CHP modul GE Jenbacher J 612 GS Electrical Capacity: 1.8 MW Heat capacity: 1.9 MW Manufacturer: GE Jenbacher 1CHP modul GE Jenbacher JMS 612 GS-S, LC Electrical Capacity: 1.8 MW Heat capacity: 1.9 MW Manufacturer: GE Jenbacher Motor Nr.: Generator Nr.: A101 Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-2

23 Commissioning Date: Component 2 Technical Features 2 Boilers: Firing Capacity: approx. 1,2 MW No further technical features provided. 2 Boilers: Firing Capacity approx. 1,2 MW Manufacturer boiler: Rumia-Bassöe Fabrication No: 97-V and 97-V Burners: Manufacturer Burner: Dunphy England Model: TG35 ZMH VKRT Serial-No.: and Operation Status during verification Verified Situation Commissioning Date: Rehabilitation of the burners in 2008 Conclusion Approvals / Licenses The mining licences valid for the monitoring period have been provided. Actual Operation Status Remarks to Special Operational Status During the Verification Period Start date of operation (each site if applicable): Under construction In operation Out of operation Reason and date (if out of operation): Phased implementation: according to PDD Special cases: n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-3

24 1.2. Organization Project Participant (s) Entity / Responsible person: Verified Situation As described in the PDD (i.e. department within Power Engineering Department of the Coalmine Borynia including system manager) Conclusion JI Project management As described in the PDD (see descriptions above). Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-4

25 1.3. Quality Management System General aspects of the Quality Management System Verified Situation Conclusion Quality Management Manual A Monitoring Manual with QA procedures has been implemented Responsibilities Qualification and Training Project Coordinator: Prof. Stanczyk Project Manager: Mr. Lach The responsibilities are clearly defined in the Monitoring Manual. The people working in the project get an initial training. Further trainings are not implemented. FAR 1 Forward Action Request No. 1 Yearly training of the staff concerning the monitoring procedures should be implemented. Implementation of QM-system The staff of the project acts according to the work instructions of the Monitoring Manual Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-5

26 1.4. Remaining FARs from previous Verifications (or forwarded issues of validation report) Remaining Requests from Previous Verifications Summary of project owner response n/a n/a n/a Audit team Conclusion Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-6

27 2. Monitoring Plan Implementation 2.1. Parameters Parameters Meth/tool PDD MR Included in table Compliance Conclusion Data and Parameters not monitored TH BL,y max d k TH d BL,y max k THBL,y n/a Ex ante compliant d max k n/a Ex ante compliant CBMBL,i,y n/a CBMBL,i n/a PMMBL,i n/a VAMBLi,y n/a CBMei,y n/a CBMBL,i,y n/a CMMBL,i,y n/a VAMBL,i,y n/a PMMBL,i,y n/a Data and Parameters monitored CONS- ELEC, pj CONS ELEC, pj CONSELEC, pj See 2.2 table 1 compliant Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-7

28 Parameters Meth/tool PDD MR Included in table Compliance Conclusion CONS PJ CONS Fuel,PJ CEF HEAT, Foss- ELEC n/a n/a CEF ELEC,PJ CEFELEC,PJ n/a 770 t CO 2 /GWh, ex ante CEFHEAT n/a CEFFossFuel n/a MMFL n/a VAMflow,rate,y n/a timey n/a DCH4,corr,inflow n/a DCH4,corr,exh n/a PVAMinflow n/a TVAMinflow n/a PVAMexhaust n/a TVAMexhaust n/a MM ELEC MMELEC MMELEC See 2.2 table 3 Compliant EffELEC EffELEC EffELEC n/a Set 99.5% (IPCC), ex ante Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-8

29 Parameters Meth/tool PDD MR Included in table Compliance Conclusion MM Eff HEAT HEAT MMHEAT MMHEAT See 2.2 table 4 compliant Eff HEAT EffHEAT n/a Set 99.5% (IPCC), ex ante MMGAS n/a EffGAS n/a CEFNMHC CEFNMHC CEFNMHC n/a compliant PC PC CH4 NMHC PCCH4 PCCH4 See 2.2 table 2 compliant PCNMHC PCNMHC See 2.3 compliant PCCH4,VAM n/a PCCH4,exhaust n/a MMi n/a Effi n/a PEMvent n/a Mei,y n/a CMM Pj,i,y CMMPj,ELEC,y CMMPj,ELEC,y See 2.2 table 3 compliant CMMPj,HEAT,y CMMPj,HEAT,y See 2.2 table 3 compliant VAMPJ,i,y n/a PMMPj,i,y n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-9

30 Parameters Meth/tool PDD MR Included in table Compliance Conclusion GWP CEF CH4 CH4 GWP CEF CH4 CH4 GWP CEF CH4 CH4 n/a n/a Default Value 21 tco2/tch4 is in compliance with the Meth and the PDD. Default Value 2.75 tco 2 /tch 4 is in compliance with the Meth and the PDD. R n/a Vw n/a T n/a ρcoal n/a gcoal n/a n n/a Va n/a Vc n/a N n/a Coordinates of wells Coordinates well profile n/a n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-10

31 Parameters Meth/tool PDD MR Included in table Compliance Conclusion Well depth n/a t n/a ESt n/a ESh n/a ESV n/a AOw n/a ATw n/a w n/a EDCBMw,y n/a EDCBMz,y n/a EDCPMM,y n/a CBMw,y n/a CBMz,y n/a CBMx,y n/a PBEUse,y n/a GENy n/a HEAT y n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-11

32 Parameters Meth/tool PDD MR Included in table Compliance Conclusion VFUELy n/a EF EF EF Elec OM,y BM,y EFCMCP n/a n/a n/a n/a EFOM,y n/a n/a n/a n/a EFBM,y n/a n/a n/a n/a Fi,j,y n/a COEFi,k n/a GENj,y n/a EFCO2,i n/a Effcaptive n/a Effheat n/a EFv n/a MEk n/a MMELEC,k n/a MMHEAT,k n/a MMFL,k n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-12

33 2.2. Parameters measured directly with instruments Table 1: Parameter CONS ELEC, pj Parameter and instrumentation Information PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion Parameter title CONS ELEC, pj CONSELEC, pj CONSELEC, pj compliance Parameter ID (if available) P 5 P 5 P 5 compliance Data Unit MWh MWh MWh compliance Monitoring frequency (reading) continuously continuously Hourly Clarification Request 1: Please describe the measurement and the recording procedures in the MR in detail. Please clarify the hourly monitoring frequency in the MR as a power meter typically has continuous (i.e. cumulative) monitoring frequencies. Clarification Re- Both CRs have been solved (see chapter 5). Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-13

34 Parameter and instrumentation Information PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion quest 2: Please add to the tables in chapter C the internal ID s (e.g. JI-001), the company name and the type of the meter, the location, the serial number and the measurement range. Monitoring frequency (recording) continuously continuously Hourly See CR1 above on hourly/continous monitoring Calibration requirements According to relevant Industry Standard According to relevant Industry Standard n.a. The calibration of the instrument is shown by a label of legislation. Calibrations every 8 years according to the relevant National Industry Standard. Clarification Request 3: See CR1 The CR has been solved (see chapter 5). Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-14

35 Parameter and instrumentation Information PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion Uncertainty level 1% According to relevant Industry Standard Please show that the involved meter companies have the permission to give the labels of legislation (electricity and heat meter). 1% < 1% Measurement Principle (if applicable) Electricity meter Electricity meter Electricity meter consistent Technical aspects Instrument Type Electricity Meter POZYTON Type: sea-t02ims-b Serial Number Manufacturer Model Nr. See above Specific Location CHP Plant Measurement Range n/a Gaps in operating time of instrument Period: see data Conclusion Default value used: n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-15

36 Parameter and instrumentation Information PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion Justification: n/a QA/QC aspects Source of data Type: Electronic data Conclusion Archiving of raw data and protection measures Data transfer and protection of input data for calculations Completeness of data Procedures: n/a Implementation of procedure: n/a Responsibility: see MR Continuous data saved on hard disc; Daily data saved manually on handwritten forms Automatic transfer of the electronic data Quality of evidence Clarification Request 4: Please present for all monitored parameters a summary of the monthly data. Please explain the differences between the electronic data and the handwritten data. Please show for every parameter that the taken calculation input values are the most conservative values. Conclusion The CR has been solved (see chapter 5). Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-16

37 Parameter and instrumentation Information Data verification PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: The data have been correctly transferred to the calculation tool Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: The data sets are consistent Crosscheck (if available) n/a Table 2: Parameter PC CH4 Parameter and instrumentation Information PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion Parameter title PCCH4 PCCH4 PCCH4 consistent Parameter ID (if available) P 15 n/a P 15 consistent Data Unit % % % consistent Monitoring frequency (reading) hourly continuously continuously continuously Monitoring frequency (recording) hourly continuously Average of 6 measurements during one hour Average of 6 measurements during one hour Calibration requirements According to the According to rele- According to the Calibrations accord- Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-17

38 Parameter and instrumentation Information national standards vant Industry Standard Uncertainty level 1% According to relevant Industry Standard national standards ing protocols: 29/01/ /11/ /10/ /06/2010 1% 1% Measurement Principle (if applicable) Gas analyser Gas analyser Gas analyser consistent Technical aspects Instrument Type Nanosens IR-DP-OS Serial Number N Manufacturer Model Nr. See above Specific Location CHP Plant Measurement Range 0-100% Gaps in operating time of instrument Period: automatic measurements; input to automatic calculation of methane volume Conclusion Default value used: n/a Justification: n/a QA/QC aspects Conclusion Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-18

39 Parameter and instrumentation Information Source of data Type: electronic data Procedures: n/a Implementation of procedure: n/a Responsibility: see MR Archiving of raw data and protection measures Data transfer and protection of input data for calculations Not separately archived Automatic transfer to calculator unit; calculation of MM Quality of evidence Completeness of data The data are complete. Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: The data have been correctly transferred to the calculation tool ELEC Conclusion Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: The data sets are consistent Crosscheck (if available) n/a n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-19

40 Table 3: Parameter MM ELEC / CMM Pj,ELEC,y Parameter and instrumentation Information: Parameter title MM ELEC / CMM PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion Pj,ELEC,y MM CMM ELEC / Pj,ELEC,y MM CMM ELEC / Pj,ELEC,y consistent Parameter ID (if available) P 19 / B 8 n/a P 19 / B 8 consistent Data Unit t CH4 t CH4 t CH consistent Monitoring frequency (reading) hourly continuously continuously Continuous measurements; automatic calculation of 10 minutes averages; calculation of hourly averages by using the 10 minutes averages; 4 Monitoring frequency (recording) hourly continuously continuously Automatic recording of the 10 minutes and hourly averages; recording of daily data on paper Calibration requirements According to national standards According to relevant Industry Standard According to national standards Calibrations according protocols: 25/09/2009 Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-20

41 Parameter and instrumentation Information: Uncertainty level 1,5 % According to relevant Industry Standard 15/07/2010 1,5 % < 1,5 % Measurement Principle (if applicable) Thermal flow meter Thermal flow meter Technical aspects Instrument Type Thermo flow meter ST51 FCI with internal thermo meter and pressure meter Serial Number Thermo flow meter: Manufacturer Model Nr. See description above Specific Location CHP Measurement Range Area: 51 till 610 mm; Velocity: 0,08 to 122 m/s Gaps in operating time of instrument Type: see data, gaps because of malfunction of the turbine flow meter Procedures: In case if malfunction calculation of MM ELEC from the electricity generated (see cross check below) Implementation of procedure: Procedure described in the Monitoring Manual and implemented on-site Responsibility: Source of data Type: electronic data Conclusion Procedures: n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-21

42 Parameter and instrumentation Information: Implementation of procedure: n/a Responsibility: see MR Archiving of raw data and protection measures Data transfer and protection of input data for calculations Archiving of the hourly averages on hard-disc Archiving of one handwritten value daily Clarification Request 5: Please describe for all parameters the transfer and the protection procedures of the input data in the MR. Quality of evidence The CR has been solved (see chapter 5). Completeness of data The used data are complete. Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: The data sets are consistent Conclusion Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: The data sets are consistent Crosscheck (if available) In case of malfunction of the flow meter MM ELEC is calculated from the electricity generated according to the following formula (emergency procedure): MM ELEC = d CH4 x GEN v x 360 / (W CH4 x η v ) The Car has been solved (see chapter 5). Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-22

43 Parameter and instrumentation Information: With: GENv: Electricity generated [kwh] d CH4 : Density = 0, [t/m 3 ] WCH4: Calorific value of methane = 36 [MJ/Nm 3 ] ηv: Efficiency = 41,3 [%] This formula is explicitly described in the Monitoring Manual (Procedure PM-4). In the registered PDD this formula of the Monitoring Manual is clearly referenced. Hence, this procedure is part of the approved project. Corrective Action Request No.1 Please demonstrate by using the measured data that the values gained by the emergency procedure are more conservative than the directly measured data. Do the same for MM HEAT (see below). Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-23

44 Table 4: Parameter MM HEAT / CMM Pj,HEAT,y Parameter and instrumentation Information: Gas filling Station Parameter title MM HEAT / CMM PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion Pj,HEAT,y MM CMM HEAT / Pj,HEAT,y MM CMM HEAT / Pj,HEAT,y consistent Parameter ID (if available) P 11 / B 9 n/a P 11 / B 9 consistent Data Unit t CH4 t CH4 t CH consistent Monitoring frequency (reading) hourly continuously continuously Continuous measurements; automatic calculation of 10 minutes averages; calculation of hourly averages by using the 10 minutes averages; 4 Monitoring frequency (recording) hourly continuously continuously Automatic recording of the 10 minutes and hourly averages; recording of daily data on paper Calibration requirements According to national standards According to relevant Industry Standard According to national standards Calibrations according protocols: 16/07/ /05/2010 The CR has been solved (see chapter 5). Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-24

45 Parameter and instrumentation Information: Gas filling Station Clarification Request 6: Please present the calibration protocols of the turbine flow meter S/N and the technical specifications of the heatmeter. Uncertainty level 1,5 % According to relevant Industry Standard 1,5 % < 1,5 % Measurement Principle (if applicable) Volume meter coupled with p,t corrector Not described Turbine flow meter Thermo flow meter Turbine flow meter Thermo flow meter Technical aspects Conclusion Instrument Type Measurement of flow, temperature and pressure: Turbine flow meter Common CPT 01 with external thermometer Pt and pressure meter Thermo flow meter Introl ST51 FCI with internal thermo and pressure meter Serial Number Turbine flow meter CPT 01 with external thermometer Pt and pressure meter: P Thermo flow meter ST51 FCI with internal thermo and pressure meter: Manufacturer Model Nr. See above Specific Location Boiler house Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-25

46 Parameter and instrumentation Information: Gas filling Station Measurement Range Area: 51 till 610 mm; Velocity: 0,08 to 122 m/s Gaps in operating time of instrument Type: see data, gaps because of malfunction of the turbine flow meter Procedures: In case if malfunction calculation of MM ELEC from the electricity generated (see cross check below) Implementation of procedure: Procedure described in the Monitoring Manual and implemented on-site QA/QC aspects Source of data Type: electronic data Conclusion Procedures: n/a Implementation of procedure: n/a Responsibility: see MR Archiving of raw data and protection measures Data transfer and protection of input data for calculations Archiving of the hourly averages on hard-disc Archiving of one handwritten value daily See CR 5 above See CR 5 above Quality of evidence Conclusion Completeness of data The used data are complete. Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-26

47 Parameter and instrumentation Information: Gas filling Station Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: The data sets are consistent. Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: The data sets are consistent. Crosscheck (if available) In case of malfunction of the flow meter MM ELEC is calculated from the electricity generated according to the following formula (emergency procedure) : See CAR 1 above MM ELEC = d CH4 x GEN Q x 10 5 / (W CH4 x η Q ) With: GEN Q : Heat generated [kwh] dch4: Density = 0, [t/m 3 ] WCH4: Calorific value of methane = 36 [MJ/Nm 3 ] ηv: Efficiency = 92 [%] This formula is explicitly described in the Monitoring Manual (Procedure PM-6). In the registered PDD this formula of the Monitoring Manual is clearly referenced. Hence, this procedure is part of the approved project. Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-27

48 2.3. Parameters measured through sampling Sampling information: Gas Sample Analysis PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion Parameter title PCNMHC PCNMHC PCNMHC consistent Parameter ID (if available) P 16 n/a P 16 consistent Data Unit % % % consistent Sampling frequency Annually Annually The NMHC analysis frequency is once a year. Sampling point Direct sampling at pipeline. Uncertainty level 2 % Not described 2 % Annually Not described Not described. Direct sampling at pipeline at the CHP unit Clarification Request 7: Please present a document of the laboratory proving the uncertainty levels of the NMHC Analysis. Please present the accreditation certificate of the lab. Please describe the sampling Point of PC in Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-28 NMHC The CR has been solved (see chapter 5).

49 Sampling information: Gas Sample Analysis Sampling Principle Technical aspects the MR. Sampling by Air Bag done by the mine according to the description in the Monitoring Manual. Methodology of Sampling See above Sample Analysed by Laboratory of the Central Mining Institute Conclusion Certification of Analyser/ Laboratory See CR 7 See CR 7 Methodology of Sample Analysis (if applicable) Chromatographic analysis Measurement Range etan: 0, ppm etylen: 0, ppm propan: 0, ppm Gaps in sampling frequency Period: Yearly analysis as defined in the registered PDD Analyses from 09/12/2008 and 10/12/2009. Default value used: n/a Justification: n/a QA/QC aspects Conclusion Source of data Type: Chemical Analysis Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-29

50 Sampling information: Gas Sample Analysis Archiving of raw data and protection measures Data transfer and protection of input data for calculations Procedures: According the accreditation Implementation of procedure: According to the laboratory standards Responsibility: Head of laboratory Representativeness: n/a Reproducibility: n/a Protocols of the Laboratory on paper. n/a Quality of evidence Completeness of data Complete (yearly analysis) Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: n/a Conclusion Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: Clarification Request 8: Please describe the yearly results of the NMHC analysis in the MR. If NMHC < 1% than the NMHC should be considered in the calculations. Please revise the calculations accordingly. The CR has been solved (see chapter 5). Crosscheck (if available) n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-30

51 2.4. Parameters obtained through external sources and accounting data External sources and accounting information PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion Parameter title Parameter ID (if available) Data Unit Technical aspects Description of Data / Data Refers to: n/a Date of Data n/a Gaps in data Period: n/a Conclusion Default value used: n/a Justification: n/a QA/QC aspects Source of data Type: n/a Responsibility: n/a Representativeness: n/a Conclusion Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-31

52 Reliability of Data Source n/a Is the Data up-to-date? n/a Archiving of raw data and protection measures Data transfer and protection of input data for calculations Completeness of data n/a n/a Quality of evidence Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: n/a Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: n/a Crosscheck (if available) n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-32

53 2.5. Other parameters not included in the methodology/tool but included in the PDD Not applicable. 3. Data Processing and ER calculation Description of data processing from transferred data to final results in the calculation tool Step Description Conclusion Consistency According to the done spot checks the data sets are consistent. Calculation Tool description Elimination of not plausible data (if applicable) Transformation from useable data to input data for further calculation (if applicalbe) The calculation tool is presented in a transparent, stepwise manner. n/a The manually taken data are recorded every day on the monitoring forms. The forms are passed every month to the Project Technical Director, who keeps the form in his office and passes a copy to the Central Mining Institute. The electronic data are send every hour to the control room where the data are storage on hard disc. Ex-ante data Compliance with the registered PDD. Default parameter The default values of the registered PDD have been applied. Formulae check The formulae have been checked against the formulae of the registered PDD. Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-33

54 Rounding functions Calculation tool changes and protection measures The rounding function of excel has been applied. TÜV SÜD confirms that the rounding function has been correctly applied. The calculations have been done by excel. Corrective Action Request No.2 In the excel calculation sheet the data of d max max k are not correct (d k is the scalar adjustment factor and not the specific gravity of methane). Please revise the calculations and provide a separate table max max showing the calculation of TH BL, d k and TH BL x d k (details see Methodology p. 13 ff). The CAR has been solved (see chapter 5). Reported data The reported data are consistent with the data in the excel sheet. Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-34

55 4. Additional assessment 4.1. Internal Review Description and performance of internal review Description Procedure According to the Monitoring Manual Documentation According to the Monitoring Manual Responsibilities As described in the Monitoring Manual Conclusion 4.2. Peculiarities Description of Peculiarities and unexpected Daily Events during the verification period Description Performance none Documentation none Conclusion Measures none Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-35

56 4.3. Further additional requirements Description of additional requirements to be checked Description Corrective Action Request No.3 The starting date of the first monitoring period has to be consistent with the beginning of the crediting period (31/03/2008). Please correct. Conclusion The CAR has been solved (see chapter 5) Data Reporting Description of the Monitoring Report Compliance with UNFCCC regulations Completeness and Transparency Correctness Comments and Results n/a The data reporting is transparent and complete because all used input data are described. The data in the MR are consistent with the raw data and the calculated data by excel. Hence, the data in the report are assessed to be correct. Conclusion n/a Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-36

57 5. Compilation and Resolutions of CARs, CRs and FARs Corrective Action Requests by audit team Issue Response Comments and Results Ref Conclusion Corrective Action Request 1: Please demonstrate by using the measured data that the values gained by the emergency procedures are more conservative than the directly measured data. Do the same for MM (see below). The following tables show the comparison of amounts of methane determined by two methods: - Measurement of gas flow and its concentration (directly measured data); - Calculation with the use of emergency procedures: from the measurement the amount of electricity generated by the CHP and from the measurement of heat produced in gas boiler. HEAT 2.2 table 3 The calculation results are presented for selected months, for which all mesuring devices worked properly. Date Amount of methane sent to heat plant MM HEAT [t CH 4 ] Direct measurement Emergency procedure ,894 41, ,132 31, ,204 34, ,346 19, ,658 41,182 TOTAL: 177, ,499 Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-37

58 Corrective Action Requests by audit team Date Amount of methane sent to CHP MM ELEC [t CH 4 ] Direct measurement Emergency procedure , , , , ,171 64, , , , ,871 TOTAL: 640, ,372 The results presented in the above-mentioned tables explicitly demonstrate that the application of emergency procedures is more conservative approach. Assessment The comparison of the data clearly demonstrates that the data gained by the emergency procedures are more conservative than the direct measurements, Hence, CAR 1 is solved. Issue Corrective Action Request 2: In the excel calculation sheet the data of dk max max are not correct (d k is the scalar adjustment factor and not the specific gravity of methane). Please revise the calculations and provide a max max separate table showing the calculation of TH BL, d k and TH BL x d k (details see Methodology p. 13 ff). 3. Response The calculations have been corrected in the Excel spreadsheet. Additional detailed calculations of the baseline according to the Annex 2 of PDD are included (spreadsheet Baseline ) Assessment The calculations have been corrected according to the Methodology. The new data are Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-38

59 available in the exel spreadsheet baseline. Hence, CAR 2 is solved. Issue Response Assessment Corrective Action Request 3: 4.3 The starting date of the first monitoring period has to be consistent with the beginning of the crediting period (31/03/2008). Please correct. The starting date of the monitoring period has been revised accordingly. The starting date has been revised. Hence, CAR 3 is solved. Issue Response Assessment Corrective Action Request 4: According to your MR v. 3 the gas burners got their commission the 21 st of November However, in the tables MD HEAT values start the 31/03/2008. Please explain why the values do not start the 21 st of November The burners were not replaced by new ones in 2008 but only thoroughly renovated. As a consequence the serial numbers as well as production dates did not change at all. According to the checked documents the burners were fabricated 1997 and installed and put into operation in Hence, the response by GIG has been accepted. Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-39

60 Clarification Requests by audit team Issue Response Comments and Results Ref Conclusion Clarification Request 1: Please describe the measurement and the recording procedures in the MR in detail. Please clarify the hourly monitoring frequency in the MR as a power meter typically has continuous (i.e. cumulative) monitoring frequencies. Detailed descriptions of the measurement and recording procedures for all monitored parameters were introduced in the ver.2. of the Monitoring Report, in particular: - gaseous components (CH 4, NMHC): subchapter C.1., page , - electrical measurements: subchapter C.2., page , - heat measurements: subchapter C.3., page table 1 Assessment Clarification on monitoring frequency of power meters: The both electricity meters have continuous monitoring frequency (cumulative type). Information about current indication of meters is sent every 15 minutes to a central computer located in the office of Project Technical Manager and recorded automatically. The hourly monitoring frequency was mentioned in the MR by mistake. The measurement and recording procedures have been described in the final version of the MR. Hence, CR 1 is solved. Issue Clarification Request 2: 2.2 table 1 Please add to the tables in chapter C the internal ID s (e.g. JI-001), the company name Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-40

61 and the type of the meter, the location, the serial number and the measurement range. Response The appropriate table was introduced to the chapter C of the MR (page 10) Assessment The tables have been revised. Hence, CR 2 is solved. Issue Response Assessment Clarification Request 3: 2.2 table 1 Please show that the involved meter companies have the permission to give the labels of legislation (electricity and heat meter). The documents confirming that the companies involved in legislation of meters have appropriate permissions were attached, in particular: - certificate_kamstrup.pdf (for heat meter the CHP MULTICAL KAMSTRUP), - certificate_legal.pdf (for heat meter the boiler room MULTICAL KAMSTRUP), - certificate_pozyton.pdf (for electricity meter SEA, POZYTON), - certificate_energomoc.pdf (electricity meter C521, PAFAL). Additionally, a Regulation of Ministry of Economy from 7 th January 2008 on legal metrological control of measurement equipment was attached (labels_legislation.pdf). The above mentioned certificates have been provided. Hence, CR 3 is solved. Issue Response Clarification Request 4: 2.2 table 1 Please present for all monitored parameters a summary of the monthly data. Please explain the differences between the electronic data and the handwritten data. Please show for every parameter that the taken calculation input values are the most conservative values. Differences between hand-written records and electronic records are due to discrepancies in recording time. The computer records the exact value at the programmed time with accuracy of one second, while manual records, contrary to the recommendations and to entries in the cards were made at different times. In addition, manual recording of readings from all measuring devices at the same time with an accuracy of 1 second is technically unfeasible. Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-41

62 Measuring devices are located in different places of the mine. In the following tables, the sums of the monthly monitoring parameters for electronic and manual records are presented. The tables show that the errors of handwritten data in a period of several months are balanced. Table 1. Summary of the monthly data for all monitored parameters - handwritten data Month-Year Amount of methane sent to Amount of methane sent to the heat plant power plant (gas boiler (CHP) [Nm 3 room) CH 4 ] [Nm 3 CH 4 ] Amount of electricity use to capture and use methane [kwh] Amount of electricity generated in CHP [kwh] Heat generated by the gas boiler room 2 x 1.2 MW [GJ] 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 57, ,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 948, ,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 313, ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , ,00 623, ,00 0, , ,00 604, ,00 0, , ,00 528, ,00 0, , ,00 552, ,00 0, , ,00 871, ,00 0, , , ,00 TOTAL ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,00 Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-42

63 , , , ,00 973, , , , ,00 119, , , , ,00 80, , , , ,00 645, , , , , , ,00 0, , , ,00 TOTAL , , , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,00 TOTAL , , , , ,00 TOTAL , , , , ,00 Table 2. Summary of the monthly data for all monitored parameters - electronic data Month-Year Amount of methane sent to Amount of methane sent to the heat plant power plant (gas boiler (CHP) [Nm 3 room) CH 4 ] [Nm 3 CH 4 ] Amount of electricity use to capture and use methane [kwh] Amount of electricity generated in CHP [kwh] Heat generated by the gas boiler room 2 x 1.2 MW [GJ] ,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 57, ,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 948, ,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 313, ,00 0, , , ,00 Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-43

64 ,00 0, , ,00 615, ,00 0, , ,00 604, ,00 0, , ,00 528, ,00 0, , ,00 409, ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , ,00 TOTAL ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,00 970, , , , ,00 119, , , , ,00 58, , , , ,00 670, , ,00 921, , , , , , , ,00 TOTAL , , , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , ,00 0, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,00 TOTAL , , , , ,00 Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-44

65 TOTAL , , , , ,00 Assessment The results presented in the above tables indicate that the handwritten records give smaller quantities of utilised methane. Additionally, appropriate calculations basing on electronic records were performed and attached as Excel spreadsheet. The total number of ERU calculated on the basis of manual records amounts to [t CO 2 e], but calculated on the basis of electronic data is [t CO 2 e]. The difference is quite small (about 0.26%), and the number of ERU adopted in the MR is lesser than the number of ERU calculated by the two methods. This approach is therefore conservative. The monthly data have been presented. The more conservative (smaller) data have been used in the calculations. Hence, CR 4 is solved. Issue Response Assessment Clarification Request 5: 2.2 table 3 Please describe for all parameters the transfer and the protection procedures of the input data in the MR. Descriptions of the transfer and protection procedures for all measured parameters were included in the appropriate parts of the chapter C, each time as a separate item: Data transfer and protection. The data transfer and protection measures are described in all details in the final MR. Hence, CR 5 is solved. Issue Response Clarification Request 6: 2.2 table 4 Please present the calibration protocols of the turbine flow meter S/N and the technical specifications of the heat meter. The number is not the SN of the turbine flowmeter CPT-01 but a serial number of a flow calculator to normal conditions FP2001G coupled with this flow meter. This number was Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-45

66 given to TUV by mistake. The serial number of the installed turbine flowmeter was P We obtained the calibration protocol of the flowmeter P from the manufacturer (COMMON). The calibration protocol was issued by Flowmeter Legalization Centre, Nizinna St. 30a, Poznań on 24 July The copy of the protocol is attached as Calibration protocol of turbine flowmeter P Assessment Technical specifications of the heat meter are attached as files: - Thermal energy meter_multical 601.pdf - Temperature sensors.pdf - Flowmeter POWOGAZ.pdf The described documents have been provided. Hence, CR 6 is solved. Issue Response Assessment Clarification Request 7: 2.3 Please present a document of the laboratory proving the uncertainty levels of the NMHC Analysis. Please present the accreditation certificate of the lab. Documents of the laboratory proving the uncertainty levels: - uncertaintynmhc_2008.pdf, - uncertaintynmhc_2009.pdf Accreditation certificate and the scope of accreditation: - certificate_gig.pdf, - accreditation_2009.pdf. All the documents sent as attachments. The mentioned documents have been provided. The documents proof the uncertainty levels and the authorisation of the lab. Hence, CR 7 is solved. Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-46

67 Issue Response Clarification Request 8: 2.3 Please describe the yearly results of the NMHC analysis in the MR. If NMHC < 1% than the NMHC should not be considered in the calculations. Please revise the calculations accordingly. Because NMHC does not exceeds 1% by volume of extracted CMM, emissions from NMHC destruction was not considered. The calculations were revised accordingly. Assessment The calculations have been revised according to the Comment of TÜV SÜD. Hence, CR 8 is solved. Forward Action Requests by audit team Issue Response Assessment Comments and Results Ref Conclusion Forward Action Request 1: 1.3 Yearly training of the staff concerning the monitoring procedures should be implemented. Yearly training of the staff concerning the monitoring procedures was introduced to the Monitoring and Reporting document (Chapter 10 Training of the staff ). Therefore, the annual staff training has been implemented. Ok, will also be checked during next verification. Checklist is applicable to registered JI Project Activity No.: Page A-47

68 1 ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Annex 2: Information Reference List

69 Annex Verification of the JI Track 1 Project: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland Information Reference List Page 1 of 8 Ref. No. Author/Editor/ Issuer 1. UNFCCC 2. Mizuho Corporate Bank Ltd. Title/Type of Document. Publication place Approved CDM Methodology ACM0008 Consolidated baseline methodology for coal bed methane and coal mine methane capture and use for power (electrical and motive) and heat and/or destruction by flaring version 03 PDD Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland, version-2.4 Issuance and/or submission date(dd/mm/yyyy) 22/12/ /11/ Det Norske Veritas Determination Report No , revision 01 13/11/ Participant list of the audit 06 08/10/2010 On-site interviews conducted by TÜV SÜD. Additional Information (Relevance in JI Context) Validation Team: Dr. Albert Geiger (GHG-Auditor) TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH 5. TÜV SÜD Interviewed persons: Name Company Function Czernecki Zbigniew KWK BORYNIA Director The BORYNIA Coal Mine Pawlinów Józef KWK BORYNIA Technical Director The BORYNIA Coal Mine Łach Stefan KWK BORYNIA The BORYNIA Coal Mine Chief Power Engineer 06 08/10/2010 TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH

70 Annex Verification of the JI Track 1 Project: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland Information Reference List Page 2 of 8 Ref. No. Author/Editor/ Issuer Bednarek Irena Stańczyk Krzysztof Kapusta Krzysztof Krawczyk Piotr Krzemień Joanna Title/Type of Document. Publication place KWK BORYNIA The BORYNIA Coal Mine Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute Employee of the energy department at Borynia Manager of the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Pisarski Zbyszek KASHUE-KOBiZE Company representative Yata Hideo The Chugoku Electric Company representative Power Co., Inc. Umeda Yoshiho The Yoho Co., Inc. President of the company Issuance and/or submission date(dd/mm/yyyy) Additional Information (Relevance in JI Context) Date Name Company Function Łach Stefan KWK BORYNIA The BORYNIA Coal Mine Chief Power Engineer TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH

71 Annex Verification of the JI Track 1 Project: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland Information Reference List Page 3 of 8 Ref. No. Author/Editor/ Issuer Bednarek Irena Kapusta Krzysztof Krawczyk Piotr Krzemień Joanna Yata Hideo Title/Type of Document. Publication place KWK BORYNIA The BORYNIA Coal Mine Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. Employee of the energy department at Borynia Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Company representative Umeda Yoshiho The Yoho Co., Inc. President of company Issuance and/or submission date(dd/mm/yyyy) Additional Information (Relevance in JI Context) Date Name Company Function Pawlinów Józef KWK BORYNIA Technical Director The BORYNIA Coal Mine Łach Stefan KWK BORYNIA Chief Power Engineer The BORYNIA Coal Mine Bednarek Irena KWK BORYNIA The BORYNIA Coal Mine Employee of the energy department at Borynia TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH

72 Annex Verification of the JI Track 1 Project: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland Information Reference List Page 4 of 8 Ref. No. 6. Author/Editor/ Issuer Central Mining Institute Drewicz Remigiusz Kapusta Krzysztof Krawczyk Piotr Krzemień Joanna Yata Hideo Title/Type of Document. Publication place KWK BORYNIA The BORYNIA Coal Mine Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. Employee of the energy department at Borynia Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection Company representative Umeda Yoshiho The Yoho Co., Inc. President of company First Monitoring Report to the project Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland, version 1 Issuance and/or submission date(dd/mm/yyyy) 17/09/2010 Additional Information (Relevance in JI Context) Central Mining Institute Central Mining Institute and KWK Borynia Central Mining Institute and KWK Final Monitoring Report to the project Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland, version 6 01/03/2011 Monthly electronic data on excel sheet 02/12/2010 MR v.5: ERU calculation (excel sheet) 22/02/2011 TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH

73 Annex Verification of the JI Track 1 Project: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland Information Reference List Page 5 of 8 Ref. No. Author/Editor/ Issuer Borynia Title/Type of Document. Publication place Issuance and/or submission date(dd/mm/yyyy) Additional Information (Relevance in JI Context) 10. Mining Ministry Mining licenses: Concession from 20/12/1993 (valid till 31/12/2003) Prolongation statement from 26/05/2000 (valid till 31/12/2010) Concession from 27/10/2009 (valid till 31/12/2025) 11. Authorities Commissioning report of the boilers 08/03/ Testing Institutes Technical approval documentation of the Burners Authorities Commissioning report of the CHP 14/05/ Dunphy England Specifications of the Burners Thermapol Specifications of the boilers 11/ GE Jenbacher Specifications of the gas engine JMS 612 GS Specifications of the monitoring meters: 17. CHP: - Electricity Meter TK/30001/013/004 from POZYTON - Electricity Meter C52 from PAFAL - Methane Analyzer G1/CH4/IR-DP-OS from NANOSENS - Flow Meter ST51 from Introl Boiler: - Turbine Flow Meter CPT-01 from Common - Corrector CMK-02 from Common - Flow Meter ST51 from Introl - Heat meter from Kamstrup TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH

74 Annex Verification of the JI Track 1 Project: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland Information Reference List Page 6 of 8 Ref. No. Author/Editor/ Issuer Calibration Certificates: Title/Type of Document. Publication place Issuance and/or submission date(dd/mm/yyyy) Additional Information (Relevance in JI Context) 18. CHP: - Electricity Meter TK/30001/013/004 from POZYTON: 24/11/ Electricity Meter C52 from PAFAL: 12/03/2009; 25/11/ Methane Analyzer G1/CH4/IR-DP-OS from NANOSENS: 24/11/2008; 07/10/2009; 30/06/ Flow Meter ST51 from Introl: 27/10/2008; 25/09/2009; 18/09/ Boiler: - Turbine Flow Meter CPT-01 from Common: : 24/04/ /05/ Corrector CMK-02 from Common: 16/07/ Flow Meter ST51 from Introl: 24/04/2008; 14/05/ Heat meter from Kamstrup: 29/10/2009 Allowance for Calibration: - Certificates of Kamstrup (heat meters), 14/03/ Certificate of Pozyton (sea electricity meter), 11/12/ Certificate of Energomoc (pafal electricity meter), 28/04/2006 Electronic Raw Data from the CHP unit - CONS ELEC - MM ELEC (NVolume) - GEN ELEC Electronic Raw Data from the boilers - MM HEAT ((NVolume) TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH

75 Annex Verification of the JI Track 1 Project: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland Information Reference List Page 7 of 8 Ref. No. Author/Editor/ Issuer Title/Type of Document. Publication place Issuance and/or submission date(dd/mm/yyyy) Additional Information (Relevance in JI Context) - GEN HEAT 22. Project Manager Central Mining Institute Central Mining Institute and KWK Borynia Central Mining Institute and KWK Borynia Handwritten monthly Data Sheets with daily data: - CONS ELEC - MM ELEC (NVolume) - MM HEAT ((NVolume) - GEN ELEC - GEN HEAT NMHC Analyses: - Sampling protocol from 09/12/2008, KWK Borynia - Analysis protocol from 10/12/2008, Central Mining Institute - Sampling protocol from 10/12/2009, KWK Borynia - Analysis protocol from 10/12/2009, Central Mining Institute - Accreditation Certificate of the Central Mining Institute from 19/11/2009; valid till 19/12/2013 Emission Reduction Calculation Sheet 09/02/2011 Monitoring Manual - Monitoring Procedures - Monitoring and Reporting Reports of internal audits 06/07/ /06/ /06/ Central Mining Schedule of the calibrations 2009 till 2010 TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH

76 Annex Verification of the JI Track 1 Project: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland Information Reference List Page 8 of 8 Ref. No. Author/Editor/ Issuer Title/Type of Document. Publication place Issuance and/or submission date(dd/mm/yyyy) Institute and KWK Borynia 28. KWK Borynia Methane production 2000 till / KWK Borynia Coal production 2000 till / KWK Borynia Participant lists of trainings 12/06/08 02/07/08 24/07/08 04/03/ Central Mining Institute and KWK s 09/ /2011 Borynia 32. TÜV SÜD IS Photographs of the on-site visit 06 08/10/ Polish Ministry of Environment Letter of Approval 05/02/2010 Additional Information (Relevance in JI Context) TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH