JI VERIFICATION REPORT

Transcription

1 JI VERIFICATION REPORT - 3 RD PERIODIC YARA PARDIES NITRIC ACID PLANT YARA PARDIES N 2 O ABATEMENT PROJECT ITL PROJECT ID : FR Monitoring Period: TO (incl. both days) Report No: /540 Date: TÜV NORD CERT GmbH JI/CDM Certification Program Langemarckstraße, Essen, Germany Phone: Fax: S01-VA30-A2 Rev.1 /

2 Verification Report: Report No. Rev. No. Date of 1 st issue: Date of this rev / Project: Title: Registration date: UNFCCC-No.: Yara Pardies N 2O Abatement Project FR Project Participant(s): Host party: Other involved parties: Applied methodology/ies: France Belgium Title: No.: Scope: Project specific methodology: Catalytic reduction of N2O at nitric acid plants N/A 5 Monitoring: Monitoring period (MP): No. of days: MP No to both days included Monitoring report: Title: Draft version: Final version: Verification team / Technical Review and Final Approval Emission reductions: [t CO 2e] Summary of Verification Opinion: Yara Pardies N 2O Abatement Project Version Version Verification Team: Technical review: Final approval: Ulrich Walter (TL) Dirk Speyer Sabine Meyer Rainer Winter Sergej Friesen Susanne Pasch Rainer Winter Verified amount As per Draft MR: As per PDD: 51,196 44,468 (until ) In year 2012: 63,836 Yara Pardies Nitric Acid Plant has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program to carry out the 3 rd periodic verification of the project: Yara Pardies N 2O Abatement Project, with regard to the relevant requirements for JI (Track 1) project activities. The project reduces GHG emissions due to reduction of N 2O emissions. This verification covers the period from to (including both days). In the course of the verification 4 Corrective Action Requests (CAR) and 0 Clarification Requests (CL) were raised and successfully closed. Furthermore no FAR was raised. The verification is based on the draft monitoring report, revised monitoring report, and the monitoring plan as set out in the registered PDD, the determination report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet and supporting documents made available to the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP by the project participant. As a result of this verification, the verifier confirms that: - all operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described in the project design document. - the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied country specific methodology: Méthode pour les Projets Domestiques: Réduction catalytique du N2O dans des usines d'acide nitrique. - the installed equipment essential for measuring parameters required for calculating emission reductions are calibrated appropriately. - the monitoring system is in place and functional. The project has generated GHG emission reductions. As the result of the 3 rd periodic verification, the verifier confirms that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the project has achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period as follows: Emission reductions: 51,196 t CO 2e Including a deduction of 10% according to the Arrêté du 2 mars Document information: Filename: _FVR YaraPARDIES_3VER.docx 70 No. of pages: Page 2 of 70

3 Abbreviations: AIE AMS CA CAR CDM CL CNA CO 2 CO 2eq DVM ER ERU FAR GHG HnO 3 JI MP MR N 2 O PCS PDD PP QA/QC UNFCCC XLS Accredited Independent Entity Automated Measuring System Corrective Action / Clarification Action Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Clarification Request High Concentrated Nitric Acid Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Determination and Verification Manual Emission Reduction Emission Reduction Units Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(es) Nitric Acid Joint Implementation Monitoring Plan Monitoring Report Nitrous Oxide Process Control System Project Design Document Project Participant Quality Assurance / Quality Control United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Emission Reduction Calculation Spread Sheet Page 3 of 70

4 Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION Objective Scope 6 2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Characteristics Project Verification History Involved Parties and Project Participants Project Location Technical Project Description 9 3. METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE Verification Steps Contract review Appointment of team members and technical reviewers Publication of the Monitoring Report Verification Planning Desk review On-site assessment Draft verification reporting Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs Final reporting Technical review Final approval VERIFICATION FINDINGS SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS Implementation of the project Project history Special events Compliance with the monitoring plan Monitoring parameters Monitoring report ER Calculation Quality Management Overall Aspects of the Verification Hints for next periodic Verification 31 Page 4 of 70

5 6. VERIFICATION OPINION REFERENCES ANNEX 1: VERIFICATION PROTOCOL Page 5 of 70

6 1. INTRODUCTION YARA PARDIES NITRIC ACID PLANT (Yara France) has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (CP) to carry out the 3 rd periodic verification of the project YARA PARDIES N 2 O ABATEMENT with regard to the relevant requirements for JI (Track 1) project activities. The verifiers have reviewed the implementation of the monitoring plan (MP) in the registered JI project number FR GHG data for the monitoring period covering to was verified in detailed manner applying the set of requirements, audit practices and principles as required under the Determination and Verification Manual /DVM/ of the UNFCCC. This report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this 3 rd periodic verification of the above mentioned UNFCCC registered project activity Objective The objective of the verification is the review and ex-post determination by an independent entity of the GHG emission reductions. It includes the verification of the: - implementation and operation of the project activity as given in the PDD, - compliance with applied approved monitoring plan, - data given in the monitoring report by checking the monitoring records, the emissions reduction calculation and supporting evidence, - accuracy of the monitoring equipment, - quality of evidence, - significance of reporting risks and risks of material misstatements Scope The verification of this registered project is based on the project design document /PDD/, the monitoring reports /MR/, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet /XLS/, supporting documents made available to the verifier and information collected through performing interviews and during the on-site assessment. Furthermore publicly available information was considered as far as available and required. The verification is carried out on the basis of the following requirements, applicable for this project activity: - Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol /KP/, 1 Page 6 of 70

7 - guidelines for the implementation of Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol as presented in the Marrakech Accords under decision 9/CMP.1 /MA/, and subsequent decisions made by the JISC and COP/MOP, - other relevant rules, including the host country legislation, - JI Validation and Verification Manual /DVM/, - monitoring plan as given in the registered PDD /PDD/, - Projet Domestique Methodology: Catalytic reduction of N 2 O at nitric acid plants Méthode pour les Projets Domestiques: Réduction catalytique du N2O dans des usines d'acide nitrique Page 7 of 70

8 2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1. Project Characteristics Essential data of the project is presented in the following Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Project Characteristics Item Data Project title Yara Pardies N 2 O Abatement Project JI Track Track 1 Track 2 JPA Project size Large Scale Small Scale JI Approach JI Specific Approach Approved CDM Methodology Project Scope (according to UNFCCC sectoral scope numbers for CDM) Methodology: 1 Energy Industries (renewable- /non-renewable sources) 2 Energy distribution 3 Energy demand 4 Manufacturing industries 5 Chemical industry 6 Construction 7 Transport 8 Mining/Mineral production 9 Metal production 10 Fugitive emissions from fuels (solid, oil and gas) Fugitive emissions from production and consumption of 11 halocarbons and hexafluoride 12 Solvents use 13 Waste handling and disposal 14 Land-use, land-use change and forestry 15 Agriculture Projet Domestique Methodology: Catalytic reduction of N 2 O at nitric acid plants Technical Area(s): 5.1 (Q : N 2 O) ITL Project ID No.: FR Crediting period Renewable Crediting Period (7 y) Fixed Crediting Period (2.39y) *) *) Until the end of the 1 st Kyoto Commitment period on 31/12/2012, in accordance with the host country LoA Project Verification History Essential events since the registration of the project are presented in the following Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Project verification history # Item Time Status 1 Date of registration a) - 2 Start of crediting period st Monitoring period to Verified and closed nd Monitoring period to Verified and closed Page 8 of 70

9 # Item Time Status 5 3 rd Monitoring period to Matter of this verification a) Date of registration is the date of issuing of the LoA by the French DFP (MEEDDM); a revised version was issued on 14/01/ Involved Parties and Project Participants The following parties to the Kyoto Protocol and project participants are involved in this project activity (Table 2-3). Table 2-3: Project Parties and project participants Characteristic Party Project Participant Host party France YARA France SAS (Nanterre) YARA International ASA, Oslo (Norway) N.serve Environmental Services GmbH (Germany) Other Involved Party Belgium YARA France SAS 2.4. Project Location The details of the project location are given in table 2-4: Table 2-4: No. Host Country: Region: Project location: Project Location Project Location France Region: South West; Department: Pyrénées-Atlantiques; Commune: Pardies; Plant absorption towers and tail gas stacks: N & W; Ammonia burners: N & W; 2.5. Technical Project Description The project activity aims to reduce levels of N 2 O emissions from the production of nitric acid with a secondary N 2 O abatement technology: the project involves the installation of a secondary N 2 O reduction catalyst at the nitric acid production plant. The emission reductions are a result of the catalytic decomposition of nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide which is formed as by-product of the nitric acid production will be removed by the catalyst installed below the standard precious metal gauze pack in Page 9 of 70

10 the ammonia burner. The nitrous oxide would otherwise be emitted as part of the tail gas of the nitric acid plant to the atmosphere. The key parameters for the project are given in table 2-5: Table 2-5: Technical data of the nitric acid plant (2 lines) Parameter Unit Value 2 Ammonia Oxidation Reactors Plant type 3.6 medium pressure plant Start of commercial production - November 1960 Numbers adsorption towers 11 Products 53% and 63% concentrated nitric acid, high Concentrated Nitric Acid (CAN) and Nitrogen Peroxide (N 2 O 4 ) Operating conditions as per specifications (trip point values) - Temperature (min/max): C Pressure (max): Bar abs No trip point - Ammonia to Air ratio (max) Vol.-% 8 to 12 Ammonia Oxidation Catalyst Manufacturer - K.A. Rassmussen AS Type - n.a. Composition: - Pt-Rh-Pd Design campaign legth days 300 Absorber Design capacity per day (100 %) thno 3 /d 430 Design capacity per day (legal) thno 3 /d 460 incl. 30t N 2 O 4 Annual production (design) days/year 340 Secondary Catalyst Start of operation - August 2009 Manufacturer - YARA Type - 58-Y1 Composition: - cobalt (ii, iii) oxide dialuminium cobalt tetraoxide Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Ce Design efficiency N 2 O reduction % About % (guaranteed by supplier) 2 X N 2 O Analyzers ( 2 stacks) Manufacturer - Dr. Födisch Umweltmesstechnik GmbH Type - MCA 04 Measurement Principle - IR absorption 2 X Stack volume flow rate measurement Manufacturer - Dr. Födisch Umweltmesstechnik GmbH Type - FMD 99 Measurement Principle - Differential pressure Page 10 of 70

11 3. METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE 3.1. Verification Steps The verification consisted of the following steps: Contract review Appointment of team members and technical reviewers Publication of the monitoring report A desk review of the Monitoring Report /MR/ submitted by the client and additional supporting documents with the use of customised verification protocol /CPM/ according to the Determination and Verification Manual /DVM/, Verification planning, On-Site assessment, Background investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of the project developer and its contractors, Draft verification reporting Resolution of corrective actions (if any) Final verification reporting Technical review Final approval of the verification. The sequence of the verification is given in the table 3.1 below: Table 3.1: Verification sequence Topic Time Assignment of verification On-site-visit Draft reporting finalised Final reporting finalised Technical review finalised Contract review To assure that the project falls within the scopes for which accreditation is held, Page 11 of 70

12 Qualification Status 2) Scheme competence Technical competence 4) Verification competence 5) Host country Competence Onsite Visit 3 rd Periodic Verification Report: YARA PARDIES N 2O ABATEMENT the necessary competences to carry out the verification can be provided, Impartiality issues are clear and in line with the CDM accreditation requirements a contract review was carried out before the contract was signed Appointment of team members and technical reviewers On the basis of a competence analysis and individual availabilities a verification team, consistent of one team leader and 2 additional team members, was appointed. Furthermore also the personnel for the technical review and the final approval were determined. The list of involved personnel, the tasks assigned and the qualification status are summarized in the table 3-1 below. Table 3-1: Involved Personnel Name Company Function 1) Mr. Ms. Ulrich Walter TÜV Nord Cert GmbH TL LA 5.1 Mr. Ms. Sabine Meyer TÜV Nord Cert GmbH TM A) LA - Mr. Ms. Dirk Speyer TÜV Nord Cert GmbH TM A) LA 5.1 Mr. Ms. Sergej Friesen TÜV Nord Cert GmbH TR B) LA - - Mr. Ms. Susanne Pasch TÜV Nord Cert GmbH TR B) LA - - Mr. Ms. Rainer Winter TÜV Nord Cert GmbH TR B) FA B) SA 5.1-1) 2) 3) TL: Team Leader; TM: Team Member, TR: Technical review; OT: Observer-Team, OR: Observer-TR; FA: Final approval GHG Auditor Status: A: Assessor; LA: Lead Assessor; SA: Senior Assessor; T: Trainee; TE: Technical Expert GHG auditor status (at least Assessor) Page 12 of 70

13 4) 5) A) B) As per S01-MU03 or S01-VA070-A2 (such as 1.1, 1.2, ) In case of verification projects Team Member: GHG auditor (at least Assessor status), Technical Expert (incl. Host Country Expert or Verification Expert), not ETE No team member 3.4. Publication of the Monitoring Report In accordance with decision 9/CMP.1 ( 36) the draft monitoring report, as received from the project participants, has been made publicly available on the TÜV NORD Website during a 30 days period from to Comments received are taken into account in the course of the verification, if applicable. No comments were received Verification Planning In order to ensure a complete, transparent and timely execution of the verification task the team leader has planned the complete sequence of events necessary to arrive at a substantiated final verification opinion. Various tools have been established in order to ensure an effective verification planning. Risk analysis and detailed audit testing planning For the identification of potential reporting risks and the necessary detailed audit testing procedures for residual risk areas table A-1 is used. The structure and content of this table is given in table 3-2 below. Table 3-2: Table A-1; Identification of verification risk areas Table A-1: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing / Detailed audit testing of residual risk areas and random testing Identification of potential reporting risk The following potential risks were identified and divided and structured according to the possible areas of Identification, assessment and testing of management controls The potential risks of raw data generation have been identified in the course of the monitoring system implementation. The following Areas of residual risks Despite the measures implemented in order to reduce the occurrence probability the following Additional verification testing performed The additional verification testing performed is described. Testing may include: - Sample cross checking of manual transfers of Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) Having investigated the residual risks, the conclusions should be noted here. Errors and uncertainties are highlighted. Page 13 of 70

14 Table A-1: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing / Detailed audit testing of residual risk areas and random testing Identification of potential reporting risk Identification, assessment and testing of management controls occurrence. measures were taken in order to minimize the corresponding risks. The following measures are implemented: Areas of residual risks residual risks remain and have to be addressed in the course of every verification. Additional verification testing performed data - Recalculation - Spreadsheet walk throughs to check links and equations - Inspection of calibration and maintenance records for key equipment - Check sampling analysis results Discussions with process engineers who have detailed knowledge of process uncertainty/error bands. Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) The completed table A-1 is enclosed in the annex 1 (table A-1) to this report. Project specific periodic verification checklist In order to ensure transparency and consideration of all relevant assessment criteria, a project specific verification protocol has been developed. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria and requirements, means and results of the verification. The verification protocol serves the following purposes: - It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a JI project is expected to meet for verification - It ensures a transparent verification process where the verifying AIE documents how a particular requirement has been proved and the result of the verification. The basic structure of this project specific verification protocol for the periodic verification is described in table 3-3. Page 14 of 70

15 Table 3-3: Structure of the project specific periodic verification checklist Table A-2: Periodic verification checklist No. Number of the checklist item DVM 2 paragraph / Checklist Item (incl. guidance for the determination team) The section gives a reference to the relevant paragraph of the DVM. The checklist items are linked to the various requirements the project should meet. The checklist is organised in various sections. Each section is then further subdivided as per the requirements of the topic and the individual project activity. Initial Finding (Means and results of assessment) The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist item in detail. It includes the initial assessment of the verification team and how the assessment was carried out. Ref. Gives reference to the information source on which the assessment is based on. Action requested to project participant (CAR, CL, FAR) Assessment based on evidence provided if the criterion is not fulfilled a CAR, CL or FAR (details of each finding are elaborated in chapter 4) is raised otherwise no action is requested. The assessment refers to the draft verification stage. Review of PP s action Assessment based on the project participant action in response to the raised CAR, CL or FAR (details of each finding are elaborated in chapter 4). The assessment refers to the final verification stage. Conclusion Final assessment at the final verification stage is given. The periodic verification checklist (verification protocol) is the backbone of the complete verification starting from the desk review until final assessment. Detailed assessments and findings are discussed within this checklist and not necessarily repeated in the main text of this report. The completed verification protocol is enclosed in the annex (table A-2) to this report. 2 JISC 19 Annex 4 Page 15 of 70

16 3.6. Desk review During the desk review all documents initially provided by the client and publicly available documents relevant for the verification were reviewed. The main documents are listed below: the last revision of the PDD including the monitoring plan /PDD/, the last revision of the determination report /DET/, the monitoring report, including the claimed emission reductions for the project /MR/, the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet /XLS/. Other supporting documents, such as publicly available information on the UNFCCC / host country website and background information were also reviewed On-site assessment As most essential part of the verification exercise it is indispensable to carry out an inspection on site in order to verify that the project is implemented in accordance with the applicable criteria. Furthermore the on-site assessment is necessary to check the monitoring data with respect to accuracy to ensure the calculation of emission reductions. The main tasks covered during the site visit include, but are not limited to: The on-site assessment included an investigation of whether all relevant equipment is installed and works as anticipated. The operating staff was interviewed and observed in order to check the risks of inappropriate operation and data collection procedures. Information processes for generating, aggregating and reporting the selected monitored parameters were reviewed. The duly calibration of all metering equipment was checked. The monitoring processes, routines and documentations were audited to check their proper application. The monitoring data were checked completely. The data aggregation trails were checked via spot sample down to the level of the meter recordings. The following verification team members attended the site visit: D. Speyer. Before and during the on-site visit the verification team performed interviews with the project participants to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified in the document review. Representatives of N.serve and Yara Pardies Nitric Acid Plant including the operational staff of the plant were interviewed. The main topics of the interviews are summarised in Table 3-4. Page 16 of 70

17 Table 3-4: Interviewed persons and interview topics Interviewed Persons / Entities 1. Projects & Operations Personnel, Yara Pardies Nitric Acid Plant 2. Consultant, N.serve Interview topics - General aspects of the project - Technical equipment and operation - Changes since validation - Calibration procedures - Quality management system - Involved personnel and responsibilities - Training and practice of the operational personnel - Implementation of the monitoring plan - Monitoring and measurement equipment - Maintenance - Remaining issues from validation - Monitoring data management - Data uncertainty and residual risks - GHG emission reduction calculation - Procedural aspects of the verification - Environmental aspect - ER-calculation 3.8. Draft verification reporting On the basis of the desk review, the on-site visit, follow-up interviews and further background investigation the verification protocol is completed. This protocol together with a general project and procedural description of the verification and a detailed list of the verification findings form the draft verification report. This report is sent to the client for resolution of raised CARs, CLs and FARs Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs Non-conformities raised during the verification can either be seen as a non-fulfilment of criteria ensuring the proper implementation of a project or where a risk to deliver high quality emission reductions is identified. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) are issued, if: - Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; - Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions which will impair the estimate of emission reductions; Page 17 of 70

18 - Issues identified in a FAR during validation or previous verifications requiring actions by the project participants to be verified during verification have not been resolved. The verification team uses the term Clarification Request (CL), which is be issued if: - information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable JI requirements have been met. Forward Action Requests (FAR) indicate essential risks for further periodic verifications. Forward Action Requests are issued, if: - the monitoring and reporting require attention and / or adjustment for the next verification period. For a detailed list of all CARs, CLs and FARs raised in the course of the verification pl. refer to chapter Final reporting Upon successful closure of all raised CARs and CLs the final verification report including a positive verification opinion can be issued. In case not all essential issues could finally be resolved, a final report including a negative verification opinion is issued. The final report summarizes the final assessments w.r.t. all applicable criteria Technical review Before submission of the final verification report a technical review of the whole verification procedure is carried out. The technical reviewer is a competent GHG auditor being appointed for the scope this project falls under. The technical reviewer is not considered to be part of the verification team and thus not involved in the decision making process up to the technical review. As a result of the technical review process the verification opinion and the topic specific assessments as prepared by the verification team leader may be confirmed or revised. Furthermore reporting improvements might be achieved Final approval After successful technical review an overall (esp. procedural) assessment of the complete verification will be carried out by a senior assessor located in the accredited premises of TÜV NORD. After this step the request for issuance can be started. Page 18 of 70

19 4. VERIFICATION FINDINGS In the following paragraphs the findings from the desk review of the monitoring report /MR/, the calculation spreadsheet /XLS/, PDD /PDD/, the Determination Report /DET/ and other supporting documents, as well as from the on-site assessment and the interviews are summarised. The summary of CAR, CL and FAR issued are shown in Table 4-1: Table 4-1: Summary of CAR, CL and FAR Verification topic No. of CAR No. of CL No. of FAR A Project Approvals B Project Implementation C Monitoring Plan Compliance D Monitoring Plan Revision E Data Management SUM The following tables include all raised CARs, CLs and FARs and the assessments of the same by the verification team. For an in depth evaluation of all verification items it should be referred to the verification protocols (see Annex). Finding: Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Based on FAR A1 raised during previous verification: The Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the sum of registered ERUs from former verifications and the context (e.g. section) ERUs of the actual period shall not exceed the cap defined in the French LoA. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. AIE Assessment #1 A1 The French DFP limited the maximum emissions reductions allowed for the Pardies project to 191,831 ERUs (after deduction). The total sum of ERUs achieved by this project activity is below this cap. The verification team has checked the total amount of Page 19 of 70

20 Finding: The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 2. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and AIE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. A1 emission reductions generated by this project activity and compared it with the cap set by the French DFP. It can be confirmed that the total amount is below the cap of 191,831 ERUs (after deduction): 1. MP: 25,834 ERUs 2. MP: 84,729 ERUs 3. MP: 51,196 ERUs Sum: 161,759 ERUs CAR has been closed out. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox To be checked during the next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Finding: Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding a) Further information regarding modifications of the Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the basket and top up of DeN2O catalyst is missing. context (e.g. section) b) Further explanations regarding the reported event in annex 2 tail gas flow meter change is requested. B1 Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. a) Information regarding basket modifications and catalyst top up has now been included in the MR - in section 3 and in the events table in Annex 2. b) The description of the event in annex 2 of the MR was updated to better describe the situation. During the maintenance by the AMS supplier Dr. Födisch Umweltmesstechnik AG the software of the FMD 99 flowmeter was updated to a new version. For the update the printed circuit board including the memory chip with the software was exchanged to a new identical part with the new software. This procedure was used to avoid possible problems that could eventually occur by updating the memory chip via flash programming. Page 20 of 70

21 Finding: IAE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and IAE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox B1 a) The verifier confirms that MR has been revised and correct information regarding basket modifications and catalyst top-up has been included. The changes lead to higher efficiency of the N 2 O abatement system and significantly lower project emissions. b) Furthermore information related to the tail gas flow meter change has been included. The verifier concludes that this event was further investigated and discussed during the site visit and reported information is correct. Until the software update at 06/07/2012 the output of the FMD 99 flow meter was in nonnormalised conditions (m³/h) and the normalisation function was implemented in the emission reduction calculation sheet. Since the software update (06/07/2012) the normalisation function is implemented directly in the FMD 99 flow meter and the output is in normalized conditions (Nm³/h). Therefore CAR E1 was raised related to the data processing. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Finding: E1 Classification CAR CL FAR Page 21 of 70

22 Finding: Description of finding Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the context (e.g. section) E1 Monitoring Data and Data processing Needs for corrections in the ER calculation were identified: a) On the 05/03/2012 the nitric acid plant was out of operation as evidenced during the audit but in the XLS file the operation status was considered as in operation. b) On 13/08/2012 no data were monitored caused by the situation during a software update. As the plant was in operation during the related time clarification about the use of substitute value is requested. c) On 05/07/2012 Dr. Födisch changed the parameterisation of the stack gas flow meter. Since this action the output of the flow meter is normalized. Clarification regarding the correct use of QAL 2 factors is requested. d) The procedure of VSG normalisation shall be revised. Furthermore the parameter for cross section of the stack was changed from m 2 to m² Reasons and influence of this minor change are requested. The following points in the MR shall be corrected: e) Section 7.1.3: Implausible results are only substituted if OH=1. Therefore, the number of values which were substituted is not correct. f) Section 7.1.6, line 2: the number of remaining hours is not correct (typo). g) There is no comparison between actual ERUs and ERUs as per PDD. Page 22 of 70

23 Finding: Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details. E1 a) For the period 05/03/ :00 05/03/ :00 the plant status was corrected in the EXCEL calculation sheet b) For the period 13/08/ :00 13/08/ :00 the analyser status was set to 0 in the EXCEL calculation sheet. Plant operation data was set to the next measured value in order to simulate valid data for correct evaluation in the calculation sheet c) As the parameter change is considered a major change of the AMS, a new QAL 2 was performed in September The new QAL 2 factors are now applied from the change of the flowmeter parameters onwards (06/07/2012). d) Since the change of parameters of the flowmeter (06/07/2012) the VSG results at the output from the flowmeter are in normalized conditions (Nm³/h). The calculation sheet was updated accordingly and a normalization is done in the calculation sheet only until 06/07/2012. e) While changing the parameters of the flowmeter the parameter for stack cross-section was entered with one digit less than before. The effect on the measured stack flow is minor ( < 0.03%). Further correction is not necessary as this effect is compensated by the QAL 2 correction factor. f) We assume that the finding relates to section The number of implausible results (and therefore of substitute values) has now been corrected. The ERU calculation sheet has also been amended accordingly. g) The typing error in line 2 of section has now been corrected. h) Following the table in section 7.2, an additional section has now been added to compare the PDD predictions with the number of emissions reductions achieved. The total number of reductions is also compared to the maximum ERU cap imposed by the host country LoA. Page 23 of 70

24 Finding: E1 IAE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 1. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and IAE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. The verifier checked in detail the revised ER calculation spreadsheet and concludes: a) The plant status for 05/03/ :00 17:00 was correctly taken into account. b) 13/08/ :00 15:00 (time during soft ware update): The related time is taken correctly into account. c) The verifier concludes that the new QAL2 factor is applied according the requirements since 06/07/2012 as the change of parameterization of flow meter is a major change. d) The ER calculation was revised correctly as there is no normalization of the flow values requested since 06/07/2012. e) The verifier checked the influence of the minor change in parameterization related stack diameter on the results of flow measurements and confirms that the influence is insignificant. Therefore the change of stack diameter with one digit less than before needs no further correction, the measured results of VSG are acceptable. The verifier checked the revised MR and confirms: f) The number of implausible results and substitute values has now been corrected. For Line 119 out of the original 7,344 datasets contained implausible results (N 2 O concentration or stack gas flow) and were replaced by the substitute values. For Line 2 no implausible results for N 2 O concentration or stack gas flow were recorded. g) The typo has been corrected. h) A comparison between actual ERUs and ERUs as per PDD has been added. The comparison is correct and furthermore the total ERUs are also compared to the maximum ERU cap as per host country LoA. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox CAR E1 has been closed out. To be checked during the first periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Page 24 of 70

25 Finding: Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Following docs shall be provided after end of the monitoring Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the period (regarding to ): context (e.g. section) Plant performance data for management reporting Rapport mensuel DREAL. (Monthly report of emission values to the local government.) Protocol of maintenance and calibration of AMS. Corrective Action #1 This section shall be filled by The three requested documents have now been provided to the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in the verifying AIE. details. AIE Assessment #1 The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A- 2. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and AIE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added. E2 OK. The verifier checked the provided documents and confirms that they are complete, plausible and traceable. Therefore it can be concluded that the AMS is properly calibrated during the whole MP, measured and determined project emissions and the amount of nitric acid produced are plausible. CAR E2 has been closed out. Conclusion Tick the appropriate checkbox To be checked during the next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements Page 25 of 70

26 5. SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS The following paragraphs include the summary of the final verification assessments after all CARs and CLs are closed out. For details of the assessments pl. refer to the discussion of the verification findings in chapter 4 and the verification protocol (Annex 1) Implementation of the project During the verification a site visit was carried out. On the basis of this site visit and the reviewed project documentation it can be confirmed that w.r.t. the realized technology, the project equipments, as well as the monitoring and metering equipment, the project has been implemented and operated as described in the registered PDD. Furthermore it can be concluded that the Baskets of both lines were modified to improve catalyst support and decrease gas by-passing and additional catalyst was added during this MP. The changes lead to higher efficiency of the N 2 O abatement system and significant lower project emissions Project history During the determination or former verifications the AIE raised issues that could not be closed or resolved during the validation/verification stage. One FAR has been raised relevant to this verification related to the cap defined in the French LoA: The French DFP limited the maximum emissions reductions allowed for the Pardies project to 191,831 ERUs (after deduction). The total sum of ERUs achieved by this project activity is below this cap (total: 161,759 ERUs) 5.3. Special events No major events, apart from the reported plant shut downs for regular maintenance and due to trips with effect on the monitoring of the project have been observed during the monitoring period: Scheduled shut downs for maintenance and unplanned situations: (Plant line 1: Totally 422h downtime or plant out of operation; 6,922h plant operation. Plant line 2: Totally 567h downtime or plant out of operation; 6,777h plant operation.) Page 26 of 70

27 Events: - Annual shutdown (Basket modified to improve catalyst support and decrease gas by-passing). - Shutdown due to lack of de-mineralised water. -Scheduled shutdown for change of safety valve - Unscheduled stop due to NOx leakage - Burner trips - Shutdown for maintenance. Malfunction of N 2 O abatement system: - During the MP period, the N 2 O emission factor did not exceed the benchmark emissions factor of 1.85 kg N 2 O/tHNO 3. N 2 O analyser downtime: - Line 1: For 42 out of the 6,922 hourly average data sets, the analyzer status signals indicated that the analyzer was considered out of operation (downtime) for more than 50% of the hour. The substitute value for this verification period was mg/m³. - Line 2: For 59 out of the 6,777 hourly average data sets, the analyzer status signals indicated that the analyzer was considered out of operation (downtime) for more than 50% of the hour. The substitute value for this verification period was mg/m³ Compliance with the monitoring plan The monitoring system and all applied procedures are in compliance with the registered monitoring plan. Only the nitric acid produced during the second and third verification period was calculated in a sufficient and exact way on a daily basis of production figures, and flow meter results were used only for the purpose of cross checking Monitoring parameters During the verification all relevant monitoring parameters (as listed in the PDD) have been verified with regard to the appropriateness of the applied measurement / determination method, the correctness of the values applied for ER calculation, the accuracy, and applied QA/QC measures. The results as well as the verification procedure are described parameter-wise in the project specific verification checklist. N 2 O concentration (NCSG) and volume flow of the stack gas (VSG) were monitored continuously as per PDD. Page 27 of 70

28 The nitric acid plant at Pardies produces four separate products: 53% and 63% concentrated nitric acid, Nitrogen Peroxide (N 2 O 4 ) and high concentrated nitric acid CNA (near 100%). As per PDD the NAP equivalents (total metric tons of 100% concentrated nitric acid) must be measured and determined from three sources: (a) flow meters for each concentration stream; (b) stoichiometric mass balance calculation; and (c) nitric acid storage levels. During the second monitoring period the newly installed flow meters for CNA and 53% HNO 3 caused problems and some double counting situations occurred during the determination of 63%HNO 3. Therefore the nitric acid produced during the second and third verification period was only calculated in a sufficient and exact way on a daily basis of production figures, and flow meter results were used only for the purpose of cross checking. The verification team has carefully checked the monitoring methods and production records and confirms that the monitored amount of NAP was calculated and determined in line with relevant requirements and in a sufficient and exact way. After appropriate corrections to raised CARs and CLs were carried out by the project participant it can be confirmed that all relevant monitoring parameters have been measured / determined without material misstatements and in line with all applicable standards and relevant requirements. Parameter: Applied value: Unit: NCSG n mg N 2 O/Nm³ (line 1) VSG n 23, Nm³/h (line 1) PE n 10, kgn 2 O (line 1) OH n 6,922 h (line 1) NCSG n mg N 2 O/Nm³ (line 2) VSG n 24, Nm³/h (line 2) PE n 10, kgn 2 O (line 2) OH n 6,777 h (line 2) PE n total 21, kgn 2 O NAP n for both lines 110, thno 3 EF n kgn 2 O/tHNO 3 EF BM (2012) 1.85 kgn 2 O/tHNO 3 Table 5.5.1: Monitoring parameter Page 28 of 70

29 5.6. Monitoring report A draft monitoring report was submitted to the verification team by the project participants. The team has made this report publicly available prior to the start of the verification activities. No comments were received. During the verification, mistakes and needs for clarification were identified. The PP has carried out the requested corrections so that it can be confirmed that the monitoring report is complete and transparent and in accordance with the registered PDD and other relevant requirements ER Calculation During the verification, mistakes in the Excel ER calculation sheet were identified. A revised ER calculation was prepared by the PP and presented to the verification team. All raised issues were addressed appropriately so that the corresponding CARs could be closed out. Thus it is confirmed that the ER calculation is overall correct. The calculation of the emission reduction is based on raw data (daily averages in the case of NAP else hourly averages) received from the data processing unit. A statistical evaluation of raw data (hourly averages) was applied for calculating campaign specific emissions for line 1 and 2: - For all N 2 O data sets a plausibility check was conducted. All data sets containing values that are implausible were eliminated. - Calculation of the sample mean; - Calculation of the sample standard deviation; - Calculation of the 95% confidence interval (equal to 1.96 times the standard deviation); - Elimination of data that lie outside the 95% confidence interval; - Calculation of the new sample mean from the remaining values. The verification team confirm the correctness of the calculated values. The total amount of N 2 O as project emission is calculated as: PE n (line 1) = VSG n * NCSG n * OH n * 10-6 (kgn 2 O) + PE n (line 2) = VSG n * NCSG n * OH n * 10-6 (kgn 2 O) PE n total = 21, kgn 2 O Page 29 of 70

30 Related to metric tonnes of 100% concentrated nitric acid: EF n = (PE n total / NAP n ) = kgn 2 O/tHNO 3. PE n EF n NCSG n VSG n NAP n OH n Total N 2 O emissions during the specific Verification Period Emissions factor used to calculate the emissions from the defined Verification Period n Mean concentration of N 2 O in the tail gas stream during the verification period Mean tail gas volume flow rate during the verification period Nitric acid production during the Verification Period Operating hours of the plant during the Verification Period GWP N2O 310 tco 2 e/tn 2 O. ERU = ((EF BM EF n )/1000 x NAP x GWP N2O ) * 0.9 ERU = 51,196 tco 2 e 5.8. Quality Management Quality Management procedures for measurements, collection and compilation of data, data storage and archiving, calibration, maintenance and training of personnel in the framework of this JI project activity have been defined and applied. The procedures defined can be assessed as appropriate for the purpose Overall Aspects of the Verification All necessary and requested documentation was provided by the project participants so that a complete verification of all relevant issues could be carried out. Access was granted to all installations of the plant which are relevant for the project performance and the monitoring activities. No issues have been identified indicating that the implementation of the project activity and the steps to claim emission reductions are not compliant with the Page 30 of 70

31 UNFCCC / host country criteria and relevant guidance provided by the COP/CMP and the JISC (clarifications and/or guidance). The verification team has checked the total amount of emission reduction generated by this project activity and compared it with the cap set by the French DFP. It can be confirmed that the total amount is below the cap of 191,831 ERUs (after deduction): 1. MP: 25,834 ERUs 2. MP: 84,729 ERUs 3. MP: 51,196 ERUs Sum: 161,759 ERUs Hints for next periodic Verification No Forward Action Requests have been raised, as this is the last verification of this project activity. Page 31 of 70

32 6. VERIFICATION OPINION Yara Pardies Nitric Acid Plant has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program to carry out the 3 rd periodic verification of the project: YARA PARDIES N 2 O ABATEMENT, with regard to the relevant requirements for JI project activities. The project reduces GHG emissions due to the reduction of N 2 O emissions from the production of nitric acid with secondary N 2 O abatement technology (secondary catalyst). This verification covers the period from to (including both days). In the course of the verification 4 Corrective Action Requests (CAR) and 0 Clarification Request (CL) were raised and successfully closed. Furthermore no FAR was raised. The verification is based on the draft monitoring report, revised monitoring report, the monitoring plan as set out in the registered PDD, the determination report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet and supporting documents made available to the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP by the project participant. As a result of this verification, the verifier confirms that: all operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described in the project design document. the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied country specific methodology: Méthode pour les Projets Domestiques: Réduction catalytique du N2O dans des usines d'acide nitrique. the installed equipment essential for measuring parameters required for calculating emission reductions are calibrated appropriately. - the monitoring system is in place and functional. The project has generated GHG emission reductions. As the result of the 3 rd periodic verification, the verifier confirms that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the project has achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period as follows: Emission reductions: 51,196 t CO 2 e Including a deduction of 10% according to the Arrêté du 2 mars Essen, Essen, Ulrich Walter TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP Verification Team Leader Rainer Winter TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP Final Approval Page 32 of 70