PROJECT RENEWAL OF CREDITING PERIOD VALIDATION REPORT

Transcription

1 PROJECT RENEWAL OF CREDITING PERIOD VALIDATION REPORT CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey IN Turkey R-C-22 /

2 Organizational Unit: Re Carbon Ltd. Carbon Department Project Title: Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Project Number: Client: Current PDD Version: 453 CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. 12 Date of First Issue: Date of Current Version: Version Number: Number of Pages: 11/08/ /12/ Summary: Host Country: Turkey Project is Reviewed Against: Kyoto Protocol Gold Standard Rules and Regulations UNFCCC CDM Rules and Regulations and associated documents Methodology: AMS-III.G Version: 9.0 Other (Please Specify) Project Participants: CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Average Annual Emission Reduction Estimate in the 2nd Crediting Period: 19,399 tco 2 e Project Size: Large Scale Small Scale Micro Scale Registry Number: Crediting Period Renewal No: Crediting Period Start Date: GS764 1st 2nd 12/08/2018 Validation Stages: Desk Review Site Visit Follow-up Interviews Global Stakeholder Consultation Resolution of Outstanding Issues Validation Findings: During the validation 13 Corrective Action Requests, 03 Clarification Requests were raised, all of which were closed out before the issuance of this validation report. There hasn t been any Forward Action Request raised during the validation. In summary, it is Re Carbon Ltd. s that the project activity Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey in Turkey, as described in the PDD, version 12 dated 20/12/2017, meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for the CDM, GS and all relevant host Party criteria and correctly applies the baseline and monitoring methodology AMS-III.G, version 9. Hence, Re Carbon Ltd. requests the renewal of crediting period of this registered GS-VER project. Validation Team Leader: Sandeep Kanda Indexing Terms: Validation Team Members: Approved By (Technical Reviewer): Göknil Tüfeközdemir Anıl Söyler No distribution without permission of the client or responsible organizational unit Name: Signature: Limited Distribution Sukanta Das Unrestricted Distribution R-C-22 / Page 2 / 62

3 Abbreviations BM : Build Margin CAR : Corrective Action Request CDM : Clean Development Mechanism CER : Certified Emission Reduction(s) CL : Clarification request CM : Combined Margin CO 2 : Carbon dioxide CO 2 e : Carbon dioxide equivalent DNA : Designated National Authority DOE : Designated Operational Entity DR : Document Review EF : Emission Factor EIA : Environmental Impact Assessment ER : Emission Reductions ERPA : Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement FAR : Forward Action Request FSR : Feasibility Study Report GHG : Greenhouse gas(es) GWP : Global Warming Potential I : Interview IPCC : Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRR : Internal Rate of Return kwh : Kilo Watt Hour LoA : Letter of approval MoV : Means of Validation MW : Mega Watt MWh : Mega Watt Hour NCV : Net Calorific Value NGO : Non-governmental Organisation ODA : Official Development Assistance OM : Operating Margin PDD : Project Design Document PP : Project Participant(s) tco2e : Tonnes of CO2 equivalents UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VAT : Value-added tax R-C-22 / Page 3 / 62

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VALIDATION OPINION INTRODUCTION Objective Scope GHG Project Description Parties Involved METHODOLOGY Validation Team and ITR Selection Desk Review of the PDD and Additional Documents Site Visits Reporting of Findings via the Validation Protocol Follow-Up Interviews Resolution of Outstanding Issues Internal Quality Control VALIDATION FINDINGS Baseline Scenario Application of the Selected Baseline and Monitoring Methodology or Standardized Baseline Monitoring Calculation of Emission Factor and Emission Reductions Local Stakeholder Consultation Sustainable Development Assessment Sustainable Development Monitoring Plan R-C-22 / Page 4 / 62

5 5. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED VALIDATION TEAM AND ITR COMPETENCE Appointment Certificates VALIDATION OPINION ANNEX 1: VALIDATION PROTOCOL R-C-22 / Page 5 / 62

6 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VALIDATION OPINION Re Carbon Ltd. has performed the 2nd crediting period validation of the Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey in Turkey between 11/07/2017 and 20/12/2017. The validation was performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Gold Standard (GS) and Host Party criteria, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. As a result of validation, Re Carbon Ltd. concludes the following: The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have provided Re Carbon Ltd. with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfillment of all stated criteria. In our, the project meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for the CDM and GS. Therefore, Re Carbon Ltd. will recommend the renewal of crediting period of the project by the Gold Standard. The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have not provided Re Carbon Ltd. with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfillment of all stated criteria. Therefore, Re Carbon Ltd. will not recommend the renewal of crediting period of the project and will inform the project participants and the Gold Standard on this decision. R-C-22 / Page 6 / 62

7 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1. Objective Re Carbon Ltd. has been appointed by CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. to perform the crediting period renewal validation of the Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey in Turkey with the contract dated 30/06/2017. The objective of this validation activity is to have an independent third party for the assessment of the project, and to ensure that the selected baseline, estimated emission reductions and monitoring plan is still in line with the applied methodologies and the applicable CDM requirements. In particular: the project's baseline is assessed against AMS-III.G.: Landfill methane recovery --- Version 9.0 the project s monitoring plan is assessed against AMS-III.G.: Landfill methane recovery --- Version 9.0 Tool: Assessment of the validity of the original/current baseline and update of the baseline at the renewal of the crediting period version the projects compliance with, the requirements of Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM Modalities and Procedures as agreed in the Marrakech Accords under decision 3/CMP.1, the annexes to this decision, subsequent decisions and guidance made by COP/MOP & CDM Executive Board and other relevant rules, including the Host Country legislation and sustainability criteria CDM Validation and Verification Standard for project activities, version 1.0 CDM Project Standard for project activities, version 1.0 CDM Project Cycle Procedure for project activities, version 1.0 Gold Standard Toolkit version 2.2 Validation is a requirement for all CDM projects that are requesting a renewal of crediting period and is seen as necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders of the quality of the project and its intended generation of certified emission reductions (CERs) Scope The scope of the validation is the independent and objective review of the Project Design Document (PDD) which is revised for the second crediting period. The PDD is reviewed against the relevant criteria (see Section 2.1) and decisions by the CDM Executive Board, including the approved baseline and monitoring methodology. The validation was based on the guidance given in the CDM Validation and Verification Standard for project activities, version 1.0, CDM Project Standard for project activities, version 1.0 and CDM Project Cycle Procedure for project activities, version 1.0. The validation team has employed a risk based approach to assess the completeness and accuracy of the claims and conservativeness of the assumptions in the PDD. The main focus of R-C-22 / Page 7 / 62

8 the validation team is to determine if the identified baseline is still applicable to the project activity, if the estimated emission reductions for the second crediting period are still conservative and if the monitoring plan is still feasible for the project activity. The only purpose of the validation is its usage during the renewal of crediting period process as part of the CDM project cycle. Therefore, Re Carbon Ltd. can t be held liable by any party for decisions made or not made based on the validation, which will go beyond that purpose GHG Project Description CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. has developed and operating the Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project. The project utilizes the landfill gas originating from the Bolu landfill of the Bolu city and generates electricity from it through gas engines. The project activity is operational with one gas engine, JGC 416 GS-L.L make with a rated power of MWe. The activity generates approximately 3887 MWh per year of electricity and delivers it to the Turkish national grid. This has been checked during the on-site visit. The first crediting period start date of the project was 12/08/2011 with choice of renewable crediting period. The PDD submitted for renewal indicates the second renewable crediting period start date as 12/08/ Parties Involved The registered PDD indicates CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. as the project participant. The PDD submitted for renewal of crediting period indicates CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. as the project participant and host country is Turkey. R-C-22 / Page 8 / 62

9 3. METHODOLOGY The renewal of crediting period validation of proposed CDM project activity includes the following phases: Assessment whether the baseline of the project activity is revised in the PDD to reflect the most recent situation for the project activity, via a desk review of the revised PDD between 11/07/2017 and 20/12/2017. Assessment whether the applied methodology AMS-III.G.: Landfill methane recovery --- Version 9.0, in the revised PDD has been applied correctly, including the baseline selection and monitoring plan. Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions. Issuance of the renewal of crediting period validation report Independent technical review (ITR) Approval of the validation report and request of renewal of crediting period The Validation Protocol is used for the assessment of each requirement during the execution of validation activities and is given in Annex-1 of this validation report. The Validation Protocol consists of two tables: Table 1 (Project Design Document (PDD) and CDM validation requirements) and Table 2 (Resolution of Corrective Action, Forward Action and Clarification Requests) The usage description of Table-1 in Validation Protocol is explained in Table 3-1 below: Table 3-1: Explanation about Table-1 in Validation Protocol Question Reference MoV* The Gives reference to Explains how requirements the legislation or conformance related with documents where with question is the PDD and the relevant investigated. validation requirement is Examples of found means of validation are Document Review (DR), Interview (I) and Not Applicable (NA) Findings, comments, references and document sources Is used to elebarote and discuss the question and/or conformance to the question by giving related references and document sources based on which the finding is issued or evidence is checked Draft & Final Conclusion Either acceptable based on the evidence provided (OK), noncompliance with the requirement (CAR), further clarification (CL) due to insufficient, unclear or not transparent information, forward action request (FAR) that needs to be solved during the verification R-C-22 / Page 9 / 62

10 The usage description of Table-2 in Validation Protocol is explained in Table 3-2 below: Table 3-2: Explanation about Table-2 in Validation Protocol Draft Report Clarifications, Forward Action and Corrective Action Requests by Ref. to Questions in Table-1 Summary of Project Participants Response Validation Team Conclusion Validation Team The all CL, FAR and CARs determined during the draft validation report should be listed here Gives reference to the checklist questions in Table-1 of Validation Protocol Is used to summarize the responses by project participants regarding the non-conformities Is used to summarize the responses by validation team and their conclusions The Validation Protocol is fulfilled by the validation team in line with the descriptions above and all the CARs, CLs and FARs are listed in a transparent and clear manner Validation Team and ITR Selection The appointment process of the validation team takes into account the technical area(s), sectoral scope(s), and relevant host country experience required amongst team members for the accurate and thorough assessment of the project design. The relevant CDM validation and previous ITR experiences are also assessed during the selection of the team members and Independent Technical Reviewer (ITR), respectively. The validation team and ITR are assigned to this validation activity on 08/06/2017 taking all the above factors into consideration and as a result of the contract review process. The validation team members and ITR are given in Table 3-3 below: Table 3-3: Validation team and ITR details Name Role Host Country Experience Scope Coverage Technical Expertise Sandeep Kanda Team Leader DR, R Göknil Tüfeközdemir Anil Söyler Trainee Validator Certification Manager Sukanta Das ITR ITR SV, R A, DR, R * Explanations for the abbreviations used for involvement types are as follows: A DR SV R ITR : Administrative : Desk Review : Site Visit : Reporting : Independent Technical Review Involvement * R-C-22 / Page 10 / 62

11 3.2. Desk Review of the PDD and Additional Documents The basis for the crediting period renewal validation activity is the PDD version 05, dated 10/05/2017, which was submitted to the validation team on 11/07/2017. This PDD was revised several times due to the raised CARs and CLs, version 12 dated 20/12/2017 being the final version. The PDD was assessed against; The methodology AMS-III.G.: Landfill methane recovery --- Version 9.0 and the associated tools, the Host Country criteria CDM Validation and Verification Standard for project activities, version 1.0, CDM Project Standard for project activities, version 1.0 CDM Project Cycle Procedure for project activities, version 1.0 and other relevant documents, rules and regulations listed in section 2.1 of this report Gold Standard procedures for the renewal of a crediting period, Version 2.2, Annex-Z. A list of all the documents that were reviewed can be found in Section 6 of this validation report Site Visits As a part of the validation activities a site visit was performed to the project activity site, details of which can be seen in the Table 3-5 below: Table 3-4: Site visit details Date 01/08/2017 Location Özkan Sarmaz Participant Bolu Merkez Company Name CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Role in the Organization / Role in the Site Visit Site Chief Ömer Akyürek Oak Danışmanlık Ltd. Consultant Göknil Tüfeközdemir Re Carbon Ltd. Validator Harun Kodaloglu Yusuf Acar Ersin Yılmaz Ekşi Metin Yaşar CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Site Security Responsible Environmental Engineer Security Staff Operator R-C-22 / Page 11 / 62

12 Nurşen Çamlıoğlu Yukarı Soku Village Villager Müzeyyen Alagözoğlu Yukarı Soku Village Villager Emin Uludağ Yukarı Soku Village Villager Seher Yeşer Yukarı Soku Village Villager Demet Akkaya Yukarı Soku Village Villager Points Verified To confirm rightness of project description, as per PDD including project components and location To check the project operation status To check if there is any design change within the project To interview with the local stakeholders about the project and its impacts 3.4. Reporting of Findings via the Validation Protocol Source of Information Document Review / Site Visit Document Review / Site Visit Document Review / Site Visit Site Visit During the validation period, a Validation Protocol, which is attached in Annex 1 to this crediting period renewal validation report was used to submit the findings to the project participants. In line with the CDM Validation and Verification Standard, the team reports the nonconformities in the forms of Corrective Action Requests (CARs), Clarification Requests (CLs) and Forward Action Requests (FARs). When and for which type of non-conformities CARs, CLs and FARs are raised are explained below: The Validation team raises a CAR if one of the following occurs: The project participants have made mistakes that will influence the ability of the project activity to achieve real, measurable additional emission reductions The CDM requirements have not been met There is a risk that emission reductions cannot be monitored or calculated. The Validation team raises a CL if information is insufficient or not clear or not transparent enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met. The Validation team raises a FAR during validation to highlight issues related to project implementation that require review during the verification of the project activity. According to these principles, total of 13 CARs and 03 CLs were raised all of which are listed in the Validation Protocol. There hasn t been any FARs issued during the validation. R-C-22 / Page 12 / 62

13 3.5. Follow-Up Interviews During the validation period follow-up interviews were realized by the validation team to further analyze the correctness and accurateness of the information provided. A list of persons interviewed is given in Section 5 of this Validation Report Resolution of Outstanding Issues All the issues raised as CLs and CARs during this validation activity, were resolved, during the written and oral communications between the Project Participant(s) and Re Carbon Ltd. validation team members. For the resolution of these non-conformities, the project participants modified the project design, rectified the PDD or provided adequate additional explanations or evidences that satisfy the concerns of the validation team members. Concerns raised in the desk review, the on-site audit assessments and the follow up interviews and the responses provided for the raised concerns are documented in Annex 1 (Validation Protocol) to guarantee the transparency of the validation process. The validation timeframe is given in detail in Table 3-5 below: Table 3-5: Validation Timeframe Action From Timeline Desk Review 11/07/ /07/2017 Site Visit 01/08/ /08/2017 Issuance of the Validation Protocol version 01 02/08/ /08/2017 Review of PPs Initial Set of Responses 18/09/ /09/2017 Issuance of the Validation Protocol version 02 26/09/ /10/2017 Review of PPs Second Loop Responses 05/10/ /10/2017 Closing of all the CARs and CLs - 15/12/2017 Issuance of the Validation Report version 01-20/12/2017 ITR Process 21/12/2017 Issuance of the Validation Report version 02 Information or clarifications provided as a response to a CAR, CL or FAR could also lead to a new request. This can also be seen transparently in the Validation Protocol provided in Annex 1 of this Validation Report Internal Quality Control As a final step of validation, the final documentation including the validation report and annexes have to undergo an internal quality control by Re Carbon Ltd.. This quality control is also referred to as Independent Technical Review process. To R-C-22 / Page 13 / 62

14 The Independent Technical Review is performed by another Team Leader who hasn t involved in the validation activities of this project activity. When the Team Leader finalizes the Validation Report, the report is sent to Independent Technical Reviewer, at this stage not only the report but all the supporting documents like emission factor calculations, additionality justifications, relevant excel sheets etc. are reviewed. Further CLs and CARs can be raised by the Independent Technical Reviewer during this review, to cover all the points that may need further clarification. After all the CLs and CARs are closed, the validation report is reviewed and approved by the Team Leader, ITR and the Certification Manager/General Manager, and the request of registration is submitted to the EB along with the relevant documents. R-C-22 / Page 14 / 62

15 4. VALIDATION FINDINGS 4.1. Baseline Scenario The project activity was earlier registered using the methodology AMS-III.G, Version 6. The PDD (Version 04, dated 11/07/2014) has been updated in the latest PDD Form, Version using the latest approved version of the methodology AMS-III.G, Version 9. All the applicability conditions of the methodology have been justified appropriately in the revised PDD (Version 12, dated 20/12/2017). The PP has also included Assessment of the validity of the original/current baseline and update of the baseline at the renewal of the crediting period version under the applicable tools list. The DOE has checked the application of the aforesaid tool and confirms that it has been correctly applied. There has been no significant change in the relevant policies and circumstances, which would impact the baseline scenario since 12/08/2011 (date of first crediting period start) till date. The earlier registered PDD takes into account all the relevant national and sectoral policies and circumstances that were applicable as on 20/12/2017. The discussion on the same has also been provided in the updated PDD. The project activity is supplying power to the Turkish national grid. Thus, the baseline scenario continues to remain same as earlier, as follows: Electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity would have otherwise been generated by the operation of grid-connected power plants and by the addition of new generation sources, as reflected in the combined margin (CM) calculations described in the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system. Further, the emission coefficient has been updated and fixed ex-ante for the 2nd renewable crediting period. The procedures as defined in the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, version 05.0 have been followed. The emission coefficient in the earlier PDD was tco 2 /MWh with 0.5 and 0.5 weightage factor given to operating margin and build margin respectively. The emission coefficient in the updated PDD is tco 2 /MWh with 0.25 and 0.75 weightage factor given to operating margin and build margin respectively. The data for calculation of emission coefficient has been taken from the Turkish Electricity Transmission Company (TEIAS). TEIAS is the national electricity transmission company, which makes available the official data of all power plants in Turkey. The decrease in the emission coefficient is an indicative that more renewable based power is getting added to the grid. No updates in policy and regulatory framework have been found in Turkey, which mandate recovery of LFG. Hence, the baseline scenario has not changed during the second crediting period, and continues to be the same as during the first crediting period Application of the Selected Baseline and Monitoring Methodology or Standardized Baseline The project activity was earlier registered using the methodology AMS-III.G, Version 6. The PDD has been updated using the latest approved version of the methodology AMS-III.G, R-C-22 / Page 15 / 62

16 Version 9. The PPs have used the most recent version of the same methodology as the original registered PDD, i.e. the version that is valid at the time of submission of the revised PDD for the renewal of the crediting period. All the applicability conditions of the methodology have been justified appropriately in the revised PDD (Version 12, dated 20/12/2017). The project has installed a new LFG capture system in the existing Bolu landfill site where no LFG extraction or utilization was happening. The project utilizes the landfill gas originating from the Bolu landfill of the Bolu city and generates electricity from it through gas engine. The project activity is operational with one gas engine, JGC 416 GS-L.L make with a rated power of MWe. The activity generates electricity and delivers it to the Turkish national grid. The flare system was not operational during the first crediting period, and is not going to be operational even during the second crediting period, because of which the tool to calculate project emissions from flaring has been removed from the project. The same is deemed acceptable, as the PP does not claim emission reductions from flaring of LFG. Further, in accordance with the applied methodology, the PP has opted to use the monitored electricity generation and default values of NCV and density of methane along with default value of energy conversion efficiency as 40%, to arrive at the methane captured and gainfully used. This has been checked based on the previous verification report and on-site visit Monitoring The monitoring plan has been revised in the updated PDD as per the applied methodology AMS-III.G, Version 9. The emission coefficient of the grid has been fixed ex-ante and will not be updated during the 2nd renewable crediting period. The monitoring parameters are in line with the applied methodology and includes the following: Amount of electricity fed into the grid by the project: The value will be monitored continuously by redundant metering devices, two of them being the main ones at the substation, which provides the data for the monthly invoicing to TEİAŞ. The amount of LFG captured and gainfully destroyed will not be based on monitoring the methane flow and concentration. Rather, the monitored electricity generation value and default values of NCV, density and GWP of methane along with default energy conversion efficiency will be used. Further the project emissions will be based on the monitored value of electricity consumed, accounting for the transmission and distribution losses Calculation of Emission Factor and Emission Reductions The emission reduction from the project activity throughout the 2nd renewable crediting period of 7 years would continue to happen if the project operates without getting replaced during the whole crediting period. The operational lifetime of the project stated in the earlier registered PDD was 15 years and the start date as August The on-site inspection and review of the records (for e.g., gas engine maintenance records) suggest that the key project R-C-22 / Page 16 / 62

17 equipment are maintained properly. Therefore, the project is expected to operate throughout the 2nd crediting period of 7 years and result in emission reductions. The emission reduction calculation estimations have been revised in the updated PDD as per the latest approved version of the methodology AMS-III.G, Version 9. The baseline emissions are calculated based on the methane emissions from the landfill that is used in the project activity and the electricity generation. The project emissions are on account of electricity consumption by the project activity. There are no leakage emissions associated with the project. The emission coefficient of the grid has been updated and the emission reduction estimates are revised. For calculation of the emission factor, Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System, version 5 is used. Only grid power plants are included in the calculation. The calculation of the operating margin emission factor is based on Simple OM method, since the share of low-cost / must-run sources is below 50% in recent 5 years ( ). Simple OM has been calculated using the Ex ante option. A 3-year generation-weighted average, based on the most recent data ( ) available at the time of submission of the PDD to the DOE for validation. Option B is chosen to calculate the Simple OM, as there is no power plant specific data available, renewable power generation are considered as low-cost power sources and amount of electricity supplied to the grid by these sources is known, and off-grid power plants are not included. The OM is calculated as tco 2 /MWh. Option1 is chosen to calculate the build margin emission factor. The build margin emission factor is based on the most recent information available on units already built at the time of submission of the request for renewal of the crediting period to the DOE. SET 20% is selected as (SET sample ) because the set of power units comprises the larger annual electricity generation. The build margin emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average emission factor of a sample of power plants m for a specific year. The sample group total generation is based on plant specific data from The BM is calculated as tco 2 /MWh. The combined margin emissions factor has been calculated using the default values of 0.25 and 0.75 for OM and BM respectively. The CM is calculated as tco 2 /MWh. The project is expected to result in an average emission reduction of 19,399 tco 2 e/year during the 2nd renewable crediting period Local Stakeholder Consultation For the second crediting period, during the site visit conducted on 01/08/2017, there were no negative comments received from the stakeholders. On the contrary, they are quite pleased with the project. Thus, another meeting to be reported has not been conducted Sustainable Development Assessment Sustainable Development Assessment has been conducted with respect to the validity of the updated baseline. The 12 Sustainable Development (SD) indicators have already been rediscussed as in Table 4-1 below: R-C-22 / Page 17 / 62

18 Table 4-1: Sustainable Development (SD) indicators No. Indicator Score in earlier registered PDD Score in revised PDD 1 Air quality + + No change 2 Water quality and quantity + + No change 3 Soil condition + + No change 4 Other pollutants 0 0 No change 5 Biodiversity 0 0 No change 6 Quality of Employment Assessment 0 + Scored positive 7 Livelihood of the poor 0 0 No change 8 Access to affordable and clean energy 9 Human and institutional capacity 10 Quantitative employment and income generation 11 Balance of payments and investment 12 Technology transfer and technological selfreliance 0 0 No change 0 0 No change + + No change + + No change + + No change For all the parameters, same scoring has been retained except for quality of employment, which is changed to positive from neutral. This change is acceptable considering the improvement recorded in the overall work environment and health and safety of employees, especially scavengers, solid waste truck operators, etc. The same is deemed acceptable Sustainable Development Monitoring Plan The SD monitoring plan has been updated by taking out the parameters not relevant for the renewed crediting period. The assessment of the revised SD monitoring plan has been carried out, as follows in Table 4-2: R-C-22 / Page 18 / 62

19 Table 4-2: Assessment of the revised SD monitoring plan SD Indicator stated in earlier registered PDD Air quality Water quality and quantity Soil condition Quality of employment Quantitative employment and income generation Balance of payments and investment Technology transfer and technological selfreliance SD Indicator stated in revised PDD a) SO2 b) NOx c) VOC d) H2S emissions a) Reduction of discharged cooling water b) Leachate management Hazardous waste processing and waste terraces Safe and healthy working conditions No. of employees of the project Value of imported natural gas avoided Technical trainings Assessment a) The emission factors pertaining to SOx has been updated based on latest official records of b) NOx emissions are revised and calculated based on 2014 data c) VOC is calculated based on LFG destroyed during the first monitoring period (1/11/ /07/2016) which is considered most updated d) H2S is revised based on emissions expected from second crediting period. a) Discharge of cooling water from power plants in Turkey is updated based on b) No change No change No change The baseline updated based on current employees as 9 numbers in the project. Updated based on current price of natural gas imported. No change except dropping one of the parameters, capacity building and awareness raising activities. The same is deemed acceptable because no impact is expected during the second period. There were no comments from the local stakeholders. They were found to be overall pleased with the coming up of the project. R-C-22 / Page 19 / 62

20 5. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED The list of people who were interviewed during the validation period is given in the Table 5-1 below: Table 5-1: List of persons interviewed Reference Number I01 I02 I03 I04 I05 I06 I07 I08 I09 I10 I11 I12 Means of Interview 1 Full Name Title Organization SV Özkan Sarmaz Site Chief CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. SV Ömer Akyürek Consultant Oak Danışmanlık Ltd. SV Göknil Tüfeközdemir Validator Re Carbon Ltd. SV SV SV Harun Kodaloglu Yusuf Acar Site Security Responsible Environment al Engineer CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Ersin Yılmaz Ekşi Security Staff CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. SV Metin Yaşar Operator CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. SV Nurşen Çamlıoğlu Villager Yukarı Soku Village SV Müzeyyen Alagözoğlu Villager Yukarı Soku Village SV Emin Uludağ Villager Yukarı Soku Village SV Seher Yeşer Villager Yukarı Soku Village SV Demet Akkaya Villager Yukarı Soku Village 1 SV: Site visit; T: Telephone; E: R-C-22 / Page 20 / 62

21 6. LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED The list of the documents which were reviewed during the validation period is given in the Table 6-1 below: Table 6-1: List of documents reviewed Document Number D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06 D07 D08 D09 D10 Document Name Registered GS Passport Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Revised GS Passport Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Revised GS Passport Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Final GS Passport Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Registered PDD Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Revised PDD for renewal of crediting period Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Revised PDD for renewal of crediting period Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Revised PDD for renewal of crediting period Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Revised PDD for renewal of crediting period Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Revised PDD for renewal of crediting period Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey Version Date (dd/mm/yyyy) 06 23/10/ /09/ /10/ /12/ /07/ /05/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /11/2017 D11 Revised PDD for renewal of crediting period Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey 10 08/12/2017 D12 Revised PDD for renewal of crediting period Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey 11 11/12/2017 D13 Final revised PDD Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey 12 20/12/2017 D14 Emission reduction calculation sheet, Bolu Ex- Ante Emission Reduction Calculation Renewed 01 13/07/2017 v xls D15 Emission reduction calculation sheet, Bolu Ex- Ante Emission Reduction Calculation Renewed 02 20/09/2017 D16 Emission reduction calculation sheet, Bolu Ex /10/2017 R-C-22 / Page 21 / 62

22 Document Number D17 D18 D19 Document Name Ante Emission Reduction Calculation Renewed Emission reduction calculation sheet, Bolu Ex- Ante Emission Reduction Calculation Renewed Emission reduction calculation sheet, Bolu Ex- Ante Emission Reduction Calculation Renewed Emission reduction calculation sheet, Bolu Ex- Ante Emission Reduction Calculation Renewed Version Date (dd/mm/yyyy) 04 20/10/ /11/ /12/2017 D20 Emission reduction calculation sheet Bolu Ex- Ante Emission Reduction Calculation Renewed 07 11/12/2017 v xls D21 Methodology AMS-III.G.: Landfill methane recovery 09 - D22 CDM Validation and Verification Standard for project activities D23 CDM Project Standard for project activities D24 CDM Project Cycle Procedure for project activities D25 Tool: Assessment of the validity of the original/current baseline and update of the baseline at the renewal of the crediting period D26 Gold Standard procedures for the renewal of a crediting period, Annex-Z D27 GS VER Report Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey by RINA /09/2017 D28 Communication by PP to GS About Renewal of Crediting Period - 19/06/2017 D29 First Aid Training Certificate /05/2016 D30 Site Visit Photos - 01/08/2017 R-C-22 / Page 22 / 62

23 7. VALIDATION TEAM AND ITR COMPETENCE Sandeep KANDA holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering, Masters in Energy systems engineering from Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Safety & Environmental Management from National Institute of Industrial Engineering in India. He has more than ten years of work experience with auditing and consultancy firms, seven years thereof with Designated Operational Entities under the CDM. He is experienced working on diversified areas of energy and environmental management, including policies, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSR) Audits, energy audits, utility audits and product development. As CDM auditor and technical reviewer for TÜV Süd, he has audited more than 30 CDM projects as technical reviewer; 40 projects as lead auditor and 7 PoAs in various capacities; covering a broad range of sectoral scopes, such as Energy industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources), Energy distribution, Energy demand, Manufacturing industries, Chemical industries, Transport, Metal production, Waste handling & disposal and Agriculture. He has been working as a contracted team leader, technical reviewer, TA 1.1 and renewable energy expert in the context of Re Carbon. Anıl SÖYLER, Bsc. in Environmental Engineering, has completed his Bachelor degree in Middle East Technical University, Turkey. His Master study in the same field is at thesis stage and has 9 years of professional experience in environmental management, monitoring and auditing, waste and waste water management, environmental and social impact assessment, control of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental reports, and quality management systems. He has been involved in both national and international projects supported by IFC and World Bank. He has been working as Certification Manager in the context of Re Carbon. Göknil TÜFEKÖZDEMİR, B.Sc. in Environmental Engineering has completed her Bachelor degree in Uludağ University, Turkey. She has about 10 years of professional working experience in automotive and packaging sectors in the areas of environmental management, waste management, environmental impact assessment, environmental reports, monitoring of legal comformity, quality management systems, occupational health and safety and food safety management systems, auditing and training. She has been working as a validator/verifier in the context of Re Carbon. Sukanta DAS, has done M. SC in Physics and M. Tech in Energy technology from Tezpur Central University in India. He is a certified lead auditor for ISO EMS LA. He has more than five years of work experience at TUV NoRD under various categories of projects stating from Renewable to waste to supercritical projects. He was JI/CDM Lead Assessor in TUV NoRD and was involved in more than 80 CDM validation and verifications activities and Gold Standard, VER projects as a team leader/technical reviewer / validator / verifier covering the sectoral scope 1 technical area 1.2. He has been working as a contracted team leader, technical reviewer and renewable energy expert in the context of Re Carbon. R-C-22 / Page 23 / 62

24 7.1. Appointment Certificates R-C-22 / Page 24 / 62

25 R-C-22 / Page 25 / 62

26 R-C-22 / Page 26 / 62

27 R-C-22 / Page 27 / 62

28 8. VALIDATION OPINION Re Carbon Ltd. has performed the 2nd crediting period validation of the Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey in Turkey between 11/07/2017 and 20/12/2017. The validation was performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the CDM and Host Party criteria, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. The validation has been performed by a validation team consisting of Sandeep Kanda as team leader, Göknil Tüfeközdemir as trainee validator and Sukanta Das as ITR, and the project activity was checked against the applicable rules and regulations of CDM including CDM Validation and Verification Standard for project activities, version 1.0, CDM Project Standard for project activities, version 1.0, and CDM Project Cycle Procedure for project activities, version 1.0, and GS Toolkit version 2.2. Re Carbon Ltd. hereby confirms that the proposed project activity Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey in Turkey, has applied all relevant EB-guidance as the selected baseline and monitoring methodologies and the associated methodological tools have been applied correctly. Total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be around 19,399 tco 2 e per year over the 2nd crediting period. The emission reduction forecast has been checked and it is deemed likely that the stated amount is achieved given that the underlying assumptions do not change. As a result, the validation team assigned by the Re Carbon Ltd. concludes that the proposed Project Activity Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey in Turkey, as described in the PDD (version 12 dated 20/12/2017) meets all relevant Host Country criteria; meets all relevant requirements of the UNFCCC for CDM project activities [including Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the Modalities and Procedures for CDM (Marrakesh Accords) and the subsequent decisions and guidance by the COP/MOP and the CDM Executive Board]; applies correctly the baseline and monitoring methodology AMS-III.G, Version 9; is likely to achieve estimated emission reductions; Therefore, Re Carbon Ltd. requests the renewal of crediting period of the project activity. Sandeep KANDA Sukanta DAS Anıl SÖYLER Team Leader ITR Certification Manager 20/12/ /12/ /12/2017 R-C-22 / Page 28 / 62

29 ANNEX 1: VALIDATION PROTOCOL Table 1 CDM Renewal of Crediting Period Validation Requirements Question Reference Means of validation* Findings, comments, references and document sources Draft Final General Requirements 1. Have the PPs notified the secretariat on their request of renewal of the crediting period within 270 to 180 days prior to the date of expiration of the current crediting period? Annex DR Please clarify whether the PP notified the GS secretariat on their request of renewal of the crediting period within 270 to 180 days prior to the date of expiration of the current crediting period. CL1 OK 2. Do the PPs use the valid version of PDD form? Annex Annex DR No. Version 8 of the Form is currently used. However, ver. is the most recent one. The same needs to be used. CAR1 OK Cover Page *DR= Document Review, I= Interview R-C-22 / Page 29 / 62

30 Question Reference Means of validation* Findings, comments, references and document sources Draft Final 1. Has the following information been indicated in the cover page of the PDD? 1.1. Title of the project activity 1.2. Version number of the PDD 1.3. Completion date of the PDD in (DD/MM/YYYY) format 1.4. Project participants 1.5. Host party(ies) 1.6. Sectoral scope and selected methodologies 1.7. Estimated amount of annual average GHG emission reductions FORM version FORM version FORM version FORM version FORM version FORM version FORM version DR Yes, the title of the project activity is indicated as Bolu Landfill Gas to Energy Project, Turkey DR The version of the first submission for renewal is indicated as 5 OK OK DR The date of completion of version 5 is indicated as 10/05/2017 OK OK DR CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. OK OK DR Turkey OK OK DR The PDD refers to AMS-III.G, however, the current most recent version of the methodology has not been stated. Please update the PDD accordingly. Also, the sectoral scope 1 has not been indicated. OK CAR2 DR Please refer to CAR above CAR2 OK OK OK A. Description of Project Activity A.1. Purpose and general description of project activity This section of the PDD is not reviewed as the project is under validation for renewal of crediting period. *DR= Document Review, I= Interview R-C-22 / Page 30 / 62

31 Question Reference Means of validation* Findings, comments, references and document sources Draft Final A.2. Location of the project activity This section of the PDD is not reviewed as the project is under validation for renewal of crediting period. A.3. Technologies and measures This section of the PDD is not reviewed as the project is under validation for renewal of crediting period. A.4. Party(ies) and project participant(s) A.4.1. Has the Party(ies) and Project Participant(s) involved in the project activity been identified and listed in the tabular format under section A.4 of the PDD? FORM version DR The registered PDD version 4 indicates CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. And Mavi Consultants as the project participants. The latter being the carbon consultant. Whereas, the version 5 of the PDD submitted for renewal indicates only CEV Marmara Enerji Üretim San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. as the project participant. Please clarify. CL2 OK A.4.2. Has the contact information been provided in Appendix 1 of the PDD? A.4.3. Is all PP s information listed in a consistent manner in the project documentation? (PDD and Modalities of Communication) Annex a(vi) A.4.4. Are there any entities other than those approved as project participants included in Section A.4 and Appendix 1 of the PDD? Annex DR Refer to CL above CL2 OK A.5. Public funding of project activity This section of the PDD is not reviewed as the project is under validation for renewal of crediting period. *DR= Document Review, I= Interview R-C-22 / Page 31 / 62

32 Question Reference Means of validation* Findings, comments, references and document sources Draft Final B. Application of Selected Approved Baseline and Monitoring Methodology and Standardized Baseline B.1. Reference methodology and standardized baseline B.1.1. Is the correct version of methodology(ies) given in the registered PDD used by the PPs? B.1.2. Is the correct version of tools given in the registered PDD used by the PPs? Annex Annex a(iii) DR The version of the tool Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system is not the most recent and is to be updated CAR3 OK B.2. Applicability of methodology and standardized baseline B.2.1. Has the PPs justified the choice of the selected methodology(ies) or standardized baseline(s), if applicable, by showing that the project activity meets each applicability condition of the methodology(ies) or standardized baseline(s)? Annex 4 54 B.2.2. Does the project activity meet each of the applicability conditions of the tools or other methodology components referred to in the applied methodology? *DR= Document Review, I= Interview Annex 5 67 R-C-22 / Page 32 / 62

33 B.2.3. Question Has the PPs explained the documentation that has been used and provided the references to applicability of methodology or included the documentation in Appendix 3 of the PDD? AMS-III.G Reference Means of validation* Findings, comments, references and document sources Draft Final B.2.4. Different options to utilise the recovered landfill gas as detailed in paragraph 3 of AMS- III.H.: Methane recovery in wastewater treatment (version 16.0) are eligible for use under this methodology. The relevant procedures in AMS-III.H. shall be followed in this regard. B.2.5. Does the project activity comprises of measures to capture and combust methane from landfills (i.e. solid waste disposal sites) used for the disposal of residues from human activities including municipal, industrial, and other solid wastes containing biodegradable organic matter? B.2.6. Are the aggregate emission reductions less than or equal to 60 kt CO2 equivalent annually from all Type III components of the project activity? B.2.7. Do not reduce the amount of organic waste that would be recycled in the absence of the project activity. B.2.8. This methodology is not applicable if the management of the solid waste disposal site (SWDS) in the project activity is deliberately changed in order to increase methane generation compared to the situation prior to AMS III.G Version 9 AMS III.G Version 9 AMS III.G Version 9 AMS III.G Version 9 AMS III.G Version 9 DR DR The justification provided against the applicability condition Different options to utilise the recovered landfill gas as detailed in paragraph 3 of AMS-III.H.: Methane recovery in wastewater treatment (version 16.0) are eligible for use under this methodology. The relevant procedures in AMS-III.H. shall be followed in this regard. Has not been stated correctly. The project activity was installed to an existing SWDS where no LFG capture system installed prior to the implementation of the project activity. CAR4 DR There is no recycling of organic materials in the baseline situation or project activity OK OK OK OK OK *DR= Document Review, I= Interview R-C-22 / Page 33 / 62