METHANE RECOVERY IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT MX07-W-21, SONORA, MÉXICO

Transcription

1 METHANE RECOVERY IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT MX07-W-21, SONORA, MÉXICO UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism Simplified Project Design Document for Small Scale Project Activity DOCUMENT ID: MX07-W-21 VER 1, 19 JUNE 2007

2 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) Version 03 - in effect as of: 22 December 2006 CONTENTS A. General description of the small scale project activity B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period D. Environmental impacts E. Stakeholders comments Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the proposed small scale project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information Annex 4: Monitoring Information 1

3 Revision history of this document Version Date Description and reason of revision Number January 2003 Initial adoption 02 8 July 2005 The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since version 01 of this document. As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest version can be found at < December The Board agreed to revise the CDM project design 2006 document for small-scale activities (CDM-SSC-PDD), taking into account CDM-PDD and CDM-NM. 2

4 SECTION A. General description of small-scale project activity A.1 Title of the small-scale project activity: Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment, Project MX07-W-21, Sonora, México, Ver 1, 19 June A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity: Purpose: This project will recover methane from biogenic matter in livestock processing plant wastewater by introducing methane recovery and combustion to an existing anaerobic treatment system (lagoons). Explanation of GHG emission reductions: The proposed project activities will recover GHG emissions in an economically sustainable manner, and will result in other environmental benefits, such as improved water quality and reduced odour. In simple terms, the project proposes to move from a high-ghgemitting open air lagoon, to a lower-ghg-emitting anaerobic digester with capture and combustion of resulting biogas. Contribution to sustainable development: Worldwide, agricultural operations are becoming progressively more intensive to realize economies of production and scale. The pressure to become more efficient drives significant operational similarities between facilities of a type, as inputs, outputs, practices, and technology have become similar around the world. This is especially true in abattoir operations which can create profound environmental consequences, such as greenhouse gas emissions, odour, and water/land contamination (including seepage, runoff, and over application). A.3. Project participants: Name of Party involved (*) ((host) indicates a host Party) México (host) Private and/or public entity(ies) project participants (*) (as applicable) AgCert International plc AgCert México Servicios Ambientales, S. de R.L. de C.V. Kindly indicate if the Party involved wishes to be considered as project participant (Yes/No) No A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity: A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity: A Host Party(ies): The host party for this project activity is México. 3

5 A Region/State/Province etc.: The project will be located in Sonora. A City/Town/Community etc: The project sites are shown in Figure A1 with specifics detailed in Table A1. A Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this small-scale project activity : The physical location of each of the sites involved in this project activity is shown in Figure A1 and listed in Table A1. Alimentos Grole S.A. de C.V. has one facility in Sonora: Rastro TIF #67 ( ) is a mixed species animal meat processing plant located in Ciudad Obregon. This facility processes primarily swine meat but also processes some beef cattle. The plant is in operation approximately 9.5 hours per day, 52 weeks per year. The plant is in regulatory compliance. Two anaerobic lagoons are present at this facility. The primary lagoon measures 3m x 58m x 88m and the secondary lagoon measures 2.5m x 30m x 30m. 4

6 5

7 Figure A1. Project Activity Site in Sonora, México 6

8 CDM Executive Board Table A1. Detailed physical location and identification of project sites Site Name Address Town/State Contact Phone GPS Rastro TIF #67 Calle Base y Canal alto, Predio Santa Rosa Ciudad Obregon, Sonora, Mexico Miguel Humberto Olea Ruiz º N 109 º W AgCert Site ID

9 A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology/measure of the small-scale project activity: The project activity described in this document is classified as a Type III, Other Project Activities, Category III.H./Ver. 5, option iv, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. The project activity will capture and combust methane gas produced from the existing anaerobic wastewater treatment systems in Sonora, México. The technology to be employed by the project activity includes the installation of a cover on an existing lagoon to allow for capture and combustion of biogas emitted. The system will be comprised of a lined and covered lagoon creating a digester with sufficient capacity and Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) to reduce the volatile solids loading in the effluent. The cover consists of a synthetic high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane, which is secured to the liner by means of an anchor trench around the perimeter. HDPE is the most commonly used geomembrane in the world and is well suited for use in this project. HDPE is an excellent product for large applications that require UV, ozone, and chemical resistance. The digester has been designed to permit solids residue removal without breaking the gas retention seal. Processed effluent from the digester(s) will be routed to a secondary and tertiary lagoon system, as needed, and captured biogas will be routed to a combustion system to destroy methane gas produced. Maintenance procedures have been developed to ensure proper handling and disposition of the digester sludge. The flaring combustion system is automated to ensure that all biogas that exits the digester and passes through the flare (and flow meter) is combusted. Pressure control devices within the gas handling system maintain proper biogas flow to the combustion system. A continuous ignition system ensures methane combustion whenever biogas is present at the flare. Two (2) sparking electrodes provide operational redundancy. If biogas is present in the flare, it is immediately ignited by the sparking system. If biogas is not present, the igniter sparks harmlessly approximately every 3 seconds. This continuous ignition system is powered by a solar module (solar-charged battery system) that operates independently from the power grid. With a fully charged battery, the module will provide power to the igniter for up to two weeks without sunlight. The component parts are verified functional on a periodic basis in accordance with manufacturer and other technical specifications. Technology and know-how transfer: AgCert, as project developer, is implementing a multi-faceted approach to ensure the project, including technology transfer, proceeds smoothly. This approach includes careful specification and design of a complete technology solution, identification and qualification of appropriate technology/services providers, supervision of the complete project installation, staff training, ongoing monitoring (by the project developer) and developing/implementing a complete Monitoring Plan. As part of this process, the project developer has specified a technology solution that will be self-sustaining (i.e., highly reliable, low maintenance, and operate with little or no user intervention). The materials and labour used in the base project activity are sourced from the host country whenever economically and technically feasible. By working so closely with the facility staff on an ongoing basis, the project developer will ensure that all installed equipment is properly operated and maintained, and will carefully monitor the data collection and recording process. Moreover, by working with the staff over many years, the project developer will ensure that the staff acquires appropriate expertise and resources to operate the system on an ongoing/continuous basis. 8

10 A.4.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS OVER THE RENEWABLE 7 YEAR CREDITING PERIOD A Estimated Emission Reductions over chosen Crediting Period Years Annual estimation of emission reductions in tonnes of CO 2 e Year 1 9,869 Year 2 9,869 Year 3 9,869 Year 4 9,869 Year 5 9,869 Year 6 9,869 Year 7 9,869 Total estimated reductions (tonnes CO 2 e) 69,080 Total number of crediting years 7 Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions (tonnes of CO 2 e) 9,869 A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity: There is no official development assistance being provided for this project. A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a large scale project activity: Based on paragraph 2 of Appendix C of the Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small-Scale CDM project activities, 1 this project is not debundled. There are no other registered large-scale CDM project activities with the same project participants, in the same project category and technology/measure whose project boundary is within 1 km of another proposed small-scale activity

11 SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the small-scale project activity: The project activity is a Type III, Other Project Activities, Category III.H./Ver. 5, option iv, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. The project is a small scale project because it comprises methane recovery from agro-industries and project emission reductions will not exceed 60 kt CO 2 eq annually. B.2 Justification of the choice of the project category: The simplified methodologies are appropriate because the project activity site is considered an agroindustry and GHG emissions calculations can be estimated using internationally accepted IPCC guidance. As specified in option iv of the methodology, the proposed project activity will introduce methane recovery and combustion to an existing anaerobic wastewater treatment system, in this case, an anaerobic lagoon. This simplified baseline methodology is applicable to this project activity because without the proposed project activity, methane from the existing anaerobic treatment system would continue to be emitted into the atmosphere. Based on historical animal processing rates and baseline estimates, the estimated emission reductions of the project activity will not exceed 60 kt CO 2 e in any year of the crediting period as shown in Section A.4.3. B.3. Description of the project boundary: The project boundary is illustrated in Figure B1. It describes the basic layout of the project facility in a schematic format. The proposed project boundary considers the GHG emissions that come from wastewater practices, including the GHG resulting from the capture and combustion of biogas. The physical boundary of the project activity is located at the GPS coordinates listed in table A.1. The project activity site uses a system of two lagoons. Proposed changes include the construction of a sealed cover on existing lagoons that capture the resulting biogas which is then combusted. As required in the methodology, the project boundary is the physical, geographical site where the wastewater and sludge treatment takes place. 10

12 Figure B1. Project Boundary B.4. Description of baseline and its development: The amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere in the absence of the project activity can be estimated by referring to UNFCCC-approved methodology AMS III.H, Version 5, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. The baseline for this project activity corresponds with section 6, option iv, of the methodology, which is the existing anaerobic wastewater treatment system without methane recovery and combustion. Open anaerobic lagoons are the current system and estimated emissions are determined as follows: 11

13 Step 1 Calculate emissions from untreated wastewater Where: MEP y,ww,treatment = Q y,ww *COD y,ww,untreated *B o,ww * MCF ww,treatment Equation B1 2 MEP y,ww,treatment = Methane emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant in the year y, tonnes Q y,ww = Volume of wastewater treated in the year y, m 3 COD y,ww,untreated = Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatment reactor/system with methane capture in the year y, tonnes/ m 3 B o,ww = Methane producing capacity of the wastewater (IPCC default value for domestic wastewater of 0.21 kg CH 4 / kg COD) MCF ww, treatment = Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system that will be equipped with methane recovery and combustion (MCF lower value in Table III.H.1) Step 2 Calculate emissions from sludge Where: MEP y,s,treatment = S y, untreated *DOC y,s,untreated *DOC f *F*16/12* MCF s,treatment Equation B2 3 MEP y,s,treatment = Methane emission potential of the sludge treatment system in the year y, tonnes S y,untreated = Amount of untreated sludge generated in the year y, tonnes DOC y,s, untreated = Degradable organic content of untreated sludge generated in the year y, fraction. It shall be measured by sampling and analysis of the sludge produced, and estimated ex-ante using the IPCC default values of 0.05 for domestic sludge (wet basis, considering a default dry matter content of 10 percent) or 0.09 for industrial sludge (wet basis, assuming dry matter content of 35 percent). DOC f = Fraction of DOC dissimilated to biogas, fraction (IPCC default is ) F = Fraction of CH 4 in landfill gas (IPCC default is ) 2 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5, Chapter 3 Solid Waste Disposal, p IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5, Chapter 3 Solid Waste Disposal, p

14 16/12 = Molar ratio of methane to carbon MCF s,treatment = Methane correction factor for the sludge treatment system that will be equipped with methane recovery and combustion (MCF higher value of 1.0 in Table III.H.1) Step 3 Calculate baseline emissions from lagoons BE y = MEP y,ww,treatment *GWP_CH 4 + MEP y,s,treatment * GWP_CH 4 Equation B3 6 Where: BE y = Baseline emissions in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e MEP y,ww,treatment = Methane emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant in the year y, tonnes MEP y,s,treatment = Methane emission potential of the sludge treatment system in the year y, tonnes GWP_CH 4 = Global warming potential of methane (21) B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered small-scale CDM project activity: Anthropogenic GHGs, specifically methane, are released into the atmosphere via decomposition of biogenic matter in livestock processing plant wastewater. Currently, this biogas is not collected or destroyed. The proposed project activity intends to improve current wastewater management practices. These changes will result in the mitigation of anthropogenic GHG emissions, specifically the recovery of methane, by collecting and combusting the biogas. There are no existing, pending, or planned national regulatory requirements that govern GHG emissions from agro-industry operations (specifically, meat processing activities) as outlined in this PDD. The project participants have solicited information regarding this issue during numerous conversations with local and state government officials and through legal representation and have determined there is no regulatory impetus for producers to upgrade current wastewater treatment systems beyond the recommended open air anaerobic lagoon. The following paragraphs discuss the Mexican meat processing industry and how conditions hinder changes in current practices. Assessment of barriers: Absent CDM project activities, the proposed project activity has not been adopted on a national or worldwide scale due to the following barriers: a) Investment Barriers: This treatment approach is considered one of the most advanced systems in the world. Only a few countries have implemented such technology because of the high costs involved in the investment compared to other available systems. Though costs vary according to 6 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p

15 required lagoon size and other factors, initial costs to install an anaerobic digester system can run in the tens of thousands of US dollars. 7 Although the generation of electricity with biogas may be an attractive concept, the initial costs to install a generator system can cost as much as, if not more than, the initial costs of an anaerobic digester system. 8 Mexican meat processors face the same economic challenges as producers in other nations due to increased worldwide production and low operating margins. Meat processing facility owners focus on the bottom line. Odour benefits, potential water quality enhancements, and the incremental savings associated with heating cost avoidance, are rarely enough to compel owners to upgrade to an (expensive) advanced treatment system. Unless the treatment upgrade activity affords the producer the means to (partially) offset the practice change cost (via the sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits, for instance) the prevailing practice will remain the common method of wastewater treatment and all GHG biogas will continue to be emitted. Producers view the treatment system as a stage that is outside of the production process and have difficulty financing changes that should be undertaken. Even banks have been unwilling to finance such activities absent government guarantees or other incentives. b) Technology barriers: Anaerobic digester systems have to be sized to handle projected effluent volumes with a Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) consistent with extracting all methane from the effluent. These systems become progressively more expensive on a per cubic meter basis as production is decreased. Moreover, operations and maintenance requirements involved with this technology, including a detailed monitoring program to maintain system performance levels, must also be considered. 9 Worldwide, few anaerobic digesters have achieved long-term operations, due primarily to inappropriate operations and maintenance. An analysis was performed to assess whether the basis in choosing the baseline scenario is expected to change during the crediting period and the results follow: a) Legal constraints: There is no expectation that Mexican legislation will require future use of digesters due to the significant investments required. Further, there is no expectation that México will pass any legislation which deals with the GHG emissions in regard to livestock processing plant wastewater treatment. Indeed, the developer is aware of no Latin American or other worldwide location requiring either the use of digesters or the constraints of agricultural GHG emissions. Qualitatively, this is the most likely risk area associated with possible changes in the baseline scenario. Overarching environmental regulations have to balance creating a legislative framework that enables agricultural production against social pressures to make industrialized meat processing operations good neighbours. México has successfully grown this sector, building upon low operating costs and technically expert labour. b) Common practice: While past practices cannot predict future events, it is worth noting that the site included in this project activity has been in existence for many years, during which time, the prevailing wastewater management practice was open lagoons p

16 B.6. Emission reductions: B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: Baseline Emissions Baseline emissions are calculated as described in section B.4. Project Emissions The amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere due to the project activity and within the project boundaries can be estimated by referring to UNFCCC-approved methodology AMS III.H, Version 5, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. The project emissions for this project activity are defined as the amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere during the crediting period due to the project activity. In this case an anaerobic digester is considered the project activity and estimated emissions are determined as follows: Step 4 Calculate emissions from treated wastewater for project PE y,ww,treated = Q y,ww *COD y,ww,treated *B o,ww * MCF ww,final * GWP_CH 4 Equation B4 10 Where: PE y,ww,treated = Emissions from degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e Q y,ww = Volume of wastewater treated in the year y, m 3 COD y, ww, treated = Chemical oxygen demand of the treated wastewater in the year, tonnes/m 3 B o,ww = Methane producing capacity of the wastewater (IPCC default of 0.21 kg CH 4 / kg COD) MCF ww, final = Methane correction factor based on type of treatment and discharge pathway of the wastewater, fraction (MCF higher value in Table III.H.1) GWP_CH 4 = Global warming potential of methane (21) Step 5 Calculate total amount of organic material removed in lagoon system PE y,s,final = S y,final *DOC y,s,final *MCF s,final * DOC f *F*16/12* GWP_CH 4 Equation B Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p

17 Where: PE y,s,final = Methane emissions from the anaerobic decay of the final sludge generated in wastewater system in year y, tonnes CO 2 e S y,final = Amount of final sludge generated by the wastewater system in the year y, tonnes DOC y,s,final = Degradable organic content of the final sludge generated by wastewater treatment in the year y, fraction. This shall be measured by sampling and analysis of the sludge produced, and estimated ex-ante using the IPCC default values of 0.05 for domestic sludge (wet basis, considering a default dry matter content of 10 percent). MCF s, final = Methane correction factor of the landfill that receives the final sludge, estimated as described in category AMS III.G. DOC f = Fraction of DOC dissimilated to biogas, fraction (IPCC default is ) F = Fraction of CH 4 in landfill gas (IPCC default is ) 16/12 = Molar ratio of methane to carbon GWP_CH 4 = Global warming potential of methane (21) Step 6 Calculate emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant Where: MEP y,ww,treatment = Q y,ww *COD y,ww,untreated *B o,ww * MCF ww,treatment Equation B1 14 MEP y,ww,treatment = Methane emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant in the year y, tonnes Q y,ww = Volume of wastewater treated in the year y, m 3 COD y,ww,untreated = Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatment reactor/system with methane capture in the year y, tonnes/ m 3 B o,ww = Methane producing capacity of the wastewater (IPCC default value for domestic wastewater of 0.21 kg CH 4 / kg COD) MCF ww, treatment = Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system that will be equipped with methane recovery and combustion (MCF higher value in Table III.H.1) 11 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5, Chapter 3 Solid Waste Disposal, p IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5, Chapter 3 Solid Waste Disposal, p Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p

18 Step 7 Calculate fugitive emissions from capture and flare inefficiencies Where: PE y,fugitive,ww = (1-CFE ww ) *MEP y,ww,treatment *GWP_CH 4 Equation B6 15 PE y,fugitive,ww = Fugitive emissions through capture and flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic wastewater treatment in year y, tonnes CO 2 e CFE ww = Capture and flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion equipment in the wastewater treatment (a default value of 0.9 shall be used, given no other appropriate value) MEP y,ww,treatment = Methane emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant in the year y, tonnes GWP_CH 4 = Global warming potential of methane (21) Step 8 Calculate fugitive emissions from capture and flare inefficiencies in sludge treatment Where: PE y,fugitive,s = (1-CFE s ) *MEP y,s,treatment *GWP_CH 4 Equation B7 16 PE y,fugitive,s = Fugitive emissions through capture and flare inefficiencies in the sludge treatment in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e CFE s = Capture and flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion equipment in the sludge treatment (a default value of 0.9 shall be used, given no other appropriate value) MEP y,s,treatment = Methane emission potential of the sludge treatment system in the year y, tonnes GWP_CH 4 = Global warming potential of methane (21) 15 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p

19 Step 9 Calculate total fugitive emissions PE y,fugitive = PE y,fugitive,ww + PE y,fugitive,s Equation B8 17 Where: PE y,fugitive = Emissions from methane release in capture and flare systems in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e PE y,fugitive,ww = Fugitive emissions through capture and flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic wastewater treatment in year y, tonnes CO 2 e PE y,fugitive,s = Fugitive emissions through capture and flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic sludge treatment in year y, tonnes CO 2 e Step 10 Calculate emissions from methane dissolved in treated wastewater PE y,dissolved =Q y,ww *[CH 4 ] y,ww,treated * GWP_CH 4 Equation B9 18 Where: PE y,dissolved = Emissions from dissolved methane in treated wastewater in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e Q y,ww = Volume of wastewater treated in the year y, m 3 [CH 4 ] y,ww,treated = Dissolved methane content in the treated wastewater (tonnes/m 3 ). Aerobic wastewater default = 0; anaerobic wastewater default = tonnes/m 3 GWP_CH 4 = Global warming potential of methane (21) 17 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p

20 Step 11 Calculate total project emissions Where: PE y =PE y,power + PE y,ww,treated + PE y,s,final + PE y,fugitive + PE y,dissolved Equation B10 19 PE y = Project emissions in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e PE y,power = Emissions from electricity or diesel consumption in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e PE y,ww,treated = Emissions from degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e PE y,s,final = Emissions from anaerobic decay of the final sludge produced in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e (If the sludge is controlled combusted, disposed in a landfill with methane recovery, or used for soil application, this term can be neglected, and the final disposal of the sludge shall be monitored during the crediting period.) PE y,fugitive = Emissions from methane release in capture and flare systems in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e PE y,dissolved = Emissions from dissolved methane in treated wastewater in the year y, tonnes CO 2 e Step 12 Calculate emission reductions ER y =BE y (PE y Leakage y ) Equation B11 20 Where: ER y = Emission reductions, tonnes CO 2 e/year BE y = Baseline emissions, tonnes CO 2 e/year PE y = Project emissions, tonnes CO 2 e/year Leakage y = Leakage emissions, tonnes CO 2 e/year Leakage In accordance with the methodology, leakage calculations are not required since the technology being employed in this project is not transferred from or to another activity. 19 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.5, p

21 B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation: Accurate data collection is essential. The facilities included in this project activity use a standardized industry database package which captures a wide range of incremental production data to manage operation and enable them to maximize both productivity and profitability. AgCert uses some data collected from this system. AgCert has a QA/QC system that ensures data security and data integrity. Spot audits of data collection activities are conducted on a regular basis. AgCert has a data management system capable of interfacing with producer systems to serve as a secure data repository. Project activity data-related uncertainties will be reduced by applying sound data collection quality assurance and quality control procedures. Table B.1. lists data and parameters available at the time of validation. Table B.1. Data / Parameter Values and References Data / Parameter: GWP CH 4 Data unit: Global Warming Potential of Methane Source of data used: Value applied: 21 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data used: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996) B o.ww Value applied: 0.21 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: Kg CH 4 / kg COD Methane producing capacity of the treated wastewater IPCC default value for domestic wastewater as cited in UNFCCC AMS- III.H, V.5 methodology 20

22 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: MCF Fraction Methane correction factor IPCC default value as cited in UNFCCC AMS-III.H, V.5 methodology MCF ww, treatment = 0.8 (baseline) and 1.0 (project) for anaerobic deep lagoon MCF ww, final = 0.4 for discharge of wastewater to aerobic treatment poorly managed (project) MCF s, treatment = 1.0 for sludge treatment system (baseline and project) Data / Parameter: Data unit: CFE Capture and flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion equipment Source of data used: Default value specified in UNFCCC AMS-III.H., V.5 methodology, p.4 Value applied: CFE s = 0.9 CFE ww = 0.9 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: The 0.9 default value specified in Item 12(a) of the methodology will be adopted. The biogas flow rate and flare combustion temperature will be monitored to ensure the flare is operating in accordance with the manufacturer s specifications. Data / Parameter: DOC Data unit: Fraction Degradable organic content of the untreated or final sludge generated by wastewater treatment Source of data used: IPCC default values as cited in UNFCCC AMS-III.H., V.5 methodology, p.3 Value applied: DOC y,s,untreated = 0.09 DOC y,s,final = 0.09 Justification of the choice of Measured by sampling and analysis of the sludge provided data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: 21

23 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data used: Value applied: 0.5 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data used: Value applied: 0.5 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: DOC f Fraction Fraction of DOC dissimilated to biogas IPCC default values as cited in UNFCCC AMS-III.H., V.5 methodology, p.3 F Fraction Fraction of CH 4 in landfill gas IPCC default values as cited in UNFCCC AMS-III.H., V.5 methodology, p.3 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: PE y,power Tonnes CO 2 e Emissions from electricity or diesel consumption in the year y Facility records Data / Parameter: Q y,ww Data unit: m 3 Volume of wastewater treated in the year y Source of data used: Facility records Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: 22

24 Data / Parameter: Data unit: Tonnes/m 3 Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: COD y,ww, untreated Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatmen reactor / system with methane capture in the year y Measured at facility during assessment Data / Parameter: COD y,ww, treated Data unit: Tonnes/m 3 Chemical oxygen demand of the treated wastewater in the year y Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of Measured at facility during assessment data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: S y, final Tonnes Amount of final sludge generated by the wastewater treatment in the year y Measured at facility during assessment S y, untreated Tonnes Amount of untreated sludge generated in the year y Measured at facility during assessment 23

25 Data / Parameter: CH 4, y, ww, treated Data unit: Tonnes/m 3 Dissolved methane content in the treated wastewater Source of data used: Refer to AMS.III.H. methodology Value applied: Aerobic wastewater default = 0 Anaerobic wastewater default = (10e-4 tonnes/m 3 ) Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Comments: B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions: Emission factors for the baseline are calculated as described in Section B.4. To estimate total yearly baseline methane emissions, the selected emission factors are calculated by determining the methane emission potential of untreated wastewater and untreated sludge. Table B.2. Baseline Emissions (Methane shown in metric tonnes of CO 2 e) Rastro TIF #67 ( ) Methane emission potential of untreated wastewater in tonnes CH 4 year -1 (ME y,ww,treatment ) Methane emission potential of untreated sludge in tonnes CH 4 year -1 (ME y,s,treatment ) 0 Global warming potential of methane (GWP_CH4) 21 Total annual baseline emissions in tonnes of CO2e (BEy) 10,442.0 Rastro TIF #67 ( ) Year Expected Growth % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Baseline Emissions (CO2e/year) 10, , , , , , , ,

26 Emission factors for the project activity are calculated as described in Section B.6.1. To estimate total yearly project methane emissions, the types of emissions listed in Table B.3 are summed. Table B.3. Project Activity Emissions (Methane shown in metric tonnes of CO 2 e) Rastro TIF #67 ( ) Emissions through electricity or diesel consumption (PE y,power ) 0.0 Emissions through degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater (PE y,ww,treated ) Emissions through anaerobic decay of the final sludge produced (PE y,s,final ) 0.0 Emissions through methane release in capture and flare systems (PE y,fugitive ) Emissions through dissolved methane in treated wastewater (PE y, dissolved ) 0.0 Total annual project emissions (PEy) Rastro TIF #67 ( ) Year Expected Growth % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Project Emissions (CO2e/year) ,014.2 Since the technology used does not consist of equipment from another activity nor is the existing equipment transferred to another activity, leakage does not need to be considered as per the methodology. B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions: Table B.4. Total Emission Reductions Table B.4. Total Emission Reductions (tonnes CO 2 e) Estimation of Year project activity emissions(tco2e) Estimation of baseline emissions (tco2e) Estimation of leakage (tco 2 e) Estimation of overall emission reductions (tco2e) , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,869 Total (tonnes CO 2 e) 4,014 73, ,080 25

27 B.7 Application of a monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan: B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: AgCert has designed and implemented a unique set of data management tools to efficiently capture and report data throughout the project lifecycle. On-site assessment (collecting Geo-referenced, time/date stamped data), supplier production data exchange, task tracking, and post-implementation auditing tools have been developed to ensure accurate, consistent, and complete data gathering and project implementation. Sophisticated tools have also been created to estimate/monitor the creation of high quality, permanent ERs using accepted UNFCCC methodologies. By coupling these capabilities with an ISO-based quality and environmental management system, AgCert enables transparent data collection and verification. AgCert employs an internal QA audit process that ensures monitoring activities are conducted in accordance with the monitoring plan and verifies the accuracy of data reported. All data will be archived electronically and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years. Flow metering devices used are designed to continuously and accurately measure biogas flow and accumulate a running total. The wetted parts of the metering devices were designed to withstand corrosive environments, such as biogas. Meters are received from the factory fully-calibrated and retain calibration for the service life of the unit, making meter accuracy permanent. Accuracy is not affected by low or varying line pressures. The flow meters retain calibration within 1% of full scale for the service life of the unit. Periodic maintenance will be performed based on manufacturer specifications. Other equipment calibrations are accomplished using procedures developed by AgCert as part of the Monitoring Plan (Annex 4). The automated flaring combustion system is designed as specified in Section A.4.2. Manufacturer specifications state the acceptable range of biogas flow is from 1 m 3 /hour to 170 m 3 /hour. In addition, the manufacturer states that at a combustion temperature greater than 200 o Celsius, the flare s methane destruction efficiency is equal to or greater than 90%. Flow rate and temperature will be monitored as specified in Table B.5 to ensure compliance with the manufacturer specifications. Methane concentration is determined using a Bacharach Model Fyrite (or equivalent) gas analyzer. The process is described in the Monitoring Plan. The measuring equipment is calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer specifications. The equipment is accurate to within 0.5%. Table B.5. Data to be monitored Parameter: Q y,ww Unit: m 3 Volume of wastewater treated in the year y Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form Value of data: Brief description of Measured and recorded monthly measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: 26

28 Parameter: Unit: Source of data: Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: Parameter: Unit: Source of data: Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: S y, untreated Tonnes Volume of untreated sludge generated in the year y Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Measured and recorded as necessary S y, final Tonnes Volume of final sludge generated in the year y Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Measured and recorded as necessary Parameter: COD y,ww,untreated Unit: Tonnes/m 3 Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatment system in the year y Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of Measured and recorded monthly measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: 27

29 Parameter: COD y,ww,treated Unit: Tonnes/m 3 Chemical oxygen demand of the treated wastewater in the year y Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of Measured and recorded monthly measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: Parameter: Unit: Source of data: Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: Parameter: Unit: Source of data: Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: DOC y,s,untreated Fraction Degradable organic content of untreated sludge generated in the year y Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Measured and recorded as necessary DOC y,s,final Fraction Degradable organic content of the final sludge generated by wastewater treatment in the year y Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Measured and recorded as necessary 28

30 Parameter: Unit: Source of data: Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: S f, end use End use of final sludge generated Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Measured and recorded as necessary Parameter: CH 4, y, ww, treated Unit: Tonnes/m 3 Dissolved methane content in the treated wastewater Source of data: Refer to AMS.III.H. methodology Value of data: Aerobic wastewater default = 0 Anaerobic wastewater default = (10e-4 tonnes/m 3 ) Brief description of Default value used. measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: Parameter: Pressure biogas Unit: Kg/cm 2 Pressure of biogas produced Source of data: Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Value of data: Brief description of Measured and recorded periodically measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: 29

31 Parameter: Unit: Source of data: Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: MC Percentage Methane content of biogas Gas analyzer Measured and recorded monthly. Methane concentration is determined with CO 2 content measurement and is obtained with a gas analyzer. A range of ± 10% points is sufficient to determine uncertainties. For example, the nominal percentage of CH4 in biogas is approximately 65%. Readings between 55% and 75% indicate proper operation of the digester. Measuring equipment is calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer specifications. Parameter: Biogas amount Unit: m 3 Amount of biogas recovered Source of data: Continuous flow meter Value of data: Brief description of Measured and recorded monthly measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: Parameter: CFE ww Unit: Percentage Efficiency of flaring process Source of data: Refer to AMS.III.H. number 12, option a Value of data: 0.90 Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: Measured and recorded upon initial installation. Initial flare efficiency testing will be performed by trained personnel using calibrated equipment and a third-party verified test protocol. For enclosed flares, as per the methodology, a continuous check of compliance with the manufacturers specification of the flare device (temperature, biogas flow rate) will be done. If in any specific hour any of the parameters is out of the range of specifications, 50% of the default value will be used for this specific hour. For open flares, 50% of the default value will be used since it is not possible to monitor flare efficiency. If at any given time the temperature of the flare is below 500 o C, 0% default value will be used for this period. See the parameters listed under Flaring Tool Required Parameters which allow the 0.90 value to be used. 30

32 Parameter: Unit: Source of data: Value of data: Brief description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied (if any): Any comment: Temperature flare Degrees Celsius Temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare Data collected on the AgCert Monitoring Form. Measured and recorded continuously. Temperature of the exhaust gas stream is measured by a Type N thermocouple. A temperature above C indicates that a significant amount of gases are still being burnt and that the flare is operating. Thermocouples should be replaced or calibrated annually. Data will be archived electronically or on paper and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years. B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan: A Monitoring Plan (see Annex 4) has been developed to ensure accurate measurement of required parameters, including biogas produced, and proper operation of the digester equipment. A detailed Operations & Maintenance (O & M) Manual for the applicable methodology has also been developed. The instructions in this manual exceed the requirements outlined in the approved methodology outlined in Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities as it applies to proposed project activity. Further, AgCert has a trained staff located in the host nation to perform O&M activities including but not limited to monitoring and collection of parameters, quality audits, personnel training, and equipment inspections. The associated O & M Manual has been developed to provide guidance (work instructions) to individuals that collect and/or process data. AgCert staff will perform audits of operations personnel on a regular basis to ensure proper data collection and handling. B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) The final draft of the application of the methodology was completed on 19/06/2007. The entity determining the baseline and monitoring methodology is AgCert International plc who is the project developer as well as a project participant. Contact information is listed in Annex 1. 31

33 SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1 Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: The starting date for this activity is 08/05/2006. C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: The expected life of this project is 23y 4m. C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information: The project activity will use a renewable crediting period C.2.1. Renewable crediting period C Starting date of the first crediting period: The starting date of the crediting period is 01/09/2007. C Length of the first crediting period: The length of the crediting period is 7y-0m. C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: C C Starting date: Length: 32

34 SECTION D. Environmental impacts D.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity: An environmental impact analysis is not required for this type of GHG project activity. Environment: There are no negative environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project activity. Beyond the principal benefit of mitigating GHG emissions (the primary focus of the proposed project); the proposed activities will also result in positive environmental co-benefits. They include: Reducing atmospheric emissions of Volatile Organics Compounds (VOCs) that cause odour, Lowering the population of flies and associated enhancement to on-site bio-security thus reducing the possible spread of disease. The combination of these factors will make the proposed project site more neighbour friendly and environmentally responsible. D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: No action required. SECTION E. Stakeholders comments E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: AgCert invited stakeholders to a meeting to explain the UNFCCC CDM process and proposed project activity. These meetings were held on January 27, 2005 in Ciudad Obregon, Sonora, México. AgCert issued invitations to government officials at the federal, state, and local levels. Furthermore, AgCert published announcements of the meetings in the newspaper, which cover Sonora. These public announcements appeared in: 1. El Imparcial, Sonora on January 17 and 25, All invitations were in the Spanish language. The meeting was attended by project participants and producer representatives. A full list of attendees and the meeting minutes are available on request. Leo Perkowski of AgCert International gave a presentation, which covered the following topics: purpose of the meeting, background on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC CDM process, process and responsibilities of the project, participants, equipment to be used for evaluation and audits, information 33