METHANE RECOVERY IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT, PROJECT AIN07-W-05, SUMATERA UTARA, INDONESIA

Transcription

1 METHANE RECOVERY IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT, PROJECT AIN07-W-05, SUMATERA UTARA, INDONESIA UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism Simplified Project Design Document for Small Scale Projects DOCUMENT ID: AIN07-W-05 VER 1, 27 AUG

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 2

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. 3

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 AIN07-W-05, Sumatera Utara, Indonesia, Version 1, 27 August, 2008 A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity: Purpose: This project will recover methane caused by the decay of biogenic matter in the effluent stream of an existing palm oil processing mill by introducing methane recovery and combustion to the existing anaerobic effluent treatment system (lagoons). Explanation of GHG emission reductions: The proposed project activities will reduce 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-ghg-emitting open air lagoon, to a lower-ghg-emitting anaerobic digester with capture and combustion of the resulting biogas. Contribution to sustainable development: Worldwide, agricultural operations are becoming progressively more intensive to realize the 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 palm oil operations. Untreated, or raw, palm oil mill effluent (POME) is 100 times more polluting than domestic sewage. The Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) of raw POME averages approximately 25,000 mg/liter. 1 In a single year, the entire Indonesian palm oil industry produced POME equivalent to the domestic sewage of 20 million people, or one-tenth of the country s total population in Because POME is quite concentrated, its handling and disposal can create profound environmental consequences, such as greenhouse gas emissions, odour, and water/land contamination (including seepage, runoff, and over application). The project will have positive effects on the local environment by improving air quality through the reduction of odor and cleaner emissions. The project will be installed with an extensive monitoring system, and is designed to comply with all the local environmental regulations. 1 Maheswaran and Singam (1977) as cited in African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 2 (12), p.657,

5 A.3. Project participants: Name of Party involved (*) (host) indicates a host Party Private and/or public entity(ies) project participants (*) (as applicable) Kindly indicate if the party involved wishes to be considered as project participant (Yes/No) Indonesia (host) PT AES AgriVerde Indonesia No Netherlands AES AgriVerde Ltd. 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 is Indonesia. A Region/State/Province etc.: The project is located within the Sumatera Utara, Indonesia. A City/Town/Community etc: The project site is shown in Figure 1 with specifics detailed in Table 1. A Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this small-scale project activity : The project location is shown in Figure 1 and details are provided in Table 1. A short description of the site is provided below: PT Tolan Tiga Indonesia (Perlabian) has the following facility in Sumatera Utara: Perlabian (ID-007WWP) is a palm oil mill with a processing capacity of 60 tonnes per hour. This facility processes approximately 182,290 tonnes of Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFBs) per year, but plans to increase its output to 205,485 FFB by 2015 due to replanting. The producer plans to increase production for the next 5 years at a rate of approximately 3.9%, 2.3%, 1.4%, 1.5%, and 1.4%, respectively, per year. Within the next 5 years, production is planned to reach 199,379 tonnes per year. The mill, which is in regulatory compliance, operates approximately 14 hours per day, 300 days per year. A system of open lagoons is used to process POME effluent: 2 anaerobic lagoons, and 1 facultative lagoon. The anaerobic lagoons measure approximately 255xm x 25m x 4m, respectively. The facultative lagoon measures approximately 105m x 25m x 5m. Lagoon depth averages 4-5 meters but occasionally may vary due to sludge build-up. As a result, these lagoons are subject to sludge removal as needed. Upon removal, the sludge is land applied. 5

6 Figure 1. Project Activity Site in Sumatera Utara, Indonesia 6

7 Table 2. Detailed Physical Location and Identification of Project Sites Site Name (Site ID) Perlabian (ID-007WWP) Address Town/State Contact Phone GPS Kebun Perlabian, Kecamatan: Kampung Rakyat, Kabupaten Labuhan Batu Sumatera Utara, Indonesia Dapot S. Hutabarat +62 (0) N E

8 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. 9, option iv, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. 3 This project activity will capture and combust methane gas produced from the anaerobic portion of an existing wastewater treatment system. The project activity utilizes a simple, effective and reliable technology to capture lagoon-produced biogas: installing sealed covers over existing anaerobic POME lagoons to create an anaerobic digester system. Each cover will consist of a synthetic high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geo-membrane which is sealed by means of strip-to-strip welding and a peripheral anchor trench dug around the perimeter of the existing lagoon. The welded seams of the cover system will be tested to ensure air-tight coupling between all HDPE pieces. In addition, lagoon berms will be upgraded, if necessary, to ensure secure anchoring. HDPE is an excellent product for large applications requiring UV, ozone, and chemical resistance and because of these attributes is one of the most commonly used geo-membranes worldwide. This covering approach effectively enables capture/combustion of 100% of the biogas produced in these lagoons. The digesters incorporate other features to enhance long-term reliability and efficiency including a sludge handling system that enables sludge removal without breaking the digester s air-tight seal. Other features that may be installed depending on site specific conditions are effluent recirculation and/or multiple agitators to gently turn over the POME, simulating the natural atmospheric and solar turbulence which will be blocked by the HDPE covers. Since the project developer considers digester design elements as proprietary information, specific design information will be made available to the validating and verifying DOEs. POME will continue to flow from the anaerobic treatment section to facultative lagoons so that the effluents discharge requirements can be met. The captured biogas will be routed to one or more high temperature, enclosed flares to destroy methane gas as it is produced. Biogas will be accurately metered using a thermal mass flow meter that has two sensing elements: a velocity sensor and a temperature sensor that automatically corrects for changes in gas temperature. The transducer electronics heat the velocity sensor to a constant temperature differential greater than the gas temperature and measure the cooling effect of the gas flow. The meter runs on DC power and includes a UPS or battery back-up system to provide for the possibility of power outages. This meter type offers distinct advantages over standard flow meters including direct mass flow sensing for temperature and pressure compensation, high accuracy and repeatability for low-pressure gas flow measurement applications, outstanding rangeability, lower flow blockage and pressure drop than conventional meters, and no moving parts. The meter measures the mass flow and automatically converts to normalized volumetric output (NCMA). The biogas flow meter is normalized to 0 degrees Celsius at 1 ATM and calibrated in NCMH units by the manufacturer. Standard density conversion factors are established by the manufacturer. The flaring combustion system is automated to ensure that all biogas that exits the digester and passes through the flowmeter and flare is combusted. An automatic flare ignition system ensures methane is combusted whenever biogas is present at the flare. This continuous ignition system is activated by a pressure switch or transducer prior to the flow of biogas to the flare by the blower system. The flare includes thermocouples to monitor flare exhaust gas temperature, which is measured and recorded more often than hourly. The component parts are verified functional on a periodic basis in accordance with manufacturer and other technical specifications. Maintenance procedures have been developed to ensure proper handling and disposition of the digester sludge. The disposal of digester sludge will not vary from the baseline scenario

9 Technology and know-how transfer: AES AgriVerde, as the 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 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 minimal operation intervention). The materials and labour used in the base project activity are sourced from the host country whenever economically and technically feasible. By working 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 facility staff over an extended period of time, the project developer will ensure that the facility staff acquires appropriate expertise and resources to operate the system on an ongoing/continuous basis. A.4.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: Estimated Emission Reduction over the chosen crediting period Year Annual estimation of emission reductions in tonnes of CO 2 e Year 1: ,291 Year 2: ,362 Year 3: ,010 Year 4: ,406 Year 5: ,849 Year 6: ,263 Year 7: ,763 Total estimated reductions (tonnes CO 2 e) 204,943 Total number of crediting years 7 Annual average of estimated reductions over the crediting period (tonnes CO 2 e) 29,278 A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity: No public funding is 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: 9

10 Based on the Compendium of guidance on the debundling for SSC project activities(eb36, Annex 27) 4 this project is not debundled according to the following definition: A proposed small-scale project activity shall be deemed to be a debundled component of a large project activity if there is a registered small-scale CDM project activity or an application to register another smallscale CDM project activity: (a) With the same project participants; (b) In the same project category and technology/measure; and (c) Registered within the previous 2 years; and (d) Whose project boundary is within 1 km of the project boundary of the proposed small-scale activity at the closest point. SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the smallscale project activity: The project activity applies the UNFCCC-approved small scale methodology AMS III.H., Ver. 9, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. 5 The project is a small scale project because it comprises methane recovery from agro-industries and aggregate emission reductions will not exceed 60 kt CO 2 eq from all type III components of the project activity annually. B.2 Justification of the choice of the project category: The simplified methodologies are appropriate because the project activity site is considered an agro-industry and GHG emissions calculations can be estimated using internationally accepted IPCC guidance. The proposed project activity will recover methane from biogenic organic matter in wastewaters according to option (iv) of the methodology: Introduction of methane recovery and combustion to an existing anaerobic wastewater treatment system such as anaerobic reactor, lagoon, septic tank or an on site industrial plant 6. This project introduces methane recovery and combustion to an existing wastewater treatment system (a system of anaerobic and facultative lagoons). 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 FFB 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: As stated in the AMS III-H methodology, the project boundary is the physical, geographical site where the wastewater and sludge treatment takes place

11 Sources influenced by the project are included in the project boundary while sources not influenced by the project are excluded. For this project, the boundary is the physical, geographical site of the waste treatment system, which includes all lagoons described in Section A (one anerobic lagoon is covered using HDPE to enable the (project s) capture and combustion of lagoon generated methane)). If any equipment is added due to the project activity, any power or fuel consumed by that equipment will be monitored / conservatively estimated for project activity emissions. Sludge treatment is not affected by the implementation of the project activity, therefore, sludge will be disposed of in the same manner as it was prior to the project activity. Biogas utilization for renewable energy may occur during the life of the project but it is not part of the CDM project activity. Palm Oil production POME Waste treatment system Biogas Flare Treated POME Final discharge to land or waterway 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 9, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. The baseline scenario applicable to this project is in accordance with paragraph 23, option iv of the methodology: iv. The existing anaerobic wastewater treatment system without methane recovery and combustion; 11

12 As assessment of the palm oil facility determined that a system of open lagoons are used to treat POME. This is the most common practice in Indonesian palm oil mills 7. Subsequent to treatment in the system of lagoons, the treated POME is normally either: 8 : Applied to land or Directed to waterways At this site, treated POME is applied to land. The facility was also found to comply with current effluent discharge standards. 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, including methane, are released into the atmosphere via decomposition of POME. 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 controlling the lagoon s decomposition processes and collecting and combusting the biogas. There are no existing, pending, or planned national regulatory requirements that govern GHG emissions from agro-industry operations (specifically, palm oil mill 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(s). According to the Non-binding best practice examples to demonstrate additionality for SSC project activities (EB35, Annex 34), 9 project participants shall provide an explanation to show that the project activity would not have occurred anyway due to at least one of the following barriers : Investment barrier: a financially more viable alternative to the project activity would have led to higher emissions; Access-to-finance barrier: the project activity could not access appropriate capital without consideration of the CDM revenues; Technological barrier: a less technologically advanced alternative to the project activity involves lower risks due to the performance uncertainty or low market share of the new technology adopted for the project activity and so would have led to higher emissions; Barrier due to prevailing practice: prevailing practice or existing regulatory or policy requirements would have led to implementation of a technology with higher emissions; Other barriers such as institutional barriers or limited information, managerial resources, organizational capacity, or capacity to absorb new technologies. The most relevant barrier(s) which have prevented this project activity from being implemented without the assistance of CDM are as follows: Investment barriers (most significant barrier): This wastewater treatment approach is considered one of the more advanced systems in the world. Producers in few countries have implemented this type of technology on a widespread basis because of the high costs of associated materials and ongoing maintenance. Though costs vary according to required lagoon size and other factors, initial

13 costs to install an HDPE anaerobic digester system can run in the tens of thousands of US dollars 10. The Indonesian palm oil industry views the installation of waste treatment systems as a means to satisfy statutory effluent discharge requirements, not a potential revenue source. Although anaerobic digestion is a versatile biological treatment technology yielding methane as a useful bioenergy, the majority of mills continue to use pond or lagoon systems. These existing waste treatment systems adhere to Indonesian government requirements and are significantly lower in capital and operating costs than anaerobic digestion technology. 11 Implementing this project without the assistance of CDM does not provide the positive economic returns to justify or even partially offset the expenses. 12 AES AgriVerde (PT AES AgriVerde Indonesia, AES AgriVerde Ltd.) is the only project participant and the owner of the project equipment. The future CERs generated by this project are the only potential revenues for the investor in this project. Any revenues or cost savings for electricity or heat generation will remain with the mill operator. Therefore, without CDM, the project would be absolutely unattractive and would not be a business option for AES AgriVerde. Technological barriers: Operations and maintenance requirements involved with this technology, including the means to maintain pond circulation (once they are covered), maintaining biochemical equilibrium within the digester(s) and a detailed monitoring (including equipment and material maintenance) program to maintain system performance levels must also be considered 13. There is a need for skilled and experienced operators and the availability of such personnel locally is limited as such biogas systems are still relatively rare. 14, 15 Barriers due to prevailing practice: The current lagoon-based treatment system is considered the standard operating practice in palm oil mills in Indonesia 16. Despite numerous changes to maximum discharge standards over the years, the combination of anaerobic lagoons and aerobic/facultative lagoons remains able to meet the current permitted discharge levels for land application or waterway discharge. The highest wastewater management priority for most palm oil mills is to simply maintain compliance with local effluent discharge regulations. While past practices cannot predict future events, it is worth noting that the site included in this project activity has been in existence for a number of years, during which time the prevailing wastewater management practice has been a system of open lagoons. There is no regulatory requirement for facilities to alter their current practices. Without the assistance of CDM, facilities have no reason to and are not likely to change current wastewater treatment practices due to the investment and technology barriers described above p

14 B.6. Emission reductions: B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: Baseline Emissions 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 9, Methane recovery in wastewater treatment. The baseline scenario applicable to this project is in accordance with paragraph 23, option iv of the methodology: iv) The existing anaerobic wastewater treatment system without methane recovery and combustion; For option iv, the methodology requires baseline emissions be calculated as per the formulas below, with MCF lower values from Table III.H.1 to be used. Equation 1: Total baseline emissions 17 BE y = MEP y,ww,bl * GWP_CH 4 + MEP y,s,treatment * GWP_CH 4 Where: BE y Baseline emissions in the year y (tco 2 e) MEP y,ww,bl MEP y,s,treatment GWP_CH 4 Methane emission potential of the anaerobic wastewater treatment plant in the baseline situation in the year y (tonnes) Methane emission potential of the sludge treatment system in the year y (tonnes) Global warming potential of methane The following equations (Equations 2 and 3) are used to determine the values applied in Equation 1: Equation 2: Baseline emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant 18 MEP y,ww,bl = Q y,ww * (COD y,removed,i * B o,ww * MCF ww,treatment,i ) Where: MEP y,ww,bl Methane emission potential of the anaerobic wastewater treatment plant in the baseline situation in the year y (tonnes) Q y,ww Volume of wastewater treated in the year y (m 3 ) COD y,removed,i B o,ww MCF ww, treatment,i Chemical oxygen demand removed by the anaerobic wastewater treatment system i in the baseline situation in the year y (tonnes/ m 3 ) Methane producing capacity of the wastewater Methane correction factor for the existing anaerobic wastewater treatment system i (MCF lower value in Table III.H.1) 17 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.9, 18 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.9, 14

15 Equation 3: Baseline emission potential of the sludge treatment system 19 MEP y,s,treatment = S y, untreated * DOC y,s,untreated * DOC F * F * 16/12 * MCF s,treatment Where: MEP y,s,treatment S y,untreated DOC y,s, untreated DOC F F MCF s,treatment Methane emission potential of the sludge treatment system in the year y (tonnes) Amount of untreated sludge generated in the year y (tonnes) 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). Fraction of DOC dissimilated to biogas Fraction of CH 4 in landfill gas Methane correction factor for the sludge treatment system that will be equipped with methane recovery and combustion/utilization/flare equipment (MCF higher value in Table III.H.1) Project Activity Emissions As defined by the methodology, project activity emissions consist of: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) CO2 emissions on account of power used by the project activity facilities. Emission factors for grid electricity or diesel fuel use as the case may be shall be calculated as described in category AMS I.D.; Methane emissions on account of inefficiency of the wastewater treatment and presence of degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater; Methane emissions from the decay of the final sludge generated by the treatment systems; Methane fugitive emissions on account of inefficiencies in capture and flare systems; Methane emissions resulting from dissolved methane in the treated wastewater effluent. Where relevant, emissions due to the upgrading and compression of biogas (cases covered under paragraph 2 (b) and 2 (c)). Where relevant, emissions due to physical leakage from the dedicated piped network for transport of upgraded biogas to the end users (cases covered under paragraph 2 (c ii)). In this case, items (iii), (v), (vi), and (vii) are not applicable to the project activity emissions for the following reasons: Item (iii) may be neglected since the methodology states in paragraph 12 where PE y,s,final, 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. Therefore, PE y,s,final can be neglected since sludge disposition in this project is soil application. 19 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.9, 15

16 Item (v) is only considered for project activities involving measures described in cases (i), (v), and (vi) of paragraph 1. Since this project recovers methane by technology option (iv), PE y,dissolved does not need to be calculated. Item (vi) may be neglected since this only applies to (cases covered under paragraph 2 (b) and 2 (c)). Since those cases are not applicable to this project, PE y,upgrading can be neglected. Item (vii) may be neglected since this only applies to (cases covered under paragraph 2 (c ii)). Since that case is not applicable to this project, PE y,leakage, pipeline can be neglected. For this project activity (an anaerobic digester), estimated project emissions are determined as follows: Equation 4: Total project activity emissions 20 PE y =PE y,power + PE y,ww,treated + PE y,fugitive Where: PE y Project activity emissions in the year y (tco 2 e) PE y,power Emissions from electricity or diesel consumption in the year y PE y,ww,treated Emissions from degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater in the year y PE y,fugitive Emissions from methane release in capture and utilization/combustion/flare systems in the year y The following equations (Equations 5 through 7) are used to determine the values applied in Equation 4. Emissions from electricity consumption According to the methodology, paragraph 13 states: Project activity emissions from electricity consumption are determined as per the procedures described in AMS I.D. The energy consumption of all equipment/devices installed by the project activity, inter alia facilities for upgrade and compression, filling of bottles, distribution and the final end use of biogas shall be included. For project activity emissions from fossil fuel consumption the emission factor for the fossil fuel shall be used (tco 2 /tonne). Local values are to be used, if local values are difficult to obtain, IPCC default values may be used. If recovered methane is used to power auxiliary equipment of the project it should be taken into account accordingly, using zero as its emission factor. PE y, power details are provided in Annex Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.9, 16

17 Equation 5: Emissions from degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater 21 PE y,ww,treated = Q y,ww * GWP_CH 4 * B o,ww * COD y,ww,treated * MCF ww,final Where: PE y,ww,treated Emissions from degradable organic carbon in treated wastewater in the year y Q y,ww Volume of wastewater treated in the year y (m 3 ) GWP_CH 4 Global warming potential of methane B o,ww COD y,ww,treated MCF ww, final Methane producing capacity of the wastewater Chemical oxygen demand of the final treated wastewater discharged into sea, river or lake in the year y (tonnes/m 3 ) Methane correction factor based on type of treatment and discharge pathway of the wastewater (fraction) (MCF higher value in Table III.H.1) Emissions from methane release in capture and utilization/combustion/flare systems In the project activity, fugitive emissions through capture and utilization/combustion/flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic sludge treatment (PE y,fugitive,s ) are not calculated since sludge is not subject to any methane capture and flare system. Therefore, total fugitive emissions (PE y,fugitive ) consists solely of fugitive emissions through capture and utilization/combustion/flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic wastewater treatment (PE y,fugitive,ww ). Equation 6: Fugitive emissions through capture and utilization/combustion/flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic wastewater treatment 22 PE y,fugitive,ww = (1-CFE ww ) *MEP y,ww,treatment *GWP_CH 4 Where: PE y,fugitive,ww CFE ww MEP y,ww,treatment GWP_CH 4 Fugitive emissions through capture and utilization/combustion/flare inefficiencies in the anaerobic wastewater treatment in the year y (tco 2 e) Capture and utilization/combustion/flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion/utilization equipment in the wastewater treatment Methane emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant in the year y (tonnes) Global warming potential of methane Equation 7: Methane emission potential of the wastewater treatment plant 23 MEP y,ww,treatment = Q y,ww * B o,ww * j COD y,removed,j * MCF ww,j 21 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.9, 22 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.9, 23 Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.9, 17

18 Where: 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,removed,j B o,ww MCF ww,j Leakage Chemical oxygen demand removed by the treatment system j of the project activity equipped with methane recovery in the year y (tonnes/ m 3 ) Methane producing capacity of the wastewater Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system j equipped with methane recovery and combustion/flare/utilization equipment (MCF higher value in Table III.H.1) 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. Equation 8: Estimated emission reductions 24 For the purposes of estimation, emission reductions are calculated as the difference between the baseline emissions and the sum of the project activity emissions and leakage. In accordance with the methodology, actual calculation of emission reductions during the crediting period will be based on the amount of methane recovered and fuelled or flared, that is monitored ex-post. ER y =BE y (PE y + Leakage y ) Where: ER y BE y PE y Leakage y Emission reductions (tco 2 e/year) Baseline emissions (tco 2 e/year) Project activity emissions (tco 2 e/year) Leakage emissions (tco 2 e/year) B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation: Accurate data collection is essential. The subject palm oil processing facility maintains extensive FFB production and processing records to manage operations and to maximize productivity and profitability. AES AgriVerde uses some data collected from this system. AES AgriVerde has a rigorous QA/QC system that ensures data security and data integrity. Spot audits of data collection activities will be conducted on a regular basis. Project activity data related uncertainties will be reduced by applying sound data collection quality assurance and quality control procedures. Data / Parameter: GWP_CH 4 Data unit: Global Warming Potential of Methane Source of data used: Refer to AMS III-H, V.9 methodology Value Adapted from UNFCCC methodology AMS-III.H (Methane recovery in wastewater treatment), V.9, 18

19 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: Data / Parameter: Q y,ww Data unit: m 3 Volume of wastewater treated in the year y Source of data used: Calculated based on facility records Value See Annex 3 Justification of the choice of data or description of Determined by multiplying the FFB production by the conversion factor measurement methods and for FFB to POME. procedures actually Comments: Data / Parameter: B o,ww Data unit: kg CH 4 / kg COD Methane producing capacity of the wastewater Source of data used: IPCC default value for domestic wastewater as cited in AMS III H, V.9 methodology Value 0.21 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: Data / Parameter: DOC F Data unit: Fraction Fraction of DOC dissimilated to biogas Source of data used: IPCC default value as cited in AMS III H, V.9 methodology Value 0.5 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: 19

20 Data / Parameter: F Data unit: Fraction Fraction of CH 4 in landfill gas Source of data used: IPCC default value as cited in AMS III H, V.9 methodology Value 0.5 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: Data / Parameter: Data unit: MCF ww,treatment,i Fraction Methane correction factor for the existing anaerobic wastewater treatment system i Source of data used: IPCC default (lower) value from Table III.H.1 in AMS III H, V.9 methodology Value 0.8 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: Data / Parameter: Data unit: The current type of wastewater treatment and discharge pathway or system to which this project will be applied from Table III.H.1 is Anaerobic deep lagoon (depth more than 2 metres). MCF ww,j Fraction Methane correction factor for the wastewater treatment system equipped with methane recovery and combustion/flare/utilization equipment Source of data used: IPCC default (higher) value from Table III.H.1 in AMS III H, V.9 methodology Value 1.0 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: Data / Parameter: Data unit: The current type of wastewater treatment and discharge pathway or system to which this project will be applied from Table III.H.1 is Anaerobic deep lagoon (depth more than 2 metres) MCF ww,final Fraction Methane correction factor based on type of treatment and discharge pathway of the wastewater Source of data used: IPCC default (higher) value from Table III.H.1 in AMS III H, V.9 methodology Value 0.1 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: The type of treatment and discharge pathway of the treated wastewater from Table III.H.1 is Aerobic treatment, well managed. Data / Parameter: MCF s,treatment 20

21 Data unit: Fraction Methane correction factor for the sludge treatment system that will be equipped with methane recovery and combustion/utilization/flare equipment Source of data used: Refer to AMS III H, V.9 methodology Value 1.0 Justification of the choice of This value is applied to both baseline and project equations since the data or description of baseline practice of disposing of the sludge via land application will not measurement methods and change and will continue to be practiced during the project activity. procedures actually Paragraph 41 of the methodology permits methane emissions from anaerobic decay of the final sludge to be neglected because the sludge is controlled combusted, disposed in a landfill with methane recovery, or used for soil application, then the end-use of the final sludge will be monitored during the crediting period. Comments: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data used: Value 0.9 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: CFE ww Fraction Capture and utilization/combustion/flare efficiency of the methane recovery and combustion/utilization equipment in the wastewater treatment Default value specified in AMS III H., V.9 methodology Data / Parameter: COD y,ww,treated Data unit: Tonnes/m 3 Chemical oxygen demand of the final treated wastewater discharged into sea, river or lake in the year y Source of data used: Site Data Value See Annex 3 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: 21

22 Data / Parameter: COD y,removed,i Data unit: Tonnes/m 3 Chemical oxygen demand removed by the anaerobic wastewater treatment system i in the baseline situation in the year y Source of data used: Site Data Value See Annex 3 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: Data / Parameter: COD y,removed,j Data unit: Tonnes/m 3 Chemical oxygen demand removed by the treatment system j of the project activity equipped with methane recovery in the year y Source of data used: Site Data Value See Annex 3 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: Data / Parameter: PE y,power Data unit: tco 2 e Emissions from electricity or diesel consumption in the year y Source of data used: Site Data Value See Annex 3 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually Comments: Data / Parameter: D CH4,y Data unit: kg/m 3 Density of methane Source of data used: Manufacturer specified value for continuous flow meter Value Justification of the choice of The biogas flow meter is normalized to 0 degrees Celsius at 1 ATM and data or description of calibrated in NCMH units by the manufacturer. Standard density measurement methods and conversion factors are established by the manufacturer. procedures actually Comments: 22

23 B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions: Baseline emissions are calculated using Equations 1 through 3 in Section B.6.1. Baseline Emissions Perlabian (ID007WWP) Year Expected Growth% 3.9% 2.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.7% 0.0% Total MEPy,ww,bl 1,493 1,552 1,587 1,609 1,633 1,656 1,683 11,214 MEPy,s,treatment GWP_CH Total Baseline Emissions, (tco2e) 31,359 32,591 33,335 33,789 34,299 34,774 35, ,496 Project emissions are calculated using Equations 4 through 7 in Section B.6.1. Project Activity Emissions Perlabian (ID007WWP) Year Expected Growth % 3.9% 2.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.7% 0.0% Total PEy,power PEy,ww,treated ,116 PEy,s,final PEy,fugitive 3,920 4,074 4,167 4,224 4,287 4,347 4,419 29,437 Project Emissions (tco 2 e) 4,068 4,228 4,325 4,384 4,450 4,512 4,586 30,553 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: Year Total Emission Reductions (tonnes CO2e) Estimation of baseline emissions (tco 2 e) Estimation of project activity emissions (tco 2 e) Estimation of leakage (tco 2 e) Estimation of overall emission reductions (tco 2 e) Year 1: ,068 31, ,291 Year 2: ,228 32, ,362 Year 3: ,325 33, ,010 Year 4: ,384 33, ,406 Year 5: ,450 34, ,849 Year 6: ,512 34, ,263 Year 7: ,586 35, ,763 Total (tonnes CO 2 e) 30, , ,943 23

24 B.7 Application of a monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan: B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: AES AgriVerde has developed a unique set of data management tools to efficiently capture and report data throughout the project lifecycle. On-site assessment, 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. Tools have also been created to monitor the creation of high quality, permanent ERs using IPCC formulae. By implementing all of these tools, AES AgriVerde enables transparent data collection and verification. All equipment selected for this project meets international industry certification standards. The equipment (i.e. biogas flow meters, gas, flare/combustion equipment) will be calibrated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer specifications to ensure operation continues at design efficiency and accuracy. Equipment specifications have been provided to the DOE. Data / Parameter: Q y,ww Data unit: m 3 Volume of the wastewater treated in the year y Source of data to be used: Derived from Mill records. Value of data Description of measurement methods and procedures to be Determined by multiplying the FFB production by the conversion factor for FFB to POME. (Conversion factor to be field verified by a third party on an annual basis.) QA/QC procedures to be Data used to calculate this parameter will be verified with facility production records and periodic on-site monitoring. Any comment: Data will be archived electronically and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years. Data / Parameter: COD y,ww,untreated Data unit: Tonnes/m 3 Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater entering the anaerobic treatment/reactor system in the year y Source of data to be used: Sampling analysis. Value of data Description of Measured and recorded semi-annually via third party sampling and analysis. measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be COD analysis of wastewater samples will be conducted by a third party in accordance with equipment manufacturer s specifications and will include blank and calibration standards. Any comment: Data will be archived electronically and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years. Data / Parameter: COD y,ww,treated Data unit: Tonnes/m 3 Chemical oxygen demand of the final treated wastewater discharged in the year y Source of data to be used: Sampling Analysis. 24

25 Value of data Description of measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Measured and recorded semi-annually via third party sampling and analysis. COD analysis of wastewater samples will be conducted by a third party in accordance with equipment manufacturer s specifications and will include blank and calibration standards. Any comment: Data will be archived electronically and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years. Data / Parameter: COD y,removed Data unit: Tonnes/m 3 Chemical oxygen demand that is the difference between the inflow COD and the outflow COD in the year y Source of data to be used: Sampling analysis. Value of data Description of Determined by subtracting COD y,ww,treated from COD y,ww,untreated. Recorded semiannually. measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be COD analysis of wastewater samples will be conducted by a third party in accordance with equipment manufacturer s specifications and will include blank and calibration standards. Any comment: Data will be archived electronically and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data to be used: Value of data Description of measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data to be used: Value of data Description of BGP Flare NCM Amount of biogas recovered and directed to flare for combustion Continuous flow meter (refer to Section A.4.2 for equipment description) Measured and recorded more often than hourly. AES AgriVerde 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. The flow meter will be operated and calibrated according to manufacturer s specifications. A calibration/service log will be maintained for the flow meter. Data will be archived electronically or on paper and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years. MC biogas Percentage (volume) Methane content of biogas Gas analyzer Measured and recorded periodically. The measuring equipment is calibrated 25

26 measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Any comment: in accordance with the manufacturer specifications. Sufficient measurements will be made to meet a 95% confidence level. Use and calibration of the methane analyzer will be conducted in accordance with manufacturer s standards. A calibration/service log will be maintained for each methane analyzer. Data will be archived electronically or on paper and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years. 26

27 Data / Parameter: CFE ww Data unit: Percentage Efficiency of flaring process Source of data to be used: Refer to AMS III H, V.9 methodology (paragraph 38, option a) Value of data 0.90* Description of measurement methods and procedures to be Flares shall be operated in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Flare exhaust temperature and biogas flow rate data will be recorded electronically more frequently than hourly via the thermocouple(s) that is (are) part of the automated flaring system. (Refer to Section A.4.2. for equipment description). QA/QC procedures to be *According to the methodology, If option (a) is chosen continuous check of compliance with the manufacturers specification of the flare device (temperature, biogas flow rate) should be done. If in any specific hour any of the parameters is out of the range of specifications 50% of default value should be used for this specific hour. For open flare 50% default value should be used, as it is not possible in this case to monitor the efficiency. If at any given time the temperature of the flare is below 500ºC, 0% default value should be used for this period. All flare monitoring equipment will be operated and calibrated according to manufacturer s specifications. Flare exhaust temperature and biogas flow data will be compiled and analyzed using software. A calibration/service log will be maintained for the flare monitoring equipment. Any comment: Electronic flare monitoring data will be stored for the duration of the project + 2 years. Data / Parameter: Data unit: Source of data to be used: Value of data Description of measurement methods and procedures to be QA/QC procedures to be Any comment: PE y,power tco 2 e Emissions from electricity or diesel consumption in the year y Mill records. Verified and recorded as required. Based upon final implementation of project activity, this will be measured or conservatively calculated in accordance with AMS III.H, v.9 paragraph 13. AES AgriVerde 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. Data will be archived electronically or on paper and kept for the duration of the project + 2 years. 27