Determination Report

Transcription

1 Determination Report DETERMINATION OF THE JI TRACK-1 PROJECT: UTILIZATION OF COAL MINE METHANE IN SZCZYG- LOWICE COAL MINE, POLAND REPORT NO th October 2011 TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Carbon Management Service Westendstr Munich GERMANY

2 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 2 of 22 Report No. Date of first issue Revision No. Date of this revision Certificate No /10/ /10/ Subject: Determination of a JI track-1 project Accredited TÜV SÜD Unit: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Certification Body climate and energy Westendstr Munich, Germany Project Participants: Kompania Węglowa S.A. (Coal Company) Kopalnia Węgla Kamiennego Knurów-Szczyglowice Ruch Szczygłowice, (The SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine) Główny Instytut Górnictwa (The Central Mining Institute) Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. (client) TÜV SÜD Contract Partner: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Certification Body climate and energy Westendstr Munich, Germany Project Site(s): SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Upper Silesia, Poland Project title: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Applied methodology / Version: JI specific approach based on ACM0008/ version 7 Scope(s): 8, 10 TA(s): 8.1 and 10.1 First Version: Date of issuance: 28/05/2010 Version No.: 1.1 Publishing date: 02/07/2010 Estimated Annual Emission Reduction: Assessment Team Leader: Karin Wagner Further Assessment Team Members: Olena Maslova Dr. Albert Geiger version: Date of issuance: 27/10/2011 Version No.: /2009 till 12/2012 (commitment period): 109,560 tco 2 eq (average) 01/2013 till 05/2019: 187,633 tco 2 eq (average), Technical Reviewer: Thomas Kleiser Certification Body responsible: Eric Tolcach Summary of the Determination Opinion: The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have provided TÜV SÜD with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of all stated criteria. In our opinion, the project meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for the JI as well as all the requirements set by host country (Poland) for approving projects under JI track 1. Hence, TÜV SÜD will recommend the project for further approval and registration by the DFP of Poland. The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have not provided TÜV SÜD with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of all stated criteria. Hence, TÜV SÜD will not recommend the project for registration by the DFP of the host country as a JI track-1 project and will inform the project participants and the DFP on this decision.

3 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 3 of 22 Abbreviations AM AOR CAR CL DFP DVM EF EIA / EA ER ERUs FAR GHG GWP Heraeus IPCC IRL JI JISC KP MMP MP NDIR NGO PP TÜV SÜD UNFCCC Approved Methodology Ammonia Oxidation Reactor Corrective Action Request Clarification Request Designated Focal Point Determination and Verification Manual Emission Factor Environmental Impact Assessment / Environmental Assessment Emission Reduction Emission Reduction Unit(s) Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(s) Global Warming Potential W.C. Heraeus GmbH Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Information Reference List Joint Implementation Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee Kyoto Protocol Ministry of Environment and Forestry of Romania Monitoring Plan Non-Dispersive Infrared Spectroscopy Non Governmental Organisation Project Design Document Project Participant TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

4 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 4 of 22 Table of Contents Page 1 INTRODUCTION Objective Scope METHODOLOGY Appointment of the Assessment Team Review of Documents Follow-up Interviews Cross-check Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests Internal Quality Control SUMMARY Approval Participation Project design document Project description Baseline and monitoring methodology Applicability of the selected methodology Project boundary Baseline identification Algorithm and/or formulae used to determine emission reductions Additionality Monitoring plan Local stakeholder consultation Environmental impacts COMMENTS BY PARTIES, STAKEHOLDERS AND NGOS DETERMINATION OPINION Annex 1: Determination Protocol Annex 2: Information Reference List

5 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 5 of 22 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objective The determination objective is an independent assessment by a Third Party (Accredited Independent Entity, AIE) of a proposed project activity against all defined criteria set for the registration under the Joint Implementation scheme (JI). The assessment involves the evaluation of the project basis and design identified in the Project Design Document () using the defined criteria outlined by the registration under the Joint Implementation scheme (JI). Determination is part of the JI project cycle and results in a conclusion by the executing AIE on whether or not a project activity is valid to be submitted for approval to the Designated Focal Point DFP of the host country. The ultimate decision on the registration of a proposed project activity rests with the Parties involved. The project activity discussed by this determination report has been submitted under the project title: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland and will apply for approval by the host country as JI Track 1 project. 1.2 Scope The scope of any assessment is defined by the underlying legislation, regulation and guidance given by relevant entities or authorities. In the case of JI project activities the scope is set by: The Kyoto Protocol, in particular 6 Decision 2/CMP1 and Decision 3/CMP.1 (Marrakech Accords) Further COP/MOP decisions with reference to the JI (e.g. decisions 9/CMP.1) Decisions by the JISC published under HUhttp://ji.unfccc.intU Specific guidance by the JISC published under HUhttp://ji.unfccc.intU Guidelines for Completing the Project Design Document (JI-) The applied approved CDM methodology(s) The technical environment of the project (technical scope) Internal and national standards on monitoring and QA/QC Technical guideline and information on best practice The Determination is not meant to provide any consultancy towards the client. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the project design. Once TÜV SÜD receives an initial version, it is made publicly available on TÜV SÜD s website, which initiates a 30 day global stakeholder consultation process. In case of any request a might be revised and the final will form the basis for the final evaluation as presented in this report. Information on the initial and on the final version is presented on page 1. The only purpose of a Determination is its use during the registration process as part of the JI project cycle. Hence, TÜV SÜD cannot be held liable by any party for decisions made or not made based on the Determination opinion, which will go beyond that purpose.

6 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 6 of 22 2 METHODOLOGY The project assessment applies standard auditing techniques to assess the correctness of the information provided by the PPs. The assessment is based on the latest version of Joint Implementation Determination and Verification Manual. The work starts with appointment of team covering the technical scope(s), sectoral scope(s) and relevant host country experience for evaluating the JI project activity. Once the project is made public available, members of the team carry out the desk review, follow-up actions, resolution of issues identified and finally preparation of the determination report. The prepared determination report and other supporting documents undergo an internal quality control by the CB climate and energy before submission to the DFP of the host country. In order to ensure transparency, assumptions must be clear and stated explicitly and background material must also be referenced. TÜV SÜD has developed a methodology-specific protocol customized for the project. The protocol demonstrates, in a transparent manner, the project criteria (requirements), discussion on each criterion by the assessment team, and the results from determining the identified criteria. The determination protocol serves the following purposes: To organize the details and provision of clarifications on the requirements of which a JI project is expected to meet To elucidate how a particular requirement has been determined as well as to document the results of the determination and any adjustments made to the project design document. The determination protocol consists of three tables. The different columns in these tables are described in the figure below. The completed determination protocol is enclosed in Annex 1 to this report. Determination Protocol Table 1: Conformity of Project activity and Checklist Topic / Question Reference Comments Initial (published version) The checklist is organised in sections following the arrangement of the applied version. Each section is then further subdivided. The lowest level constitutes a checklist question / criterion. Gives reference to documents where the answer to the checklist question or item is found in case the comment refers to documents other than the. The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist question and/or the conformance to the question. It is further used to explain the conclusions reached. In some cases subchecklist are applied indicating yes/no decisions on the compliance with the stated criterion. Any Request has to be substantiated within this column. Conclusions are presented based on the assessment of the first version. This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (), or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) due to non-compliance with the checklist question (see below). Clarification Request (CR or CL) is used when the determination team has identified a need for further clarification. Forward action request (FAR) to highlight issues related to project implementation that require review during the first verification. Conclusions are presented in the same manner based on the assessment of the final version and further documents including assumptions presented in the documentation.

7 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 7 of 22 Determination Protocol Table 2: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Clarifications and corrective action requests Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Determination team conclusion If the conclusions from table 1 are either a Corrective Action, a Clarification or a Forward action Request*, these should be listed in this section. * In the latest revision of this Report Table 2 serves for summurising of Forward Action Requests that require review during the first verification. Reference to the checklist question number in Table 1 where the issue is explained. The responses given by the client or other project participants during the communications with the determination team should be summarised in this section. This section should summarise the discussion on and revision to project documentation together with the determination team s responses and final conclusions. The conclusions should be reflected in Table 1, under. If any forward action request (FAR) rose they are stated in table 2. FARs highlight issues related to project implementation that require review during the first verification Determination Protocol Table 2: Forward action request Forward action request Id. of FAR 1 Request has to be substantiated within this column Ref. to table 1 Reference to the checklist question number in Table 1 where the issue is explained. Explanation If necessary this section should present a detail explanation.. In case of a denial of the project activity more detailed information on this decision will be presented in table 3. Determination Protocol Table 3: Unresolved Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Clarifications and corrective action requests If the final conclusions from table 2 results in a denial the referenced request should be listed in this section. Id. of CAR/CL 1 Identifier of the Request. Explanation of the Conclusion for Denial This section should present a detail explanation, why the project is finally considered not to be in compliance with a criterion with a clear reference to the requirement which is not complied with. 2.1 Appointment of the Assessment Team According to the technical scopes and experiences in the sectorial or national business environment TÜV SÜD has composed a project team in accordance with the appointment rules of the TÜV SÜD certification body climate and energy. The composition of an assessment team has to be approved by the Certification Body (CB) ensuring that the required skills are covered by the team. The CB TÜV SÜD operates four qualification levels for team members that are assigned by formal appointment rules:

8 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 8 of 22 Assessment Team Leader (ATL) Greenhouse Gas Determiner / Verifier (GHG-DET / GHG-V) Greenhouse Gas Determiner, Trainee (T) Technical Experts (E) It is required that the sectorial scope and technical area linked to the methodology as well as host country expertise are covered by the assessment team. The Determination team consists of the following experts (the responsible Assessment Team Leader in written in bold letters): Name Qualification Coverage of technical scope Coverage of technical area Karin Wagner ATL Host country experience Olena Maslova GHG-DET Dr. Albert Geiger GHG-DET Karin Wagner is a lead auditor under JI scheme in the Carbon Management Service department of TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH in Munich, Germany. She holds a M.Sc. in geological sciences and has gathered experience in environmental consulting for the mining industry before joining TÜV SÜD. Karin Wagner specializes in the assessment of CDM / JI projects in the sector of mining/mineral production, waste handling and disposal as well as renewable energies. Olena Maslova is assessment team leader and GHG auditor under JI scheme (Determiner/Verifier) in the Carbon Management Service department of TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH in Munich, Germany. She is chemical engineer and focal point for projects in Eastern Europe. Due to her further master degree at the university of applied science in the Federal Republic of Germany she is also familiar with Germany s current environmental legislation. Olena Maslova is specializing in the assessment of CDM / JI projects in the sector of chemical industries and waste handling and disposal. In this project she functioned as country expert. Dr. Albert Geiger is a GHG auditor under JI scheme (Determiner/Verifier) for CO 2 -emission reduction projects of the scopes 8, 10 and 13 at the department Environmental Service of TÜV SÜD. He holds a PhD in geological sciences and has done more than 20 CDM and JI projects. Furthermore, he does environmental consulting in soil and water protection as well as waste management at TÜV SÜD since Review of Documents A first version of the was submitted to the AIE in June The and additional background documents related to the project design and baseline were reviewed to verify the correctness, credibility and interpretation of the presented information, furthermore a cross-check between information provided and information from other sources have been done as initial step of the determination process. A complete list of all documents and proofs reviewed is attached as Annex 2 to this report.

9 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 9 of Follow-up Interviews On July 8 and 9th, 2010 TÜV SÜD performed interviews and physical site inspection with project stakeholders to confirm relevant information and to resolve issues identified in the first document review. The table below provides a list of all persons interviewed in this context: Name Mr. Bogdan Jureczko Mr. Andrey Szymata Mr. Jacek Naglik Mr. Kriystof Kapusta Mr. Piotr Krawczyk Ms. Joanna Krvemien Mr. Hideo Yata Mr. Tereyuki Okada Mr. Yoshiho Umeda Mr. Grzegorz Adamowski Organisation Kompania Weglowa S.A., Project Manager Kompania Weglowa S.A., Project Manager Kompania Weglowa S.A. Central Mining Institute, Project Manager Central Mining Institute, Project Manager Central Mining Institute, Project Manager The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc., Project Manger Mizuho Corporate Bank, Project, Project Engineer Comp. Yoho Translator On October 14 th 2011, a further short on-site visit was conducted in order to check the newly installed flare. 2.4 Cross-check During the determination process, the team has made reference to the available information related to similar projects or technologies as the proposed JI track-1 project activity. Project documentation has also been reviewed against the approved methodology applied to confirm the appropriateness of formulae and correctness of calculations. 2.5 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests The objective of this phase of the determination is to resolve the requests for corrective actions, clarifications, and any other outstanding issues which need to be clarified for TÜV SÜD`s conclusion on the project design. The CARs and CRs or CLs raised by TÜV SÜD are resolved during communication between the client and TÜV SÜD. To guarantee the transparency of the determination process, the concerns raised and responses that have been given are documented in more detail in the determination protocol in Annex 1. The final version 3.0 dated 27/10/2011 serves as the basis for the final assessment presented. 2.6 Internal Quality Control Internal quality control is the final step of the determination process and is conducted by the CB climate and energy who checks the final documentation, which includes the determination report and annexes. The completion of the quality control indicates that each report submitted has been approved either by the head of the CB or the deputy (a veto person is used if necessary). In projects where either the Head of the CB or his/her deputy is part of the assessment team, the approval is given by the one not serving on the project team.

10 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 10 of 22 After confirmation by the PP, the determination opinion and relevant documents are to be submitted to the DFP of host country by the client for approval according to the JI track 1 procedure.

11 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 11 of 22 3 SUMMARY The assessment work and the main results are described below in accordance with the DVM reporting requirements. The reference documents indicated in this section and Annex 1 are stated in Annex Approval Japan and Poland have their officially published national guidelines and procedures for the approval of JI projects. The PPs are going to apply for LoAs from the Host and Investor parties on the basis of the TÜV SÜD s determination opinion in accordance with the Host and Investor parties procedures for approving of JI Track 1 projects. There exists already a letter of endorsement of the Polish Ministry of Environment from 27 of July 2009 (IRL 21). 3.2 Participation The dedicated project participants are: - Kompania Węglowa S.A., Poland - Kopalnia Węgla Kamiennego Knurów-Szczyglowice Ruch Szczygłowice (The SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine), Poland - Główny Instytut Górnictwa (The Central Mining Institute), Poland - The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc, Japan Contact information on the participants is given in annex 1 of the. TÜV SÜD confirms: - that the project participants are correctly described according to JI Track-1 requirements - that their contact information is complete 3.3 Project design document A first version of the was submitted to the AIE in June 2010.The final version 3.0 was submitted the 27/10/2011. The final serves as the basis for the final assessment presented. TÜV SÜD confirms: - that the is compliant with the relevant form and guidance as provided by the UNFCCC JISC. - that the guidelines for the completion of the in their most recent version have been followed. - that relevant information has been provided by the PP in the applying sections. 3.4 Project description The following description of the project as per could be verified during the on-site missions:

12 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 12 of 22 - Installation and operation of a ventilation system (stage 1) - Installation and operation of one CHP unit (Deutz Energy TCG 2020 V20 with generator, electric capacity 1,934 KW)(stage 2) - Installation of a water cooled flare stack (capacity 20 Nm 3 -CH 4 ) (stage 3) - Planned: Installation and operation of a second CHP unit (electric capacity 1,934 KW)(stage 4, 2012) The project comprises the combustion of methane in the CHP-units and the flare as well as the production of electric energy and heat (waste heat recovery) for internal usage, thus replacing energy and heat purchased from the external grids. But regarding electricity and heat no emission reductions are claimed because of indirect double-counting under EU-ETS. The project activity aims at GHG emissions reduction of methane, which is the by-product of coal mining. The information presented in the on the technical design is consistent with the actual planning and implementation of the project activity as confirmed by: Review of data and information (see annex 2) using sectoral knowledge and expertise of the assessment team, cross check the same with other sources available in the respective technical literature, official publications, etc. The on-site visit has been performed and relevant stakeholders and personnel with knowledge of the project were interviewed, in case of doubt further cross checks through additional interviews have been done. ly information related to similar technologies or projects as the JI project activity have been used if available to confirm the accuracy and completeness of the project description. TÜV SÜD confirms: - that the project description as included to the is sufficiently accurate and complete in order to comply with the requirements of the JI Track Baseline and monitoring methodology Applicability of the selected methodology The PPs is following the approved CDM methodology ACM0008 version 7 with the associated tools currently valid. The applicability assessment is carried out for each applicability criterion according to ACM0008 version 7 and includes, among other checks, a compliance check of the local project setting with the applicability conditions in regard to baseline setting and eligible project measures. This assessment also includs the review of secondary sources to demonstrate the compliance with applicability conditions. The methodology-specific protocols, included in Annex 1, document the assessment process. The results of the compliance check as well as relevant evidence are detailed in the protocols and the in-formation reference list. TÜV SÜD confirms: - that the chosen baseline and monitoring methodology is applicable to the project activity. For details refer to the Annex 1 of this report.

13 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 13 of Project boundary The project boundary was assessed considering information gathered from the physical site inspection, interviews, and secondary evidence received on the design of the project. Description of emission sources including justification of gases included/excluded in/from the project boundaries is provided in appropriate manner, and can be considered as complete and correct. For further details on TÜV SÜD observations on-site refer to the Annexes 1 and 2. TÜV SÜD confirms that: - the identified boundary and the selected sources as documented in the are justified for the project activity. - the Project boundary set in is in accordance with CDM methodology ACM0008 version 7. For details refer to the Annex 1 of this report Baseline identification The methodology ACM0008 version 7 offers the procedure for identification of the baseline scenario. This procedure is applied in the and provides a step-wise approach to identify the baseline scenario. The information presented in the has been determined by a first document review of all the data, further confirmation based on the on-site visit and a final step by cross checking the information with similar relevant projects and/or technologies. Transparent and documented evidences were provided to assessment team within on-site visit. Based on conservative interpretation of collected audit evidences, TÜV SÜD considers that the identified baseline scenario is reasonable. TÜV SÜD confirms that: - all relevant JI requirements, including relevant national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances, have been identified correctly taken into account in the definition of the baseline scenario. - all the assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed in the, including their references and sources; - all documentation used is relevant for establishing the baseline scenario and correctly quoted and interpreted in the ; - assumptions and data used in the identification of the baseline scenario are justified appropriately, supported by evidence and can be deemed reasonable; - relevant national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances are considered and listed in the ; - The list of plausible alternative scenarios to the project activity is complete and no reasonable alternative scenarios have been excluded. - the approved baseline methodology has been correctly applied to identify the most reasonable baseline scenario and the identified baseline scenario reasonably represents what would occur in the absence of the proposed JI project activity.

14 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 14 of 22 The identified baseline scenario is the continuation of the current situation: CMM vented to the atmosphere and purchase of heat and electricity from the grids. For details refer to the Annex 1 of this report Algorithm and/or formulae used to determine emission reductions TÜV SÜD has assessed the calculations of project emissions, baseline emissions and emission reductions. There are no leakage emissions. The calculations were carried out based on calculation spreadsheets (IRL 14). The parameters and equations presented in the and further documentation have been compared with the information and requirements presented in the methodology and respective tools. The equation comparison has been made explicitly following all the formulae presented in the calculation files. The values presented in the are considered reasonable based on the documentation and references reviewed, as well as, the result of the interviews. The algorithms for the determination of the baseline, project, and leakage are discussed in the following sections Baseline Emissions The baseline emissions are calculated according to the following formula: BE MR, y = GWP CH4 x [(CMM PL, ELEC, y + PMM PJ, ELEC, y + CMM PL, FL, y + PMM PJ, FL, y )] Where: BE MR, y CMM PL, ELEC, y PMM PJ, ELEC, y CMM PL, FL, y PMM PJ, FL, y GWP CH4 - Baseline emissions from release of methane into the atmosphere in year y that is avoided by the project activity (tco2e) - Pre-mining CMM captured, sent to and destroyed by power plant in the project in year y (expressed in tch4) - Post-mining CMM captured, sent to and destroyed by power generation in the project in year y (expressed in tch4) - Pre-mining CMM captured, sent to and destroyed by flare stack in the project in year y (expressed in tch4) - Post-mining CMM captured, sent to and destroyed by flaring in the project in year y (expressed in tch4) - Global warming potential of methane (21 tco2e/tch4) The estimated baseline emissions have been calculated using real mining data (IRL 12, 40). TÜV SÜD confirms that: - the applied formula is correctly taken from the methodology - the default values apply to the specific project - the estimated baseline emissions are reliable

15 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 15 of Project emissions The project emissions are calculated according to the following formula: PE y = PE ME +PE MD +PE UM Where: PE y - Project emissions in year y (tco2e) PE ME - Project emissions from energy use to capture and use methane (tco2e) PE MD - Project emissions from methane destroyed (tco2e) - Project emissions from un-combusted methane (tco2e) PE UM Combustion emissions from additional energy required for CMM capture and use: PE ME = CONS ELEC, PJ x CEF ELEC Where: PE ME - Project emissions from energy use to capture and use or destroy methane (tco2e) CONS ELEC, PJ - Additional electricity consumption for capture and use or destruction of methane, if any (MWh) CEF ELEC - Carbon emissions factor of electricity used by coal mine (tco2e/mwh) Here, the detailed calculation formula for CONS ELEC, PJ is shown in Annex 3. Combustion emissions from use of captured methane: PE MD = (MD FL + MD ELEC ) x (CEF CH4 + r x CEF NMHC ) With: r = PC NMHC / PC CH4 Where: PE MD - Project emissions from CMM/CBM destroyed (tco2e) MD FL - Methane destroyed through flaring (tch4) MD ELEC - Methane destroyed through power generation (tch4) MD HEAT - Methane destroyed through heat generation (tch4) CEF CH4 - Carbon emission factor for combusted methane (2.75 tco2/tch4) CEF NMHC - Carbon emission factor for combusted non methane hydrocarbons (the concentration varies and, therefore, to be obtained through periodical analysis of captured methane) (tco2/tnmhc) r - Relative proportion of NMHC compared to methane

16 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 16 of 22 PC CH4 - Concentration (in mass) of methane in extracted gas (%), measured on wet basis PC NMHC - NMHC concentration (in mass) in extracted gas (%) MD FL = MM FL - (PE flare /GWP CH4 ) Where: MD FL - Methane destroyed through flaring (tch4) MM FL - Methane measured sent to flare (tch4) PE flare - Project emissions of non-combusted CH4, expressed in terms of CO2e, from flaring of the residual gas stream (tco2e) GWP CH4 - Global warming potential of methane (21 tco2e/tch4) Here, the project emissions from flaring (PE flare, y ) are determined as described in Annex 4. MD ELEC = MM ELEC x Eff ELEC Where: MD ELEC - Methane destroyed through power generation (tch4) MM ELEC - Methane measured sent to power plant (tch4) Eff ELEC - Efficiency of methane destruction/oxidation in power plant (taken as 99.5% from IPCC) Un-combusted methane from project activity: PE UM = GWP CH4 x [MM ELEC x (1-Eff ELEC )] + PE flare Where: PE UM - Project emissions from un-combusted methane (tco2e) GWP CH4 - Global warming potential of methane (21 tco2e/tch4) MM ELEC - Methane measured sent to power plant (tch4) Eff ELEC - Efficiency of methane destruction/oxidation in power plant (taken as 99.5% from IPCC) PE flare - Project emissions of non-combusted CH4 expressed in terms of CO2e from flaring of the residual gas stream (tco2e) The carbon emisson factor (grid factor) has been derived according to the tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system using Eurostat Monthly Statistics from 2004 till 2008 (latest available information at the date of developing the ). TÜV SÜD confirms: - that the applied formulae are correctly taken from the methodology and comply fully with the planned project activity - that the fixed data apply to the specific project

17 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 17 of 22 - that the derived grid factor ex-ante of 0,728 MWh is plausible when cross checking with other comparable registered projects Leakage There are no leakages Emission Reductions The emission reductions are calculated according to the formulae of the methodology using excel sheets (IRL 14). TÜV SÜD confirms that: - the estimation of the emission reductions is based on realistic assumptions and the formulae of the methodology - the calculated emission reductions are reliable because based on mining data - the calculations are correctly done 3.6 Additionality The approach used in the has been assessed based on a document review and interviews on-site with plant representatives (for details see Annex 2). All audit evidences have been checked using sectorial knowledge and expertise as well as public available information published in the internet. The timetable in chapter A.2 of the clearly demonstrates that the first JI consideration (meeting KWK/GIG from 04/10/2004; IRL 47) took place before the first construction action (decision of the board to select the contractor for the technical design, 06/10/2005, IRL 16) Investment analysis (benchmark) is used for demonstrating additionality according to the Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 05.2) using a project IRR. The calculations are done by excel and are presented on a excel sheet (IRL 14). The analysis has been carefully checked by TÜV SÜD. The costs are evidenced by invoices (IRL 13). The cost savings caused by the electricity and heat production and consumption are fully considered. The other key parameters are also clearly referenced (IRL 13). The used formulae are correct. The selected benchmark is 11,31%. This benchmark is transparently derived from publicly available market data (IRL 13). The project IRR without CDM revenues is negative (-3.6%), which clearly demonstrates that the project in the absence of CDM benefits and compared to the benchmark is not financially attractive. The sensivity analysis was analysed in detail and TÜV SÜD confirms that the underlying assumptions, parameters and chosen values are appropriate and that the calculations have been performed correctly. The analysis was performed on the investment costs, operating costs and power sales revenues (cost saving). These are the three major parameters that influence the

18 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 18 of 22 investment analysis. TÜV SÜD considers the selected parameters as complete as well as reproducible. The sensivity analysis has been performed by taking into account 10% variations which is considered to be appropriate as it is with the general guidance provided by the UNFCCC. The common practice analysis clearly shows that the project is not a baseline scenario (IRL 36 bis 39). TÜV SÜD confirms that: - the input parameters are applicable and valid for the proposed project activity - the stated investment costs are realistic - the chosen benchmark of 11,31 % is appropriate - the IRRs are correctly calculated - the project is insensitive against possible changes in costs and revenues - the defined project is additional The investment analysis clearly shows that there is no economical benefit by the destruction of methane other than the JI revenues. 3.7 Monitoring plan The assessment team has checked all the parameters presented in the MP against the requirements of the methodology. The following parameters will be monitored during the monitoring period: - CONS ELEC, PJ: Electricity consumed - MM FL : Methane measured sent to flare - η flare,h : Flare efficiency in the h - MM ELEC : Methane sent to the power plant - PC CH4 : Concentration of methane - PC NMHC : NMHC concentration in extracted gas - CEF NMHC : Carbon emission factor of NMHC (only if PC NMHC > 1%) - GENy: Electricity generation by the gas engine (only for back up purpose) The flare efficiency η flare,h will be normally determined from the methane content of the exhaust gas using the following parameters (Method b of the flaring tool): - VG: Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas - Wsp: Velocity of the exhaust gas - kch4: Concentration of methane in the residual gas - KCH4sp: Concentration of methane in the exhaust gas Alternatively the flare efficiency can be determined from the temperature of the exhaust gas T flare using the default values of the tool (Method a of the flaring tool) or from the heat balance using the total amount of heat from the methane combustion Q c (= Q w : heating energy of the stack cooling system) and the heating value of methane H u.

19 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 19 of 22 Q w has to be calculated from the following equation Q w = Mw * cw * (twc twz) with: - Mw: Mass flow of water of the flare stack cooling system - cw: specific heat of water - twc: Outlet water temperature - twz: Inlet water temperature The conservativeness of this approach has been clearly demonstrated by a technical third party assessment (IRL 48). If the metering of MM ElEC fails, it can be estimated from GENy according to the following formula: MM ELEC = d CH 4 GEN W V CH 4 3,6 100 with η V d CH4 specific gravity of methane 0, [t/m 3 ], GEN V amount of electricity generated in the gas engine [kwh], W CH4 calorific value of methane [MJ/Nm 3 ], η V ampere-hour efficiency of CHP [%] = 42,2% according to the manufacturer s specification. The quality assurance procedures have been audited through document review and interviews with the relevant personnel; this information together with a physical inspection allows the assessment team to confirm that the proposed monitoring plan is feasible within the project design. The major parameters to be monitored have been discussed with the PPs especially regarding the location of the meters, the data management, and in general the quality assurance and quality control procedures to be implemented in the context of the project. Due to importance of the quality assurance and quality control procedure for the future data quality, the monitoring procedures are summarized in a monitoring and reporting instruction book and a monitoring procedure book (IRL 33). The books comprise a description of the work scope as well as tasks of responsible personnel, qualification requirements and continuous training for responsible staff, procedures on the data treatment etc. The monitoring management structure and the responsibilities of the involved personal has been clearly defined. The staff gets regular training (IRL 34). All the audit evidences proving the appropriateness of monitoring provisions undertaken by the PPs were provided to the AIE and have been considered as sufficient. For details please refer to Annex 2 of this report. TÜV SÜD confirms that: - the monitoring plan complies fully with the requirements of the methodology and actual technical standards

20 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 20 of Local stakeholder consultation It has to be highlighted that this particular project is an internal company measure on the ground of the company and thus there are no legal requirments in the host country for this type of projects to conduct a stakeholder consultation with the publicity. Nevertheless the project has been presented to the Municipal Council of Knurow and the Labor Unions of the coal mine. Only positive comments have been received, which can be confirmed by TÜV SÜD (IRL 32 and on-site interview with the representatives of the labour unions). Furthermore the Polish Ministry of Environment issued the letter of endorsement on 27 of July 2009 (IRL 21) demonstrating its support for the project activity. TÜV SÜD confirms that: - the stakeholders have been sufficiently involved - there are no objections of the stakeholders against the project 3.9 Environmental impacts The project participants consider the environmental impact as insignificant. The project is taking place within the mine and the used equipment is most modern fulfilling the polish emission regulations. Further more, according to the City of Knurow an EIA is not necessary (IRL 26). TÜV SÜD confirms that: - there are no significant environmental impacts by the project Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs TÜV SÜD published the project documents on TÜV SÜD s own website and invited comments by the Parties, stakeholders and non-governmental organisations during a period of 30 days. The following table presents all key information on this process: Webpage: &mode=5 Starting date of the stakeholder consultation process: 02 July 2010 Comment submitted by: - (no comments received) Response by TÜV SÜD: - Issues raised: -

21 Determination of the JI track-1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Page 21 of 22 4 DETERMINATION OPINION TÜV SÜD has performed a determination of the following proposed JI project activity: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Standard auditing techniques have been used for the determination of the project. Methodologyspecific checklists and protocol customised for the project have been prepared to carry out the audit and present the outcome in a transparent and comprehensive manner. The review of the project design documentation, and further audit evidences and references, as well as subsequent follow-up interviews have provided TÜV SÜD with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of stated criteria in the protocol. In our opinion, the project meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for the JI as well as all the requirements set by host country (Poland) for approving projects under JI Track 1. Hence, TÜV SÜD will recommend the project for further approval and registration by the DFP of the host country. An analysis, as provided by the applied methodology, demonstrates that the proposed project activity is not a likely baseline scenario. Emission reductions attributable to the project are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity. Given that the project is implemented as designed, the project is likely to achieve the estimated amount of emission reductions as specified within the final version. The determination is based on the information made available to TÜV SÜD, as well as the engagement conditions detailed in this report. The determination has been performed following the JI requirements. The only purpose of this report is its use during the registration process as part of the JI Track 1 project cycle. TÜV SÜD cannot be held liable by any party for decisions made, or not made, based on the determination opinion beyond this purpose. Munich, 28/10/2011 Munich, 28/10/2011 Thomas Kleiser Certification Body climate and energy TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Karin Wagner Assessment Team Leader

22 Determination of the JI Track 1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Annex 1: Determination Protocols Table 1a, 2a (ACM0008, Version 07 General) Table 1b, 2b (Flaring Tool)

23 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Table 1a Determination Protocol (ACM0008, Version 07 general) A. General description of project activity A.1. Title of the project activity A.1.1. A.1.2. A.1.3. Does the used project title clearly enable to identify the unique activity? Is there any indication concerning the revision number and the date of the revision? Is this consistent with the time line of the project s history? A.2. Description of the project activity A.2.1. Is the description delivering a transparent overview of the project activities? The used project title Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland describes shortly the planned project activity and the location of the project. Hence, it clearly identifies the unique project activity. The version number and the date of the version are mentioned in the. However, the sectoral scope is missing Clarification Request No. 1. Please present the sectoral scope of the project (see specific guidelines on JI ). Clarification Request No. 2. Please present the timeline of the project s history. Clarification Request No. 3. The description is not complete and not detailed enough (e.g. no description of the gas recovery station). Furthermore, the kind of project is not mentioned (JI Track 1). Additionally, some dates have changed. Please revise and show clearly which stages have already been realised. Please consider the specific guidelines on JI. CR 1 CR 2 CR 3 Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-1

24 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 A.2.2. A.2.3. A.2.4. What proofs are available demonstrating that the project description is in compliance with the actual situation or planning? Is the information provided by these proofs consistent with the information provided by the? Is all information presented consistent with details provided by further chapters of the? A.3. Project participants A.3.1. A.3.2. Is the form required for the indication of project participants correctly applied? Is the participation of the listed entities or Parties confirmed by each one of them? A.3.3. Is all information on participants / Parties provided in consistency with details provided by further chapters of the (in particular annex 1)? A.4. Technical description of the project activity A.4.1. Location of the project activity A Does the information provided on the location of the project activity allow for a clear identification of the site(s)? See CR above See CR above See CR above, the form required is correctly applied., the participation of the enlisted entities has been confirmed by the audit participants. Detailed information on the PPs is clearly presented in annex 1 of the. Clarification Request No. 4. Please insert into the a detailed location map and the GPS coordinates. CR 4 Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-2

25 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 A How is it ensured and/or demonstrated, that the project proponents can implement the project at this site (ownership, licenses, contracts etc.)? A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity A To which category(ies) does the project activity belonging to? Is the category correctly identified and indicated? A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity A Does the technical design of the project activity reflect current good practices? A Does the description of the technology to be applied provide sufficient and transparent input/ information to evaluate its impact on the greenhouse gas balance? A Does the implementation of the project activity require any technology transfer from annex-i-countries to the host country(ies)? A Is the technology implemented by the project activity environmentally safe? A Is the information provided in compliance with actual situation or planning? A Does the project use state of the art technology and / or does the technology result in a significantly better performance than any commonly used technologies in the host country? The first stages of the project (Gas Recovery Station, 1 st CHP unit and flare) have been implemented yet. The second CHP unit is planned to start operation in Jannuary Clarification Request No. 5. Please indicate the category of the project. The most modern technology available is used. Hence, the project clearly reflects current good practice. Clarification Request No. 6. Please describe the gas recovery station in detail., technology from Germany and the Czech Republic has been bought. The technology implemented reflects current good practice and has to be considered as environmentally safe. CR 5 CR 6 See CRs above See above Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-3

26 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 A Is the project technology likely to be substituted by other or more efficient technologies within the project period? A Does the project require extensive initial training and maintenance efforts in order to be carried out as scheduled during the project period? A Is information available on the demand and requirements for training and maintenance? A Is a schedule available for the implementation of the project and are there any risks for delays? No, because the chosen technology represents the currently best available technology., the applied technology requires extensive training. Evidences of trainings (participant lists) have been presented onsite., see above The gas recovery station, one CHP unit and the flare plant have been implemented yet. The second CHP unit is planned to start operation in January 2012.This date has been confirmed by the responsible staff. A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period A Is the form required for the indication of The chosen form is consistent with the form given in the JI projected emission reductions correctly Guidelines. applied? A Are the figures provided consistent with other data presented in the? A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity A Is the information provided on public funding provided in compliance with the actual situation or planning as available by the project participants? A Is all information provided consistent with the details given in remaining chapters of, all figures provided are consistent with the other data in the. The Kompania Weglowa S.A. confirmed by letter that no public funding has been provided. All information provided is consistent with the details given in the remaining chapters of the. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-4

27 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 the (in particular annex 2)? B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology B.1.1. B.1.2. B.1.3. B.1.4. Are reference number, version number, and title of the baseline and monitoring methodology clearly indicated? Is the applied version the most recent one and / or is this version still applicable? Are reference number, version number, and title of the tool clearly indicated? Is/Are the applied version(s) of the tool(s) the most recent one and / or is/are this(ese) versions still applicable? The reference number, version number and title of the methodology are clearly indicated. The chosen methodology is the approved methodology ACM0008, version 7 Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-5, the applied version is the most recent version. Clarification Request No. 7. Please cite the applied tools in the. CR 7 See CR above B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity B Are the applied methodology and tool (s) considered the most appropriate one? B.2.2. Criterion 1: Is one of the following extraction activities involved by the project activities? - surface drainage wells to capture CBM associated with mining activities - underground boreholes in the mine to capture pre mining CMM - surface goaf wells, underground boreholes, gas drainage galleries or other goaf gas capture techniques, The applied methodology and the applied tools are considered the appropriate ones. The applicability criteria are clearly fullfilled. Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? / No

28 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 including gas from sealed areas, to capture post mining CMM - ventilation air methane, that would normally be vented B.2.3. Criterion 2: Does the baseline include a partial or total atmospheric release of the methane? Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? / No B.2.4. Criterion 3: Is the gas captured treated by one of the following methods? - destroying through flaring and/or destroying through flamelessoxidation and/or - utilization to produce electricity, motive power and/or thermal energy Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? / No B.2.5. Criterion 4: Is it ensured, that all the CBM or CMM captured by the project is used or destroyed and not vented? (Exception: the remaining share of meth- Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-6

29 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 ane to be diluted for safety reason) Compliance verified? B.2.6. Criterion 5: Is it ensured, that the project activity does not include one of the following features: - operate in an open cast mine - capture methane from a abandoned or decommissioned coalmine - capture/use of a virgin coal mine - use of CO2 or any other fluid/gas to enhance CBM drainage before mining takes place B.2.7. Criterion 6: Are the project participants able to supply the necessary to data for ex-ante projections of methane demand to determine the baseline emissions and the leakage? Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? / No / No B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary B.3.1. Source: Emission of methane as a result of venting Gas: CH4 Type: Baseline Emissions Emission source included Boundary checklist Source and gas(es) discussed in the? / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-7

30 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? (Main emission source) Consistency with monitoring plan? B.3.2. Source: Emission from destruction of methane in the baseline Gas: CO2 Type: Baseline Emissions Emission source excluded Boundary checklist Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No (There is neither flaring nor use for heat and power) B.3.3. Source: Grid electricity generation (electricity provided to the grid) Emission source excluded Boundary checklist / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-8

31 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Gas: CO2 Type: Baseline Emissions Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? (avoidance of douplecounting) B.3.4. Source: Captive power and/or heat, and vehicle fuel use Gas: CO2 Type: Baseline Emissions Emission source excluded Boundary checklist Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No (combustion of coal in heat generation) B.3.5. Source: Emissions of methane as a result of continued venting: CO2 Emission source excluded Boundary checklist / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-9

32 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B.3.6. Type: Project Emissions Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? Source: On- site fuel consumption due to the project activity, including transport of gas Gas: CO2 Type: Project Emissions Emission source included Boundary checklist Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No (use of fuel driven equipment) CAR 1 Corrective Action Request No.1. Please explain how the source on-site fuel consumption has been considered in the calculation and in the Monitoring Plan. B.3.7. Source: Emission from methane destruction Gas: CO2 Type: Project Emissions Emission source included Boundary checklist Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-10

33 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B.3.8. Source: Emission from NMHC destruction Gas: CO2 Type: Project Emissions Emission source included Boundary checklist Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No B.3.9. Source: Fugitive emission of unburned methane Gas: CH4 Type: Project Emissions Emission source included Boundary checklist Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No (unburned methane from heat/pow er generation B Do the spatial and technological boundaries as verified on-site comply with the discussion provided by / indication included to the? According to the on-site findings, the spatial and technological boundaries comply fully with the with the situation described in the. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-11

34 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario B.4.1. B.4.2. B.4.3. Have all technically feasible options for capturing and /or using CBM or CMM or VAM (Step 1) to the project activity been identified and discussed by the? Why can this list be considered as being complete? Does the project identify correctly and excludes those options not in line with regulatory or legal requirements (Step 2)? Have applicable regulatory or legal requirements been identified? All options of the methodology have been identified and are discussed in the. However, because of CMM extraction from goaf wells postmining CMM has to be taken into account. Corrective Action Request No.2. Post mining CMM extraction from goaf wells is used and has to be addressed in the. Please revise the formulae accordingly. There are no regulations that restrict any of the identified options.. All applicable regulatory or legal requirements have been identified. CAR 2 B.4.4. Have all baseline scenario alternatives due to the listed options (Step 1) and complying with the requirements of Step 2 in ACM0008, vers.6 been identified, discussed and clearly described (regarding share of volume of CBM/CMM/VAM treated, end-uses, source of power used) by the? Why can this list be considered as being complete? (Step 3) See CAR above Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-12

35 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B.4.5. B.4.6. B.4.7. B.4.8. B.4.9. B Is a complete list of barriers developed that prevent alternatives to occur (step 4)? Is transparent and documented evidence provided on the existence and significance of these barriers? If there are several potential alternatives scenario candidates that do not face barriers, is there the most conservative (result in least emission) or the economically most viable alternative chosen for baseline scenario (step 4)? Has step 2 of the latest approved additionality tool correctly been applied to identify the most plausible baseline scenario? Have options that are clearly not economically unattractive been correctly eliminated? Does the alternative involve any investment? Has the investment comparison analysis correctly been applied or is the benchmark analysis applicable? All barriers of the Methodology have been addressed. Hence, the list is considered to be complete. Corrective Action Request No.3. Most of the given baseline scenarios do not face financial barriers as described in the tool but are economically/financially unattractive according to the done investment analysis. Please revise step 4 of the analysis accordingly. According to the done analysis the BAU scenario (venting of CMM + use of electricity and heat from the grid) is the only scenario that neither faces barriers nor is financially unattractive. Hence, it is identified as the most viable baseline scenario.. The tool has been correctly applied to identify the most plausible baseline scenario. See CAR above CAR 3. Most of the alternatives involve investments.. The investment comparison analysis has been in principal correctly applied. However, changes in the time table have not been considered yet. CAR 4 Corrective Action Request No.4. Because of changes in the time table the investment comparison analysis has to be revised. In addition, please present the Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-13

36 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B Is a sensitivity analysis performed for all baseline scenarios that have not eliminated in step 4? associated excel sheet of the calculations., the sensivity analysis has been performed for all scenarios not eliminated in step 4. 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 JI project activity (assessment and demonstration of additionality): B.5.1. Step 1 B.5.2. B.5.3. B.5.4. B.5.5. In case the project activity started before the validation activity, how is it demonstrated that the JI was seriously taken into account for the decision to start the project? Are alternative scenarios defined that provide outputs or services comparable with the proposed JI project activity? Can the list of alternatives considered to be complete, why? Is the scenario project activity without being registered as JI project included? In case of several different facilities, technologies, outputs or services are present in the project, are separately alternative scenarios for each of them included? Have realistic combinations been considered as a project scenario? Describe why the alternative scenarios are credible and realistic? The documentation clearly indicates that the first contacts concerning the project activity took place in Winter 2004/2005. See CAR Starting Date below See above See above See above See above Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-14

37 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B.5.6. B.5.7. Do the alternative scenarios comply with mandatory laws and regulations? If a scenario does not comply with the mandatory laws and regulations, is it clearly demonstrated that the law and/or regulation is systematically not enforced in the country? Step 2 (could be optional if step 3 is used) B.5.8. B.5.9. B B B B Is the analysis method identified appropriately? In case of Option I (simple cost analysis): Is it demonstrated that the activity produces no economic benefits other than JI income? In case of Option II (investment comparison analysis): Is the most suitable financial indicator clearly identified (IRR, NPV, cost benefit ratio, or (levelized) unit cost)? In case of use of IRR, it is clearly demonstrated why is equity of project IRR used? In case of Option III (benchmark analysis): Is the most suitable financial indicator clearly identified (IRR, NPV, cost benefit ratio, or (levelized) unit cost)? How is it demonstrated that the benchmark represents standard returns in the market, considering the specific risks of Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-15 See above See above, the method has been chosen according to the requirements of the Methodology. Therefore, it is considered to be approbriate. Because the activity produces economic benefits option III (investment comparision analysis with benchmark) has been applied, the most suitable financial indicator has been clearly identified (IRR) and has been evidenced by documents during the audit., it is clearly demonstrated that a project IRR has been used. The applied benchmark is clearly substantiated based on CAPM. The chosen values have been evidenced to the audit team by documents. Hence, the chosen benchmark of 11.31% is considered to be approbriate. See above

38 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B B B B B the project type, but not linked to the subjective profitability The benchmark is to represent standard returns in the market, considering the specific risk of the project type, but not linked to the subjective profitability expectation or risk profile of a particular project developer? In case of company internal benchmark, is it clearly demonstrate that there is only one potential project developer and that the benchmark has been consistently used in the past? In case of Option II or Option III: Is the calculation of financial figures for this indicator correctly done for all alternatives and the project activity? In case of Option II or Option III: Is the analysis presented in a transparent manner including publicly available proofs for the utilized data? Are all assumptions and input data clearly presented, documented, evidenced and consistent with the rest of the? Does the sensitivity analysis show that the conclusion is robust to reasonable variations in the critical assumptions? n/a See B The analysis is presented in a transparent manner including all publicly available proofs. The assumptions and the input data are clearly presented and evidenced by documents. Clarification Request No. 8. Please reference the source of all values applied. CR 8, the sensivity analysis show that the conclusion is robust. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-16

39 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B How is it demonstrated that these variations have been adequately taken (range is adequate)? Step 3 (is mandatory if step 2 is not used or does not shows additionality) B B B B Step 4 Is a complete list of barriers developed that prevent the different alternatives to occur? Is transparent and documented evidence provided on the existence and significance of these barriers? Is it transparently shown that the execution of at least one of the alternatives is not prevented by the identified barriers? How is confirmed that the JI does alleviate the barriers presented? B Have other activities in the host country / region similar to the project activity been identified and are these activities appropriately analyzed by the? B If similar activities are occurring: Is it demonstrated that in spite of these similarities the project activity would not be implemented without the JI component? B.6. Emissions reductions B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices The analysis covers a range of ± 10 %. This range complies fully with the range suggested in the additionality tool and is therefore considered to be adequate. n/a n/a n/a n/a Clarification Request No. 9. Please present a more detailed common practice analysis. CR 9 See CR above Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-17

40 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B Is it explained how the procedures provided in the methodology are applied by the proposed project activity? B Is every selection of options offered by the methodology correctly justified and is this justification in line with the situation verified on-site? B Are the formulae required for the determination of project emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameters to be used and / or monitored? (Details go to B B 6.1.7) B Combustion emissions from additional energy required for CBM / CMM / VAM capture and use: Is the additional energy for the capture, transport, compression and use or destruction considered and is the same electricity and heat generation emission factor used as in the calculation of baseline emissions? B Combustion emissions from use of captured methane: Are the combustion emissions of Non Methane Hydro Carbons (NMHC) included if they account for more than 1% by volume of extracted CMM/CBM or more than 0,1% by volume of the ex- The used Parameters (monitored and not monitored) and the applied formulae are presented in the in accordance with the applied Methodology. Clarification Request No. 10. Please justify the selected options offered by the methodology. The formulae presented are in accordance with the chosen Methodology. Clarification Request No. 11. Please show the derivation of the applied formulae (PE and BE) in detail. Please revise formula B.1.3 (MD HEAT?). Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-18 CR 10 CR 11. PE use is considered in the calculations. The NMHC are correctly included.

41 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 tracted VAM? B Combustion emissions from use of captured methane : Are the project emissions from flaring the residual gas stream calculated following the procedures described in the Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing Methane? B Combustion emissions (CO2) from use of captured methane: Are the IPCC default values applied to fix the efficiency for power generation, heat generation and/or combustion of methane at end user? B Is the un-combusted methane from flaring, flameless oxidation or end usages included into the project emission calculation by using the Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing Methane? B Are the formulae required for the determination of baseline emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? (Details go to B B ) B Is there any methane destroyed in the baseline and are the CO2 emissions resulting from this destruction calculated properly?, the emissions from flaring are calculated according to the flaring tool. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-19. The IPCC default values have been applied.. The un-combusted methane from flaring has been considered according to the flaring tool. See B No. There is no destruction of methane in the baseline. Thus, BE MD is zero.

42 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B Is the calculation of the mean annual demand (Thy) for each year of the crediting period existent and comprehensible? B Are real measured data on a daily base available for estimating the scalar factor for each of the last five years before the starting date of the proposed project activity? B If B is not the fact, which of the 3 methods a, b, c mentioned in ACM0008 vers.04 is used to project thermal energy demand on a monthly data base and is it documented comprehensible, why method a (and b in case of applied method c) can t be used? B Is the methane released into the atmosphere in the baseline scenario described and is it calculated properly excluding the captured and used methane as well as methane still vented in the project activity? B In order to quantify the eligible CBM, are the relevant wells identified (step 1)? B In order to quantify the eligible CBM, are the project specific values for the zone of influence elaborated in the (step 2)? n/a n/a n/a, the methane released into the atmosphere is described and calculated properly. n/a n/a B Are the relevant project specific data provided by the consistent to calculate the project emissions of methane and CO2 resulting from CBM due to the ren/a Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-20

43 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 quirements (step 2)? B Is there any temporal adjustment for baseline emissions (in case of CBM utilization and or destruction) within a defined crediting period? (step 3) B Is the amount of pre-mining and postmining CMM and VAM captured in the baseline scenario defined as an absolute amount or as a share of the amount captured in the project activity and is this justified by the project participants comprehensible? B Are there any emissions from power/heat generation and vehicle fuel replaced by the project? B If applies and both CMM and CBM are used for replacing the emissions, is the distinction between CMM and CBM considered? B If applies is the emission factor for grid power and or captive power calculated correctly, using the Tool for calculation of emission factor for electricity systems? n/a n/a n/a n/a The factor has been calculated on the base of the Eurostat Energy Monthly Statistics. However, the emission coefficients used deviate from the data given by the Polish State (Kashue). Corrective Action Request No.5. Please revise the calculation of the grid factor using the official polish emission coefficients. The obtained grid emission factor should be confirmed by the polish authorities if possible. CAR 5 Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-21

44 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B If applies is the emission factor for heat generation calculated with the boiler efficiency due to option A or option B? B If applies is the emission factor for vehicle fuel use calculated due to the conservative approach? B Are the formulae required for the determination of leakage emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Is there any displacement of baseline thermal energy uses to be considered? B Is there any CBM drainage from outside the de-stressed zone to be considered? B Does the project activity impact the coal production (if baseline scenario is ventilation only) and how is it taken into account to determine the leakage? B Are the formulae required for the determination of emission reductions correctly presented? B.6.2. Data and parameters not monitored B Is the list of parameters presented in chapter D considered to be complete with regard to the requirements of the applied methodology? Are the provisions on not monitored data and parameters in the re- Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-22 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a No. There is no leakage to be expected., the formulae required for the determination of the emission reductions are correctly presented.. The list of parameters is considered to be complete with regard to the project and the applied methodology- Tools, see CAR above

45 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 ferred tools included? B Parameter Title: CEF Elec,PJ Carbon emission factor of electricity used by coal mine See B above Data Checklist Title in line with methodology? / No (Project emissions, ex ante) Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided? Has this value been verified? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? B Parameter Title: EF OM,y CO2 Operating Margin emission factor of the grid See B above Data Checklist Title in line with methodology? / No (Project emissions, ex ante) Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided? Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-23

46 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Has this value been verified? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? B Parameter Title: EF BM,y CO2 Build Margin emission factor of the grid See B above Data Checklist Title in line with methodology? / No (Project emissions, ex ante) Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided? Has this value been verified? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? B Parameter Title: Eff ELEC Efficiency of methane destruction / oxidation in power plant IPCC default value Eff ELEC = 99.5% Data Checklist / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-24

47 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 (Project emissions: ex ante) Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided? Has this value been verified? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? n/a B Parameter Title: GWP CH4 Global warming potential of methane (Project and baseline emissions) IPCC default value 21 Data Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided? Has this value been verified? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / No n/a Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-25

48 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B Parameter Title: CEF CH4 Carbon emission factor for combusted methane (Project emissions: Combustion emissions from use of captured methane) IPCC default value CEF CH4 = 2.75 t CO2 /t CH4 Data Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided? Has this value been verified? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / No n/a B Parameter Title: EF CO2,j CO2 emission factor of fuel used for captive heat (Ex-ante IPCC default value EF CO2,j = 25.8 tc/tj Data Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? / No CR 12 Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-26

49 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Correct value provided? Has this value been verified? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? n/a Clarification Request No. 12. Please explain where EF CO2,j have been used in the calculation. B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions B Is the projection based on the same procedures as used for future monitoring?. The same procedures are used. However, because of a change in the time table the calculations are not valid anymore and have to be revised. CAR 6 B Are the GHG calculations documented in a complete and transparent manner? B Is the data provided in this section consistent with data as presented in other chapters of the? B.6.4. B Will the project result in fewer GHG emissions than the baseline scenario? Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions Corrective Action Request No.6. Please revise the ERU calculation considering the actual time table., the GHG calculations are documented in a complete and transparent manner (excel sheet). All data presented are consistent with the data presented in the other chapters of the., the project will definitely result in fewer GHG emissions than the baseline scenario. But see CAR above Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-27

50 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B Is the form/table required for the indication of projected emission reductions correctly applied? B Is the projection in line with the envisioned time schedule for the project s implementation and the indicated crediting period? B Is the data provided in this section in consistency with data as presented in other chapters of the?, the form/table is correctly applied. See CAR above, the data provided are consistent with the data in other chapters of the. B.7. Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan B.7.1. Data and parameters monitored B Is the list of parameters presented in chapter D considered to be complete with regard to the requirements of the applied methodology? The list is considered to be complete with regard to the requirements of the applied methodology Integrate the required amount of sub-checklists for monitoring parameter and comment on any line answered with No B Parameter Title: CONS ELEC-PJ Additional electricity consumption for capture and use or destruction of methane, if any (Project emissions, continuous) Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? / No CAR 7 Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-28

51 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? Corrective Action Request No.7. Please show how CONS ELEC,PJ is determined and show the wiring of the consumers and the monitoring meters in an electricity grid connection scheme. Please show how the consumption of the methane recovery station is considered. Please revise the monitoring scheme in annex 3 of the. B Parameter Title: MM FL Methane measured sent to flare (Project emissions: Continuous) Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-29

52 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? B Parameter Title: PE flare Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in the year y (Project emissions: continuous) B Parameter Title: η flare,h Flare efficiency in the hour h (Project emissions: continuous) B Parameter Title: fv i,h Volumetric fraction of component i in the residual gas in the hour h where i = CH 4, N 2 (Project emissions: continuous) B Parameter Title: FV RG,h Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas in dry basis at normal conditions in hour h See protocol of flare See protocol of flare See protocol of flare See protocol of flare Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-30

53 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 (Project emissions: continuous) B Parameter Title: t O2,h Volumetric fraction of O 2 in the exhaust gas of the flare in the hour h (Project emissions: continuous) B Parameter Title: fv CH4,FG,h Concentration of methane in the exhaust gas of the flare on a wet basis at normal conditions in the hour h (Project emissions: continuous) B Parameter Title: T flare Temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare (Project emissions: continuous) B Parameter Title: MM ELEC Methane sent to power plant (Project emissions: Continuous) See protocol of flare See protocol of flare See protocol of flare Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-31

54 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? n/a B Parameter Title: CEF NMHC Carbon emission factor for combusted non methane hydrocarbons (various) (Periodical analysis) Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-32

55 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B Parameter Title: PC CH4 Concentration (in mass) of methane in extracted gas (%) measured on wet basis (Project emissions: Combustion emissions from use of captured methane) Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / No B Parameter Title: PC NMHC NMHC concentration (in mass) in extracted gas (Project emissions: Combustion emissions Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? / No Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-33

56 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 from use of captured methane) Source clearly referenced? B Parameter Title: CMM PL, ELEC,y Pre-mining CMM captured, send to and destroyed by gas-engine in the project activity in year y (Baseline emissions: continuous) Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / No CAR 8 Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-34

57 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Corrective Action Request No.8. Please consider also post-mining CMM. B Parameter Title: CMM PL, FL,y Pre-mining CMM captured, sent to and destroyed by flare in the project activity in year y (Baseline emissions: continuous) Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / No See CAR above B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan B Is the operational and management structure clearly described and in compliance Clarification Request No. 13. Please describe the operational and management structure in a B Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-35

58 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 with the envisioned situation? B Are responsibilities and institutional arrangements for data collection and archiving clearly provided? B Does the monitoring plan provide current good monitoring practice? B If applicable: Does annex 4 provide useful information enabling a better understanding of the envisioned monitoring provisions? chart. Please specify the calibration procedure according to the methodology (calibration according to industry standards). Please check the uncertainty levels of the electricity meters. See above, the monitoring plan provides current good monitoring practice n/a B.8. Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology an the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) B Is there any indication of a date when the baseline was determined? B.4.. February 24, However, the chosen format is not adequate. CAR 9 B Is this consistent with the time line of the history? B Is the information on the person(s) / entity(ies) responsible for the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology provided consistent with the actual situation? B.4. B.4. Corrective Action Request No.9. Please provide the date of the baseline setting in the right format (DD/MM/YYYY)... The information given is in accordance with the findings of the audit. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-36

59 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 B Is information provided whether this person / entity is also considered a project participant? B.4. C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1. Duration of the project activity C.1.1. Are the project s starting date and operational lifetime clearly defined and reasonable? C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information C.2.1. Is the assumed crediting time clearly defined and reasonable (renewable crediting period of max 7 years with potential for 2 renewals or fixed crediting period of max. 10 years)? D. Environmental impacts. The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. is also project participant. The stated starting date does not coincide with the installation of the gas recovery station. Corrective Action Request No.10. Please define the starting date considering the construction of the Gas Recovery Station (see also the specific guidelines on the JI ). Please use the right format /DD/MM/YYYY). The length of the crediting period is clearly defined (29 th May 2009 till 28 th May 2019). Format see CAR above D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts D.1.1. Has the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity been sufficiently described? D.1., the environmental impacts of the project activitiy have been sufficiently described. The description is based on a report of GORPROJEKT. CAR 10 CR 14 Clarification Request No. 14. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-37

60 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 D.1.2. D.1.3. D.1.4. Are there any Host Party requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and if yes, has an EIA been approved? Will the project create any adverse environmental effects? Were transboundary environmental impacts identified in the analysis? Please reference the source(s). According to the documents no EIA was necessary. The project will not create any adverse environmental effects according to the done assessments. The facilities are or wil be installed on the mine. Hence, there are no transboundary environmental impacts. 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 D.2.1. D.2.2. Have the identified environmental impacts been addressed in the project design sufficiently? Does the project comply with environmental legislation in the host country? E. Stakeholders comments, the identified environmental impacts have been addressed sufficiently in the. The project complies fully with the environmental legislation of the host country. E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled E.1.1. E.1.2. Have relevant stakeholders been consulted? Have appropriate media been used to invite comments by local stakeholders? The project lies within the mine. Hence, mainly the workers of the mine have been addressed. Furthermore, the Council of the next city has been informed. According to the checked documents and the interviewed leaders there is strong support of the project. The stakeholders have been addressed by letters. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-38

61 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 E.1.3. E.1.4. If a stakeholder consultation process is required by regulations/laws in the host country, has the stakeholder consultation process been carried out in accordance with such regulations/laws? Is the undertaken stakeholder process that was carried out described in a complete and transparent manner? E.2. Summary of the comments received E.2.1. Is a summary of the received stakeholder comments provided? E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received E.3.1. F. Annexes 1 4 Has due account been taken of any stakeholder comments received? F.1. Annex 1: Contact Information F.1.1. Is the information provided consistent with the one given under section A.3? F.1.2. Is the information on all private participants and directly involved Parties presented? F.2. Annex 2: Baseline information F.2.1. If additional background information on baseline data is provided: Is this information consistent with data presented by No, there is no stakeholder consultation process required by regulations/laws in the host country. Clarification Request No. 15. Please describe the stakeholder process in more details and provide a time table of the activities., a summary of the received stakeholder comments has been inserted into the. All comments received support the project activity without any preconditions., the information provided is consistent with the one given under section A.3., information on all participants and directly involved Parties has been presented.. Additional background information has been provided. This information is consistent with the data presented in other sections of the. CR 15 Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-39

62 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 other sections of the? F.2.2. If additional background information on baseline data is provided: Is this information consistent with data presented by other sections of the? F.2.3. Is the data provided verifiable? Has sufficient evidence been provided to the validation team? F.2.4. Does the additional information substantiate / support statements given in other sections of the? F.3. Annex 3: Monitoring Plan F.3.1. If additional background information on monitoring is provided: Is this information consistent with data presented in other sections of the? F.3.2. Is the information provided verifiable? Has sufficient evidence been provided to the validation team? F.3.3. Do the additional information and / or documented procedures substantiate / support statements given in other sections of the?. Additional background information on baseline data has been provided. This information is consistent with the data presented in other sections of the. Clarification Request No. 16. Please provide gas production data and coal production data from 2004 till CR 16 See CR above The given information is consistent with data presented in other sections of the. Clarification Request No. 17. Please identify the tables by headlines and numbers The information provided has to be verified during the first verification.. The additional information supports the statements given in the other sections of the. CR 17 Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-40

63 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Table 2a Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Corrective Action Request No.1. Please explain how this source has been considered in the Calculation and in the Monitoring Plan. Corrective Action Request No.2. Post mining CMM extraction from goaf wells is used and has to be addressed in the. Corrective Action Request No.3. Most of the given baseline scenarios do not face financial barriers as described in the tool but are economically/financially unattractive according to the done investment analysis. Therefore, please revise step 4 of the analysis. Corrective Action Request No.4. Because of changes in the time table the investment comparison analysis has to be revised. Please present the associated excel sheet of the calculations. Corrective Action Request No.5. Please revise the calculation using the official polish emission coefficients. The obtained grid emission factor should be confirmed by Ref. to table 1 B.3.6. B.4.1. Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion The explanation on the calculation of Project Emissions was inserted in B. Electrical measurements of Annex3. -A part of the description of Step 1a. Options for CBM and CMM or VAM extraction in B.1.2 and -The formula in Methane released into the atmosphere of B1.2 is revised. -The formula in D is revised Solved as described Solved as described B.4.6. Step 4 was revised. Step 4 has been adjusted according to the request. Hence, CAR 3 is solved. B B The investment comparison analysis was revised in consideration of the change in the time table. -The excel sheet is attached. Ministry of the Environment of Poland said that they will assess the grid emission factor in reviewing LOA. So we d like to continue to use the Euro stat statistics. The investment analysis has been revised considering the comments of CAR 4. Hence, CAR 4 is solved. At the moment, there is no official grid factor available from the polish ministry of environment (see IRL 41). Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-41

64 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team the polish authorities if possible. Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion Hence, the calculation of the grid factor is done on the basis of the referring tool and on official statistical data. (Eurostat). Hence, CAR 5 is solved. Corrective Action Request No.6. Please revise the calculation considering the actual time table and present the calculation excel sheet. Corrective Action Request No.7. Please show how CONS ELEC,PJ is determined and show the wiring of the consumers and the meters in an electricity grid scheme. Please show how the consumption of the methane recovery station is considered. Please revise the monitoring scheme in annex 3 of the. Corrective Action Request No.8. Please consider also post-mining CMM. B B B , B The emission reduction calculation was revised in consideration of the actual time table. The excel sheet is attached. -A description - Here, the detailed calculation formula for CONS ELEC, PJ is shown in Annex 3. is inserted into of B1.2 and D B. Electrical measurements of Annex 3 was revised. - Table B-1 was revised Methane released into the atmosphere of B1.2 was revised. The last excel sheet considers the actual time table. Hence, CAR 6 is solved. Annex 3 has been revised according to the comments. Hence, CAR 7 is solved. PMM has been considered in the final. Hence, CAR 8 is solved. 2 nd Answer: PMM was considered in the tables of chapter D Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-42

65 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion Corrective Action Request No.9. Please provide the date of the baseline setting in the right format (DD/MM/YYYY). B The format representing the date was revised. The format has been revised according to the JI requirements. Hence, CAR 9 is solved. Corrective Action Request No.10. Please define the starting date considering the construction of the gas recovery station (see also the specific guidelines on the JI ). Please use the right format (DD/MM/YYYY). C The starting date was revised. - The format representing the date was revised. The starting date and the format have been revised. Hence, CAR 10 is solved. Clarification Request No. 1. Please describe the sectoral scope (see specific guidelines on JI ). A.1.2. The sectoral scope was inserted Into A.1. The sectoral scopes (8, 10) have been inserted. Hence, CR 1 is solved. Clarification Request No. 2. Please present the timeline of the project s history. A.1.3. The timeline of the project s history was inserted into A.2. The timeline of the project has been inserted. Hence, CR 2 is solved. Clarification Request No. 3. The description is not complete and not detailed enough (e.g. no description of the gas A.2.1. A The description of the gas recovery station was inserted into A2 and A4.3. -The description of the existing coal boiler including the The required descriptions have been added. Hence, CR 3 is solved. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-43

66 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team recovery station). Furthermore, the kind of project is not mentioned (JI Track 1). Additionally, some dates have changed. Please revise and show clearly which stages have already been realised. Please consider the specific guidelines on JI. Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion specifications was inserted into A2 and A4.3. -The description of JI Track 1 was inserted in A.1. -The start date of Stage 3 (former Stage 2) was revised. Clarification Request No. 4. Please insert a detailed location map and the GPS coordinates into the. A The detailed location map and the GPS coordinates were inserted into A The coordinates have been inserted and checked with google earth. Hence, CR 4 is solved. Clarification Request No. 5. Please indicate the category of the project A The category of the project was inserted. The category has been inserted. Hence, CR 5 is solved. Clarification Request No. 6. Please describe the gas recovery station in detail. A The description of the gas recovery station and the existing coal boiler was inserted in Section A. A detailed description of the methane recovery station has been inserted. Hence, CR 6 is solved. Clarification Request No. 7. Please cite the applied tools in the. B.1.3. The descriptions of Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (version 5.2) and Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane are inserted into B.1. The applied tools are referenced in the last version of the. Hence, CR 7 is solved. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-44

67 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion Clarification Request No. 8. Please reference the sources of the applied values. B Reference was inserted under the Table B-4 Calculation of Expected rate of return in B.2. Please reference also all values of table B-5. 2 nd Answer: The statement about reference for all values was inserted under the Table B-5 The values have been referenced in the final. Hence, CR 8 is solved. Clarification Request No. 9. Please present a more detailed common practice analysis. B.5.24., B Please see the attached documents regarding the common practice. 2 nd Answer: The analysis is presented in attached annex: Common practice analysis (This is the same as the one submitted to TUV in May.) Common practice analysis Please show in the analysis the share of the gas engine projects in relation to the amount of all working polish coal mines (e.g. 40 working coal mines thereof 5 mines with CHP projects). The common practice analysis has been incorporated into the final. Clarification Request No. 10. Please justify the selected options offered by the methodology. B The options (scenarios) in step 3 and step 4 were justified in accordance with the methodology. The scenarios under step 3 and 4 have been justified. Hence, CR 10 is solved. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-45

68 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion Clarification Request No. 11. Please show the derivation of the applied formulae (PE and BE) in detail. B The formula (B.2.1) was revised. The formula (B.1.3) was revised. The formulae have been revised according to the comments. Hence, CR 11 is solved. Clarification Request No. 12. Please explain where EF CO2,j have been used in the calculation. Clarification Request No. 13. Please describe the operational and management structure in a chart. Please specify the calibration procedure according to the methodology (calibration according to ndustry standards). Please check the uncertainty levels of the electricity meters (p. 62 of the ). Clarification Request No. 14. Please reference the source(s). B EF CO2,j is not used so it s deleted from D EF CO2,j has been deleted. Hence, CR 12 is solved. B D.1.1. The operational and management structure was inserted into Annex 3 The description of the source (GORPROJECT report) was inserted. The operational and management structure has been inserted in annex 3 of the last. Hence, CR 13 is solved. The reference has been inserted. Hence, CR 14 is solved. Clarification Request No. 15. Please describe the stakeholder process in E.1.4. The description of the stakeholder comments was revised. The description of the stakeholder comments has been Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-46

69 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team more details and provide a time table of the activities. Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion revised and a timetable of the stake holder activities has been provided. Hence, CR 15 is solved. Clarification Request No. 16. Please provide gas production data and coal production data from 2004 till F.2.3. and F The gas production data from 2004 till 2008 will be sent soon - The coal production data from 2004 till 2008 was attached. 2 nd Answer: The gas production data 2004 till 2008 is presented in attached annex: Gas production Please send the gas production data 2004 till The gas production data have been delivered. Hence, CR 16 is solved. Clarification Request No. 17. Please identify the tables by headlines and numbers F.3.1. The headlines and numbers are inserted on the top of each table. Headlines and table numbers have been inserted. Hence. CR 17 is solved. Clarification Request No. 18: In the tables in annex 3 the relation between the data variables (= parameters of the methodology) and the figure references are not complete. Please show this relation for all reference figures. Annex 3 The compatibility of parameters of the methodology and indications in the figures and tables were verified. The Parameters have been completed, Hence, CR 18 is solved. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-47

70 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Clarification Request No. 19: Please describe the procedure PM-6 in annex 3 or 4 Clarification Request No. 20: Investment analysis excel sheet: Please give evidence of the flare initial costs by presenting the invoices of the flare. Please insert the money units in the tables of the excel sheet. Ref. to table 1 Annex 3 or 4 Excel sheet Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion The procedure PM-6 was described in detail in annex 3 of the. The flare initial cost was presented in the attached annex: Flare initial costs - original in Polish and English translation. The money unit was inserted in the table of Total Initial Cost and Source of funds in the excel sheet. The procedure has been described in annex 3. The investment analysis excel sheet has been revised. The money units have been inserted. Hence, CR 20 is solved. Clarification Request No. 21: The first invoice used in the investment analysis is dated Please send the order to this invoice and revise the timeline (A.2.) and the starting date (C.1.) accordingly. Clarification Request No. 22: In the chapters A.2. and A.4.3. the three stages are connected with dates (e.g. stage 1; 20th of April 2007). Please define what the dates are standing for (e.g. begin of operation or begin of construction). Please insert the dates of begin of operation. Clarification Request No. 23: Chapter B.1.2.: The wrong version of the A.2 The invoice from was presented in the attached annex: Invoice The timeline (A.2.) and the starting date (C.1.) was revised. A.2. and A.4.3. B.1.2. All descriptions in the chapter A.4.3 were corrected accordingly. Version No of the methodology was revised from 6 to 7. The invoice has been presented. The time line and the starting date have been adjusted. Hence, CR 21 is solved The dates have been defined and partly corrected. Hence, CR 22 is solved. The version number has been corrected in the latest version Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-48

71 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team methodology is given (it is 7 not 6). Please revise and check all described versions in the again. Clarification Request No. 24: Please confirm that there is no national or EU regulation in place (or coming in the next years) which could force the mine to change the current practice (page 2 A.2.). Furthermore, please describe if there are any regulations expected for the future (page 13 step 4). A.2. Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion of the. Hence, CR 23 is solved. The relevant description was inserted into b) Baseline scenario in A.2. The statement has been inserted in the last version of the. Hence, CR 24 is solved. Clarification Request No. 25: Please refer in the tables to 2006 IPCC (e.g. Page 27 following) Please describe by whom the factor CEF ELEC has been calculated (Page 27) Please describe for all parameters the calibration requirements (according to the polish law and/or the manufacurer s specifications). Clarification Request No. 26: Please split the tables in the years falling under 1st commitment period and the years after. Please give the sum and the annual average or the totals for the both periods, where necessary (A and Chapters E.2. E.6). D IPCC Guideline was refereed instead of 1996 IPCC Guideline in the tables of MM FL and MM ELEC. - CEF ELEC has been calculated by the author. The relevant description was inserted into the table of CE- F ELEC - The descriptions regarding calibration were inserted in the relevant parameter tables. A and E.2. till E.6. The table was split in the years falling under 1st commitment period and the years after. Also the sum and the annual average for the both periods were inserted. The has been revised according to the given answers of the client. Hence, CR 25 is solved. The tables were splitted and the sums and annual averages revised. Hence, CR 26 is solved. Clarification Request No. 27: B.1. The value of the Rf is average between January and The request has been fully Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-49

72 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Please indicate the date of the Rf value in Table B-4, page 19 (e.g. month/2004). Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion February in answered. The given date The relevant description was inserted Table B-4. complies with the investment analysis. Hence, CR 27 is solved. Clarification Request No. 28: Please describe in brackets to which activity the beginning of the project activity refers (Procurement of the design of the gas recovery station)(page 24, C.1.). Please divide the crediting period into the commitment period (till December 2012) and the period afterwards (Page 24, C.3.). C.1. and C.3. (Update the basic map regarding Methane Recovery Station for design purposes) was inserted into C.1. - The crediting period was divided as described in C.3. The has been corrected according to the answers Hence, CR 28 is solved. Clarification Request No. 29: Please conduct the following editorial changes in the : The editorial changes have been fully carried out. Hence, CR 29 is fully solved. Page 2 A.2.: Please describe how the additional heat is used (make clear that heat is only used for the mine s needs). Description regarding At Stage 4 in A.2 was revised. Page 2 A.2.: Please confirm that the improvement of the ventilation system has been done for project reason. Description regarding At Stage 1 in A.2 was revised. Page 14 Scenario 8: Please use "would have" Description of Scenario 8 in page 15 was revised. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-50

73 Date of Completion: 28/10/2010 Number of Pages: 51 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team instead of has. Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion Page 55: Please replace all undefined expressions (e.g. division by 0) by defined ones. Excel Sheet: Please replace all undefined expressions (e.g. division by 0) by defined ones. - Error codes ( #NUM and #DIV/0 ) were replaced in the table. - Error codes ( #NUM and #DIV/0 ) were replaced by - in Excel sheet. Table 1 is applicable to ACM0008, vers 07 Page A-51

74 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 Table 1b Determination Protocol (Flaring Tool) A. General description of project activity A.1. Title of the project activity A.1.1. A.1.2. A.1.3. Does the used project title clearly enable to identify the unique CDM activity? Are there any indication concerning the revision number and the date of the revision? Is this consistent with the time line of the project s history? A.2. Description of the project activity A.2.1. A.2.2. A.2.3. A.2.4. Is the description delivering a transparent overview of the project activities? What proofs are available demonstrating that the project description is in compliance with the actual situation or planning? Is the information provided by these proofs consistent with the information provided by the? Is all information presented consistent with details provided by further chapters of the? See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-1

75 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 A.3. Project participants A.3.1. A.3.2. A.3.3. Is the form required for the indication of project participants correctly applied? Is the participation of the listed entities or Parties confirmed by each one of them? Is all information on participants / Parties provided in consistency with details provided by further chapters of the (in particular annex 1)? A.4. Technical description of the project activity A.4.1. A A A.4.2. A A.4.3. A Location of the project activity Does the information provided on the location of the project activity allow for a clear identification of the site(s)? How is it ensured and/or demonstrated, that the project proponents can implement the project at this site (ownership, licenses, contracts etc.)? Category(ies) of project activity To which category(ies) does the project activity belonging to? Is the category correctly identified and indicated? Technology to be employed by the project activity Does the technical design of the project activity reflect current good practices? See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-2

76 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 A A A A A A A A Does the description of the technology to be applied provide sufficient and transparent input/ information to evaluate its impact on the greenhouse gas balance? Does the implementation of the project activity require any technology transfer from annex-i-countries to the host country(ies)? Is the technology implemented by the project activity environmentally safe? Is the information provided in compliance with actual situation or planning? Does the project use state of the art technology and / or does the technology result in a significantly better performance than any commonly used technologies in the host country? Is the project technology likely to be substituted by other or more efficient technologies within the project period? Does the project require extensive initial training and maintenance efforts in order to be carried out as scheduled during the project period? Is information available on the demand and requirements for training and maintenance? A Is a schedule available for the implementation of the project and are there any See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-3

77 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 A.4.4. A A A.4.5. A A risks for delays? Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period Is the form required for the indication of projected emission reductions correctly applied? Are the figures provided consistent with other data presented in the? Public funding of the project activity Is the information provided on public funding provided in compliance with the actual situation or planning as available by the project participants? Is all information provided consistent with the details given in remaining chapters of the (in particular annex 2)? B. Application of a baseline and monitoring procedure B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring procedure B B Are reference number, version number, and title of the baseline and monitoring procedure clearly indicated? Is the applied version the most recent one and / or is this version still applicable? B.2. Justification of the choice of the tool and why it is applicable to the project activity B Is the applied tool considered the most appropriate one? See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 The tool is applicable because: The tool is applicable because: - The flared gas is natural gas from the coal mine. Natural Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-4

78 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 gas contains no other combustible gases than methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen - The residual gas stream to be flared is obtained from gas vented in coal mines. Hence, the applicability criteria of the flaring tool are fully met. Integrate the required amount of sub-checklists on the applicability criteria as given by the applied methodology and comment on at least every line answered with No ; B.2.2. Criterion 1: Is the residual gas stream (RG) containing methane? Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? See B / No B.2.3. Criterion 2: Is the residual gas stream (RG) to be flared containing no other combustible gases than methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen? Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? / No See B B.2.4. Criterion 3: Is the residual gas stream (RG) to be flared obtained from decomposition of or- Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? / No Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-5

79 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 ganic material (through landfills, biodigesters or anaerobic lagoons, among others) or from gases vented in coal mines (coal mine methane and coal bed methane)? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? See B B.3. Description of the parameters included in the tool Integrate the required amount of sub-checklists for parameters as given by the tool applied and comment on at least every line answered with No B.3.1. Parameter: PE flare,y Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in the year y Unit: tco 2e Type: result Boundary checklist Parameter discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No B.3.2. Parameter: η flare, h Flare efficiency in hour h based on measurements or default values Unit: - Type: result Boundary checklist Parameter discussed i the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification suficient? Consitency with monitoring plan? / No B.3.3. Parameter: f V i, h Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas in Boundary checklist Parameter discussed in the? / No Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-6

80 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 dry basis at normal (NTP) conditions 2 in the hour h Unit: - Type: required Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? B.3.4. Parameter: FV RG, h Volumetric fraction of component i in the residual gas in the hour h where i = CH4, CO, CO 2, O 2, H 2, N 2 Unit: m³/h Type: required Boundary checklist Parameter discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No B.3.5. Parameter: t O2, h Volumetric fraction of O2 in the exhaust gas of the flare in the hour h (only in case the flare efficiency is continuously monitored) Boundary checklist Parameter discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No Unit: - Type: required B.3.6. Parameter: f V CH4,FG,h Concentration of methane in the exhaust gas of the flare in dry basis at normal conditions in the hour h (only in the case the flare efficiency is continuously moni- Boundary checklist Parameter discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-7

81 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 tored) B.3.7. Unit: mg/m³ Type: required Parameter: T flare Temperature in the exhaust gas of the enclosed flare Unit: C Type: required Boundary checklist Parameter discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No B.3.8. B.3.9. Parameter: Other flare operation parameters Any other parameters required to monitor proper operation of the flare according to the manufacturer s specification (only in the case of use of a default value for the flare efficiency of enclosed and open flares) Unit: - Type: required Do the spatial and technological boundaries as verified on-site comply with the discussion provided by / indication included to the? Boundary checklist Parameter discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / No Corrective Action Request No.1. Please discuss the necessity of this Parameter. If necessary please define a proper Parameter.. The spatial and technological boundaries comply with the indication included to the. CAR 1 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-8

82 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 B.4. Description of how the baseline methodology procedure is identified and description of the identified baseline procedure B.4.1. B.4.2. B.4.3. B.4.4. B.4.5. B.4.6. Are the project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream calculated based on the flare efficiency and the mass flow rate of methane? Does the determination of flare efficiency take into account the actual efficiency of combustion in the flare and the time that the flare is operating? Does the calculation of combustion efficiency take into account the methane content in the exhaust gas of the flare, the air used in the combustion process, and the methane content in the residual gas? Is the stated type of flare (open, enclosed) traceable due to the definitions mentioned in the tool? In case of open flare: Is there a device foreseen to demonstrate the flare is operational and are the default values (50%, 0%) in the calculation adapted? Have applicable regulatory or legal requirements been identified? The stated type of flare is an enclosed type. n/a There are no regulatory or legal requirements Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-9

83 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 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 CDM project activity (assessment and demonstration of additionality): B.5.1. B.5.2. B.5.3. B.5.4. B.5.5. B.5.6. B.5.7. In case of applying step 2 / investment analysis of the additionality tool: Is the analysis method identified appropriately (step 2a)? In case of Option I (simple cost analysis): Is it demonstrated that the activity produces no economic benefits other than CDM income? In case of Option II (investment comparison analysis): Is the most suitable financial indicator clearly identified (IRR, NPV, cost benefit ratio, or (levelized) unit cost)? In case of Option III (benchmark analysis): Is the most suitable financial indicator clearly identified (IRR, NPV, cost benefit ratio, or (levelized) unit cost)? In case of Option II or Option III: Is the calculation of financial figures for this indicator correctly done for all alternatives and the project activity? In case of Option II or Option III: Is the analysis presented in a transparent manner including publicly available proofs for the utilized data? In case of applying step 3 (barrier analysis) of the additionality tool: Is a complete See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-10

84 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 B.5.8. B.5.9. list of barriers developed that prevent the different alternatives to occur? In case of applying step 3 (barrier analysis): Is transparent and documented evidence provided on the existence and significance of these barriers? In case of applying step 3 (barrier analysis): Is it transparently shown that the execution of at least one of the alternatives is not prevented by the identified barriers? B Have other activities in the host country / region similar to the project activity been identified and are these activities appropriately analyzed by the (step 4a)? B B If similar activities are occurring: Is it demonstrated that in spite of these similarities the project activity would not be implemented without the CDM component (step 4b)? Is it appropriately explained how the approval of the project activity will help to overcome the economic and financial hurdles or other identified barriers (step 5)? B.6. Emissions reductions B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices B Is it explained how the 7 steps are followed in order to calculate the hourly flare effi- See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 The procedure to calculate the hourly flare efficiency is demonstrated in annex 4 of the. The described procedures (7 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-11

85 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 ciency? B Is it clearly stated if step 3 and 4 will be used? (continuous measurement) B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation B Is the list of parameters not monitored (constants used in equations) complete and correct? B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation B Are the formulae required for the determination of the mass flow rate of the residual gas that is flared enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Is the simplified approach used correctly? (only measure the volumetric fraction of methane and consider the difference to 100% as being nitrogen). B Are the formulae required for the determination of the mass fraction of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in the residual gas, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Are the formulae required for the determination of the volumetric flow rate of the exhaust gas on a dry basis enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? steps) comply fully with the requirements of the flaring tool. It is clearly stated that steps 3 and 4 will be used. All mentioned parameters (see annex 4) are chosen in accordance with the flaring tool. The list is complete and correct. The formulae required for the determination of the mass flow rate is described. All necessary parameters are clearly described according to the flaring tool. Clarification Request No. 1. Please comment whether this simplified approach will be used. The formulae required are taken from the flaring tool, thus enableling a complete identification of the parameter The formulae required are taken from the flaring tool, thus enableling a complete identification of the parameter. CR 1 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-12

86 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 B Are the formulae required for the determination of methane mass flow rate in the exhaust gas on a dry basis enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Are the formulae required for the determination of methane mass flow rate in the residual gas on a dry basis enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Are the formulae required for the determination of the hourly flare efficiency enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Are the formulae required for the calculation of annual project emissions from flaring enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? The formulae required are taken from the flaring tool, thus enableling a complete identification of the parameter. The formulae required are taken from the flaring tool, thus enabling a complete identification of the parameter. The formulae required are taken from the flaring tool, thus enabling a complete identification of the parameter. The formulae required are taken from the flaring tool, thus enabling a complete identification of the parameter. B Is the data provided in this section consistent with data as presented in other chapters other chapters of the.. All data provided are consistent with the data presented in of the? B.6.4. Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions B Is it explained how the procedures provided in the methodology are applied by the proposed project activity? B Is every selection of options offered by the methodology correctly justified and is this justification in line with the situation verified on-site? Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-13 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008

87 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 B B B B Are the formulae required for the determination of project emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? Are the formulae required for the determination of baseline emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? Are the formulae required for the determination of leakage emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? Are the formulae required for the determination of emission reductions correctly presented? B.7. Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan B.7.1. Data and parameters monitored B Is the list of parameters presented in chapter D considered to be complete with regard to the requirements of the applied methodology? B Parameter Title: KCH4 (v i,h ) Volumetric fraction of component i in the residual gas in the hour h where See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 The list contains the parameters from the tool. Only the parameter Other flare operation parameters is not described. Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? / No Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-14

88 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 i = CH4 Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? B Parameter Title: VG (FV RG,h ) Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas in dry basis at normal conditions in the hour h Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? / No Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-15

89 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? See CR above B Parameter Title: t O2,h Volumetric fraction of O 2 in the exhaust gas of the flare in the hour h Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / No Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-16

90 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 B Parameter Title: kch4sp (fv CH4,FG,h ) Concentration of methane in the exhaust gas of the flare in dry basis at normal conditions in the hour h Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / No B Parameter Title: T flare Temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? / No Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-17

91 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? B Parameter Title: Other parameters See CR above Monitoring Checklist Title in line with methodology? Data unit correctly expressed? Appropriate description of parameter? Source clearly referenced? Correct value provided for estimation? Has this value been verified? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / No B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-18

92 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 B B B B Is the operational and management structure clearly described and in compliance with the envisoned situation? Are responsibilities and institutional arrangements for data collection and archiving clearly provided? Does the monitoring plan provide current good monitoring practice? If applicable: Does annex 4 provide useful information enabling a better understanding of the envisoned monitoring provisions? See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 B.8. Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology an the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) B B B B Is there any indication of a date when the baseline was determined? Is this consistent with the time line of the history? Is the information on the person(s) / entity(ies) responsible for the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology provided consistent with the actual situation? Is information provided whether this person / entity is also considered a project participant? See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-19

93 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1. Duration of the project activity C.1.1. Are the project s starting date and operational lifetime clearly defined and reasonable? C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information C.2.1. Is the assumed crediting time clearly defined and reasonable (renewable crediting period of max 7 years with potential for 2 renewals or fixed crediting period of max. 10 years)? D. Environmental impacts See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts D.1.1. D.1.2. D.1.3. D.1.4. Has the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity been sufficiently described? Are there any Host Party requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and if yes, has an EIA been approved? Will the project create any adverse environmental effects? Were transboundary environmental impacts identified in the analysis? See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-20

94 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 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 D.2.1. D.2.2. Have the identified environmental impacts been addressed in the project design sufficiently? Does the project comply with environmental legislation in the host country? E. Stakeholders comments See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled E.1.1. E.1.2. E.1.3. E.1.4. Have relevant stakeholders been consulted? Have appropriate media been used to invite comments by local stakeholders? If a stakeholder consultation process is required by regulations/laws in the host country, has the stakeholder consultation process been carried out in accordance with such regulations/laws? Is the undertaken stakeholder process that was carried out described in a complete and transparent manner? E.2. Summary of the comments received E.2.1. Is a summary of the received stakeholder comments provided? See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 See Protocol ACM0008 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-21

95 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received E.3.1. Has due account been taken of any stakeholder comments received? See Protocol ACM0008 Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-22

96 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 Table 2b Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Corrective Action Request No.1. Please discuss the necessity of this Parameter. If necessary please define a proper Parameter Ref. to table 1 B.3.8. Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion The table of Other flare operation parameters was inserted in D nd Answer: The Other flare operation parameters - status of the flare was defined and introduced to the Chapter D In the case of the use of default values T flare is the only significant parameter to check the appropriate operation of the flare according to manufacturer s specifications, (IRL 7). However,,the efficiency of the flare will primarily be determined by the methane content in the exhaust gas (modified method b) of the flaring tool). Furthermore, there is the possibility to determine the flare efficiency from the cooling system. Hence, there are further parameters defined which can be used to check the plausibility of the data if the default approach is used (IRL 7). In case of the cooling system these additional flare parameters are: - Wsp: Velocity of the Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-23

97 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion exhaust gas of the flare in the hour h - Mw: Mass flow of water of the flare stack cooling system in the hour h - twz: Inlet water temperature in the flare stack cooling system in the hour h - twc: Outlet water temperature from the flare stack cooling system in the hour h Hence, CAR 1 is solved. Clarification Request No. 1. Please comment whether this simplified approach will be used. B The simplified approach will be used. The approaches to determine the flare efficiency are clearly described in annex 4 of the latest. Hence, CR 1 is not relevant anymore. Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-24

98 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Clarification Request No. 2: The flare efficiency will obviously be calculated according to the procedures PM-2 and PM-7 of the Monitoring Procedure Book and not according to the flaring tool as described in the. Please show your approach clearly in the and do not mention the flaring tool in contexts where it is practically not used. Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion Appropriate corrections in the were made accordingly The procedures to determine the flare efficiency are described in detail in annex 4 of the final. Procedure PM-2: Please describe in every detail how the parameter Q s. Please give evidence that Q o = 0.011xQ c. Parameter Q s (so called chimney loss) and Q o were set as zero (0) as a conservative manner. The both parameters are set 0. The conservativeness of the approach has been confirmed by a third party expert (JMEnergy). Please present a technical drawing of the flare showing the positions of all used monitoring meters. The technical drawing of the flare was already submitted to TUV The technical drawing has been provided. Please take out of the all parameters of the flaring tool which are not monitored or not used in calculating the flare efficiency and present the calculation formula of PE flare. All parameters of the flaring tool which are not monitored or not used were deleted in the. All parameters not monitored or not used have been deleted. Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-25

99 Date of Completion: 28/10/2011 Number of Pages: 26 Table 3 Unresolved Corrective Action and Clarification Requests (in case of denials) Clarifications and / or corrective action requests by validation team Id. of CAR/CR Explanation of Conclusion for Denial Table 1 is applicable to Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane _EB28_Annex 13 Page A-26

100 Determination of the JI Track 1 project: Utilization of Coal Mine Methane in SZCZYGLOWICE Coal Mine, Poland Annex 2: Information Reference List