BANPONG TAPIOCA FLOUR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND BIOGAS UTILISATION PROJECT

Transcription

1 BANPONG TAPIOCA FLOUR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND BIOGAS UTILISATION PROJECT Document Prepared By South Pole Carbon Asset Management Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 1, 8005 Zurich Switzerland Phone Fax Project Title Banpong Tapioca Flour Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Biogas Utilisation Project Version No. 5 Report ID /405 Date of Issue 06-January 2014 Project ID 405 Monitoring Period 01 January 2009 to 30 April 2013 Prepared By Contact South Pole Carbon Asset Management Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 1, 8005, Zurich, Switzerland, , registration@southpolecarbon.com 1

2 Table of Contents 1 Project Details Summary Description of the Implementation Status of the Project Sectoral Scope and Project Type Project Proponent Other Entities Involved in the Project Project Start Date Project Crediting Period Project Location Title and Reference of Methodology Other Programs Implementation Status Implementation Status of the Project Activity Deviations Grouped Project Data and Parameters Data and Parameters Available at Validation Data and Parameters Monitored Description of the Monitoring Plan Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals Baseline Emissions Project Emissions Leakage Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals APPENDIX X:

3 1 PROJECT DETAILS 1.1 Summary Description of the Implementation Status of the Project The project was implemented at Banpong Tapioca Flour Industrial Co., Ltd. in September The tapioca starch processing plant has a total production capacity of 200 tonnes of native tapioca per day, generating an average of 3,000 m3 of wastewater every production day. Prior to implementation of the project activity, the wastewater of the tapioca starch processing plant was treated in 9 cascading open anaerobic lagoons, with a retention time of 150 days. The minimum depth of these ponds is 4.0 m from the water surface. The average atmospheric temperature in the region is 28 degree Celsius 1. These conditions result in anaerobic environment within the ponds, resulting in methane generation from the organic content (characterized by chemical oxygen demand or COD) of the wastewater. The purpose of project activity is to treat the wastewater from the starch factory to generate biogas. The project activity involves two successive phases. The first phase of project activity, implemented in September 2004, entails the installation of up-flow anaerobic wastewater treatment facility, based on two (in parallel) Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) biogas reactor technology at the exiting tapioca starch processing plant. The biogas reactor system generates and recovers the biogas for energy generation purpose. The second phase of project activity involves the additional installation of a Pulp Digester and a Hybrid Covered Lagoon Unit (HCLU). It was commissioned in January With the decomposition of tapioca pulp not a component of baseline scenario, the project proponent considers only the methane avoidance from the wastewater treatment as an emission reduction project. This is a conservative assumption. The project boundary as per the PD registered is shown in the figure 1 below. From January 2009 to May 2010, the biogas generated by HCLU was sold to a third party factory called Neo Tech. The biogas was delivered to the steam boiler of Neo tech factory by the blower system owned by the project proponent. The actual implementation of project activity during this period is shown in the figure 2 of this MR. The pulp digester was shut down and decommissioned due to the system failure in May 2010 and since then it has never been operated. In addition, the biogas sending to Neo-tech factory was stopped completely in May However, the operation of HCLU system that received the effluent from UASB is on-going. The biogas meter at the HCLU system is still in use. The biogas generated by this system was delivered to the boiler system of Banpong starch factory until the end of this monitoring period. Since June 2010, none of biogas generated by project has been sold to other party nor there is any plan to sell any biogas to any third-party. The project boundary inline with the actual implementation are shown in figure 3. Therefore, the project description deviations are applied and justified during this monitoring period in section of this MR. By means of this monitoring report, the greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved by the project activity Banpong Tapioca Flour Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Biogas Utilisation Project at Banpong Tapioca Flour Industry Co., Ltd. during the period of 01/01/2009 to 1 Data requested from the Thai Meteorological Department 3

4 30/04/2013 are being verified and certified as per requirement of the Verified Carbon Standard, version 3.0. Steam from boilers Heat from hot oil boiler Gas blower CH4 analyzer GM1 GM3 GM2 Steam Boiler 1 Steam Boiler 2 1 Hot oil Boiler Open Flare Sale steam to other starch plant Acidification pond (1&2) Primary sedimentation (1-3) COD,ww,untreated,y Equalization Tank Supply to WWT plant FM 1 FM 2 UASB 1 UASB 2 Pulp Digester FM FM HCLU Recycled treated wastewater GM4 Lagoon system (1-9) Starch factory PEA Grid Project boundary COD sampling points Wastewater Biogas CH4 sampling point Electricity Heat from hot oil boiler Steam GM : Gas flow meter FM : Wastewater flow meter Figure 1: The project system boundary in line with the registered PD, (2 nd phase: after HCLU and Pulp digester implementation) 4

5 Figure 2: The project system boundary as per the actual implementation from the start date of the project until end May (2 nd phase: after HCLU and Pulp digester implementation) 5

6 Figure 3: The project system boundary in line with the actual implementation in June (2nd phase: The pulp digester operation failed end of May The HCLU system is still under operation.) Further background information on the project activity can be found in the Project Design Document (PD). The project was registered on 03/05/2010. The first verification was the period of 28/03/2006 to 31/12/ Sectoral Scope and Project Type The project activity involves recovery of fugitive biogas from the wastewater released from the tapioca starch-processing factory using Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) in sequence before the open lagoon system. The produced biogas is utilised as a fuel in the steam and hot oil boilers for the generation of thermal energy, thereby replacing the fossil fuel earlier used by the project participants. The project activity will generate emission reductions less than 60 ktco2e per year, thus according to Appendix B, Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small-Scale CDM Project Activities, the project activity can be categorized as follows:

7 Methane avoidance component: Type III: Other Project Activities Category III.H: Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Sectoral Scope 13: Waste Handling and Disposal Version: 13 The project proponent decided not to claim emission reduction for fossil fuel replacement but only for methane avoidance due to the complexity of the baseline. This is conservative. The project activity is not a grouped project activity. 1.3 Project Proponent Role Project owner (Responsible for implementation and operation of the project activity) Organization: Banpong Tapioca Flour Industrial Co., Ltd. Address: 109 Moo 4, Tambol Berk Prai City: Amphoe Banpong, Ratchaburi Postfix/ZIP: Country: Thailand kitti@banpong.co.th Telephone: Fax: Represented by: Kitti Suksmith Title: Vice President Salutation: Mr. Role Carbon Asset Management (Responsible for development of emission reduction through the Verified Carbon Standard) Organization: South Pole Carbon Asset Management Ltd. Address: Technoparkstrasse 1 City: Zurich Postfix/ZIP: 8005 Country: Switzerland registration@southpolecarbon.com Telephone: Fax: Represented by: Marco Hirsbrunner Title: Director Salutation: Mr. 1.4 Other Entities Involved in the Project No other entity was involved in the project. 7

8 1.5 Project Start Date According to version 3.1 of the VCS PD, the project start date was defined on 25/08/2004 based on the date when emissions reduction began (section 1.6 in the registered PD). As per the VCS standard (clause 5.2.5), the crediting period starts from 28/03/ Project Crediting Period The duration of the project activity is estimated to 15 years as per the biogas system lifetime. After the initial crediting period of ten years, from 28/03/2006 to 27/03/2016, subsequent renewable of the crediting time might be considered according to the status of the project activity and baseline revision at that time. The first monitoring report period issued certified credit for 28/03/2006 to 31/12/2008. This is the second monitoring report, which is conducted for the period of 01/01/2009 to 30/04/ Project Location The project site is located on the site of the Banpong Tapioca Flour Industrial factory, located at address: 109, Moo 4 Tambol Berk Prai, Amphoe Banpong, Ratchaburi about 100 km away from Bangkok. Figure 4: Central region of Thailand ( Ratchaburi province) 8

9 Figure 5: Banpong Tapioca Flour Industrial factory Wetland Figure 6: The exact GPS coordinates of the project are ' latitude and ' longitude 9

10 1.8 Title and Reference of Methodology Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for the project activity is defined: AMS-III.H: Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment, version 13 AMS-III.H refers to: - AMS-I.D: Grid connected renewable electricity generation version 14 for estimating project emissions from electricity consumption by the project activity. - Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane, version 01. AMS-I.D refers to: - Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system version Other Programs The project did not apply any programs during this monitoring period. 2 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS 2.1 Implementation Status of the Project Activity The project was registered on 06/05/2010 and first verification covered the period 28/03/2006 to 31/12/2008. The current monitoring period is from 01/01/2009 to 30/04/2013. The emission reductions for this period are 43,034 tco2e VERs. The project activity involves two successive phases. The first phase completed the implementation since September 2004 until end of December The second phase was commissioned in January Therefore the second phase is only implemented during the monitoring period considered in this report. The implementation status of the project activity during this monitoring period shows in Table 1. There is no natural disaster or any accident that leads to the significantly changes in the amount of emission reductions in this period. Table 1: The implementation status of the project activity Date Events 01/01/2009 The second phase of the project activity was commissioned. 06/08/2009 A new liquid flow meter (FM2) was replaced at the monitoring point before the wastewater entering to UASB2. 30/05/2010 The pulp digester system was failed. The wastewater treated by UASB is still sent to the HCLU system. The gas meter that monitors biogas from the HCLU system is used. 13/10/2010 At the monitoring point of the biogas supplied to the hot oil boiler system (GM3) in figure 1, the gas meter of Yokogawa/S5FC was replaced by the gas meter of FCI/ST /12/2010 The additional steam boiler (no.5) was installed in the starch factory. The gas meter of Yokogawa/S5H (GM5) in figure 3 has been installed in 10

11 Date Events order to monitor the biogas utilization in the new steam boiler. The biogas consumed in the boiler is generated by HCLU system. 20/07/2011 The eight-open lagoons have been added into the secondary treatment. Therefore in the secondary stage, the effluent from the biogas system are treated further in a series of 17 open lagoons. 29/10/2011 At the monitoring point of the biogas supplied to the hot oil boiler system in figure 3, GM3-the meter of FCI/ST was replaced by the gas meter of FCI/ST The additional monitoring point is installed at the new installation of blower which supports the biogas supplied to the steam boiler system (boiler no.1&no.2) of the starch factory. The gas meter of FCI/ST was moved from the previous monitoring point of GM3 in order to monitor the amount of biogas utilization at the new point. At this monitoring point, the biogas supplied to the steam boiler system is generated by HCLU system. 23/12/2011 The GM2 (FCI/ST ) in figure 3 that can monitor the biogas generated by HCLU, monitors amount of biogas supplied to hot oil boiler system and the steam boiler system. The biogas monitored by the GM2 is equal to the biogas supplied to the hot oil boiler and the biogas supplied to the steam boiler (no. 1&2). The biogas monitored by GM2 is sent to hot oil boiler system for the first priority consumption. The remaining biogas is sent to the steam boiler system (no.1&2). Moreover, the additional monitoring point of biogas utilization is installed at the hot oil boiler system. The gas meter of Yokogawa/S5FC is reinstalled in order to monitor the actual amount of biogas consumed in the hot oil boiler system. The biogas generated by HCLU is supplied through GM2 before entering to the new additional monitoring point tagged as GM7 in figure 3. 02/03/2012 At the monitoring point of GM3 (the biogas supported boiler no1&2) in figure 3, the gas meter of FCI/ST was out of service and sent for repairing. The gas meter has been replaced by FCI/ on 2 March In addition, the gas meter is able to monitor the biogas generated by two sources. The steam boiler system (no.1&2) has consumed the biogas generated by UASB and HCLU system since this date. 19/07/2012 The gas flare meter Yokogawa/26CfB of which was tagged as GM2 in figure 2 was replaced by the gas meter of FCI/ST The meter tag was revised to GM 4 in figure 3. 29/10/2012 At the monitoring point of GM2 (the biogas supplied to hot oil boiler and steam boiler system no.1&2), the gas meter of FCI/ST was out of service since 26/10/2012. Then, it was replaced by the gas meter of FCI/ST /06/2013 The onsite verification has been conducted for the second monitoring period of 01/01/2009 to 30/04/

12 2.2 Deviations Methodology Deviations According to the registered VCS PD version 3.1, there are some deviations from the methodology applied. The first monitoring period, some deviations were applied due to incompleteness of monitoring equipment. As per the second monitoring period, the methane analyzer has been installed and monitors as per the guidance of manufacturing s specification. During this monitoring period, the calculation of methane emissions due to incomplete flaring (PE flaring,y ) is deviated from the registered PD. The detail is mentioned in the table 2. In addition, the pulp digester system was failed and stopped the operation end of May The emission reduction due to the biogas equipped by the HCLU system is taken into account. The methodology deviations are summarized as follow; Table 2: Deviations taken in the current Monitoring Period Formula that is deviated from Deviated approach or formula registered PD Deviation 1 The emissions from flaring biogas shall be calculated based on the flare efficiency (monitored as per the approach in validated PD) and the flow rate of biogas to the flare during every hour to determine flare operation in every hour. Deviation 2 The calculation of fugitive emissions through capture inefficiencies in the anerobic wastewater treatment (PE_fugitive,ww,y) considers the parameter of the methane emission potential (MEP) of wastewater treatment system equipped with the biogas recovery system in year y. The COD removed by the treatment system k of the project activity equipped with the biogas recovery in the year y (tonnes/m3) calculated as COD_removed, PJ,UASB,y = COD_ww,untreated,y - COD_out, PJ,UASB,y The monitoring parameters as per page 40 of validated PD are not available, there by a default value of flare efficiency is used to determine flare emissions. The value used is zero %. Since 1 June 2010, the pulp digester system was not operated. The effluent of UASB system has been sent to the HCLU system that also captures the biogas under anaerobic condition. Thus, The COD removed by the treatment system k of the project activity equipped with the biogas recovery in the year y (tonnes/m3) calculated as COD_removed,PJ,y = COD_ww,untreated,y - COD_out, PJ,HCLU,y. Justification for deviation This is the most conservative approach theoretically possible. The zero % efficiency means that all of the biogas flared is assumed to release into atmosphere and the methane emissions are calculated accordingly. At the HCLU unit, the biogas is also produced and captured by the covered HDPE sheet. Therefore, the project emission equipped with the biogas recovery system shall be considered the wastewater treated by HCLU system. This deviation is related to the project descriptions deviation 2- b.2 in section Deviation 3 The project emission from wastewater treatment system affected by the project activity, and not equipped with biogas recovery in the project situation Since 01 June 2010, the COD_removed, PJ,y lagoon is calculated as the COD in the effluent of the HCLU system times the efficiecy of the baseline At the HCLU unit, the biogas is also produced and captured by the covered HDPE sheet. Therefore, the project emission not equipped by the biogas 12

13 Formula that is deviated from registered PD (PE_ww,treatment,y) shall be considered as the methane emission in the secondary wastewater treatment of the project. The COD_removed, PJ,y lagoon is considered as the COD removed by the secondary wastewater treatment system in year y. It is calculated as the COD in the effluent of the UASB system times the efficiency of the baseline system. Deviated approach or formula system. Justification for deviation recovery shall be considered the COD_removed, PJ, y lagoon at the effluent of the HCLU system. This determination is appropriate and more accurate than the previous validated methodology deviation. This deviation does not negatively impact the conservativeness of the quantification of GHG emission reductions. This deviation is related to the project descriptions deviation 2- b.1 in section Project Description Deviations During the implementation of the project, there are some activities that were not conducted as per the project description mentioned in the registered PD version 3.1. During the first monitoring period, no deviations were observed with respect to project s description and configuration. The project activity phase I was conducted as per the figure 5 of in the registered PD. In this second monitoring period, the project activity involved the second phase of project implementation. As per the figure 1 of the MR, it is the project boundary in line with the registered PD. Whereas, the actual implementation of project activity are displayed in the figure 2 and figure 3 of this MR. Some system of the project activity was shut down. Also, some machine and some treatment have been added into the project activity. The deviations from the registered PD are applied and justified as follow; PD-Deviation 1: Claiming methane avoidance from HCLU after the failure of pulp-digestor from June 2010 onwards 1-a Project description as per the registered PD: Referring to page 3 of the registered VCS PD The second phase of the project involves the installation of a Pulp Digester and a Hybrid Covered Lagoon Unit (HCLU). It was commissioned in January The residual tapioca pulp which is separated from the wastewater screening process is sent to pulp digester and hybrid covered lagoon unit to produce biogas. Also, the treated wastewater from both UASB reactors is partly sent through Pulp digester to be further digested by enzyme prior sending to HCLU and series of open lagoon, respectively. The biogas generated from both UASBs and HCLU is blown into the different devices (hot oil boiler, steam boiler and modified steam boiler). The project proponent plans to install a separate meter for HCLU biogas to separate out the gas quantity produced from two processes. In addition the gas meters are available at boilers (hot oil boiler and steam boiler) and flare. These meter readings shall be used to separate out biogas generated from UASB and HCLU. It must be mentioned that the biogas generation from the HCLU system also takes into account the degradation of effluent from the pulp digester. With the decomposition of tapioca pulp not a component of baseline emissions in methodology AMS III. H., the project owner considers only the methane avoidance from the UASB as an emission reduction project. This is a conservative assumption. 13

14 1-b Project description deviation applied: The second phase of the project (as mentioned above) was commissioned in January 2009, which included installation of HCLU and a Pulp digester system. The biogas generated by UASB system was delivered to steam boiler system (no.1 and no.2), hot oil boiler and open flare located within the project facility and the starch factory. Whilst as mentioned in the VCS PD, the biogas from the HCLU would have also been consumed in the project facility and the starch factory, this is not correct. It was incorrectly mentioned in the VCS PD and in reality, the biogas from HCLU was delivered to a third-party (Neo-Tech) since the installation of HCLU in January 2009 and a separate gas meter monitored the same. Furthermore, the pulp digestor stopped operation in May 2010 while HCLU has continued its operation. Since then, there was no biogas selling to Neo-tech factory. Due to the failure of pulp digestor system, the effluent of UASB system is pumped to the HCLU for treating process. The biogas generation by HCLU is supplied to the steam boiler (no.5) of the starch factory. The separate gas meter monitors the biogas generation and utilization in the project activity as shown in figure 3. Given that HCLU is now treating only the wastewater coming out of the UASB, contrary to what was mentioned in the VCS PD, we wish to claim methane avoidance from the HCLU as well. 1-c Justification of the deviation impact: The biogas generation from HCLU and consumption by Neo-tech can be verified based on the logbooks. The justification of the deviation is provided separately for each component below: The impact on the applicability of the methodology and the appropriateness of baseline scenario: Given that the project activity is only claiming emission reductions based on methane avoidance and not from generation of heat, the impact needs to be assessed only on the baseline for methane avoidance. The deviation proposes claiming methane avoidance from the HCLU, which is in addition to the initial plan, it does not impact the applicability and the baseline. This is because, the wastewater source is still the same and therefore there is no change in baseline. Further, the annual emissions from type III component is still below 60,000 tco2e. Therefore the project is still in line with the applicability and the baseline initially identified. The impact on the additionality; The deviation does not result in a larger methane avoidance compared to the ex-ante calculation. The methane or in other words the biogas was considered replacing HFO in the baseline. Based on the actual monitored data, the average methane generation potential from the project is only tch4/year whereas the ex-ante value assumed 1,201 tch4/year. This shows, that the deviation is not leading to greater savings of HFO that would have happened in the baseline. Hence, the project is additional under this deviation. PD-Deviation 2: Revised approach on sampling point for COD and calculation of MD y 2-a: The project description as per the registered PD The second phase of the project involves the installation of a pulp digester and a hybrid covered lagoon unit (HCLU). It was commissioned in January The residual tapioca pulp which was separated from the wastewater screening process was sent to pulp digester and HCLU to produce biogas. Also, the treated wastewater from both UASB reactors was partly sent through pulp digester to be 14

15 further digested by enzyme prior sending to HCLU and series of open lagoon, respectively. The biogas generated by UASBs and HCLU was blown into the different machines. With the decomposition of tapioca pulp not a component of the baseline emissions in AMS.III-H, the project participant considers only the methane avoidance from the UASB as an emission reduction project. Therefore, the determination of project emission and MD approach are considered as following details: 2-a.1 The emission from wastewater treatment systems affected by the project activity, and not equipped with the biogas recovery in the project situation (PE ww,treatment,y ) considers the COD removed, PJ, lagoon,y as: COD removed, PJ, lagoon,y : Chemical oxygen demand removed by project secondary wastewater treatment system in year y (tonnes/m3), calculated as the COD in the effluent of the UASB system times the efficiency of the baseline system. CODy, removed, PJ, lagoon,y = COD out,pj,uasb,y * 100% 2-a.2 The determination of the methane emission potential (MEP ww,treatment,y ) used to calculated PE fugitive,ww,y is considered as: MEP ww,treatment,y = Q y,ww *B o,ww *UF PJ * k COD removed,pj,uasb,y * MCF ww,treatment,pj,uasb Where: Parameter Details MEP ww,treatment,y Methane emission petential of wastewater treatment systems equipped with biogas recovery system in year y (tonnes) COD removed, PJ,UASB,y The chemical oxygen demand removed 3 by the treatment system k of the project activity equipped with biogas recovery in the year y (tonnes/m 3 ) calculated as : COD removed, PJ,UASB,y = COD ww,untreated,y - COD out, PJ,UASB,y MCF ww,treatment,pj,uasb Methane correction factor for the project wastewater treatment system equipped with biogas recovery equipment (UASB) (MCF values as per table III.H.1) UF PJ Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties (1.06) 2-a.3 The emission reduction determination as per MD y approach, the calculation as: MD y = W CH4 * D CH4 * GWP CH4 * [(BG ToFlare,y *FE) +((BG combusted,y BG HCUL,y )*DE] Where: Parameter MD y BG TOFlare FE BG combusted, y BG HCLU, y DE Details Methane captured and destroyed/gainfully used by the project activity in the year y Biogas sent to flare in year y (Nm 3 /year) Flare efficiency (fraction) Biogas combusted in the boilers in year y (Nm 3 /year) Biogas produced from HCLU system in year y (Nm 3 /year) Destruction efficiency of biogas combusted for a gainful use (fraction) 3 Difference of inflow COD and the outflow COD 15

16 2-b: The project description deviation applied During this monitoring period, the pulp digester was operated since the commissioning date until end of May The system was stopped operation due to technical problems. The HCLU did not receive any wastewater coming from the pulp digestor. The effluent of UASB has been supplied to HCLU directly since 1 June 2010.The monitoring parameters related to emission reduction calculation are considered into two periods. Firstly, the relevant ER calculation regarding the involvement of the pulp digester during 1 January 2009 to 31 May 2010 is considered as per the calculation provide in the registered PD (section 2a, above). Secondly, the ER calculation regarding the exclusion of the pulp digester from 1 June 2010 to end of this monitoring period is considered as following details; 2-b.1 The emission from wastewater treatment systems affected by the project activity, and not equipped with the biogas recovery in the project situation (PE ww,treatment,y ) considers the COD removed, PJ, lagoon,y as: COD removed, PJ, lagoon,y : Chemical oxygen demand removed by project secondary wastewater treatment system in year y (tonnes/m3), calculated as the COD in the effluent of the HCLU times the efficiency of the baseline system. CODy, removed, PJ, lagoon,y = COD out,pj,hcul,y * 100% Note: This deviation is also related to the deviation 3 of the section 2.2 deviations in the section the methodology deviations. 2-b.2 The determination of the methane emission potential (MEP ww,treatment,y ): As per AMS-III.H, MEPww,treatment,y is defined as methane potential of wastewater treatment systems equipped with the biogas recovery. Since the operation of pulp digester was stopped, only effluent from UASB system has been supplied to HCLU directly. The HCLU is also an anaerobic reactor with methane recovery. Therefore, the calculation of MEP can be considered as. MEP ww,treatment,y = Q y,ww *B o,ww *UF PJ * k COD removed,pj,hclu,y * MCF ww,treatment,pj,hclu Where: Parameter Details MEP ww,treatment,y Methane emission potential of wastewater treatment systems equipped with biogas recovery system in year y (tonnes) COD removed, PJ,HCLU,y The chemical oxygen demand removed 4 by the treatment system k of the project activity equipped with biogas recovery in the year y (tonnes/m 3 ) calculated as : COD removed, PJ,UASB,y = COD ww,untreated,y - COD out, PJ,HCLU,y MCF ww,treatment,pj,hclu Methane correction factor for the project wastewater treatment system equipped with biogas recovery equipment (UASB and HCLU) (MCF values as per table III.H.1) UF PJ Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties (1.06) 4 Difference of inflow COD and the outflow COD 16

17 Note: This deviation is also related to the deviation 2 of the section 2.2 deviations in the section methodology deviations. 2-b.3 The emission reduction determination as per MD y approach: Since 1 June 2010, the wastewater supplied to project activity is only from the starch factory. None of wastewater from pulp digester was fed into the HCLU. The UASB and the HCLU are considered as the biogas recovery system. Therefore, the biogas generated by HCLU can be included in the project activity. MD y = W CH4 * D CH4 * GWP CH4 * [(BG ToFlare,y *FE) +((BG combusted,y )*DE] Where: Parameter MD y BG TOFlare FE BG combusted, y DE Details Methane captured and destroyed/gainfully used by the project activity in the year y Biogas sent to flare in year y (Nm 3 /year) Flare efficiency (fraction) Biogas combusted in the boilers in year y (Nm 3 /year) Biogas combusted = Biogas generated by UASB + Biogas generated by HCLU Destruction efficiency of biogas combusted for a gainful use (fraction) Note: This deviation is also related to the deviation 4 of the section 2.2 deviations in the section methodology deviations. 2-c: Justification/Identification of the deviation impact Impact on the applicability of the methodology and the appropriateness of baseline scenario The deviation has no impact on the applicability or the baseline identified in the VCS PD as the source of wastewater is still the same and the overall emission reductions from the type III component are still less than 60,000 tco2. Impact on the additionality As described in PD deviation 1, the proposed deviation leads to claiming of emission reductions from the HCLU from June 2010 onwards but the project is still additional. PD-Deviation 3: Additional steam boiler 3-a: The project description as per the registered PD In the project activity scenario, the biogas captured is utilised for heat generation purpose. As per figure 5 of the registered PD, the biogas utilisation in boiler systems is not included in the project boundary. The project activity only claims the emission reduction from the methane avoidance activity. 17

18 3-b: The project description deviation applied The additional steam boiler (no.5) was installed in the starch factory since December The biogas captured by the HCLU is fed into this steam boiler for heat consumption in the starch factory. The thermal energy generation is excluded from the project boundary as per figure 3 of the MR. 3-c: Justification/Identification of the deviation impact Impact on the applicability of the methodology and the appropriateness of baseline scenario The project activity involves the facility to capture the biogas and further to utilize for heat generation. The steam boilers at the starch factory use the biogas generated in the project activity but no any emission reduction is claimed for the heat part. This is as per the registered PD. The project activity is in line with the applicability of AMS III-H methane avoidance component. Impact on the additionality The project is still additional as described in PD deviation 1. PD- Deviation 4: Eight additional post-treatment lagoons 4-a: The project description as per the registered PD In the absence of the project activity, the wastewater was being treated in the existing open lagoon system. The baseline scenario consists of 9 open anaerobic lagoons. The depth of the lagoons is greater than 4 meter and considered as anaerobic lagoons according to AMS.III-H. The COD removal efficiency of baseline scenario is 85.83%. This is based on historical data taken prior the implementation of the project activity multiply by In addition, the parameters of MCF ww,treatment, BL, lagoon and MCF ww,treatment, PJ, lagoon defined as per Table III.H.1 of AMS III.H are 0.8. The 9 open lagoons would have been used for post-treatment in the project activity. 4-b: The project description deviation applied The eight-open lagoons have been added into the secondary treatment system since July The total numbers of open lagoons are 17. The additional lagoons have been installed to increase the retention time of the secondary treatment process in the project activity. 4-c: Justification/Identification of the deviation impact Impact on the applicability of the methodology and the appropriateness of baseline scenario The additional lagoons have no impact on the applicability or the baseline as this is the new addition to the project and is not interference to the baseline. The project still complies with the methodology and the emission reductions claimed from type III component is still below 60,000 tco2e as the COD removal efficiency from the post-treatment was assumed at 100%. It therefore does not matter how many lagoons are used for post-treatment. Impact on the additionality The project is still additional as this deviation does not increase revenues and in fact it increases overall cost of the project due to implementation of new lagoons. PD- Deviation 5: The COD content analyzed by colorimetric method 5-a: The project description as per the registered PD The COD content is analyzed using a colorimetric method in the on-site laboratory of the treatment plant. 18

19 5-b: The project description deviation applied In the actual implementation, the titrimetric method is applied for COD measurement. The analysis test is conducted at onsite laboratory. 5-c: Justification/Identification of the deviation impact The closed reflux titrimetric method is approved by national or international standard (approved by United States Environmental Protection Agency USEPA). Therefore, the closed reflux titrimetric method is also appropriate to the measurement method of COD monitoring parameter. The impacts due to this deviation are justified as following; Impact on the applicability of the methodology, the appropriateness of baseline scenario and additionality The deviation does not lead to any impacts on the methodology, baseline or additionality. The deviation only proposes a new method of COD measurement as opposed to what was mentioned in the registered VCD PD monitoring plan. PD- Deviation 6: The accuracy of the meter for monitoring biogas sent to flare system 6-a: The project description as per the registered PD Referring to the VCS-PD, the accuracy of the meter for monitoring biogas sent to flare is defined as 0.75%. 6-b: The project description deviation applied In the actual implementation, the accuracy of gas flow meter for biogas sent flare is 1.0%. 6-c: Justification/Identification of the deviation impact As per the general specification of gas meter: Yogogawa DY080 which was installed since the project activity commissioned. The accuracy as per the certificate is +/-1.0%. The accuracy provided in the registered PD was mistype. Therefore, the accuracies of both gas flow meters (Yogogawa S/N26CB and FCI S/N417791) are the same. The impacts due to this deviation are justified as following; Impact on the applicability of the methodology, the appropriateness of baseline scenario and additionality The proposed deviation has no impact as it is correcting the accuracy of meters as opposed to accuracy mentioned in the registered VCS PD monitoring plan. PD- Deviation 7: The periodic calibration of methane analyzer 7-a: The project description as per the registered PD The periodic calibration (generally once in three years) for methane analyzer is ensured via an external agency according to national or international standard. 7-b: The project description deviation applied The internal calibration for methane content in biogas is conducted at least once in a month. In case that the calibration is not implemented, applying maximum permissible error of the instrument or the error identified in the calibration test is considered during the period between the scheduled date and the actual date of calibration. 19

20 7-c: Justification/Identification of the deviation impact The internal calibration of methane content is in line with paragraph 238 of VVS, version 5.0. To be conservative, the highest value between the error identified in the delayed calibration test and the maximum permissible error of the instrument is applied to the measured value taken during the period between the schedule date of calibration and the actual date of calibration. Impact on the applicability of the methodology, the appropriateness of baseline scenario and additionality The proposed deviation has no impact as it relates to calibration frequency and relevant CDM guidelines are used in compliance. 2.3 Grouped Project Not applicable. This is not a grouped project. 3 DATA AND PARAMETERS 3.1 Data and Parameters Available at Validation Data / Parameter: Data unit: GWP CH4 - Description: Global Warming Potential for Methane Source of data: AMS III.H V13, default value Value applied: 21 Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996). This parameter was used to calculate the emission of CH 4 in form of CO 2 for both baseline and project emission. Comments: - 20

21 Data / Parameter: B o,ww Data unit: kg CH 4 /kg COD Description: Source of data: Methane producing capacity of the wastewater IPCC default value. Based as per AMS-III.H version 13 Value applied: 0.21 Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: IPCC default value. Based on AMS III.H version 13. This parameter was used to calculate the emission from wastewater treatment system for both baseline and project activity. Comments: - Data / Parameter: UF BL Data unit: Factor Description: Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties Source of data: AMS-III.H version 13 Value applied: 0.94 Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: According to the AMS III.H version 13, correction factor will be used for estimation of baseline emissions. This parameter was used to calculate the baseline activity emissions. Comments: - 21

22 Data / Parameter: UF PJ Data unit: Factor Description: Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties Source of data: AMS-III.H version 13 Value applied: 1.06 Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: According to the AMS III.H Version 13, correction factor will be used for estimation of project activity emissions. This parameter was used to calculate the project activity emissions. Comments: - Data / Parameter: MCF ww,treatment,bl,lagoon Data unit: Fraction Description: Methane correction factor for baseline wastewater treatment systems i Source of data: Table III.H 1 from AMS-III.H version 13 Value applied: 0.8 Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: The baseline wastewater treatment system consists in a succession of deep lagoons (depth more than 2 metres) therefore MCF value is chosen as 0.8. This parameter was used to calculate the baseline emissions from the wastewater treatment system. Comments: - 22

23 Data / Parameter: MCF ww,treatment,pj,hclu Data unit: Description: Fraction Methane correction factor for project wastewater treatment systems UASB and HCLU Source of data: Table III.H 1 from AMS-III.H version 13 Value applied: 0.8 Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: The project wastewater treatment system equipped with biogas recovery is a UASB system and HCLU, therefore MCF value is chosen as 0.8. This parameter was used to calculate the project emissions from the UASB system. Comments: - Data / Parameter: MCF ww,treatment,pj,lagoon Data unit: Description: Fraction Methane correction factor for project secondary wastewater treatment system Source of data: Table III.H 1 from AMS-III.H version 13 Value applied: 0.8 Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: The project wastewater treatment system without biogas recovery (the secondary treatment) consists in a succession of deep lagoons and of the HCLU system after its implementation, with depth more than 2 metres, so the value of 0.8 has been chosen. This parameter was used to calculate the project emissions from the secondary wastewater treatment system. Comments: - 23

24 Data / Parameter: COD removal efficiency-baseline Data unit: % Description: Chemical oxygen demand removal efficiency of baseline treatment system Source of data: Historical data of baseline lagoons based on colorimetric analysis Value applied: 85.83% Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied The COD removal efficiency is based, on COD values for baseline system before implementation of project activity. The COD reduction across the baseline treatment system is multiplied by a factor of 0.89 for conservative estimation of baseline emissions. Actual reduction across the system is approximately 96.44% 5. No. Date CODin (pond #1) CODout (pond #9) (mg/l) (mg/l) %COD removal Nov , Nov , Dec , Dec , Dec , Dec , Dec , Dec , Dec , Dec , Dec , Dec , AVG 10, Purpose of the data: This parameter, the COD removal efficiency of the baseline lagoons system before the project implementation, is used to calculate the baseline emissions. Comments: - 5 COD measurement records can be used to substantiate this value. Water analysis reports showing the quality of treated wastewater during pre-project scenario has been submitted to the DOE. 24

25 Data / Parameter: CFE ww Data unit: - Description: Capture efficiency of the biogas recovery equipment in the wastewater treatment systems. Source of data: AMS-III.H version 13 Value applied: 0.9 Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: Default value as per AMS III.H. This parameter was used to calculate the project emissions from biogas capture system. Comments: - Data / Parameter: EF y Data unit: tco 2 /MWh Description: CO 2 emission factor for grid power Source of data: The calculation of emission factor for an electricity system in Thailand 2007, DEDE. Value applied: Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: EF y is calculated according to the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system as determined in the respective smallscale methodology for grid connected electricity generation (AMS I.D. version 14). This parameter was used to calculate the project emissions from the use of the grid electricity in the project activity. Comments: - 25

26 Data / Parameter: D CH4 Data unit: Kg/m 3 Description: Density of methane at the temperature and pressure of the biogas in the year y Source of data: Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane. Value applied: an13.pdf Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: CDM EB as per EB28 Meeting report (Annex 13). This parameter was used to calculate the project emissions from flaring process. Comments: - Data / Parameter: FE Data unit: % Description: Flare efficiency Source of data: Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane. Value applied: 50% Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Default value for open flare as per Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane has been applied. Purpose of the data: This parameter was used to calculate the project emissions from flaring process. Comments: - 26

27 Data / Parameter: DE Data unit: % Description: Destruction efficiency of the electricity generator Source of data: SSC WG Value applied: 100% Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: According to clarification from SSC WG in the case that the biogas is combusted for a gainful use of the released energy as in an engine or a power plant, a destruction efficiency of 100% can be used for the portion of biogas that is combusted when applying AMS III.H., i.e. use a value of 100% for FE in equation 16 in paragraph 32 for the portion of biogas that is combusted for a gainful use 6 This parameter was used to calculate the emission reduction of methane captured and destroyed/gainfully used by the project activity in the year. Comments: - Data / Parameter: P el Data unit: kw Description: Total electrical capacity of the euipments installed in the project activity Source of data: Plant data Value applied: 43 6 Please refer to paragraph 29 SSC WG 22 external report, page 6. Please note that the respond to this query, F- CDM-SSCwg ver 01 SSC_324 dated 29/07/2009, can be accessed through the following link: 27

28 Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied Purpose of the data: Extract from nameplate of the electrical equipment. No. Equipment kw per unit Number of use kw 1 Pump (SP 1-2) Pump (SP 3-4) Mixing pump (M1-2) Mixing pump (M3) Mixing pump (M5-6) Mixing pump (M7) Mixing pump (M8-9) Screw converter Screw conveyer FM 1, RP 1, RP 3, FM 1, FM 2, Gas blower 7.5 summation This parameter was used to calculate the project emissions from grid electricity consumption. Comments: Data and Parameters Monitored Data / Parameter: Q ww,y Data unit: m 3 Description: Volume of wastewater treated in year y Source of data: Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: Measured-Volumetric flow meter-fm1 and FM2 A flow meter for wastewater measurement is provided. Frequency of monitoring/recording: Continuous monitoring, record on the daily basis Value monitored: 01/01/ /12/2009 = 368,858 m 3 01/01/ /12/2010 = 664,585 m 3 01/01/ /12/2011 = 766,662 m 3 01/01/ /12/2012 = 663,610 m 3 01/01/ /04/2013 = 202,352 m 3 28

29 Monitoring equipment: In this monitoring period, there two monitoring points monitor the wastewater flow into the UASB 1 and UASB2. The FM 1 is the liquid flow meter that monitors the wastewater sent to UASB 1. The flow meter brand and detail as below. S/N Equipment Type Manufacturer Model S/N SE Magnetic flow meter Yokogawa SE208MM Accuracy ±0.5% The technical information can be found on The FM 2 is the liquid flow meter that monitors the wastewater sent to UASB 2. In this monitoring period, two meters were used and replaced as detailed in section 3.3 of this monitoring report. Both of the meters are magnetic flow meter brand Siemens and detail as below. S/N 7ME691 01AA30 1AA0 Model: 7ME S/N 7ME T269 Model: 7ME6310-3MC13-2AA1 Equipment Type Magnetic flow meter Manufacturer Siemens Accuracy ±0.40% The technical information can be found on QA/QC procedures to be applied: The meter is of high accuracy magnetic kind. The meter shall be calibrated at least once in three years or as per the manufacturer s recommendations to maintain the measuring accuracy. The readings reported during the day are crosschecked at end of the day by biogas plant supervisor and approved by assistant plant manager. The excel file is prepared and submitted to the plant manager for monthly approval. The record of calibration is described in section