2020 verification report nzw...accordance with the verification standard (iso 14064-3) and criteria....

GHD | 455 Phillip Street Unit #100A Waterloo Ontario N2L 3X2 Canada | 11219983 | Report No 8 | March 12 2021

Verification Report May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2020 NetZero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility Project Identifier: 6089-9126

Blue Source Canada ULC

GHD | Verification Report | 11219983 (8) | Page i

Table of Contents

1. Third Party Verification Summary ................................................................................................ 1

2. Verification Objective and Details ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Project Title ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Project Start Date ............................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Verification Site Visit Date.................................................................................................. 2 2.4 Expected Lifetime of the Project ........................................................................................ 3 2.5 Type of GHG Emission Reduction or Removal Project ..................................................... 3 2.6 Verification of Appropriateness of the Methodology being used for the Project ................ 3 2.7 Legal Land Description of the Project or the Unique Latitude and Longitude ................... 3 2.8 Ownership Verification ....................................................................................................... 4 2.9 Reporting, Monitoring, and Verification Details ................................................................. 4 2.10 Level of Assurance and Verification Summary .................................................................. 4 2.11 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................. 5

2.11.1 Qualifications .................................................................................................... 5 2.11.2 Contact Details ................................................................................................. 6

3. Verification Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Verification Standards ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Verification Criteria ............................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Verification Scope .............................................................................................................. 7

3.3.1 Project Understanding ...................................................................................... 7 3.3.2 Protocol ............................................................................................................. 8 3.3.3 Geographical and Operational Boundaries ...................................................... 9 3.3.4 Reporting Period ............................................................................................... 9

3.4 Materiality ........................................................................................................................... 9

4. Verification Plan ........................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Assessment of Risk and Magnitude of Potential Errors, Omissions or Misrepresentations9 4.2 Final Sampling Plan ......................................................................................................... 11 4.3 Verification Procedures .................................................................................................... 13 4.4 Methodologies Used to Assess/Verify Emissions Data ................................................... 13 4.5 Verification Schedule ....................................................................................................... 14 4.6 Working Papers ............................................................................................................... 14 4.7 Verification Findings ......................................................................................................... 14 4.8 Verification Records ......................................................................................................... 15 4.9 Facts Discovered after Verification .................................................................................. 15

5. Verification Statement ................................................................................................................ 15

6. Conflict of Interest Review ......................................................................................................... 17

7. Limitation of Liability ................................................................................................................... 18

GHD | Verification Report | 11219983 (8) | Page ii

Table Index Table 2.1 Emission Reductions by Source ........................................................................................ 4

Table 4.1 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................. 10

Table 4.2 Sample Plan .................................................................................................................... 12

Table 6.1 COI Review Checklist ...................................................................................................... 17

Appendix Index Appendix A NetZero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility Offset Project, Final Report,

February 2021

Appendix B Verification Plan

GHD | Verification Report | 11219983 (8) | Page 1

1. Third Party Verification Summary

Project Proponent Information

Name of Project Proponent Net Zero Waste Inc.

Project Proponent Contact Name: Mateo Ocejo Title: Director Phone: (604) 868-6075 Email: [email protected]

Authorized Project Contact Information

Name of Authorized Project Contact Blue Source Canada ULC

Name of Third Party Verification Organization GHD Limited

Authorized Project Contact Name: Andre Buiza, EIT Title: Carbon Solutions Analyst Phone: (403) 262-3026 x 437 Email: [email protected]

Project Report Information

Project Report Title Net Zero Waste Inc. (NZW) Abbotsford Composting Facility Offset Project – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Report, Final Report, February 2021

Copy of Project Report attached in Appendix A

Timing and Amount of reductions being claimed

The emissions reductions of 41,480 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) are claimed for this project during May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2020.

Emission reductions by GHG The emissions reductions of 41,480 tCO2e are claimed per the following greenhouse gases accordingly (all in tonnes of GHG):

Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e (electricity project emissions)

2016 - 116.7 99.0 - 0.2 - 1.5

2017 - 278.7 288.0 - 0.6 - 2.9

2018 - 483.6 430.7 - 0.9 - 1.7

2019 - 357.2 478.2 - 0.1 - 2.0

2020 - 369.8 450.0 - 0.0 - 2.2

Project Report Frequency Project reports documenting emission reductions will be submitted to GHG CleanProjectsTM annually by the Authorized Project Contact on behalf of the Project Proponent.

mailto:[email protected]



Third Party Information: Authorization and Sign off

Third Party Contact Name: Erik Martinez Title: Lead Verifier Phone: 519-340-4213 Email: [email protected]

Verification Statement I declare that the GHG reductions claimed in the Project Report for reporting period are fair and reasonable in accordance with the verification criteria and Project Report in all material respects.

Conflict of Interest Review Presented in Section 12 of this Verification Report.

Third Party Verifier Signature:

Designate Signature Date: March 12, 2021

2. Verification Objective and Details

Blue Source Canada ULC (Blue Source) retained GHD Limited (GHD) to complete a verification of the Net Zero Watse Inc. (NZW) Abbotsford Composting Facility Offset Project – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Report, Final Report, version 1.0 (Project Report) for the period of May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2020 (inclusive).

GHD has prepared this Verification Report in accordance with ISO Standard ISO 14064 Greenhouse Gases - Part 3: Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (ISO 14064-3).

The objective of the verification is to provide Blue Source and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) GHG CleanProjects® Registry with assurance that the Project Report emissions reductions and the supporting reduction calculations contain no material discrepancy and was prepared in accordance with the verification standard (ISO 14064-3) and criteria. The objective is to also confirm that the Project Report and corresponding GHG assertion conform to the requirements and principles of ISO 14064-2 and are without material discrepancies.

2.1 Project Title

NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility Offset Project for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions (Project).

2.2 Project Start Date

The Project Start Date is January 1, 2013 which is accurate and representative of when the Project began.

2.3 Verification Site Visit Date

GHD conducted a site visit on January 26, 2021. GHD interviewed Facility personnel to understand operations, maintenance and downtime events during the reporting period, and regulatory compliance. The Site Visit was conducted remotely and included a walkthrough of the facility



operations, including all GHG emission source areas and processes. GHD interviewed Dan Lazaro, General Manager, during the Remote Site Assessment.

2.4 Expected Lifetime of the Project

The lifetime of the Project is expected to extend the life of the GORETM Cover System, which is expected to have an approximate 20 year life span.

2.5 Type of GHG Emission Reduction or Removal Project

This is a GHG emission reduction project classified under Sector Scope 13 – Waste Handling and Disposal for which GHD is accredited.

2.6 Verification of Appropriateness of the Methodology being used for the Project

The methodology applied to the Project is the Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects (Version 1.1) (Protocol), Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD), 2008. This protocol is applicable to this Project as the NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility where the Project is located, performs aerobic composting of source-separated organic waste material. In the absence of this Project the source-separated organics would have instead been sent to landfill. Blue Source has incorporated some deviations from the methodology in their GHG emission reductions calculations, as summarized in the table below. GHD verified the deviations are in accordance with the principles of ISO 14064-2 as described below.

SSR Description Conclusion P14 and B6 - Material Decomposition and Methane Collection/Destruction

The First Order Decay (FOD) Model from the Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook was used including default reference values instead of method identified in the compliance protocol.

As the approach is based on best available information and provides a conservative baseline, GHD determined the deviation was appropriate.

2.7 Legal Land Description of the Project or the Unique Latitude and Longitude

The verification included the emission sources from the following Facility:

5050 Gladwin Road Abbotsford, BC V4X 1X8 Latitude: 49.0942 Longitude: -122.3139


2.8 Ownership Verification

The Owner of the Project is the Project Proponent (NZW) and Blue Source owns the emission reductions associated with the Project based on an agreement between the Project Proponent and Blue Source.

2.9 Reporting, Monitoring, and Verification Details

The reporting frequency to the GHG CleanProjects® registry is intended to be every 5-years.

GHG emissions are quantified through manual compilation of organic waste, residual mass records, and diesel and electricity consumption invoices. Weigh tickets of organic waste received are generated at the scale and recorded manually and in the Facility's computer system. The mass of residuals is also recorded with weigh scales. NZW produces summary reports for tonnages from the computer system. Diesel and electricity consumption at the site are tracked through third party invoices.

GHD is aware that this Verification Report will be publicly posted on GHG CleanProjects®. This report has been prepared for the use of Blue Source and the CSA for this Project.

Statements from GHD's Verification Report, including the Verification Statement must reference the date of issuance of GHD's report, the applicable verification period and the associated programme for which the verification was conducted. The GHG assertion provided by GHD can be freely used by Blue Source for marketing or other purposes other than in a manner misleading to the reader. The GHD mark shall not be used by Blue Source in any way that might mislead the reader about the verification status of the organization. The GHD mark can only be used in relation to the specific time period verified by GHD.

The date and version of this Verification Report are provided on the front cover of the Report.

2.10 Level of Assurance and Verification Summary

GHD has conducted the verification to a reasonable level of assurance. The verification statement is worded in a manner to meet the requirements set forth in ISO 14064-3.

Table 2.1 presents the baseline and project emissions and emission reductions claimed for the Reporting Period.

Table 2.1 Emission Reductions by Source

Emission Source Emission Reductions (tonnes CO2e)

May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2020

B6: Material Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction 43,915 Baseline Emissions 43,915 P6: Processing and Composting Facility Operation 1,542 P16: Fuel Extraction and Processing 234


Table 2.1 Emission Reductions by Source

Emission Source Emission Reductions (tonnes CO2e)

May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2020

P7: Processing and Composting Facility Operation –Material Treatment 616 P14: Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction 42 Project Emissions 2,434 Net GHG Emission Reductions 41,480

Further, the net GHG emission reductions generated per unique vintage year are detailed below:

• 2016: 2,296 tCO2e

• 2017: 6,737 tCO2e

• 2018: 10,011 tCO2e

• 2019: 11,560 tCO2e

• 2020: 10,878 tCO2e

2.11 Roles and Responsibilities

Lead Verifier – Erik Martinez – Mr. Martinez led the verification and was responsible for developing the verification plan. Mr. Martinez reviewed the risk assessment, and reviewed raw data, data management procedures, and draft findings. Mr. Martinez prepared and signed the verification statement and verification report.

Verifier – Filzah Nasir, M.A.Sc. – Ms. Nasir assisted with the development and revisions of the verification plan and sampling plan, assisted with the development of the risk assessment, reviewed raw data, reviewed management of data quality and assisted with preparing draft findings.

Peer Reviewer – Jenn Packer, P.Eng. – Ms. Packer completed a peer review of the verification plan, risk assessment and verification report and findings.

2.11.1 Qualifications

Lead Verifier – Erik Martinez, P. Eng.

Erik is a licensed air quality engineer in Ontario with over 15 years of experience in atmospheric science, air dispersion modelling, emission inventories, and environmental compliance. Erik has a Bachelor of Applied Science in Environmental Engineering - Chemical Specialization from the University of Waterloo.

Erik has worked on numerous projects involving the measurement, estimation, and abatement of emissions. Erik has extensive experience preparing emissions inventories, and Facility GHG assessments in accordance with the ISO protocols and reporting requirements under O. Reg. 390/18. Erik has acted as the lead verifier/validator on numerous GHG assessments in Ontario and Alberta, has completed peer reviews, and acted as the Technical Expert for compliance


reports, emission reduction projects and offsets under the OCE TargetGHG Program, GreenON Industries, and the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.

Verifier – Filzah Nasir, M.A.Sc.

Filzah has a Masters in Environmental Engineering which specialized in developing an emissions inventory and quantifying emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air contaminants. Filzah has completed GHG verifications as a verifier for multiple jurisdictions including Ontario, Alberta, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan. Filzah has extensive experience conducting GHG verifications for a range of sectors including electricity generation, manufacturing, iron and steel production, oil and gas production, and petroleum refining.

In addition to GHG verifications, Filzah has experience with analysis and calculation of emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air contaminants from the implementation of climate change mitigation projects as well conducting GHG verifications for voluntary projects under the American Carbon Registry and the Ontario Centres of Validation.

Peer Reviewer – Jenn Packer

Jennifer is a Professional Engineer in Alberta and Ontario, with a Master's of Science degree in Sustainable Energy Development from the University of Calgary. Jennifer is based out of our Waterloo office and has over eight years of experience related to GHG emissions reporting and verification. Her experience as a lead verifier, peer reviewer, and technical expert includes verifications under the CleanProjects ™ Registry, Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (compliance and offset projects), Ontario Regulation 143, and the Clean Development Mechanism.

Jennifer has been involved in over 60 compliance and offset verifications, applying the ISO-14064 standard including landfill gas recovery, anaerobic digestion, biomass combustion, acid gas injection, wind power generation, composting facilities, coal and natural gas power generation, Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), open pit mining oil sands, heavy oil upgrading, refining and chemical processing, and natural gas processing. Jennifer has direct experience with the verification of emissions reductions projects applying the Quantification Protocol for Diversion of Biomass to Energy from Biomass Combustion Facilities including lead verifier for: Prism Farms, Pyramid Farms, C&B Farms, and the Biomass-to-Energy Offset Project Aggregation and associate verifier for the verification of Dapp Power biomass to energy.

Additionally, Jennifer has developed landfill gas generation potential projections using third order decay modeling (Scholl Canyon) and evaluation of collation potential for numerous landfill gas combustion projects. As lead author for a number of landfill gas utilization potential studies, Jennifer has extensive experience evaluating new and commercial technologies for biogas considering the site generation capacity, technology suitability and economics to provide a recommended utilization option.

2.11.2 Contact Details

Contact details for relevant Project contacts are provided in the table in Section 1.0.


3. Verification Criteria

3.1 Verification Standards

GHD has applied ISO 14064-3 as the standard for this verification.

3.2 Verification Criteria

GHD has applied the following criteria for this verification:

• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals, ISO, March 2006 (ISO 14064-1).

• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements, ISO, March 2006 (ISO 14064-2).

• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 3: Specification with guidance for the greenhouse gas assertions, ISO, March 2006 (ISO 14064-3).

• Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects (Version 1.1) (Protocol), Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD), 2008.

• Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook (Version 1.0) (Handbook), AESRD, 2015.

• Data supporting the GHG calculations have sufficient controls to be considered fair and accurate without material discrepancy.

• Calculations supporting the GHG assertion are sufficiently accurate to be considered fair and accurate and without material discrepancy.

• There are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG Project and the resulting emission reductions or removals.

3.3 Verification Scope

The following sections describe the scope of the Verification.

3.3.1 Project Understanding

The Facility processes source separated organic waste into compost through an aerobic GORE® cover aerated static pile process. Waste is collected from the local municipalities in the Fraser River Valley, including Abbotsford.

The conditions prior to the implementation of the project consist of organic waste disposal in landfill, where it would decompose anaerobically and produce methane (CH4). This represents the baseline scenario. The project achieves GHG emission reductions through aerobic composting of the organic waste, thereby reducing methane generation in the landfill under the baseline.


Under the project scenario, the following Facility emission sources are associated with organic waste processing during composting:

• P6 – Processing and Composting Facility Operation

• P16 – Fuel Extraction / Processing

• P7 – Material Treatment

• P14 – Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction

• B6 – Material Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction Baseline SSR Description B6 - Decomposition of Biomass and Methane Collection/ Destruction

Emissions from the disposal & decomposition of biomass in the absence of the Project; calculated based on the mass of biomass used during the reporting period using a first-order decay function with default and site-specific input parameters.

Project SSR Description P6 – Processing and Composting Facility Operation

Emissions associated with the operation of the Facility, including diesel and electricity consumption. Calculated based on 3rd party invoices.

P16 – Fuel Extraction / Processing

Emissions from the extraction, production, refining of fossil fuels used in the project condition. Calculated based on published emission factors for fuel extraction/processing and project fuel consumption.

P7 – Material Treatment

Composting emissions associated with the treatment of material on-site. Calculated based on the organics received and a diversion rate (i.e., a portion of the waste that would have been diverted from landfill regardless of the Project), and published emission factors.

P14 – Material Decomposition and Methane Collection/Destruction

Waste residue from the screening process is sent to a nearby landfill. Emissions are based on published emissions factors and the mass of organics in the waste residue that will undergo decomposition. This quantity is calculated based on weigh scale tickets for the mass of the residue sent off-site.

GHD will assess the following GHG emission source compounds associated with the above SSRs:

• Carbon dioxide (CO2)

• Methane (CH4)

• Nitrous Oxide (N2O)

3.3.2 Protocol


It is noted that GHD identified the Compliance Protocol currently being applied to the project is outdated (December 2008) as it has been replaced by the "Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting" Version 3.0 dated September 7, 2018. Blue Source has clarified that Version 1.1 of the protocol is used in order to maintain methodological consistency with previous submissions, in


accordance with ISO 14064-2 Section A.2.4. Where external methods such as the First Order Decay (FOD) model or externally sourced emission factors are used if sufficient justification is provided and the approach is conservative or increases accuracy of the calculations. Use of the FOD model is also consistent with version 3.0 of the Composting Protocol. Therefore, Version 1.1 of the Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting remains relevant for the Net Zero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility Offset Project.

3.3.3 Geographical and Operational Boundaries


Net Zero Waste Inc. 5050 Gladwin Road Abbotsford, BC V4X 1X8 Latitude: 49.0942 Longitude: -122.3139

3.3.4 Reporting Period

The reporting period is between May 1, 2016 and October 31, 2020.

3.4 Materiality

Quantitative materiality for this verification is set at plus or minus 5 percent of the reported emissions. An individual error, omission, misstatement or the aggregate effect of discrete errors, omissions, or misstatements may be considered material.

4. Verification Plan

GHD developed a Verification Plan including a Sampling Plan based on a review of the data provided. GHD's Verification Plan was revised, as required, throughout the course of the verification to address questions or initial concerns with data originally provided. The Verification Plan is provided in Attachment B.

4.1 Assessment of Risk and Magnitude of Potential Errors, Omissions or Misrepresentations

Based on GHD's review of the Facility operations, GHD prepared Table 4.1, which summarizes the potential risk and magnitude of potential errors, omissions, or misrepresentations.


Table 4.1 Risk Assessment

Potential Risk Area

Percentage of Emissions (%)

Risk Type (Inherent, Control, Detection)

Risk Level (High, Medium, Low)

Justification

Baseline Scenario B6: Material Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction

100% of BE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations was low and tonnages were tracked by weigh scale, which would allow for a low inherent risk.

Control Medium Emissions were based on a provincial average landfill gas capture rate, resulting in a medium control risk.

Detection Medium The allowable detection risk was high/medium; however, GHD reviewed all weigh scale data available, lowering the detection risk to medium.

Project Scenario P6: Processing and Composting Facility Operation – Electricity Consumption

63% of PE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations was low. Control Low Emissions were based on

consumption from 3rd party invoices providing for low control risk.

Detection Low GHD reviewed all electricity invoices for the reporting period, allowing for a low detection risk.

P6: Processing and Composting Facility Operation – Diesel Consumption

Inherent Low Complexity of calculations was low. Control Medium Emissions were based on fuel

delivery, which does not accurately reflect consumption. Therefore the control risk was set to medium, as there was a potential for the consumption quantity to be different than the delivered quantity.

Detection Medium/ Low

The allowable detection risk was high; however, GHD reviewed all data available, lowering the detection risk.

P16: Fuel Extraction and Processing – Diesel Fuel

10% of PE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations was low. Control Medium Emissions were based on fuel

delivery, which does not accurately reflect consumption. Therefore the control risk was set to medium, as there was a potential for the consumption quantity to be different than the delivered quantity.


The allowable detection risk was high; however, GHD reviewed all


Potential Risk Area




Justification

data available, lowering the detection risk.

P7: Material Treatment

25% of PE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations was low and tonnages were tracked by weigh scale, which allow for a low inherent risk.

Control Low Emissions were based on prescribed emission factors.

Detection Medium The allowable detection risk was high; however, GHD reviewed all weigh scale data available, lowering the detection risk.

P14: Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction

2% of PE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations was low and tonnages were tracked by weigh scale, which would allow for a low inherent risk.

Control Low Emissions were based on prescribed emission factors.

Detection Medium The allowable detection risk was high; however, GHD reviewed all weigh scale data available, lowering the detection risk.

General Data Management Systems

N/A Inherent Medium Moderate complexity in data management, given numerous sources of data likely collected by multiple employees.

Control Medium/ Low

Data sources are predominantly weigh scale data and invoices used for accounting, however the numerous data sources increased the control risk.


GHD reviewed all data available to reduce the risk that a material error went undetected.

4.2 Final Sampling Plan

GHD developed a Sampling Plan based on GHD's review of the verification criteria. GHD's Sampling Plans are dynamic and the Sampling Plan was revised, as required, throughout the course of the verification.


Table 4.2 summarizes the final sampling plan of material sources.

Table 4.2 Sample Plan

Data/Information Description


Data/Information Source

Collection Frequency

Sample size/Action

Baseline Emissions (BE) B6: Material Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction

100% of BE • Waste feedstock tonnages from scale records

• Percentage leaf and yard waste

Daily Daily scale tonnage records for the reporting period

Project Emissions (PE) P6: Processing and Composting Facility Operation – Electricity Consumption

63% of PE

• Third party electricity invoices

Monthly All invoices for reporting period

• Source of Emission factors

One-time National Inventory Report (Environment Canada 2020)


• Fuel purchases from fleet records and invoices

Multiple Total purchased fuel records for reporting period


One-time National Inventory Report (Environment Canada 2020)

P16: Fuel Extraction and Processing – Diesel Fuel

10% of PE

• Fuel purchases from fleet records and invoices

Multiple Total purchased fuel records for reporting period

• Source of emission factors

One time Carbon Offset Emission Factor Handbook (AESRD, 2015)

P7: Material Treatment

25% of PE • Organics feedstock tonnages from scale records

Daily Daily scale tonnage records for the reporting period

P14: Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction

2% of PE • Residuals bin tonnages from scale records

As Received

Roll-off bins are collected monthly. Scale tonnage records for residuals for the reporting period


Table 4.2 Sample Plan





Sample size/Action

General Operations Overview

N/A • Reviewed facility operations and emission sources

N/A N/A

Back up of data acquisition systems

N/A • General Data Management System

• Document retention policy

N/A Reviewed frequency of data backup and interviewed site personnel

4.3 Verification Procedures

GHD used the verification procedures detailed in the Verification Plan to assess the following:

• Accuracy and completeness of annual GHG emissions

• Uncertainty of external data sources used

• Emission assumptions

• Accuracy of emission calculations

• Potential magnitude of errors and omissions

To sustain a risk-based assessment, the GHD Project Team identified and determined risks related to GHG sink and source emissions during both the desk reviews and the follow-up interviews. The GHD Project Team particularly focused on the accuracy and completeness of provided information. The components of the document review and follow-up interviews are detailed below.

4.4 Methodologies Used to Assess/Verify Emissions Data

GHD used the verification procedures detailed in the Verification Plan to assess the following:

• Document Review:

- Review of data and information to confirm the correctness and completeness of presented information

- Cross-checks between information provided in the methodology and information from independent background investigations

- Determine sensitivity and magnitude analysis for parameters that may be the largest sources of error

• Follow-up Interviews:

- Via video-conferencing (Remote Site Assessment)

- Via telephone

- Via email


• Interviews with Facility personnel to:

- Cross-check information provided

- Test the correctness of critical formulae and calculations

- Review data management and recording procedures

The document review shall establish to what degree the presented documentation meets the verification standards and criteria.

The GHD Project Team's document review during the verification process shall comprise, but not be limited to, an evaluation of whether or not:

• The documentation's completeness and comprehensiveness and whether the structure and verification criteria and its associated guidance were followed.

• The monitoring methodologies are justified and appropriate for the specific facility.

• The assumptions for the emission calculation are conservative and appropriate.

• The reporting methodology clearly identifies the frequency of and responsibility and authority for monitoring, measurement, and data recording activities and sufficiently describes quality control/quality assurance/management control procedures.

4.5 Verification Schedule

The following details the schedule of GHD's verification, identifying the dates of key tasks and completion of major milestones:

• Project award and kick-off call – December 9, 2020

• Initial document request – December 9, 2020

• Issue Verification Plan – January 8, 2021

• Site Visit – January 22, 2021

• Submit issues log to Blue Source and opportunity for Blue Source to address issues and, if required, revise project report(s) – February 19, 2021, and as-needed throughout the verification

• Issue Draft Verification Report and Statement – March 12, 2021

• Issue Final Verification Report – March 12, 2021

4.6 Working Papers

Detailed working papers are available upon request.

4.7 Verification Findings

GHD has reviewed the provided documents and did not find any material discrepancies. GHD has concluded that the reporting period assertion emission reduction has been compiled consistent with the requirements of verification criteria. GHD has cross-checked the following:

• GHD reviewed the project calculations against the Project Report.


• GHD noted the following after reviewing Blue Source's quantification methodology and calculations:

- The avoided landfill mass did not include an assumed diversion rate as documented in the OPR. Blue Source revised the calculations and corrected the issue.

- One of the sources of SSO was omitted from the total avoided landfill mass. Blue Source revised the calculations and corrected the issue.

- The aerobic composting material mass did not include an assumed diversion rate as documented in the OPR. Blue Source revised the calculations and corrected the issue.

• GHD recalculated the avoided baseline emissions and project emissions from sampling data for the reporting period and did not identify any discrepancies.

GHD’s findings associated with the verification of the Project are detailed in Attachment A.

4.8 Verification Records

Records obtained or created during the verification are maintained indefinitely.

4.9 Facts Discovered after Verification

Not currently applicable.

5. Verification Statement

GHD directs this Verification Report and Statement to Blue Source. The objective of this Project was for GHD (as the third-party) to undertake a GHG verification of the Project to a reasonable level of assurance regarding the NZW Composting Activities Performed at the Abbotsford Composting Facility for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions the Project Report, Final Report, February 2021. The GHG verification covers the reporting period of May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2020, with the asserted emission reduction (or removal enhancement) of 41,480 tCO2e, broken down by applicable GHGs as follows:

• CO2: -1,606 tCO2e

• CH4: 43,649 tCO2e

• N2O: -552 tCO2e

• CO2e: -10 tCO2e

• Total Net GHG Emission Reductions: 41,480 tCO2e

Further, the net GHG emission reductions generated per unique vintage year are detailed below:

• 2016: 2,296 tCO2e

• 2017: 6,737 tCO2e

• 2018: 10,011 tCO2e

• 2019: 11,560 tCO2e


• 2020: 10,878 tCO2e

Applicable Verification Standards and Criteria

GHD has applied ISO 14064-3 as the standard for this verification.

GHD has applied the following criteria for this verification:

• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals, ISO, March 2006 (ISO 14064-1).

• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements, ISO, March 2006 (ISO 14064-2).

• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 3: Specification with guidance for the greenhouse gas assertions, ISO, March 2006 (ISO 14064-3).


• Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook (Version 1.0) (Handbook), AESRD, 2015.

Conclusion

GHD’s responsibility is to express a conclusion on the GHG verification based on the Project Report and associated evidence we have obtained compared to the description of the Project in the Project Plan. The verification report includes the techniques and processes used to test the GHG information and associated assertions, along with any additional information used in verification. GHD identified through the verification that the Project contains some deviations from the applicable Protocol. GHD determined that these deviations are appropriate, accurate, conservative, and representative of the Project operations and associated monitoring.

Verification Statement Conclusion: Positive

In GHD’s opinion, the greenhouse gas emission reductions and removal enhancements stated in the Project Report for the period to May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2020 (inclusive) are a fair and reasonable representation of the project's GHG emission reductions in accordance with the verification standard, criteria, and the NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility Offset Project – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Report, Final Report, February 2021, in all material respects.

This independent reasonable verification statement is intended for Blue Source and the CSA GHG CleanProjects® Registry.

GHD Limited

Lead Verifier: Erik Martinez

Date: March 12, 2021


6. Conflict of Interest Review

Prior to commencing the work, GHD conducted an internal conflict of interest (COI) check to determine the potential for a COI in providing verification services to Blue Source for the Project. No COI was identified within GHD. Table 6.1 presents the checklist that GHD used to assess COI and documents the results of the COI review process, in accordance with ISO 14064-3 and CSA GHG Clean Projects Registry requirements.

In the event that a COI is identified, GHD has internal procedures for mitigating the conflict(s), whether actual or perceived, which include the development of a mitigation plan and project team changes, as required, as well as GHG Assurance Services Manager and Principal review and approval processes. The verification project team members may be isolated from the conflicting staff within the company through office location, or other information barriers within an office.

Table 6.1 COI Review Checklist

COI Requirement Yes No Details of GHD’s Review

Independence Remain independent of the activity being verified, and free from bias and conflict of interest. Maintain objectivity throughout the verification to ensure that the findings and conclusions will be based on objective evidence generated during the verification.

GHD assessed COI at the outset of the verification through internal procedures, as per ISO 14064 and internal ISO9001 Quality System requirements. GHD’s peer reviewer for the Project was not involved in verification activities and provided an independent assessment and opinion of the verification process, findings, and statement.

Ethical conduct Demonstrate ethical conduct through trust, integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the verification process.

GHD maintained ethical conduct throughout the verification process, in accordance with our professional standards and client service model.

Fair presentation Reflect truthfully and accurately verification activities, findings, conclusions and reports. Report significant obstacles encountered during the verification process, as well as unresolved, diverging opinions among verifiers, the responsible party and the client.

GHD’s verification report is a truthful representation of the verification activities, findings, and statement conducted for the Project. GHD documented all findings observed throughout the course of the verification in the Issues Log, which is provided as Table 1.

Due professional care Exercise due professional care and judgment in accordance with the importance of the task performed and the confidence placed by clients and intended users. Have the necessary skills and competences to undertake the verification.

GHD maintains high standards of quality and professional judgement through our ISO 9001 certified Quality System. In accordance with ISO 14064, GHD reviews the competencies of GHG Assurance Services team members annually, and an assessment of competency requirements of project team members are made at the outset of all verification activities.


7. Limitation of Liability

Because of the inherent limitations in any internal control structure, it is possible that fraud, error, ornon-compliance with laws and regulations may occur and not be detected. Further, the verificationwas not designed to detect all weakness or errors in internal controls so far as they relate to therequirements set out above, as the verification has not been performed continuously throughout theperiod, and the procedures performed on the relevant internal controls were on a test basis. Anyprojection of the evaluation of control procedures to future periods is subject to the risk that theprocedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree ofcompliance with them may deteriorate.

The verification opinion expressed in this report has been formed on the above basis.

GHD's review of the Emissions Report claimed included only the information discussed above. Whilethe review included observation of the systems used for determination of the claimed EmissionsReport, GHD did not conduct any direct field measurements and has relied on the primarymeasurement data and records provided by Blue Source and NZW as being reliable and accurate.No other information was provided to GHD or incorporated into this review. GHD assumes noresponsibility or liability for the information with which it has been provided by others.

The information and opinions rendered in this report are exclusively for use by Blue Source. GHDwill not distribute or publish this report without Blue Source's consent except as required by law orcourt order. The information and opinions expressed in this report are given in response to a limitedassignment and should only be evaluated and implemented in connection with that assignment.GHD accepts responsibility for the competent performance of its duties in executing the assignmentand preparing this report in accordance with the normal standards of the profession, but disclaimsany responsibility for consequential damages.

All of Which is Respectfully Submitted,

GHD

Erik Martinez, Lead Verifier

Jennifer Packer, Peer Reviewer

Table 1

Issues Log AIM Composting Facility GHG Verification

Blue Source Canada

Page 1 of 1

Version No. Issue Date Response DateVersion 1 February 24, 2021 February 24, 2021

March 5, 2021

Issue No. Issues Log Response Status

1

Please confirm why the Chilliwack SSO was omitted from the 2020 "Avoided Landfill Mass" calculation.

Corrected

Resolved

2Please clarify why the "Avoided Landfill Mass (B6)" was not multiplied by the 20% diversion rate. Corrected

Resolved

3

Please clarify why the "Aerobic Composting Material Mass (P7)" was not multiplied by the 20% diversion rate.

Corrected

Resolved

4Please provide a sample of representative feedstock weigh scale tickets.

Provided in e-mailResolved

5

Please confirm that Public Yard Waste was accepted and landfilled at Cache Creek, Bailey and Vancouver landfills prior to the project commencement in January 2013.

Given that Public Yard Waste covers yard waste from the greater public around NZW, it is a fair assumption that these three landfills would have accepted the yard waste prior to January 2013. Resolved

GHD 11219983 (8)

GHD | Verification Report | 11219983 (8)

Appendices


Appendix A NetZero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility

Offset Project, Final Report, February 2021

February 2021 Final Report

Prepared By: Blue Source Canada ULC (Authorized Project Contact) 1605 – 840 7th Ave SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G2 T: (403) 262-3026 www.bluesource.com

NZW_OPR_02232021v1.0.docx

GHG Report – Net Zero Waste Abbotsford Composting Facility Project February 2021

Prepared by Bluesource Canada ii

1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Purpose / Objective .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Expected Lifetime of Project ......................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Type of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduced ............................................................................... 2

1.4 Location ......................................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Quantification Flexibility Mechanisms .......................................................................................... 3

1.6 Other Methodology Changes ........................................................................................................ 3

1.7 Conditions prior to project initiation ............................................................................................ 4

1.8 Description of how GHG Reductions are achieved ....................................................................... 5

1.9 Project technologies, services, and expected level of activity ...................................................... 5

1.10 Total GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements ...................................................... 8

2. Review of Project Consistency with ISO-14064 Part 2 Principles ................................................... 9

2.1 Relevance ...................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Completeness ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.3 Consistency ................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Accuracy ...................................................................................................................................... 10

2.5 Transparency ............................................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Conservativeness ........................................................................................................................ 10

3. Offset Project Eligibility .............................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Project Area Eligibility ................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Identification of risks ................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Roles and responsibilities ............................................................................................................ 12

3.4 Reporting period ......................................................................................................................... 12

3.5 Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment ........................................................................ 12

3.6 Stakeholder Consultations .......................................................................................................... 12

3.7 Detailed Chronological Plan ........................................................................................................ 12

4 Inventory of Sources and Sinks ................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Quantification of estimated GHG emissions/removals .............................................................. 16

4.1.1 Quantification of sources and sinks .................................................................................... 17


Prepared by Bluesource Canada iii

4.1.2 List of Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 22

5. Selection and Justification of the Baseline Scenario .................................................................... 23

6. Quantification Methodology ...................................................................................................... 26

6.1 Baseline Emissions Quantification Methodology ....................................................................... 26

6.2 Project Emissions Quantification Methodology ......................................................................... 26

7. Monitoring Plan ......................................................................................................................... 27

8 Data Information Management System and Records .................................................................. 31

8.1 Data Management and QA/QC at the NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility ............................ 31

8.2 Data Management and QA/QC at Bluesource ............................................................................ 31

8.2.1 Back-up Procedures at Bluesource ..................................................................................... 32

8.2.2 Document Retention Policy at Bluesource ......................................................................... 32

9 Reporting and Verification Details .............................................................................................. 32

10 Statement of Senior Review ....................................................................................................... 32

11 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................ 33

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Aerial view of NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility ..................................................................... 2 Figure 2: NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility in Abbotsford, BC .............................................................. 3 Figure 3: Pre-project (baseline) and Project condition ................................................................................ 5 Figure 4: NZW Abbotsford Facility Process Flow Diagram ............................................................................ 7 Figure 5: Abbotsford In-Building GORE Design ............................................................................................. 7 Figure 6: GORE Cover System Components .................................................................................................. 8 Figure 6. Project Element Life Cycle Diagram ............................................................................................. 14 Figure 7. Baseline Element Life Cycle Diagram ........................................................................................... 15

Table 1: Annual and Total GHG Emission Reductions for the Project .......................................................... 8 Table 2. Inclusion and Exclusion of Sources, Sinks and Removals of GHG emissions, extracted from the Protocol ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 3. Emission Factors used in the Project ............................................................................................ 20 Table 4. Global Warming Potential, 2007 IPCC ........................................................................................... 21 Table 5. Landfill Design parameters ............................................................................................................ 21 Table 6. List of Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 22 Table 7. Barriers Assessment of Baseline Alternative Scenarios ................................................................ 23 Table 8. Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................................................. 29


Prepared by Bluesource Canada 1

1. Introduction The Net Zero Waste Inc. (‘NZW’) City of Abbotsford Composting Facility is an aerobic composting project located in Abbotsford, British Columbia (‘the Project’). The Project’s feedstock is mainly SSO consisting of residential food and yard waste, commercial waste, and agricultural waste from the City of Abbotsford, and the surrounding region. The Project is one of many composting facilities owned and operated by NZW.

The opportunity for generating carbon offsets with the Project arises from the direct reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the avoidance of methane emitted from the decomposition of organic wastes in landfills. The credits created from this Project are registered on the CSA Clean Projects Registry where they will be verified and serialized as VERRs (verified emission reductions/removals). For this reporting period, covering May 1, 2016 – October 31, 2020, the Project created 41,480 tonnes of CO2e reductions.

Methane is a powerful GHG with a 100-year global warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide and is passively emitted from the disposal of waste biomass in landfills or other oxygen-free conditions where the organic waste undergoes anaerobic decomposition. The diversion of organic waste away from an anaerobic storage site, such as a landfill, to a composting facility avoids the formation of excess methane gas by creating aerobic conditions by which the waste undergoes decomposition. The diversion of waste for composting also creates the added benefit of reducing the spatial stresses on near capacity landfills.

NZW is an expert in the design and operation of organics processing facilities. NZW works with several municipal partners to provide sustainable community waste management solutions. NZW operates multiple compost facilities utilizing the GORE Cover System technology throughout British Columbia.

The Project facility in Abbotsford is responsible for the treatment of organic wastes for Abbotsford, Chilliwack, and Coquitlam. The Project also provides a sustainable processing option for commercial and agricultural wastes within the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and Greater Vancouver area, BC. The composting process utilizes a GORE Cover system with secondary biological filter exhaust and in-door design. The GORE Cover is based on membrane laminate technology, which acts to trap odors and retain heat and moisture for optimal biological activity.0F

1

1.1 Project Purpose / Objective The Project’s purpose is to create valuable compost products for horticultural and agricultural needs from the composting of residential source separated organics (SSO).

1 Net Zero Waste (NZW). 2012. GORE Cover System: How it Works? Retrieved from: http://www.netzerowaste.com/GORE-cover/

http://www.netzerowaste.com/gore-cover/



Primary greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions are achieved through the diversion of waste and resulting avoidance of methane (CH4), a potent GHG that would have been generated at landfills through anaerobic degradation of the municipal solid waste (MSW).

1.2 Expected Lifetime of Project The GORETM Cover System is expected to have approximately a 20-year life span.

1.3 Type of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduced The Project involves emission sources and sinks that concern the following greenhouse gas species:

1) Carbon dioxide; 2) Methane; and 3) Nitrous oxide.

1.4 Location The Project is located in Abbotsford, British Columbia at 5050 Gladwin Road, V4X 1X8

Latitude: 49° 5’ 38.238’’ N;

Longitude: 122° 18’ 53.3916’’ W

Figure 1 provides an aerial view of NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility, and Figure 2 shows its location within the city of Abbotsford.

Figure 1: Aerial view of NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility



Figure 2: NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility in Abbotsford, BC

1.5 Quantification Flexibility Mechanisms No flexibility mechanisms have been used in this reporting period.

1.6 Other Methodology Changes A number of improvements have been made to the Project to increase the accuracy and rigour since the original reporting period. These changes have been noted in this section for transparency.

In 2014 the 100-year global warming potentials were updated to reflect the latest published values by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and used in Canada’s National Inventory Report. This impacted the GHG assertion significantly due to the increase in the 100-year GWP for methane from 21 to 25 and the fact that the Project’s GHG emission reductions are based solely on avoided methane from landfilling.

For the 2015 reporting period, the landfill avoidance methodology was updated to align with current best practices in greenhouse gas accounting and the latest calculation methodology accepted by the Alberta Emission Offset System (AEOS). This method can be found in the Alberta Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, (Version 1.0, March 2015) and employs the first order decay Scholl-Canyon Model.

For this reporting period, fossil fuel and electricity consumption, and amount of residual waste landfilled for 2016-2018 were obtained using a back calculation method. Costs expended for these items for 2016-2018 were used with the average cost per quantity in 2019-2020 to estimate 2016-2018 quantities. Furthermore, emission factors have been updated to reference most recently available sources. With



respect to the Project as a whole, NZW successfully secured partnerships with municipalities surrounding Abbotsford that allowed the Project to accept more SSO waste in average during this reporting period than the previous reporting period.

1.7 Conditions prior to project initiation Prior to the start-up of the Project, the organic waste used by the Project would have been sent for disposal at landfills. The majority of the organic waste is sourced from the City of Abbotsford; Abbotsford’s solid waste is sent to its Matsqui Transfer Station for transport to the Cache Creek Landfill, located in Cache Creek, BC. The Cache Creek Landfill is anticipated to close at the end of 2016, at which time Abbotsford will need to find a new solution for its solid waste disposal1F

2. The remaining commercial and agricultural waste comes from the FVRD and Greater Vancouver area, specifically from the communities of Chilliwack, Coquitlam, Langley, Vancouver, New Westminster and Surrey, BC. Chilliwack’s solid waste disposal is in the Bailey Sanitary Landfill located near Chilliwack. The remaining communities generally rely on Metro Vancouver transfer stations for eventual disposal into the Vancouver Landfill located in Delta, BC. The three landfills used for the baseline scenario will therefore be the Cache Creek Landfill, the Bailey Sanitary Landfill and the Vancouver Landfill. All three landfills are located in BC and have landfill gas (LFG) management systems in place with different levels of LFG capture efficiency estimated.

The creation of a market for organic waste has led to local initiatives to separate and collect residential SSO through curbside collection and commercial operations. As such, had the Project not been initiated by NZW, the SSO would have decomposed anaerobically in a landfill to form CH4 emissions. However, according to the Protocol, it is required to assume a portion of the waste would have been diverted from landfill regardless of the Project specific factors, in order to account for the adoption of composting practices provincially. The suggested value for this pre-existing diversion rate is 20%, which is applied for the Project’s offset volume calculations.

Figure 3 below illustrates the organic waste uses before and after the implementation of the Project.

2 Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD). 2014. Solid Waste Management Plan Update 2015-2025. Retrieved from: http://www.fvrd.ca/assets/Services/Documents/FVRD%20SWMP%20Update%202015-2025.pdf

http://www.fvrd.ca/assets/Services/Documents/FVRD%20SWMP%20Update%202015-2025.pdf



Figure 3: Pre-project (baseline) and Project condition

1.8 Description of how GHG Reductions are achieved The Project results in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through the avoidance of methane generated from anaerobic decomposition of the organic waste at a landfill.

Currently, the organic waste used in NZW’s facility is supplied from residential, commercial and agricultural waste from Abbotsford and surrounding regions. If NZW had not provided a market value for this organic waste it would not have been diverted from landfill and would have undergone anaerobic decomposition.

1.9 Project technologies, services, and expected level of activity The project utilizes an in-vessel GORETM Cover System for the treatment of organic waste, which is based on membrane laminate technology. The GORE system is a well-established and robust technology originally developed in Europe. The simple design provides flexibility to expand capacity as long as space is available onsite. In 2015, over 13,000 tonnes of organic waste were composted at the Abbotsford facility. The Project uses an integrated system that includes the GORE Cover, in-floor aeration and aeration blowers, temperature and oxygen sensors, controllers, computers, and cover handling systems. The receiving and pre-treatment of waste and the primary composting process occur indoors equipped with a biological filter for the process air. The Project process flow diagram is shown in Figure 4 and the In-Building GORE design system is shown in Figure 5.

The Project consists of three phases, overall composting and curing processes taking approximately 6-8 weeks. Once the waste is initially received it goes through a pre-treatment process involving visual inspection, mixing and shredding, and metal removal using a magnetic belt prior to being piled into a designated pile. A standard pile is 8m wide at the base, 50m long and approximately 3-3.5m in height. Once the pile is built it is covered with a GORE Cover, temperature and oxygen levels are monitored and aeration is controlled for Phase 1. Phase 1 is the High Rate Active Composting stage that generally lasts 3-4 weeks. Following Phase 1, the GORE Cover is removed and the compost is moved to the Phase 2 outdoor area and covered. Phase 2 is the Maturation Curing Composting stage that generally lasts for 3-4 weeks.

80% of Residential

Organic Waste

Landfill

Anaerobic Decomposition

Pre-Project Condition

Residential Organic Waste

Sorting and Separation of

Organic Waste

Project Condition

Third Party delivery of SSO

SSO Decomposition at NZW Facility

Composting



Following this, the compost is sufficiently stable and is moved into piles (may be covered or uncovered) for Phase 3, the Finishing stage, lasting approximately 2 weeks.2F

3 Figure 6 illustrates the components of an integrated GORE Cover System.

The GORE system is a positive aerated static pile composting system which ensures even distribution of air and requires low energy for aeration requirements. Aeration occurs through in-floor aeration trenches underlying the pile which operate intermittently. Aeration fans are controlled by a central computer which gathers data from temperature and oxygen sensors within the piles. The oxygen levels are monitored in combination with temperature, and air flow is controlled to maintain oxygen levels between 5-18% as required.

The GORE Cover System provides effective odor control with a reduction of up to 97% in odor concentrations; the Project has never received an odor complaint from the surrounding community. The GORE Cover maintains heat and moisture within the pile for optimal composting conditions while offering weatherproofing protection. The Project also includes a leachate collection system with onsite leachate collection tanks.

The Project produces ‘Class A Compost’ according to the requirements under BC’s Organic Matter Recycling Regulation.3F

4 The compost produced is listed with the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) and the Pacific Agricultural Certification Society (PACS) for use with certified organic farming. The soil produced at the Project is used by landscapers, organic farms and the public.

3 W.L. GORE & Associates. 2014. The GORE Cover System: Membrane Covered Positive ASP Composting Technology. Retrieved from: http://astoriaorganics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/GORE-Cover-Technolgy-Introduction.pdf

4 BC Regulation 18/2002. Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Environmental Management Act; Public Health Act. Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/18_2002#division_d2e1397

http://astoriaorganics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Gore-Cover-Technolgy-Introduction.pdf

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/18_2002#division_d2e1397



Figure 4: NZW Abbotsford Facility Process Flow Diagram

Figure 5: Abbotsford In-Building GORE Design4F

5

5 NZW. 2014. Abbotsford’s Organic Program. Retrieved from: http://www.rcbc.ca/files/u7/con2014_ocejo%2Bazevzdo.pdf

http://www.rcbc.ca/files/u7/con2014_ocejo%2Bazevzdo.pdf



Figure 6: GORE Cover System Components

1.10 Total GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements Table 1 below highlights the total GHG emission reductions for the Project separated by vintage year.

Table 1: Annual and Total GHG Emission Reductions for the Project

Vintage Year CO2 (t CO2e) CH4 (t CO2e) N2O (t CO2e) CO2e (t CO2e) Total (t CO2e)

2016 (May 1 – Dec 31)

-116 2,476 -62 -1 2,295

2017 (Jan 1 – Dec 31)

-278 7,199 -181 -2 6,736

2018 (Jan 1 – Dec 31)

-483 10,766 -270 -1 10,010

2019 (Jan 1 – Dec 31)

-357 11,955 -36 -2 11,559

2020 (Jan 1 – Oct 31)

-369 11,250 -1 -2 10,667



TOTAL -1,605 43,648 -552 -10 41,4805F

6

The total GHG emission reductions attributable to the Project for the period May 1, 2019 – October 31, 2020 are 41,480 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

2. Review of Project Consistency with ISO-14064 Part 2 Principles

2.1 Relevance

The methodology referenced in quantifying GHG emission reductions from the Project was developed and approved under the Alberta Emissions Offset System, regulated under the Province’s Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (2003) The Alberta Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects (Version 1.1, December 2008) (the Protocol) was developed following the ISO 14064-2 standard as required under the Alberta offset protocol development process. Additionally, the protocol development process included a multi-step stakeholder review process consisting of a technical expert review, a broader stakeholder review process and a public posting period, all of which were managed by the Government of Alberta. The Alberta Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects (Version 1.1, December 2008) is a well-established quantification protocol applicable to composting projects in Canada.

2.2 Completeness

The Project scope is consistent with the Protocol, with GHG emission reductions arising from the diversion of organic wastes from landfill and the avoidance of the methane emissions that would have occurred from the anaerobic (oxygen-free) decomposition of these residues in landfill quantified under the protocol.

2.3 Consistency

The Protocol used in the quantification of GHG reductions is appropriate for NZW’s Abbotsford Facility. The Aerobic Composing Protocol is consistent in its application of functional equivalence between the baseline and project condition. The quantity of organic waste to be collected and disposed of in the baseline scenario is functionally equivalent to the organic waste being composted in the project scenario. The average landfill gas capture rate is applied consistently between the baseline and project scenarios.

6 The total emission values may not exactly add up when summing the contributions of the totals of each gas component. The offset claim for each year is rounded down.



2.4 Accuracy

Accuracy is ensured by using actual measurement and monitoring wherever possible. Bias and uncertainties in quantification were limited through the use of invoices in combination with using the most relevant electricity consumption emission factor for BC and up to date emission factors from Environment Canada. The landfill gas capture rates are calculated using reasonable assumptions based on available data from the specific landfill operations in BC.

2.5 Transparency

Data collection, monitoring, and quantification approaches are summarized in this report. The annual emission reduction claims are also summarized in this document to support the transparency of the GHG emission reduction assertion. In addition to this report, the quantification tool provided to the verifier, sources all data inputs and therefore all inputs are traceable back to the original source of data.

2.6 Conservativeness

The calculations discussed are considered conservative for a number of reasons. The baseline emissions were calculated using the first order decay Scholl-Canyon Model. This methodology is found in the Alberta Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, (Version 2.0, November 2019) and is more conservative and accurate than the methodology provided in the Protocol. In the baseline scenario, the 20% waste diversion rate from the Protocol was applied, therefore only 80% of the feedstock was considered for the baseline emissions calculation. The project scenario emissions include all applicable sources and sinks from the Protocol. For any parameters with a level of uncertainty, assumptions were made to strive for a balance between conservativeness and accuracy.

3. Offset Project Eligibility The project is eligible to create emission reductions as follows:

The GHG emission reduction assertion was quantified using a quantification methodology considered to be industry best practice guidance (Alberta Environment, December 2008);

The quantification protocol referenced was developed in accordance with the ISO 14064-2 standard, as required by the GHG Clean Projects® Registry;

The GHG assertion has been verified by an independent third-party; The surrounding municipalities are not subject to any regulations requiring composting or any

other use of residential organic waste in British Columbia; The project is not currently subject to any climate change or emissions management legislation in

the province of British Columbia or Federally in Canada; Potential GHG emission reductions generated by this project are not listed on any other GHG

reduction registry in Canada or internationally for the reporting period;



The project has not received any public funds in exchange for GHG emission reductions (e.g. offsets) resulting from this project; and

All environmental attributes generated by the project, including any GHG emission reduction benefits, are owned solely by Net Zero Waste Inc.

While the BC Landfill Gas Management Regulation establishes provincial criteria for LFG capture from MSW landfills, this does not impact the eligibility of the Project to generate offset credits, as the activity of composting diverted landfill waste still remains unregulated. However, this regulation does apply to the baseline emission source as the landfill gas could be required to be captured and collected. The Landfill Gas Management Regulation stipulates that landfills with >100,000 tonnes MSW in place or >10,000 tonnes/year after 2008 are required to conduct a LFG Generation Assessment. Following this, those landfills with >1,000 tonnes methane production in preceding year are required to prepare a LFG Management Design Plan. Landfills over the methane generation threshold of 1,000 tonnes per year are required to install and operate a LFG collection and destruction system by January 1, 2016.6F

7 The regulated landfills in the baseline scenario already have LFG collection systems in place, which began prior to the 2016 requirement, therefore LFG collection will be considered in the baseline scenario throughout the reporting period.

3.1 Project Area Eligibility

Emission reduction activities occur where sector and legal additionality are met. The project applies the same baseline sources and sinks, and the monitoring methodology closely follows the Protocol unless otherwise specified.

3.2 Identification of risks Key market risks related to the Project include both maintaining a high quality, marketable end-product and meeting future regulations. The Project receives SSO from surrounding regions, and therefore the variability of their feedstock depends on the variability of residential waste available at any time. Future regulations in British Columbia could impact the operations of NZW’s Abbotsford facility and their eligibility for offset credits. Going forward, it is important to monitor solid waste related laws and regulations in British Columbia, as these could impact offset eligibility and alternative end-use of residential wastes.

Risks associated with the quantification of emission reductions from the Project include monitoring and testing equipment failure, however these risks are mitigated by regular checks and maintenance by on site staff. Weigh scales are calibrated in accordance with best practices. In addition, compost is sent off-site for lab analysis by an independent third-party to ensure compost quality standards are met. Risks associated with the quantification of GHG emission reductions from this project have also been assessed

7 BC Ministry of the Environment. 2008. Landfill Gas Management Regulation. Retrieved from: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/garbage/landfillgasmanreg.pdf

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/garbage/landfillgasmanreg.pdf



by the third party verifier. The composting of organic waste and resulting diversion of waste from a landfill results in a permanent GHG emission reduction since the composting process cannot be reversed. This project type does not involve biological or geological sequestration-related risks.

3.3 Roles and responsibilities

Project Proponent: Net Zero Waste Inc. Address: 5050 Gladwin Road, Abbotsford, BC, V4X 1X8 Contact: Mateo Ocejo Phone: (604) 868-6075 Email: [email protected]

Authorized Project Contact: Blue Source Canada ULC Address: Suite 1605, 840 7th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G2 Contact: Andre Buiza Phone: (403) 262-3026 ext 437 Fax: (403) 269-3024 Email: [email protected]

Project Verifier: GHD Address: 455 Phillip Street Waterloo, Ontario Contact: Erik Martinez email: [email protected]

3.4 Reporting period

For the purposes of this project report, the carbon dioxide equivalent VERRs are claimed for activities from May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2020.

3.5 Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment

An environmental impact assessment was not required for this project.

3.6 Stakeholder Consultations Stakeholder consultations were not required for this Project. The Alberta Offset System Biomass Quantification Protocol used to quantify VERRs from the Project was developed following a transparent consultation process with industry stakeholders to ensure the relevance, accuracy, conservativeness, consistency, and transparency of the protocol.

3.7 Detailed Chronological Plan

The Project facility started up in January 2013. This report covers the second reporting period of May 1, 2016 to October 31, 2020. Following successful verification and registration of the Project, it will be listed on the CSA CleanProjects Registry. Thereafter, credits will be reported and claimed on an annual basis.



4 Inventory of Sources and Sinks The Protocol contains a list of baseline and project sources, sinks and removals (SSRs) that are deemed applicable for projects developed according to the Protocol. Figure 7 and Figure 8 highlight the SSRs in the project and baseline lifecycle respectively.



Figure 7. Project Element Life Cycle Diagram



Figure 8. Baseline Element Life Cycle Diagram



4.1 Quantification of estimated GHG emissions/removals The following equations serve as the basis for calculating the emission reductions from the comparison of the baseline and project conditions as per the Project Protocol:

Where the following SSRs have been considered applicable to the project:

Emissions Baseline = sum of the emissions under the baseline condition:

1. Emissions Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction = emissions under SS B6 Material Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction

Emissions Project = emissions under the project condition:

1. Emissions Facility Operation = emissions under SS P6 Facility and Composting Facility Operation. 2. Emissions Material Treatment = emissions under SS P7 Material Treatment 3. Emissions Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection = SS P14 Reside Decomposition and Methane

Collection / Destruction 4. Emissions Fuel Extraction / Processing = emissions under SS P16 Fuel Extraction and Processing

No SSRs included in the Protocol’s quantification methodology were excluded from quantification.

Emission Reductions = Emissions Baseline - Emissions Project

Emissions Project = Emissions Facility Operation + Emissions Material Treatment + Emissions Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection + Emissions Fuel Extraction and Processing

Emissions Baseline = Emissions Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction



4.1.1 Quantification of sources and sinks Table 2 below, provides a summary of the SSRs included and excluded from quantification as defined in the Protocol, (Alberta Environment, December 2008). It should be noted that the inclusion/exclusion of SSRs and related justifications are generic and were not modified for this specific project.

Table 2. Inclusion and Exclusion of Sources, Sinks and Removals of GHG emissions, extracted from the Protocol

Identified SS Include or Exclude from

Quantification Justification for Exclusion

P1 Organic Residue Generation Exclude

Excluded as the generation of residues is not impacted by the implementation of the project and as such the baseline and project conditions will be functionally equivalent. B1 Residue Generation

P2 Source Separation Exclude Excluded as this is a manual process with negligible related emissions of greenhouse gases.

P3 Collection and Transportation Exclude

Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B2 Collection and Transportation

P4 Off-Site Residue Processing Exclude Excluded as the emissions from off-site processing are a component of an integrated waste management plan and would therefore be functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario.

P5 Transportation Exclude Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario.

P15 Electricity Usage Exclude

Excluded as these SS’s are not relevant to the project as the emissions from these practices are covered under proposed greenhouse gas regulations. B7 Electricity Usage

P16 Fuel Extraction / Processing Include N/A

B8 Fuel Extraction / Processing Exclude Excluded as there is no fossil fuel usage being considered in the baseline and these emissions are therefore not relevant to the project.

P17 Fuel Delivery Exclude Excluded as these SS’s are not relevant to the project as the emissions from these practices are covered under proposed greenhouse gas regulations. B9 Fuel Delivery Exclude

P6 Processing and Composting Facility Operation

Include N/A

P7 Material Treatment Include N/A





P8 Compost Handling Exclude Excluded as emissions under these SS’s are included in P6 Processing and Composting Facility Operation as these processes are typically part of the integrated site operations. P11 Residue Handling Exclude

B3 Residue Processing Exclude Excluded as emissions are only in baseline condition and thus would only serve to increase the quantity of emissions reductions achieved. As these emissions are difficult to calculate with any certainty, it is conservative to exclude them.

P9 Compost Transportation Exclude Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario.

P10 Compost Utilization Exclude

Excluded as the sequestration of carbon is difficult to quantify without knowing the end-point for the compost. Further, the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are negligible given the standard of compost required under the protocol.

P12 Residue Transportation Exclude

Excluded as the emissions from transportation are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B4 Residue Transportation

P13 Residue Disposal Exclude

Excluded as the emissions from residue disposal operations are likely functionally equivalent to the baseline scenario. B5 Material Disposal

P14 Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction

Include N/A

B6 Material Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction

Include N/A

P18 Development of Site Exclude Emissions from site development are not material given the long project life, and the minimal site development typically required.

B10 Development of Site Exclude Emissions from site development are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal site development typically required.

P19 Building Equipment Exclude Emissions from building equipment are not material given the long project life, and the minimal building equipment typically required.





B11 Building Equipment Exclude Emissions from building equipment are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal building equipment typically required.

P20 Transportation of Equipment Exclude Emissions from transportation of equipment are not material given the long project life, and the minimal transportation of equipment typically required.

B12 Transportation of Equipment Exclude Emissions from transportation of equipment are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal transportation of equipment typically required.

P21 Construction on Site Exclude Emissions from construction on site are not material given the long project life, and the minimal construction on site typically required.

B13 Construction on Site Exclude Emissions from construction on site are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal construction on site typically required.

P22 Testing of Equipment Exclude Emissions from the testing of equipment are not material given the long project life, and the minimal testing of equipment typically required.

B14 Testing of Equipment Exclude Emissions from the testing of equipment are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal testing of equipment typically required.

P23 Site Decommissioning Exclude Emissions from decommissioning are not material given the long project life, and the minimal decommissioning typically required.

B15 Site Decommissioning Exclude Emissions from decommissioning are not material for the baseline condition given the minimal decommissioning typically required.



Table 3 below summarizes the emission factors used in the Project.

Table 3. Emission Factors used in the Project

Parameter Relevant SS

CO2 Emission Factor

CH4 Emission Factor

N2O Emission Factor

Emission Factor Source

Diesel combustion (EFDG) P6 2681 g/L 0.078 g/L 0.022 g/L

2020 National Inventory Report Part 2 - 1990-2018: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada

Diesel production (EFDG,XP) P16 0.138 kg/L 0.0109

kg/L 0.000004 kg/L Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook (v2.0, 2019)

Gasoline combustion (EFG) P6 2307 g/L 0.1 g/L 0.02 g/L


Gasoline production (EFG,XP) P16 0.138 kg/L 0.0109

kg/L 0.000004 kg/L Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook (v2.0, 2019)

British Columbia Electricity Grid Consumption Intensity

P6 12.8g/kWh n/a n/a


Composting Material Treatment (EFcomp)

P7 n/a; biogenic

0.03 kg/tonne 0.06kg/tonne

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 5, Chapter 4: Biological Treatment of Solid Waste

Table 4 highlights the global warming potentials used for this Project, applied to the vintage year being quantified. Table 5 summarizes the landfill design parameters used in the baseline calculations for emission source/sink B6 and project condition calculations for emission source/sink P14.



Table 4. Global Warming Potential, 2007 IPCC

Greenhouse Gas Species Carbon Dioxide

(CO2) Methane

(CH4) Nitrous Oxide

(N2O) Global Warming Potential 1 25 298

Table 5. Landfill Design parameters

Parameter Methane

Correction Factor

Degradable Organic Carbon

Fraction of DOC

Dissimilated

Methane Landfill

Gas Fraction

Fraction of

Methane Recovery

Oxidation Factor

Methane Generation

Potential (tonne CH4

/ tonne waste)

Landfill Decay Rate (yr-1)

Notation MCF DOC DOCf F R Ox Lo k

BC 1.00 0.18 0.50 0.50 0.6630 0.10 0.06 0.0374

MCF – assigned value of 1.0 as all landfills would have been managed and operated in anaerobic conditions

DOC – as detailed information about the landfill waste composition is not available, the British Columbia value was used.

DOCf – The baseline scenario considers that without the activity of the Project, there would be no demand for the organic waste other than the baseline adjustment of 20% diversion activity would occur at the landfill, which is accounted for elsewhere. Therefore, the default DOCf of 0.5 was used.

F – the fraction of methane in landfill gas production was the default value in the Handbook

R – a value of 66.3% was used, which is calculated using the Methane Collection and Destruction equation with default values from the Carbon Offset Handbook, where R = LFG Collection Efficiency (LFGCE) * Methane Destruction Efficiency (LFGDE). The assumed value for LFGCE was the default value of 66.5% for a temporary covered cell; the assumed value for LFGDE was the default value of 99.7% for flares. The baseline condition generally involves solid waste disposal into three landfills, all of which have LFG management systems in place: Cache Creek Landfill (LFG Capture rate reported as 77% in 20157F

8), Bailey Sanitary Landfill (no LFG capture rate reported8F

9) and Vancouver Landfill (LFG capture rate of 60% reported

8 Golder Associates. 2016. 2015 Annual Report Cache Creek Landfill, Cache Creek, BC. Retrieved from: http://www.wastech.ca/poweringtheplaces/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2015-CCLF-Annual-Report.pdf

9 City of Chilliwack. 2013. Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) Public Report. Retrieved from: http://www.chilliwack.ca/main/attachments/Files/1243/Final%20CARIP%20Report%202013.pdf

http://www.wastech.ca/poweringtheplaces/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2015-CCLF-Annual-Report.pdf

http://www.chilliwack.ca/main/attachments/Files/1243/Final%20CARIP%20Report%202013.pdf



in 20149F

10). The LFG capture method for these landfills is generally through horizontal and vertical wells, and methane destruction method is generally flaring. The value of R obtained using the default values and equation in the Carbon Offset Handbook is considered conservative as some portion of the waste would have been disposed of in a smaller landfill without LFG capture in place. It is considered an accurate estimate for the baseline condition, as it falls within the range of reported LFG capture rates reported.

Lₒ – the Lₒ value was calculated using the given equation and outlined further in this section.

PCPN – annual precipitation data from the Environment Canada 30-year Climate Normals for the BC regions of Delta, Abbotsford and Kamloops using the historic average normal value from 1981-2010. These areas were used as they are the closest representation for the MSW landfills of interest.

k – the k-value was calculated using the recommended equation from the 2015 Alberta Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, Version 1.0: k=0.00003*PCPN + 0.01

4.1.2 List of Assumptions The following assumptions were made to complete the quantification:

Table 6. List of Assumptions Assumption Description Source/Sink

Impact Justification

Specific British Columbia Landfills

The landfill parameters for the Project are assumed to be similar to an average of three relevant MSW landfills in the regions: Cache Creek Landfill, Bailey Sanitary Landfill and Vancouver Landfill.

SS B6 & P14 The BC LFG Management Regulation does not require a minimum gas capture percent. The most recent reported values for achieved LFG capture rates were considered representative. Specific LFG capture rates are not available at each landfill, therefore the default values were used in the equation provided by the Carbon Offset Emissions Handbook Version 2.0 (2019).

Material Treatment Emissions

The emissions factors related to composting treatment from the IPCC 2006 report10F

11 include a large range of default emission values. The lower end of this range was used for the AIM facility.

SS P7 The NZW facility uses well-established composting technology with individual pile aeration with computer monitored temperature and oxygen levels. The IPCC values apply to a range of composting and anaerobic digestion systems. It is noted in the report that poorly

10 City of Vancouver. 2015. Vancouver 2014 Annual Report. Retrieved from: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2014-vancouver-landfill-annual-report.pdf

11 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 4: Biological Treatment of Solid Waste. Retrieved from: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_4_Ch4_Bio_Treat.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2014-vancouver-landfill-annual-report.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2014-vancouver-landfill-annual-report.pdf

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_4_Ch4_Bio_Treat.pdf



Assumption Description Source/Sink Impact

Justification

working composts are likely to produce more CH4 and N2O emissions. The emissions of CH4 and N2O can occur in anaerobic sections of the compost but will be oxidised in aerobic sections. Due to the high quality aeration practices at NZW, along with process temperature and oxygen monitoring, it is assumed that the CH4 and N2O emissions relating to composting treatment are minimized, and the lower end of the IPCC ranges for emissions were used.

Quantities of Fuel, Electricity, and Residuals from 2016-2018

Fuel, electricity, and residual quantities are back calculated using the costs expended to procure fuel, electricity, and residual services. It is assumed that the mean rates in 2019-2020 are applicable to 2016-2018. It is also assumed that the fuel combusted for 2016-2018 is diesel.

SS P6, P14, P16

This assumption is viewed to be a reasonable approach as commodity prices for fuel, electricity, and residual services are most likely higher as years progress due to inflation. This makes the assumption conservative. Choosing diesel as the fuel combusted is conservative as diesel is more emissions intensive than gasoline.

5. Selection and Justification of the Baseline Scenario Three baseline scenarios were evaluated for the Project. These scenarios and the relevant barriers affecting each of these scenarios are summarized in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Barriers Assessment of Baseline Alternative Scenarios

Baseline Scenario Alternatives Relevant Barriers

Alternative 1: Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste

Financial/Economic: Developing an anaerobic digestion project would require significant investments for capital expenditure and operation. Institutional: An anaerobic digestion facility would require expertise and specialized training of personal. The operation and maintenance of such a facility is challenging and costly. The anaerobic digestion process is

New Technology: An anaerobic digestion facility would require extensive research and development efforts. The anaerobic digestion process produces



strong odours, which are undesirable in an urban area. The anaerobic digestion process also takes much longer than aerobic composting and requires additional heating requirements.

Alternative 2: Landfilling of organic waste

Financial/Economic: Disposal of waste in a landfill is the most common disposal method locally and nationally. No major infrastructure investment would be required and is therefore a viable alternative. Legal: The disposal of waste material in landfills is compliant with all legal regulatory requirements.

Institutional: This scenario would not require any major additional training for operation of existing landfills. Landfill operations are well understood and already underway.

Alternative 3: Waste to Energy Project through Incineration of Organic Waste

Financial/Economic: Developing a waste to energy project would require significant investments for capital expenditure and operation. Institutional: An incineration facility would require expertise and specialized training of personal. The operation and maintenance of such a facility is challenging and costly. Environmental: The FVRD Solid Waste Management Plan explicitly states that it does not support incineration as a method of waste recovery due to the negative environmental consequences associated with this technology.2 New Technology: A Waste to Energy Incineration facility would require extensive research and development efforts. Also, as the waste being sent to NZW’s facility is residential SSO, it will likely have a low calorific value and a high moisture content, and therefore not be suitable for incineration.

Based on the barriers test above, BASELINE SCENARIO ALTERNATIVE 2 is considered the most likely baseline scenario.

The baseline scenario is defined as the use of the pre-existing landfills for the disposal of municipal solid organic waste.

The baseline requires an adjustment as it is likely that some of the waste sent to the Project would have been diverted from landfills regardless of NZW’s operations. The Aerobic Composting Protocol prescribes a baseline adjustment assuming a diversion rate of 20%. As a result, 20% of the total organic waste is subtracted prior to calculating the baseline emissions.

The baseline condition must also consider LFG capture practices in British Columbia. As discussed in Section 1.2, BC Regulations require LFG management systems for regulated landfills as of January 1, 2016. All three of the landfills which would have been used in the baseline scenario (Cache Creek, Bailey and Vancouver) have had LFG collection systems in place prior to 2016. The LFG recovery rate applied in the baseline GHG quantification is discussed in Section 3.1.2.



The Project will reduce GHG emissions from the Baseline condition described here. These emissions reductions are obtained at the Project and are a direct result of voluntary and additional activities by NZW.


Prepared by Bluesource 26

6. Quantification Methodology

6.1 Baseline Emissions Quantification Methodology

SS B6 Quantification of the Baseline Emissions from Material Decomposition and Methane Collection/Destruction

The methane generation potential of waste streams disposed of in a landfill is determined using the First Order Decay (FOD) Methane Quantification Model from the Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook (Version 2.0, November 2019).

𝑄𝑄CH4,𝑡𝑡 = ��k × (𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) × 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 × 𝑒𝑒−𝑘𝑘(𝑡𝑡−1) × (1 − 𝑅𝑅�𝑡𝑡=40

𝑡𝑡=1

× (1 − 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂)

Inputs to this equation are summarized in Table 5.

6.2 Project Emissions Quantification Methodology

Emissions Facility Operations = emissions under SS P6 Processing and Composting Facility Operation

Emissions Facility Operations = (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I CO2); (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I CH4); (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I N2O); (EC * EFGRID, CO2e)

Where:

Fuel i = Diesel, Gasoline EF Fuel = Fuel i Combustion Emissions Factor EC = Facility Electricity Consumption EFGRID = BC Electricity Grid consumption factor, 12.8g/kWh

Emissions Material Treatment = emissions under SS P7 Material Treatment

As there is no CH4 collection and destruction system in place at the composting facility, the capture of CH4 is zero and not included in the calculation.

Emissions Baseline = Emissions Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction

Emissions Project = Emissions Facility Operation + Emissions Material Treatment + Emissions Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection + Emissions Fuel Extraction and Processing



Emissions Material Treatment = (Mass Composting Material * EF COMP., CH4); (Mass Composting Material * EF COMP., N2O)

Where:

Mass Composting Material = mass of organic waste that goes through NZW’s Facility EF COMP = emission factors related to the biological treatment of waste (refer to Table3)

Emissions Decomposition and Methane Collection/Destruction = emissions under SS P14 Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection/Destruction

The methane generation potential of waste streams disposed of in a landfill is determined using the First Order Decay (FOD) Methane Quantification Model from the Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook (Version 1.0, March 2015).

𝑄𝑄CH4,𝑡𝑡 = ��k × (𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟) × 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 × 𝑒𝑒−𝑘𝑘(𝑡𝑡−1) × (1 − 𝑅𝑅�𝑡𝑡=40

𝑡𝑡=1

× (1 − 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂)

Inputs to this equation are summarized in Table 5, where:

Mresc = tonnes of waste hauled to landfill

Emissions Fuel Extraction and Processing = emissions under P16 Fuel Extraction and Processing

This emission source/sink quantifies upstream emissions due to fuel extraction and processing.

Emissions Fuel Extraction and Processing = (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I CO2); (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I CH4); (Vol. Fuel i * EF Fuel I N2O)

Where:

Fuel i = Diesel, Gasoline EF Fuel = Fuel Extraction, Processing or Production Emissions Factor

7. Monitoring Plan In general, the data control processes employed for this Project consist of manual or metered data capture and reporting, and manual entry of monthly totals or average values into a Quantification Calculator that was originally developed for the quantification of GHG reductions according to the Protocol.

The primary methods of data collection are the reconciliation of monthly electricity invoices, diesel sales receipts, and weight tickets for organic waste deliveries. Table 8 summarizes the data monitoring and collection procedures for the primary data required for the quantification methodology.

The mass of organic waste is recorded on weight scale tickets for every load coming into the facility and going out of the facility on a daily basis. The information is verified against an excel spreadsheet. The paper tickets have been stored since Project start-up by type and source. All tickets are verified monthly



with the Abbotsford municipality for any errors and rectify/reprint tickets and update database as required.



Table 8. Monitoring Plan

SSR identifier

Data parameter

Estimation, modeling,

measurement or calculation approaches

Data Recording

Data unit

Sources/Origin Monitoring frequency

Description and justification of

monitoring method

Uncertainty Deviation from

the Protocol

B6, P7 Quantity of Source Separated Organics Received

Month summary of measured weight from scale tickets

Scale Tickets record per

load weight. Small public drop-offs get hard-logged

into log book.

Tonnes NZW Scale Ticket Records

Per load as delivered

This represents the highest frequency of data collection available.

Uncertainty surrounding this measurement is low, as weight scales are calibrated according to best practices and all trucks are weighed in.

There is no deviation from the Protocol.

P6, P16 Diesel and Gasoline Consumption

Fuel Invoices Volume of fuel delivered per load indicated on Fuel Invoices

Litres Fuels Invoices Per load as delivered

Fuel consumption varies over time depending on equipment use and other factors. Fuel invoices are the most reliable source of monitoring consumption.

Uncertainty is low for the volumes of diesel as this data originates from reliable sources.

There is no deviation from the Protocol for 2019-2020. For 2016-2018, fuel consumption is estimated.

P6 Electricity Consumption

Electricity Bills Sub-Meter for NZW Portion of Monthly Electricity usage on Site

kWh Electricity Invoices

Continuous Electricity sub-meter is maintained by the electric utility and is subject to Government of Canada measurement requirements.

Uncertainty is low for the metered electricity as this data originates from reliable sources.

There is no deviation from the Protocol for 2019-2020. For 2016-2018, electricity consumption is estimated.



P14 Residue Sent to Landfill

Weight from scale tickets waste to landfill in waste trucks

Scale Tickets record per

load weight to landfill

Tonnes Third party invoices

Per load as leaving facility

This represents the highest frequency of data collection available.

Uncertainty surrounding this measurement is low, as weight scales are calibrated according to best practices.

There is no deviation from the Protocol for 2019-2020. For 2016-2018, quantity of residuals sent to landfill is estimated.



8 Data Information Management System and Records

8.1 Data Management and QA/QC at the NZW Abbotsford Composting Facility The quantification of the mass of organic waste for composting is completely manual and is based on monthly reconciliation of weigh tickets of organic waste received. A summary of deliveries is provided by NZW. The diesel and electricity consumption due to onsite activities are provided by fuel invoices and summarized electricity invoices, respectfully. Manual checking will be conducted on an annual basis by a third-party and will consist of:

• Reconciliation of values in the calculator with hard-copy records of electronic data;

• Comparison with data from other time periods to identify any major discrepancies (“reality checking”); and

• Recalculation of selected values to ensure that the Calculator remains accurate.

8.2 Data Management and QA/QC at Bluesource Bluesource holds itself to the highest professional and ethical standards. Staff all have experience in working on GHG projects and/or training in the use of ISO14064-2. Junior staff members are mentored closely until their level of competence is deemed sufficient for them to work more independently. This experience and training helps to ensure that errors and omissions are minimized and that project documentation is compiled in accordance with the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency and conservativeness.

Bluesource operates a rigorous internal QA/QC process that is built around the principle of senior review (i.e. calculations and reports are checked by experienced staff members prior to being released). The quantification calculator, for example, will be checked for:

• Transcription errors/omissions • Correctly functioning links/formulas in spreadsheets • Correct and transparent referencing of data sources • Justification of assumptions • Use of, and compliance with, most up-to-date versions of protocols, technical guidance, etc.

In addition, the Offset Project Plan and Offset Project Report will also be senior reviewed for errors, omissions, clarity, etc.

Issues are recorded in Bluesource’s QA/QC checklist for the project (and, as necessary, embedded into the reviewed version of the documents and/or calculator) and these will be corrected before these are sent to the third-party verifier. Staff sign an “Attestation of Quality Assurance and Quality Control” to document that the QA/QC process was followed. This QA/QC process is kept under constant review.



8.2.1 Back-up Procedures at Bluesource Electronic data is backed up by Bluesource’s IT service provider, Calitso. A copy of this back-up procedure is provided as Appendix A.

8.2.2 Document Retention Policy at Bluesource Bluesource operates a documentation retention policy, which all staff must abide by as a condition of their employment. A copy of this document retention policy is provided as Appendix B.

9 Reporting and Verification Details This report has been prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and GHG CleanProjectsTM requirements.

The verifier, GHD Limited, is an independent third-party. Contact details for the verifier have been included in this report.

An acceptable verification standard (e.g., ISO14064-3) has been be used and the verifier was vetted to ensure technical competence with this project type. The verifier was engaged to provide a reasonable level of assurance.

10 Statement of Senior Review This offset project plan was prepared by Andre Buiza, Carbon Solutions Analyst, Bluesource and senior reviewed by Tooraj Moulai, Director of Engineering & Technical Services, Bluesource. Although care has been taken in preparing this document, it cannot be guaranteed to be free of errors or omissions.

Prepared by:

Senior reviewed by:

Andre Buiza 01/19/2021

Tooraj Moulai 01/25/2021



11 Works Cited Alberta Environment. (December 2008). Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects,version

1.1. Edmonton: Alberta Environment.

Environment Canada. (2020). National Inventory Report,1990-2018 Part 2. Environment Canada.

Government of Alberta. (November 2019). Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, version 2.0. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

International Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Retrieved 03 03, 2015, from IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html

Net Zero Waste (NZW). 2012. GORE Cover System: How it Works? Retrieved from: http://www.netzerowaste.com/GORE-cover/

Net Zero Waste (NZW). 2014. Abbotsford’s Organic Program. Retrieved from: http://www.rcbc.ca/files/u7/con2014_ocejo%2Bazevzdo.pdf

W.L. GORE & Associates. 2014. The GORE Cover System: Membrane Covered Positive ASP Composting Technology. Retrieved from: http://astoriaorganics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/GORE-Cover-Technolgy-Introduction.pdf

http://www.netzerowaste.com/gore-cover/

http://www.rcbc.ca/files/u7/con2014_ocejo%2Bazevzdo.pdf




Appendix B Verification Plan

GHD 455 Phillip Street Unit #100A Waterloo Ontario N2L 3X2 Canada T 519 884 0510 F 519 884 0525 W www.ghd.com

March 12, 2021 Reference No. 11219983 Mr. Tooraj Moulai Director of Engineering & Technical Services Blue Source Canada ULC 840 7th Ave SW, Suite 1605 Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G2 Dear Mr. Moulai: Re: Verification Plan

Verification Services for Aerobic Composting Voluntary Offset Projects under CSA Clean Projects Registry with ISO 14064 Net Zero Waste Facility, Abbotsford, BC

1. Introduction

Blue Source Canada ULC (Blue Source) retained GHD Limited (GHD) to conduct a verification of the Net Zero Waste Facility (Facility) 2015-2016 Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Clean Projects Registry GHG emissions report (Report). The Facility is located in Abbotsford, BC and activities consist of aerobic composting activities. The verification was conducted in general accordance with ISO 14064 – Greenhouse Gases standards (ISO 14064), as required by the CSA Clean Projects Registry program.

GHD has prepared this Verification Plan in accordance with ISO Standard ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases - Part 3: Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (ISO 14064-3).

2. Verification Objective

The objective of the verification is to provide Blue Source and CSA with assurance that the Clean Projects Registry Emissions Report contains no material discrepancy and was prepared in general accordance with ISO 14064.

3. Level of Assurance

The verification will be conducted to a reasonable level of assurance. The verification statement was worded in a manner to meet the requirements set forth by ISO 14064 and CSA.

4. Verification Standards

For the verification, GHD applied ISO 14064-3 as the standard.

http://www.ghd.com/

11219983-LTR-4-Moulai-NetZero 2020 Verification Plan 2

5. Verification Criteria

For this verification, GHD applied the following criteria:

• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals, ISO, March 2006 (ISO 14064-1)

• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements, ISO, March 2006 (ISO 14064-2)

• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 3: Specification with guidance for the greenhouse gas assertions, ISO, March 2006 (ISO 14064-3)

• National Inventory Report 1990-2014: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada – Part 2, Environment Canada, 2016

• Quantification Protocol for Aerobic Composting Projects (version 1.1) (Protocol), Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD), 2008

• Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook (version 1.0) (Handbook), AESRD, 2015

6. Review Team

6.1 Roles and Responsibilities

Lead Verifier – Erik Martinez, P.Eng. – Mr. Martinez will lead the verification and is responsible for developing the verification plan. Mr. Martinez will review the risk assessment, raw data, data management procedures, and draft findings. Mr. Martinez will prepare and sign the verification statement and verification report.

Verifier – Filzah Nasir, M.A.Sc. – Ms. Nasir will aid in the development and revision of the verification plan and sample plan, develop a risk assessment, review raw data, review management of data quality and prepare draft findings.

Peer Reviewer – Jenn Packer, P.Eng. –Ms. Packer will complete a peer review of the verification plan, risk assessment and verification report and findings.

6.2 Qualifications

Lead Verifier – Erik Martinez, P. Eng.

Erik is a licensed air quality engineer in Ontario with over 15 years of experience in atmospheric science, air dispersion modelling, emission inventories, and environmental compliance. Erik has a Bachelor of Applied Science in Environmental Engineering - Chemical Specialization from the University of Waterloo.


Erik has worked on numerous projects involving the measurement, estimation, and abatement of emissions. Erik has extensive experience preparing emissions inventories, and Facility GHG assessments in accordance with the ISO protocols and reporting requirements under O. Reg. 143/16. Erik has acted as the lead verifier/validator on numerous GHG assessments in Ontario and has completed peer reviews and acted as the Technical Expert for compliance reports, emission reduction projects and offsets under the OCE TargetGHG Program, GreenON Industries, and the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.

Verifier – Filzah Nasir, M.A.Sc.

Filzah has a Masters in Environmental Engineering which specialized in developing an emissions inventory and quantifying emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air contaminants. Filzah has completed GHG verifications as a verifier for multiple jurisdictions including Ontario, Alberta, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan. Filzah has extensive experience conducting GHG verifications for a range of sectors including electricity generation, manufacturing, iron and steel production, oil and gas production, and petroleum refining.

In addition to GHG verifications, Filzah has experience with analysis and calculation of emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air contaminants from the implementation of climate change mitigation projects as well conducting GHG verifications for voluntary projects under the American Carbon Registry and the Ontario Centres of Validation.

Peer Reviewer – Jenn Packer

Jennifer is a Professional Engineer in Alberta and Ontario, with a Master's of Science degree in Sustainable Energy Development from the University of Calgary. Jennifer is based out of our Waterloo office and has over eight years of experience related to GHG emissions reporting and verification. Her experience as a lead verifier, peer reviewer, and technical expert includes verifications under the CleanProjects ™ Registry, Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (compliance and offset projects), Ontario Regulation 143, and the Clean Development Mechanism.

Jennifer has been involved in over 60 compliance and offset verifications, applying the ISO-14064 standard including landfill gas recovery, anaerobic digestion, biomass combustion, acid gas injection, wind power generation, composting facilities, coal and natural gas power generation, Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), open pit mining oil sands, heavy oil upgrading, refining and chemical processing, and natural gas processing. Jennifer has direct experience with the verification of emissions reductions projects applying the Quantification Protocol for Diversion of Biomass to Energy from Biomass Combustion Facilities including

Other qualified staff in GHD's GHG Assurance Services Group assisted as required. Changes to the Verification Team will be communicated to Blue Source and Blue Source will have the opportunity to object to any Team Member.


7. Project Understanding

The Facility processes source separated organic waste into compost through an aerobic GORE® cover aerated static pile process. Waste is collected from the local municipalities in the Fraser River Valley, including Abbotsford.

8. Verification Scope

8.1 Facility Emission Sources

The conditions prior to the implementation of the project consist of organic waste disposal in landfill, where it would decompose anaerobically and produce methane (CH4). This represents the baseline scenario. The project achieves GHG emission reductions through aerobic composting of the organic waste, thereby reducing methane generation in the landfill under the baseline.

Under the project scenario, the following Facility emission sources are associated with organic waste processing during composting:

• Electricity Consumption – Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O)

• Diesel Consumption – CO2, CH4, N2O

• Diesel Extraction and Processing – CO2, CH4, N2O

• Material Treatment – CO2, CH4, N2O

• Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction – CO2, CH4, N2O

8.2 Geographical and Organizational Boundaries


Net Zero Waste Abbotsford Inc. 5050 Gladwin Road Abbotsford, BC, V4X 1X8

8.3 Reporting Period

The reporting period is between May 1, 2016 and October 31, 2020.

8.4 Use of this Report

This report has been prepared for the use of Blue Source and CSA.


9. Verification Schedule

The following details the schedule of GHD's verification, identifying the dates of key tasks and completion of major milestones:

• Project award and kick-off call – December 9, 2020

• Initial document request – December 9, 2020

• Issue Verification Plan – January 8, 2021

• Site Visit – January 2021

• Submit issues log to Blue Source and opportunity for Blue Source to address issues and, if required, revise project report(s) – Week of January 18, 2021 and as-needed throughout verification process

• Issue Draft Verification Report and Statement – Week of March 8, 2021

• Issue Final Verification Report – Week of March 8, 2021

10. Assessment of Risk and Magnitude of Potential Errors, Omissions or Misrepresentations

Based on GHD's initial review of the Net Zero Waste operations, the following table summarizes the potential risk and magnitude of potential errors, omissions or misrepresentations, as currently known.

During the review, any new risks or material concerns that could potentially lead to errors, omissions and misrepresentations will be identified, reviewed and assessed:

Potential Risk Area Percentage of Emissions (%)



Justification

B6: Material Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction – Organic Waste Tonnage

100% of BE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations is low and tonnages are tracked by weigh scale, which allows for a low inherent risk.

Control Low Emissions are based on a local landfill gas capture rate, resulting in a low control risk.

Detection Medium The allowable detection risk is high; however, GHD will review a subset of all weigh scale data available, lowering the detection risk.





Justification

Project Scenario P6: Processing and Composting Facility Operation – Electricity Consumption

~1% of PE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations was low.

Control Low Emissions are based on consumption from 3rd party invoices providing for low control risk.

Detection Low GHD will review all electricity invoices for the crediting period, allowing for a low detection risk.


~31% of PE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations was low.

Control Medium Emissions are based on fuel delivery, which does not accurately reflect consumption. Therefore the control risk is set to medium, as there is a potential for the consumption quantity to be different than the delivered quantity.

Detection Medium/Low The allowable detection risk is high; however, GHD will review a subset of all data available, lowering the detection risk.

P16: Processing and Composting Facility Operation – Diesel Fuel Extraction and Production

~5% of PE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations is low.

Control Medium Emissions are based on fuel delivery, which does not accurately reflect consumption. Therefore the control risk is set to medium, as there was a potential for the consumption quantity to be different than the delivered quantity.

Detection Medium/Low The allowable detection risk is high; however, GHD will review a subset of all data available, lowering the detection risk.





Justification

P7: Processing and Composting Facility Operation – Material Treatment

~62% of PE Inherent Low Complexity of calculations is low and tonnages are tracked by weigh scale, which allows for a low inherent risk.

Control Low Emissions are based on prescribed emission factors.

Detection Medium The allowable detection risk is high; however, GHD will review a subset of all weigh scale data available, lowering the detection risk.

P14: Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction – Organic Waste Tonnage

~1% Inherent Low Complexity of calculations is low and tonnages are tracked by weigh scale, which allows for a low inherent risk.

Control Low Emissions are based on prescribed emission factors.

Detection Medium The allowable detection is was high; however, GHD will review a subset of all weigh scale data available, lowering the detection risk.

General Data Management Systems

N/A Inherent Medium Moderate complexity in data management, given numerous sources of data likely collected by multiple employees.

Control Medium/Low Data sources are likely predominantly invoices used for accounting, however the numerous data sources increased the control risk.

Detection Medium/Low GHD will review a subset of all data to reduce the risk that a material error went undetected.


11. Sampling Plan

GHD developed a sampling plan based on review of the objectives, criteria, scope, and level of assurance detailed above. The sampling plan is dynamic and may be revised, as required, throughout the course of the verification. The following table summarizes the sampling plan:





Sample size/Action

Baseline Emissions (BE) B6: Material Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction – Organic Waste Tonnage

100% of BE • Waste feedstock tonnages from scale records

Daily Daily scale tonnage records for the crediting period

Project Emissions (PE) P6: Processing and Composting Facility Operation – Electricity Consumption

~1% of PE • Third party electricity invoices

Monthly All invoices for crediting period


One-time Emission Factor reference


~31% of PE • Fuel purchases from fleet records and invoices

Multiple Total purchased fuel in crediting period


One time Emission Factor Handbook (AESRD, 2015)

P16: Processing and Composting Facility Operation – Diesel Fuel Extraction and Production

~5% of PE • Fuel purchases from fleet records and invoices

Multiple Total purchased fuel in crediting period


One time Emission Factor Handbook (AESRD, 2015)

P7: Processing and Composting Facility Operation – Material Treatment

~62% of PE • Waste feedstock tonnages from scale records

Daily Daily scale tonnage records for crediting period

P14: Residue Decomposition and Methane Collection / Destruction –

~1% • Waste feedstock tonnages from scale records

Daily Daily scale tonnage records for crediting period






Sample size/Action

Organic Waste Tonnage

• Residuals bin tonnages from third party invoices

As Received As received tonnage records for residuals bin removal for crediting period

General Operations Overview

N/A • Review of facility operations and emission sources

N/A N/A

Back up of data acquisition systems

N/A • General Data Management System

• Document retention policy

N/A Review frequency of data backup and interview site personnel

12. Quantitative Testing

Quantitative data or raw data will be made available to GHD. GHD evaluated annual GHG emission calculation methodologies.

13. Materiality Level

Materiality for the facility verification was set at 5 percent. A series of discrete errors, omissions or misrepresentations or individual or a series of qualitative factors, when aggregated, may be considered material.

14. Verification Procedures

The review procedures used in this verification were used to assess the following:

1. Accuracy and completeness of annual GHG emissions

2. Uncertainty of external data sources used

3. Emission assumptions

4. Accuracy of emission calculations

5. Potential magnitude of errors and omissions


To sustain a risk-based assessment, the GHD Project Team identified and determined risks related to annual GHG emissions during both the desk reviews and the follow-up interviews. The GHD Project Team particularly focused on the accuracy and completeness of provided information. The components of the document review and follow-up interviews are:

• Document Review:

- Review of data and information to confirm the correctness and completeness of presented information.

- Cross-checks between information provided in the project plan and information from independent background investigations.

- Determine sensitivity and magnitude analysis for parameters that may be the largest sources of error.

- Comparison of emission offsets from those of previous reporting year(s), as applicable.

• Follow-up Interviews:

- Via telephone

- Via email

The GHD Project Team interviewed the project personnel in order to:

• Cross-check information provided.

• Compare with projects or technologies that have similar or comparable characteristics.

• Review data management and recording procedures.

• Test the correctness of critical formulae and calculations.

• Witness and compare with similar projects in the jurisdiction.

The document review established to what degree the presented GHG Emissions Report documentation met the verification standards and criteria.

The GHD Project Team's document review during the verification process comprised, but was not limited to, an evaluation of the following:

• The documentation is complete and comprehensive and follows the structure and criteria given in the criteria.

• Baseline and monitoring methodologies are justified and appropriate.

• The calculation of GHG offsets is appropriate and uses conservative assumptions for estimating GHG offsets.

• The GHG information system and its controls are sufficiently robust to minimize the potential for errors, omissions, or misrepresentations.


• The project meets the quantification protocol eligibility criteria.

Site Visits

As of the preparation of this verification plan, the Government of Canada has imposed travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. GHD has also implemented enhanced safety procedures to protect workers, including deferring in-person site visits if required. Therefore, it has been determined that due to the severity of the pandemic that in-person site visits will not be feasible due to travel restrictions and GHD safety procedures.

On March 23, 2020, the ANSI National Accreditation Body (ANAB) published Heads Up Issue 1 (https://anab.qualtraxcloud.com/ShowDocument.aspx?ID=17626) which documents their support for the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in conducting audits to a reasonable level of assurance, in accordance with IAF Mandatory Document for the Use of Information and Communication Technology for Auditing/Assessment Purposes (IAF MD 4:2018).

Virtual/remote site visits may be conducted through the use of ICT teleconferencing services that include audio, video and data sharing capabilities (e.g., Webex, Microsoft Teams, Skype or equivalent), in accordance with ANAB Heads Up Issue 1 and IAF MD 4:2018. Other ICT examples include recording of information and evidence by means of still video, video or audio recordings; provision of visual/audio access to remote or potentially hazardous locations; and/or assessment of documents and records by remote access.

It is GHD's opinion that ICT may be used to complete the Site Visit requirement for this verification, as GHD has in‑depth experience conducting GHG verifications for aerobic composting projects, giving GHD familiarity with emissions sources for this sector. In addition, the Facility's emission sources (fuel combustion) are low complexity with established calculation methodologies and emissions can be verified using generated internal and third-party data. GHD further has completed an in-person site visit in 2016 as part of the 2015-2016 reporting period verification.

No major changes have occurred at the Facility since this in-person site visit.

The decision to conduct the site visit using ICT is permissible if, after performing a documented risk assessment, the verifier (GHD) and Blue Source/Net Zero mutually agree. The agreement shall be documented in writing (e.g., via email) and will specify the proposed ICT method, and assurances that the proposed/chosen ICT method meets the information security, data protection measures and confidentiality requirements of both parties. The parties will not agree to the use of an ICT method which either party does not have the necessary infrastructure to support. Throughout the entire verification process, including use of ICT for a remote Site Visit, GHD will abide by the confidentiality procedures detailed in GHD's Verification Proposal.

Based on the current COVID-19 pandemic safety precautions, GHD proposes to utilize ICT as a potential alternative to an in-person site visit to gain an understanding of the Facility operations, data management systems and procedures, and to determine the presence of key meters/scales, as documented above.

https://anab.qualtraxcloud.com/ShowDocument.aspx?ID=17626


The Site Visits/remote site assessments will generally adhere to the following agenda. Deviations from the proposed agenda may be necessary to respond to data gaps and or issues identified during the verification process:

• Opening Meeting - Introduction and sign in, safety review, and overview of verification process and expectations (key personnel need to be present).

• Overview of production processes at the Facility, including description of key emission sources and a facility walkthrough.

• Review of meter calibration certificates and accuracy specifications for key meters.

• Interviews with key personnel and review of data acquisition process from meter through distributed control system or transcription and data entry, as applicable.

• Closing Meeting – Review issues identified and next steps.

15. Closure

The Verification Plan is considered to be a dynamic document that may require modification and adaptation to conditions as encountered during the completion of the Verification process. GHD will communicate the changes to the verification plan with Blue Source throughout the verification.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

GHD Limited

Erik Martinez, Lead Verifier

EM/cb/4

cc: Filzah Nasir, GHD

Erik Martinez [email protected] 519.340.4213

Jennifer Packer [email protected] 519.884.0510