verification report borynia ag 300112 - netinform report borynia... · 2nd periodic verification of...

Verification Report

Główny Instytut Górnictwa (Central Mining Institute)

2nd Periodic Verification of the registered JI Track 1 Project

“Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland” (PL1000264)

Monitoring period 2: 01-09-2010 to 31-08-2011

Report No. 600500857

07 February 2012

TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Carbon Management Service

Westendstrasse 199 - 80686 Munich - GERMANY

2ND PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland

Page 1 of 18

Report No. Date of first issue Version No.:

Revision date No. of pages

600500857 30.01.2012 2 07.02.2012 19

Subject: 2nd Verification under JI track 1

Executing Operational Unit: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH, Carbon Management Service Westendstrasse 199 - 80686 Munich, Federal Republic of Germany

Project Participant : Główny Instytut Górnictwa (client) Plac Gwarków 1 40-166 Katowice JSW S.A. – KWK Borynia – Zofiówka Ruch Borynia ul. Węglowa 4 44-268 Jastrzębie Zdrój The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. 4-33, Komachi, Naka-ku Hiroshima, 730-8701, Japan Project Title “Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK

Borynia Coalmine, Poland”

Monitoring period: Period, in total from 01-09-2010 to 31-08-2011 with the following annual sub-periods: 1st sub- period: 01-09-2010 to 31-12-2010 2nd sub- period: 01-01-2011 to 31-08-2011

First Monitoring Report (version/date) Version 1 / 22-09-2011

Final Monitoring Report (version/date) Version 4 / 06/02/2012


Page 2 of 18

Summary:

TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH has performed the 2nd Periodic Verification of the approved JI Track 1 project: “Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland”. The project has been approved by the Polish Ministry of Environment on 05/02/2010 (identification number PL1000264).

The project comprises the use of CMM for the production of heat and electricity. The heat is generated by two gas boilers with a firing capacity of 1.2 MW each and the electricity is produced by a CHP unit with an electrical capacity of 1.8 MW. In the project only the reductions from the burned CMM are claimed.

The verification is based on requirements of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the host country specific requirements. In this context, the specific guidance from the Designated Focal Point (host country) in his responsibility for the approval of JI Track 1 projects, relevant provisions set by the Marrakech Accords, the Kyoto Protocol and the JI-SC (Supervisory Committee) for JI Track 2 projects have been taken into consideration. The verification of this JI project has been performed by document review, interviews by e-mail and inspection on-site.

The verifier confirms that the project is implemented as planned and described in determined project design document. Installed equipment being essential for generating emission reduction runs reliably and is calibrated appropriately. The monitoring system is in place and the project does generate GHG emission reductions. The verifier confirms also that the monitoring plan of the project activity is in accordance with the applied methodology and the monitoring plan as defined in the approved PDD. The Główny Instytut Górnictwa (Central Mining Institute) as project participant is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emission data and the reported GHG emission reductions on the basis set out within the final approved and registered PDD v. 2.4 dated 06.11.2009.

The verifier can confirm that the GHG emission reduction for the whole monitoring period is calculated without material misstatements. Our opinion relates to the project’s GHG emissions and resulting GHG emissions reductions reported and related to the valid project baseline and monitoring, and further associated documents. The emission reductions calculated for this period are lower than the values indicated in the registered PDD due to a decrease in coal production and maintenance works conducted during the monitoring period. Based on the information received and evaluated, we confirm the following statement:

Reporting period : from 01-09-2010 to 31-08-2011

Verified emission in the above reporting period: Sub- period Amount of ERs

1st sub- period: 01-09-2010 to 31-12-2010 18,433 t CO2e

2nd sub- period: 01-01-2011 to 31-08-2011

17,240 t CO2e

Total from 01-09-2010 to 31-08-2011 35,673 t CO2e

Assessment Team Leader: Olena Maslova Assessment Team Members: Dr. Albert Geiger

Technical Reviewer: Thomas Kleiser Karin Wagner Certification Body responsible: Thomas Kleiser


Page 3 of 18

Abbreviations ACM Approved Consolidated Methodology AIE Accredited Independent Entity BM Build Margin CAR Corrective Action Request CM Combined Margin CMP Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto

Protocol CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent CAR Corrective action request CR Clarification Request DFP Designated Focal Point EF Emission Factor EIA / EA Environmental Impact Assessment / Environmental Assessment ER Emission Reduction EUR Emission Reduction Units FAR Forward Action Request FSR Feasibility Study Report GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) GWP Global Warming Potential IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRL Information Reference List JI Joint Implementation KP Kyoto Protocol MP Monitoring Plan MR Monitoring Report NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OM Operational Margin PDD Project Design Document PP Project Participant QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control TÜV SÜD TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change DVM Determination and Verification Manual


Page 4 of 18

Main Documents (referred to in this report) Methodology (name / version) ACM0008, Version 03 Scope 8; 10 Technical Area 8.1, 10.3 Approved PDD: Version 2.4 from 06/11/2009; LoA from 05/02/2010 Revised Monitoring Plan: N/A Version Date Published Monitoring Report 1 22-09-2011 Revised Monitoring Report 4 06-02-2012 Project documentation link: UNFCCC:

http://ji.unfccc.int/JIITLProject/DB/QPC9LLA2MDAIABC5SAW7V81YTI90BY/details Netinform: http://www.netinform.de/KE/Wegweiser/Guide22.aspx?ID=7325&Ebene1_ID=50&Ebene2_ID=2360&mode=5


Page 5 of 18

Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Objective ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 GHG Project Description ................................................................................................ 7

2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Verification Process ....................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Verification Team ........................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Review of Documents .................................................................................................... 9 2.4 On-site Assessment and follow-up Interviews ............................................................... 9 2.5 Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions .............................................. 10 2.6 Resolution of Clarification, Corrective Action and Forward Action Requests .............. 10 2.7 Internal Quality Control ................................................................................................ 11

3 Verification Results ............................................................................................................. 11 3.1 FARs from Determination / Previous Verification ......................................................... 11 3.2 Project Implementation in accordance with the registered Project Design Document . 11 3.3 Compliance of the Monitoring System with the Monitoring Plan .................................. 12 3.4 Assessment of Data and Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions ........ 14

4 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................... 15 5 Verification Statement ......................................................................................................... 18 Annex 1: TÜV SÜD Verification Protocol Annex 2: Information Reference List Annex 3: JI Verification Report Template of the Polish Ministry of Environment


Page 6 of 18

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objective The Główny Instytut Górnictwa has commissioned (contract from 20.09.2011) an independent second periodic verification by TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH (TÜV SÜD) of the approved JI Track 1 project: “Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland”. This report summarizes the findings of the JI verification (Track 1) of the period September 1st, 2010, to August 31st, 2011.

Verification is the periodic independent review and ex-post determination by the Accredited Independent Entity (AIE) of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions during the defined verification period. Periodic Verification: The objective of the periodic verification is to verify that actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan for the respective period. Furthermore, the periodic verification evaluates the GHG emission reduction data and expresses a conclusion with a high, but not absolute, level of assurance about whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is free of material misstatements and verifies that the reported GHG emission data is sufficiently supported by evidence, i.e. monitoring records.

The verification shall consider both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions. Quantitative data comprises the monitoring reports submitted to the verifier by the project entity. Qualitative data comprises information on internal management controls, calculation procedures, and procedures for transfer, frequency of emissions reports, review and internal audit of calculations/data transfers.

The verification work ensures that the project activity is assessed against all applicable JI Track- 1 requirements in the host country as specified by the Designated Focal Point (DFP) for JI/CDM project implementation in Poland. The JI requirements as reference include also the JI modalities and procedures and subsequent decisions by the COP/MOP and documents released by the JI-SC and available on the UNFCCC JI website http://ji.unfccc.int/index.html.

The objective of the verification work ensures that the project activity complies with the requirements as specified in the appendix B of the JI guidelines on the aforementioned UNFCCC JI website http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/08a02.pdf#page=2. These guidelines are considered valid for JI Track 2 as also for JI Track 1. According to this assessment TÜV SÜD should:

Ensure that the project activity has been implemented and operated as per the registered PDD (Version 2.4 from 06/11/2009) and that all physical features (technology, project equipment, monitoring and metering equipment) of the project are in place;

Ensure that the published MR (IRL6) and other supporting documents provided are complete and verifiable and in accordance with applicable JI Track 1 requirements in the host country;

Ensure that actual monitoring systems and procedures comply with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan and the applicable approved methodology;

Evaluate the data recorded and stored as per the methodology of approved PDD.


Page 7 of 18

Evaluate the GHG emission reduction data and express a conclusion about whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is verifiable and sufficiently supported by evidence, i.e. monitoring records.

1.2 Scope The determination of the project was carried out in 2009. The results of the determination were documented by Det Norske Veritas in the Final Determination Report dated 13 November 2009. This final Determination Report indicates no remaining issues with relevance for the again subsequent verifications.

Following the relevant requirements of Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol and the JI guidelines (refer to Appendix B of the JI guidelines, §§30-45 and to the national German regulations and procedures) PP has applied an approved consolidated CDM methodology ACM0008, Version 03. The principles of accuracy and completeness, relevance, reliability and credibility were combined with a conservative approach to establish a traceable and transparent verification opinion. Past to receipt of the Monotoring Report referred to the para. 36 of the JI guidelines, a verification of the reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases reported by project participants (PPs) in accordance with appendix B of the JI guidelines has been made showing that those reductions were monitored and calculated in accordance with para. 33 of the JI guidelines.

The project was finally approved by the Designated Focal Point for JI/CDM project implementation in Poland and has the reference number PL1000264.

Verification process

The verification shall consider both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions. Quantitative data comprises the monitoring reports submitted to the AIE by the project entity. Qualitative data comprises information on internal management controls, calculation procedures, and procedures for transfer, frequency of emissions reports, review and internal audit of calculations/data transfers.

The verification is not meant to provide any consultancy towards the client. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions as well as so-called forward action requests may provide input for improvement of the monitoring activities.

1.3 GHG Project Description Project activity: Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland UNFCCC registration number: n/a Project Participants: Główny Instytut Górnictwa, JSW S.A., KWK Borynia- Zofiówka and the Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. Location of the project: Slaskie Province, Poland (Geo-coordinates: 49.999444, 18.612778) Date of approval: 13-11-2009 Starting date of the crediting period: 31-03-2008 The purpose of this project is the avoidance of methane emissions into the atmosphere at the Borynia coal mine. Coal mine methane is burned for electricity production (internal use) and heat generation (internal use).


Page 8 of 18

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Verification Process The verification process is based on the approach depicted in JI guidelines and, in particular, refer to the Guidance on Criteria for baseline setting and monitoring, chapter C. – Guidance on monitoring. Accordingly relevant requirements as set by the JI-SC for JI Track-2 are applied for JI Track-1 as long as there are no further host country requirements existing (and indicated in the national regulations and procedures) specifically for JI Track 1 projects. Following the good monitoring practices and its reporting the approved Validation and Verification Manual and newly approved Joint Implementation Determination and Verification Manual (DVM) was also taken into consideration.

Standard auditing techniques have been adopted. The means of verification for the fulfillment of the requirements and reporting are as per the VVM and analogue as per the DVM. Thus, compliance with JI relevant guidance is ensured, too.

The work starts with a contract review and the appointment of the TÜV SÜD assessment team covering the technical scope(s) and area(s) as well as relevant host country experience for evaluating of this JI project activity. The principles of consistency and transparency, impartiality, independency and safeguarding against conflicts of interest and confidentiality were considered by the TÜV SÜD Certification Body (CB) and the management of the departement before accepting the verification contract.

Once the monitoring report is published on TÜV SÜD publication platform in internet “netinform” (as it is the matter of JI Track-1 project), the TÜV SÜD assessment team has carried out a desk review, on-site inspection, follow-up actions, resolution of issues identified and prepared a verification report. The verification report and other supporting documents then undergo an internal quality control by the TÜV SÜD Certification Body before its submission to the DFP (host country) for the final approval.

In order to ensure transparency, assumptions are clearly and explicitly stated, audit evidences and further background material are clearly referenced in Annex 2 of this report. Project and methodology-specific checklists and a customized protocol have been developed for the project. The protocol shows criteria (requirements) in a transparent manner, the discussion of each criterion by the assessment team and results of the subsequent verification. The verification protocol (Annex 1) serves the following purposes:

• It organizes details and clarifies the requirements a JI project is expected to meet;

• It ensures a transparent verification process where the verifier will document how a particular requirement has been proved and the conclusion provided by the verifying team.

The findings are the essential part of this verification report, which are summarized in Annex 1 of the verification protocol.

2.2 Verification Team According to the technical scopes and experiences in the sectoral or national business environment TÜV SÜD has composed a project team in accordance with the appointment rules of the TÜV SÜD certification body “climate and energy”. The composition of an assessment team has to be approved by the Certification Body (CB) ensuring that the required skills are covered by the team. The TÜV SÜD CB operates four qualification levels for team members that are assigned by formal appointment rules:


Page 9 of 18

Assessment Team Leader (ATL) Greenhouse Gas Verifier, Determiner (GHG-Verifier, GHG-Determiner) Greenhouse Gas Auditor Trainee (T) Experts (E)

It is required that the sectoral scope and technical area - both are linked to the methodology -has to be covered by the assessment team. The verification team was consisting of the following members: Name Qualification Coverage of

scope Coverage of technical area

Host country experience

Olena Maslova ATL

Dr. Albert Geiger GHG-A Olena Maslova is an auditor (Determiner/Verifier) and assessment team leader in the “Carbon Management Service” department of TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH in Munich, Germany. She is chemical engineer and host country expert for projects in Central and Eastern Europe. Due to her further master degree at the university of applied science in the Federal Republic of Germany she is also familiar with Germany’s current environmental legislation. Olena Maslova specializes in the assessment of CDM / JI projects in the sector of chemical industries and waste handling and disposal. Dr. Albert Geiger is a GHG verifier for CO2-emission reduction projects of the scopes 8, 10 and 13 at the department “Environmental Service” of TÜV SÜD. He has done more than 15 CDM and JI projects and holds a PhD in geological sciences. He does environmental consulting in soil and water protection as well as waste management at TÜV SÜD since 1999.

Technical review: Karin Wagner, Thomas Kleiser

2.3 Review of Documents The Monitoring Report version 1 (IRL6) submitted by the PP was made publicly available on the TÜV SÜD website on the 29/09/11 before the verification activities started. The published MR was assessed based on all the relevant documents. The aims of the desk review were:

verification of the data completeness and the information presented in the MR, check of the MR compliance with respect to the monitoring plan depicted in the

approved PDD (frequency of measurements, the quality of the metering equipment including calibration; and QA/QC procedures),

evaluation of the data management and QA/QC system in the context of their influence on the generation and reporting of emission reductions.

A complete list of all documents reviewed is available in Annex 2 of this report.

2.4 On-site Assessment and follow-up Interviews Verification of emission reductions of the monitoring period was done from 12-10-2011 to 13-10- 2011 where TÜV SÜD performed a physical site inspection and on-site interviews with project stakeholders (IRL 4-5) to: confirm the implementation and operation of the project, review the data flow for generating, aggregating and reporting of the monitoring parameters,


Page 10 of 18

confirm the correct implementation of procedures for operation and data collection, cross-check the information provided in the MR with other sources, check the monitoring equipment against the monitoring plan presented in the PDD and the

applied methodology, including calibrations, maintenance, etc., review the calculations and assumptions used to obtain the GHG data and ER, check if the QC/QA procedures are in place for preventing and correcting of errors or/and

omissions in the reported data.

A list of the persons interviewed during this verification activity is included in Annex 2.

2.5 Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions Among several evidences submitted, the following relevant and reliable evidence material has been used by the audit team during the verification process (see Annex 2):

- Licenses - Raw data - Data from cross-checking instruments - Handwritten Journals - Analysis - Calibration documents - Quality assurance and quality control documents (Monitoring Manual)

Sufficient evidences and data covering the full verification period is available to validate the figures stated in the final MR. The source of the evidences and data will be discussed in chapter 3 of this report. The protocol gives a clear reference to sources assessed and is the basis for the conclusions of the audit team. Specific cross-checks have been done in cases when further sources were available. The monitoring report figures were checked by the audit team against the raw data. It can be confirmed that no data transfer errors were detected.

2.6 Resolution of Clarification, Corrective Action and Forward Action Requests The objective of this phase of the verification process is to resolve any outstanding issues, which require clarification for TÜV SÜD’s conclusion on the reported GHG emission reduction. The findings raised as Forward Action Requests (FARs) (if any) indicated in previous reports (determination/verification) were discussed and resolved during this phase through communication between the PP and TÜV SÜD. Concerns raised during the desk review, the on-site audit assessment and the follow up interviews are documented together with the according responses provided by the project participants in Annex 1 (verification protocols) to guarantee the transparency of the verification process. A Corrective Action Request is raised where TÜV SÜD identifies: non-conformities in monitoring and/or reporting with the monitoring plan and/or methodology; that the evidence provided is not sufficient to prove conformity; mistakes in assumptions, data or calculations that impair the ER calculations; FARs raised during determination or previous verifications that are not solved until the on-

site visit. A Clarification Request is raised where TÜV SÜD does not have enough information or the information is not transparent in order to confirm a statement or data.


Page 11 of 18

A Forward Action Request is raised where TÜV SÜD identifies that monitoring and/or reporting require special attention or adjustments for the next verification period. Information or clarifications provided as a response to a CAR, CR or FAR can also lead to a new request.

2.7 Internal Quality Control As a final step of the verification process, the verification documents including the verification report and the annexes have to undergo an internal quality control by the Certification Body (CB) “climate and energy”, i.e. each report has to be finally approved either by the Head of the CB or the Deputy (a Veto person can be used). In case one of these two persons is part of the assessment team, the approval can only be given by the person who is not a part of the assessment team. If the documents have been satisfactorily approved, the Request for Issuance is submitted to the JISC along with the relevant documents.

3 VERIFICATION RESULTS

In the following sections, the results of the verification are stated. The verification results relate to the project performance as documented and described in the approved PDD and the final Monitoring Report (IRL7). The verification findings for each verification subject are presented below and in details in the Verification Protocol in the attached annex 1. A JI protocol according to the Polish Ministry of Environment is attached in annex 3.

3.1 FARs from Determination / Previous Verification Following FAR has been presented in the previous verification report (1st periodic verification report) and solved with this verification. Forward Action Request 1: Yearly training of the staff concerning the monitoring procedures should be implemented. Yearly trainings have been held. Hence, FAR 1 is considered to be solved.

3.2 Project Implementation in accordance with the registered Project Design Document The project has been implemented as described in the registered PDD:

- 2 gas boilers (firing capacity 1.2 MW each) - 1 CHP unit (electrical capacity 1.8 MW)

The gas boilers are running since the beginning of the crediting period (since 31/03/2008). The CHP unit started the 23/06/2008. TÜV SÜD confirms that:

- the project has been implemented according to the approved PDD.


Page 12 of 18

3.3 Compliance of the Monitoring System with the Monitoring Plan The monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD. All parameters were monitored and determined as per the Monitoring Plan. The parameters relevant in the context of monitoring and calculating emission reductions are listed below. For more details please see the protocol on annex 1. Data / Parameter: MMELEC /CMMPj,ELEC,y Data unit: tCH4 Description: Methane sent to CHP Source of data used: Data from flow meter and methane analyser or in case of failure calculated

from the generated electricity (emergency procedure PM-7 of the Monitoring Manual, IRL 23)

Means of verification/Comments:

Check of the electronic data and handwritten records

Cross-check The cross-check has shown no inconsistences of the raw data with the figures used for the calculation of emission reduction

Data / Parameter: MMHEAT / CMMPj,HEAT,y Data unit: tCH4 Description: Methane sent to boilers Source of data used: Data from flow meter and methane analyser or or in case of failure

calculated from the generated heat (emergency procedure PM-8 of the Monitoring Manual, IRL 23)

Means of verification/Comments:



Data / Parameter: CONSELEC,pj Data unit: MWh Description: Additional electricity consumption for capture and destruction of methane Source of data used: Electricity meter Means of verification/Comments:

Check of the handwritten journals / electronically data


Data / Parameter: GENy Data unit: MWh Description: Electricity generation by project Source of data used: Electricity meter Means of verification/Comments:



Data / Parameter: HEATy


Page 13 of 18

Data unit: GJ Description: Heat generation of the project Source of data used: measured according to the PDDMeans of verification/Comments:

Check of the calculation routines and formula/parameters applied Data not used in the calculations (to be used only in case of emergency)

Cross-check The cross-check has shown no inconsistences in the figures/formula used for the calculation of the parameter

Data / Parameter: PCCH4 Data unit: % Description: Concentration (in mass) of methane in extracted gas (%), measured on wet

basis Source of data used: IR measurement Means of verification/Comments:

Check of the handwritten journals / electronically data


Data / Parameter: PCNMHC Data unit: % Description: NMHC concentration (in mass) in extracted gas Source of data used: Chemical Analysis by Główny Instytut Górnictwa (Central Mining Institute).

The Central Mining Institute is accredited. Means of verification/Comments:

Presentation of the accreditation certificates (see IRL 22). Analysed content less than 1%.

Cross-check NA The calibration status of all monitoring instruments has been demonstrated to TÜV SÜD by providing the calibration protocols and passports (IRL 17, 18). According to these documents all used meters were calibrated timely and according to the requirements set by the Monitoring Plan during the monitoring period.

The monitoring activities are strictly organised and written down in a Monitoring Manual (IRL 23). The responsibilities are determined and quality assurance measures are implemented on-site. The clear distribution of the monitoring duties has been demonstrated by the staff during the on-site visit.

The monitoring staff consists of engineers which are well familiar with the project equipment according to our on-site findings. Regular trainings have been held during the monitoring period (IRL 27). There are no deviations from the approved Monitoring Plan. TÜV SÜD confirms that:

- all necessary parameters have been measured - all parameters have been measured according of the approved Monitoring Plan - the function of the monitoring equipment, including its calibration status, was in order

within the whole verification period.


Page 14 of 18

- the evidence and records used for the monitoring are maintained in a traceable manner (journals, electronic media)

- sufficient training of the staff has been conducted.

3.4 Assessment of Data and Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions All information needed of the assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions was available (IRL 8, 9, 19-22). The input data of the calculations have been checked against the raw data. The verifier confirms that there are no deviations between raw data and input data. The data were consistent and no errors have been found. No data have been calculated from the emergency procedures of the approved PDD. . The NMHC have been analyzed regularly by a certified laboratory (accreditation certificates , IRL 22). The analyzed contents were always less than 1%. Hence, in accordance with the Methodology and the PDD the NMHCs were not considered in the calculations. The manual transfer of data to the excel sheets has been cross checked. No mistakes have been detected. Furthermore, all formulae used in the calculations have been checked against the approved PDD. The formulae comply fully with the formulae of the registered PDD. No deviations have been found. All the emission factors and default values are explicitly mentioned in the monitoring report. The values comply fully with the defaults in the registered PDD. In July and August 2011 no emissions reductions have been produced due to low heat production caused by warm weather conditions (production lower than estimated heat demand in the baseline). TÜV SÜD confirms that:

- Data sources used for calculating emission reductions are clearly identified, reliable and transparent

- that the most conservative data are used in calculations. - that the input data are viable and consistent with raw data. The applied manual data

transfer is correct. - the methods and formulae used to obtain the baseline, project and leakage emissions

are appropriate and without any mistakes. - the calculation of emission reductions is based on conservative assumptions and the

most plausible scenarios in a transparent manner.


Page 15 of 18

4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The verifier can confirm that the published MR and related documents are complete and verifiable in accordance with the JI requirements. All the findings raised by the verification team, the responses by the PPs and the conclusion of the audit team are presented in Annex 1. The means of verification and resulting changes in the MR or related documents are summarized in the table below: Corrective Action Request No. 1 According to the approved PDD BEMR should be calculated according to the following formula:

BEMRy ＝GWPCH4*[(CMMPJ,ELEC,,y+ CMMPJ,HEAT,,y ) -∑(THBL,y/12)dmaxｋ]

However, in the calculations a condition (THBLxdmax > MMELEC+MMHEAT, see column AL in the excel sheet estimation) has been introduced. If the condition sets 0, as it happened the 07/11 and 08/11, the calculation provides false results, because THBLxdmax is still fully considered in the baseline factor BEMD. Please correct the excell sheet according to the formula of the approved PDD (no conditions) and recalculate the ERUs. Please correct the MR accordingly. CAR 1, means of verification The revised MR and Excel calculation sheet were reviewed by the assessment team. CAR 1, changes in the MR or related documents The Excel calculation file was revised by applying zero ERUs to the July and August 2011 monitoring results. The MR was adjusted accordingly. Clarification Request No. 1 MR section 1.2: Please describe the new mining structure (merger of the two mines, announcement to the ministry of environment) and correct the address of Mr. Lach. Please adjust section 1.3.3 and present a map showing the relevant project area (Ruch Borynia). CR 1, means of verification The revised MR was reviewed by the audit team with special awareness to the new mining structure presented in chapters 1.2 and 1.3 of the revised MR. The letter to the Polish Environmental Ministry indicating the merger of KWK Borynia and KWK Zofiowka (IRL 31) was reviewed by the audit team and found authentic. CR 1, changes in the MR or related documents The chapters 1.2 and 1.3 of the MR were amended by inclusion of a more detailed information on the new mining structure. Clarification Request No. 2 MR section 2.2.2 Please insert a technical description of the boilers/burners (including max. possible methane consumption per hour). Include also the maximum possible methane consumption of the CHP. CR 2, means of verification The revised MR was reviewed by the assessment team. The information on the boilers/burners provided in the chapter 2.2.2 of the revised MR was cross-checked with the technical specifications of the respective boilers/burners (IRL 13-15). CR 2, changes in the MR or related documents The chapter 2.2.2 of the MR was revised by including the additional technical description of the the boilers/burners installed on-site.


Page 16 of 18

Clarification Request No. 3: The error of the NMHC-analysis is more than 2 % (value described in the PDD). Please consider the higher error in the calculations. Show the results in the MR. CR 3, means of verification The revised MR was assessed by the audit team. The information presented on the NMHC analysis was cross-checked with the analysis protocol from 08/12/2010, issued by Central Mining Institute (IRL 22). CR 3, changes in the MR or related documents The chapter 2.4.1 of the MR was amended by including the analysis of the NMHC results. It is clearly shown that the total content of NMHCs in CMM did not exceed 1% by volume (taking into account the upper error limits), thus emissions from the NMHCs destruction was omitted in the further calculations. Clarification Request No. 4: Please provide the hourly electronic raw data of MMElec and MMHeat.and the monthly electronic data of CONSELEC and GENv. CR 4, means of verification The electronic hourly data of MMElec and MMHeat.and the monthly data of CONSELEC and GENv have been reviewed by the assessment team and found plausible. CR 4, changes in the MR or related documents N/A Clarification Request No. 5: Please make the calculation of THBL x dkmax more transparent in the excel sheet. CR 5, means of verification The revised Excel calculation file has been assessed by the audit team. CR 5, changes in the MR or related documents The design of the Excel calculation file was improved and now the calculation of THBL x dkmax is

presented more transparent. Clarification Request No. 6: Data transfer and protection (MR page 16): Please describe the electronic data recording in more detail (e.g. back up procedures, data saving). CR 6, means of verification The revised MR was assessed by the audit team. CR 6, changes in the MR or related documents The MR has been revised and now describes data transfer and protection procedure more detailed. Clarification Request No. 7: Please show the coal and methane production of 2010. CR 7, means of verification The coal and methane production figures (IRL 26) were reviewed by the assessment team and found plausible. CR 7, changes in the MR or related documents N/A Clarification Request No. 8: The presented accreditation certificate of the GIG lab runs till 30/12/2010. Please present the succeeding accreditation certificate. CR 8, means of verification


Page 17 of 18

The valid accreditation certificate of testing laboratory was reviewed by the audit team (IRL 22). CR 8, changes in the MR or related documents N/A Clarification Request No. 9: Table 1 Parameter F2 - Turbine flow meter: Please correct the period of participation (it is 9/11/2009). CR 9, means of verification The revised MR was assessed by the audit team. CR 9, changes in the MR or related documents The MR was revised by including the correct period of the turbine flow meter oepration. Clarification Request No. 10:

- MR section 1.5: Please insert the unit (ERUs) - MR 2.1.4: Please insert „for approval of changes“ instead of „deviation - MR Table 1: Please insert a column with the calibration frequency.

Parameter C2: Please insert the date of sampling. Paramter F2 Flowmeter 325634: Please insert the previous calibration date MR Table 7: Please explain how CONSELEC is calculated from the reading data. CR 10, means of verification The revised MR was reviewed by the audit team. The additional information included in the revised MR was cross-checked with the respective calibration certificates and raw data (IRL 2, 17, 21, 22). CR 10, changes in the MR or related documents The MR was revised by including the requested information. Clarification Request No. 11: The annual figures of ERs should be separately demonstrated (division of table 20 into two tables). CR 11, means of verification The revised MR was reviewed by the audit team. CR 11, changes in the MR or related documents The annual ERs figures are now presented separately in tables 20 and 21 of the revised MR.

1ST PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland

Annex 1: TÜV SÜD Verification Protocol

Verification Protocol Project Title: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland, 2nd Verification, Period 01/09/2010 – 30/08/2011

Date of Completion: 07/02/2012

Number of Pages: 40

Checklist is applicable to registered JI – Project Activity No.: 600500857 Page A-1

Table of Content

1. Project Activity Implementation .................................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.1. Technology ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2. Organization ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3. Quality Management System ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Remaining FARs from previous Verifications (or forwarded issues of validation report) ............................................................................ 6

2. Monitoring Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1. Parameters ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.2. Parameters measured directly with instruments ....................................................................................................................................... 13

2.3. Parameters measured through sampling ................................................................................................................................................. 26

2.4. Parameters obtained through external sources and accounting data ...................................................................................................... 29

2.5. Other parameters not included in the methodology/tool but included in the PDD .................................................................................... 31

3. Data Processing and ER calculation ........................................................................................................................................................ 31

4. Additional assessment.............................................................................................................................................................................. 33

4.1. Internal Review ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

4.2. Peculiarities .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 33

4.3. Further additional requirements ................................................................................................................................................................ 34

4.4. Data Reporting ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

5. Compilation and Resolutions of CARs, CRs and FARs ........................................................................................................................... 35



Number of Pages: 40


1. Project Activity Implementation 1.1. Technology

Location (s)

PDD Description Verified Situation Conclusion and IRL

Description / Address BORYNIA Coal Mine

Jastrzebie Zdroj, Wojewodztwo Slaskie

The Borynia Coal Mine joined with the Zofiowka Coal Mine. The new name is “KWK Borynia.Zofiowka”.

The merger and the new name have been indicated to the Polish Ministry of Environment. The JI-project is restricted to the mining area of Borynia.

Clarification Request No. 1 MR section 1.2: Please describe the new mining situation (inclu-sive announcement of the new mining name to the environmental ministry) and correct the adress of Mr. Lach. Please adjust sec-tion 1.3.3 and present a map showing the relevant project area.

CR 1

GSP coordinates n/a See MR

Technical Equipment – Main Components

PDD Description Verified Situation Conclusion and IRL

Description CHP: GE Jenbacher J 612 GS 2 Boilers a 1.2 MW

CHP: GE Jenbacher JMS 612 GS-S, LC with generator AVK

2 Boilers a 1.2 MW



Number of Pages: 40


Component 1

Technical Features

1CHP modul GE Jenbacher J 612 GS

Electrical Capacity: 1.8 MW Heat capacity: 1.9 MW Manufacturer: GE Jenbacher

1CHP modul GE Jenbacher JMS 612 GS-S, LC

Electrical Capacity: 1.8 MW Heat capacity: 1.9 MW Manufacturer: GE Jenbacher

Motor Nr.: 5081771

Generator Nr.: 83 28535 A101

Commissioning Date: 14.05.2008

Component 2

Technical Features

2 Boilers:

Firing Capacity: approx. 1,2 MW No further technical features provided.

2 Boilers: Firing Capacity approx. 1,2 MW Manufacturer boiler: Rumia-Bassöe

Fabrication No: 97-V-100-20194 and 97-V-100-20195

2 Burners:

Manufacturer Burner: Dunphy England

Model: TG35 ZMH VKRT

Serial-No.: 19058 and 19059

Commissioning Date: 08.03.1999

Rehabilitation of the burners in 2008

Clarification Request No. 2 MR section 2.2.2 Please insert a technical description of the boil-ers/burners.

CR 2

Operation Status during verification

Verified Situation Conclusion



Number of Pages: 40


and IRL

Approvals / Licenses Valid mining concession

IRL 9

Actual Operation Status

Start date of operation (each site if applicable):

Under construction

In operation

Out of operation

Reason and date (if out of operation):

Remarks to Special Operational Status During the Verification Period

Phased implementation: according to PDD Special cases: n/a

1.2. Organization

Project Participant (s)

Verified Situation Conclusion and IRL

Entity / Responsible person: As described in the PDD (i.e. department within Power Engineering Department of the Coalmine Borynia including system manager)

JI Project management As described in the PDD (see descriptions above).



Number of Pages: 40


1.3. Quality Management System

General aspects of the Quality Management System

Verified Situation Conclusion and IRL

Quality Management Manual A Monitoring Manual with QA procedures has been implemented and has been revised in November 2010.

IRL23

Responsibilities Project Coordinator: Prof. Stanczyk

Project Manager: Mr. Lach

The responsibilities are clearly defined in the Monitoring Manual.

Qualification and Training The people working in the project get an initial training. Further trainings are not im-plemented.

Forward Action Request No. 1 Yearly training of the staff concerning the monitoring procedures should be imple-mented.

Further trainings have been carried out in 2011 (IRL 27). Hence, FAR 1 is solved.

Implementation of QM-system The staff of the project acts according to the work instructions of the Monitoring Manual



Number of Pages: 40


1.4. Remaining FARs from previous Verifications (or forwarded issues of validation report)

Remaining Requests from Previous Verifications

Summary of project owner response

Audit team Conclusion and IRL

n/a n/a n/a



Number of Pages: 40


2. Monitoring Plan Implementation 2.1. Parameters

Parameters

Meth/tool PDD MR Included in table Compliance Conclusion and IRL

Data and Parameters not monitored

THBL,y THBL,y THBL,y n/a Ex ante compliant

dkmax dk

max dkmax n/a Ex ante compliant

CBMBL,i,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CBMBL,i n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PMMBL,i n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

VAMBLi,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CBMei,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CBMBL,i,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CMMBL,i,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

VAMBL,i,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PMMBL,i,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Data and Parameters monitored

CON-SELEC,pj

CONSELEC,pj CONSELEC,pj See 2.1.5. table 1 compliant



Number of Pages: 40


Parameters


CON-SHEAT,PJ

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CONSFoss-

Fuel,PJ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CEFELEC CEFELEC,PJ CEFELEC,PJ n/a 770 t CO2/GWh, ex ante

CEFHEAT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CEFFossFuel n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

MMFL n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

VAMflow,rate,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

timey n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

DCH4,corr,inflow n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

DCH4,corr,exh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PVAMinflow n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

TVAMinflow n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PVAMexhaust n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

TVAMexhaust n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

MMELEC MMELEC MMELEC See 2.1.5. table 1 Compliant

EffELEC EffELEC

EffELEC n/a Set 99.5% (IPCC), ex ante



Number of Pages: 40


Parameters


MMHEAT MMHEAT MMHEAT See 2.1.5. table 1 compliant

EffHEAT EffHEAT EffHEAT n/a Set 99.5% (IPCC), ex ante

MMGAS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

EffGAS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CEFNMHC CEFNMHC

CEFNMHC n/a compliant

PCCH4 PCCH4 PCCH4 See 2.1.5. table 1 compliant

PCNMHC PCNMHC PCNMHC See 2.1.5. table 1 compliant

PCCH4,VAM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PCCH4,exhaust n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

MMi n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Effi n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PEMvent n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mei,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CMMPj,i,y CMMPj,ELEC,y CMMPj,ELEC,y See 2.1.5. table 1 compliant

CMMPj,HEAT,y CMMPj,HEAT,y See 2.1.5. table 1 compliant

VAMPJ,i,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PMMPj,i,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a



Number of Pages: 40


Parameters


GWPCH4 GWPCH4 GWPCH4 n/a Default Value 21 tCO2/tCH4 is in compli-ance with the Meth and the PDD.

CEFCH4 CEFCH4 CEFCH4 n/a Default Value 2.75 tCO2/tCH4 is in compli-ance with the Meth and the PDD.

R n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Vw n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ρcoal n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

gcoal n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

n n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Va n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Vc n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

N n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Coordi-nates of wells

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Coordi-nates well profile

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a



Number of Pages: 40


Parameters


Well depth n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

t n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ESt n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ESh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ESV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

AOw n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ATw n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

w n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

EDCBMw,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

EDCBMz,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

EDCPMM,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CBMw,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CBMz,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CBMx,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

PBEUse,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

GENy n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

HEATy

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a



Number of Pages: 40


Parameters


VFUELy n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

EFElec EFCMCP n/a n/a n/a n/a

EFOM,y EFOM,y n/a n/a n/a n/a

EFBM,y EFBM,y n/a n/a n/a n/a

Fi,j,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

COEFi,k n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

GENj,y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

EFCO2,i n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Effcaptive n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Effheat n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

EFv n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

MEk n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

MMELEC,k n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

MMHEAT,k n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

MMFL,k n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a



Number of Pages: 40


2.2. Parameters measured directly with instruments

Table 1: Parameter CONSELEC,pj

Parameter and instrumentation Information

PDD Meth/Tool MR Verified Conclusion and IRL

Parameter title CONSELEC,pj CONSELEC,pj CONSELEC,pj compliant

Parameter ID (if available) P 5 P 5 P 5 compliant

Data Unit MWh MWh MWh compliant

Monitoring frequency (reading) continuously continuously Hourly compliant

Monitoring frequency (recording) continuously continuously Hourly compliant

Calibration requirements According to rele-vant Industry Stan-dard

According to rele-vant Industry Stan-dard

June 2008

Sealed; authorisa-tion till 2016

Uncertainty level 1% According to rele-vant Industry Stan-dard

1% compliant

Measurement Principle (if applicable) Electricity meter Electricity meter Electricity meter compliant

Technical aspects Conclusion

and IRL

Instrument Type Electricity Meter POZYTON Type: sEA-T02IMS-B130B05



Number of Pages: 40




Serial Number 503-000-3278

Manufacturer Model Nr. See above

Specific Location CHP Plant, control room

Measurement Range n/a

Gaps in operating time of instrument Period: see data

Default value used: n/a

Justification: n/a

QA/QC aspects Conclusion and IRL

Source of data Type: Electronic data

Procedures: n/a

Implementation of procedure: n/a

Responsibility: see MR

Archiving of raw data and protection measures

Continuous data saved on hard disc; Daily data saved manually on handwritten forms

Data transfer and protection of input data for calculations

Automatic transfer of the electronic data



Number of Pages: 40




Quality of evidence Conclusion and IRL

Completeness of data The data are complete.

Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: The data have been correctly transferred to the calculation tool

Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: The data sets are consistent

Crosscheck (if available) n/a

Table 2: Parameter PCCH4 Parameter and instrumentation Information


Parameter title PCCH4 PCCH4 PCCH4 consistent

Parameter ID (if available) P 15 n/a P 15 consistent

Data Unit % % % consistent

Monitoring frequency (reading) hourly continuously continuously continuously

Monitoring frequency (recording) hourly continuously Average of 6 meas- Average of 6 meas-



Number of Pages: 40


Parameter and instrumentation Information urements during one hour

urements during one hour

Calibration requirements According to the national standards


According to the national standards

Calibrations accord-ing protocols:

N 08006: 30/06/2010

02/08/2011

N10091:

24/08/2010

Uncertainty level 1% According to rele-vant Industry Stan-dard

1% 1%

Measurement Principle (if applicable) Gas analyser Gas analyser Gas analyser consistent

Technical aspects Conclusion and IRL

Instrument Type Nanosens IR-DP-OS (2 instruments: one measuring, one substitute)

Serial Number N 08006 and N10091


Specific Location CHP Plant

Measurement Range 0-100%

Gaps in operating time of instrument Period: automatic measurements; input to automatic calculation of methane volume




Number of Pages: 40



Justification: n/a


Source of data Type: electronic data

Procedures: n/a




Not separately archived


Automatic transfer to calculator unit; calculation of MMELEC


Completeness of data The data are complete.

Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: The data have been correctly transferred to the calculation tool


Crosscheck (if available) n/a n/a



Number of Pages: 40


Table 3: Parameter MMELEC / CMMPj,ELEC,y

Parameter and instrumentation Information:


Parameter title MMELEC / CMMPj,ELEC,y

MMELEC / CMMPj,ELEC,y

MMELEC / CMMPj,ELEC,y

consistent

Parameter ID (if available) P 8 / B 8 n/a P 8 / B 8 consistent

Data Unit t CH4 t CH4 t CH4 consistent

Monitoring frequency (reading) hourly continuously continuously Continuous meas-urements; auto-matic calculation of 10 minutes aver-ages; calculation of hourly averages by using the 10 min-utes averages;

Monitoring frequency (recording) hourly continuously continuously Automatic recording of the 10 minutes and hourly aver-ages; recording of daily data on paper



Number of Pages: 40


Parameter and instrumentation Information:

Calibration requirements According to na-tional standards


According to na-tional standards


297399:

13/07/2010

07/07/2011

335935:

22/12/2010

Uncertainty level 1,5 % According to rele-vant Industry Stan-dard

1,5 % < 1,5 %

Measurement Principle (if applicable) Thermal flow meter Thermal flow meter


Instrument Type Thermo flow meter ST51 FCI with internal thermo meter and pressure meter

Serial Number Thermo flow meter: 297399 and 335935 (2 instruments: one measuring, one backup)

Manufacturer Model Nr. See description above

Specific Location CHP

Measurement Range Area: 51 till 610 mm; Velocity: 0,08 to 122 m/s

Gaps in operating time of instrument Type: see data, gaps because of malfunction of the turbine flow meter

Procedures: In case if malfunction calculation of MMELEC from the electricity generated (see cross check below)

Implementation of procedure: Procedure described in the Monitoring Manual and im-



Number of Pages: 40


Parameter and instrumentation Information: plemented on-site

Responsibility:


Procedures: n/a




Archiving of the hourly averages on hard-disc

Archiving of one handwritten value daily


Daly transfer, electronic and handwritten data


Completeness of data The used data are complete.

Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: The data sets are consistent


Crosscheck (if available) In case of malfunction of the flow meter MMELEC is calculated from the electricity gener-



Number of Pages: 40


Parameter and instrumentation Information: ated according to the following formula (emergency procedure):

MMELEC = dCH4 x GENv x 360 / (WCH4 x ηv)

With:

GENv: Electricity generated [kWh]

dCH4: Density = 0,000670 [t/m3]

WCH4: Calorific value of methane = 36 [MJ/Nm3] ηv: Efficiency = 41,3 [%]

This formula is explicitly described in the Monitoring Manual (Procedure PM-4). In the registered PDD this formula of the Monitoring Manual is clearly referenced. Hence, this procedure is part of the approved project.

GENv is monitored by the following meter:

PAFAL 1C521; serialnumber: 13557836 and

PAFAL 1C521; serialnumber: 13067831 (backup)

Furthermore, the produced waste heat is measured with the following meter:

MULTICAL/KAMSTRUP; serialnumber: 225224



Number of Pages: 40


Table 4: Parameter MMHEAT / CMMPj,HEAT,y

Parameter and instrumentation Information: Gas filling Station


Parameter title MMHEAT / CMMPj,HEAT,y

MMHEAT / CMMPj,HEAT,y

MMHEAT / CMMPj,HEAT,y

consistent

Parameter ID (if available) P 11 / B 9 n/a P 11 / B 9 consistent

Data Unit t CH4 t CH4 t CH4 consistent

Monitoring frequency (reading) hourly continuously continuously Continuous meas-urements; auto-matic calculation of 10 minutes aver-ages; calculation of hourly averages by using the 10 min-utes averages;

Monitoring frequency (recording) hourly continuously continuously Automatic recording of the 10 minutes and hourly aver-ages; recording of daily data on paper

Calibration requirements According to na-tional standards


According to na-tional standards


325634:

14/05/2010



Number of Pages: 40


Parameter and instrumentation Information: Gas filling Station 02/06/11

325935: 22/12/10

Uncertainty level 1,5 % According to rele-vant Industry Stan-dard

1,5 % < 1,5 %

Measurement Principle (if applicable) Volume meter cou-pled with p,T cor-rector

Not described Thermo flow meter Thermo flow meter


Instrument Type Thermo flow meter Introl ST51 FCI with internal thermo and pressure meter

Serial Number 325634 and 325935 (2 instruments: one measuring, one backup)


Specific Location Boiler house

Measurement Range 26-1200 m3/h

Gaps in operating time of instrument Type: see data

Procedures: In case if malfunction calculation of MMHEAT from the heat generated (see cross check below)

Implementation of procedure: Procedure described in the Monitoring Manual and im-plemented on-site




Number of Pages: 40




Procedures: n/a




Archiving of the hourly averages on hard-disc

Archiving of one handwritten value daily


Daly transfer, electronic and handwritten data


Completeness of data The used data are complete.

Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: The data sets are consistent.

Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: The data sets are consistent.

Crosscheck (if available) In case of malfunction of the flow meter MMHEAT is calculated from the heat generated according to the following formula (emergency procedure) :

MMHEAT = dCH4 x GENQ x 105 / (WCH4 x ηQ)



Number of Pages: 40



With:

GENQ: Heat generated [GJ]

dCH4: Density = 0,000670 [t/m3]

WCH4: Calorific value of methane = 36 [MJ/Nm3] ηv: Efficiency = 92 [%]

This formula is explicitly described in the Monitoring Manual (Procedure PM-6). In the registered PDD this formula of the Monitoring Manual is clearly referenced. Hence, this procedure is part of the approved project.

GENQ is monitored by the following heat meter:

MULTICAL/KAMSTRUP; serial number: 4716831

PoWOGAZ: serial number: 09330744 (flow)



Number of Pages: 40


2.3. Parameters measured through sampling

Sampling information: Gas Sample Analysis


Parameter title PCNMHC PCNMHC PCNMHC consistent

Parameter ID (if available) P 16 n/a P 16 consistent

Data Unit % % % consistent

Sampling frequency Annually Annually The NMHC analysis frequency is once a year.

Annually

Sampling point Direct sampling at pipeline.

Not described Not described. Direct sampling at pipeline at the CHP unit

Uncertainty level 2 % Not described 2 % Clarification Re-quest No. 3: The error of the NMHC-analysis is more than 2 % (value described in the PDD). Please consider the higher error in the calcula-tions.

CR 3




Number of Pages: 40



Sampling Principle Sampling by Air Bag done by the mine according to the description in the Monitoring Manual.

Methodology of Sampling See above

Sample Analysed by Laboratory of the Central Mining Institute

Certification of Analyser/ Laboratory Clarification Request No. 8: The presented accreditation certificate of the GIG lab runs till 30/12/2010. Please pre-sent the succeeding accreditation certificate.

CR 8

Methodology of Sample Analysis (if applicable)

Chromatographic analysis

Measurement Range etan: 0,01-10.000 ppm

etylen: 0,01-150 ppm

propan: 0,01-3.000 ppm

Gaps in sampling frequency Period: Yearly analysis as defined in the registered PDD

Analyses from 08/12/2010


Justification: n/a


Source of data Type: Chemical Analysis

Procedures: According the accreditation



Number of Pages: 40



Implementation of procedure: According to the laboratory standards

Responsibility: Head of laboratory

Representativeness: n/a

Reproducibility: n/a


Protocols of the Laboratory on paper.


n/a


Completeness of data Complete (yearly analysis)

Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: n/a

Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report:




Number of Pages: 40


2.4. Parameters obtained through external sources and accounting data

External sources and accounting information


Parameter title n/a n/a n/a n/a

Parameter ID (if available) n/a n/a n/a n/a

Data Unit n/a n/a n/a n/a


Description of Data / Data Refers to: n/a

Date of Data n/a

Gaps in data Period: n/a


Justification: n/a


Source of data Type: n/a

Responsibility: n/a

Representativeness: n/a



Number of Pages: 40


Reliability of Data Source n/a

Is the Data up-to-date? n/a


n/a


n/a

Quality of evidence

Completeness of data

Data verification Consistency of raw data with calculation tool: n/a

Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: n/a




Number of Pages: 40


2.5. Other parameters not included in the methodology/tool but included in the PDD

Not applicable.

3. Data Processing and ER calculation

Description of data processing from transferred data to final results in the calculation tool

Step Description Conclusion and IRL

Consistency Clarification Request No. 4: Please provide the hourly electronic data of MMElec and MMHeat.and the monthly electronic data of CONSELEC and GENy.

CR 4

Calculation Tool description

Clarification Request No. 5: Please make the calculation of THBLxdkmax more transparent in the excel sheet.

Corrective Action Request 1: According to the approved PDD BEMR should be calculated according to the following formula:


However, in the calculations a condition (THBLxdmax > MMELEC+MMHEAT, see column AL in the excel sheet estimation) has been introduced. If the condition sets 0, as it happend the 07/11 and 08/11, the calculation provides false results, because THBLxdmax is still fully considered in the baseline factor BEMD. Please correct the excell sheet according to the formula of the approved PDD (no

CR 5 CAR 1



Number of Pages: 40


conditions) and recalculate the ERUs. Please correct the MR accordingly.

Elimination of not plausible data (if applicable)

n/a

Transformation from useable data to in-put data for further calculation (if appli-calbe)

n/a

Ex-ante data The used ex-ante data comply with the data of the PDD (see baseline methane destruction emissions, table 10).

Default parameter The used default parameters comply fully with the values of the PDD.

Formulae check The formulae of the excel sheet have been checked against the formulae of the PDD. No deviations have been found.

Rounding functions The rounding has been done according to the excel function.

Calculation tool changes and pro-tection measures

Data transfer and protection measures are clearly described in section C.3. The correctness of the infor-mation has been evidenced during the on-site visit.

Reported data All raw data are clearly documented on computer files and in handwritten reports.



Number of Pages: 40


4. Additional assessment 4.1. Internal Review

Description and performance of internal review

Description Conclusion and IRL

Procedure According to the Monitoring Manual

Documentation According to the Monitoring Manual

Responsibilities As described in the Monitoring Manual

4.2. Peculiarities

Description of Peculiarities and unexpected Daily Events during the verification period


Performance none

Documentation none

Measures none



Number of Pages: 40


4.3. Further additional requirements Description of additional requirements to be checked


4.4. Data Reporting Description of the Monitoring Report

Comments and Results Conclusion and IRL

Compliance with UNFCCC regula-tions

n/a n/a

Completeness and Transparency

The data are complete. The data management is transparent.

Correctness The reported data comply with the data of the calculations and the raw data.



Number of Pages: 40


5. Compilation and Resolutions of CARs, CRs and FARs

Corrective Action Requests by audit team

Comments and Results Ref Conclusion and IRL

Issue Corrective Action Request 1: According to the approved PDD BEMR should be calculated according to the following for-mula:


However, in the calculations a condition (THBLxdmax > MMELEC+MMHEAT, see column AL in the excel sheet estimation) has been introduced. If the condition sets 0, as it happend the 07/11 and 08/11, the calculation provides false results, because THBLxdmax is still fully considered in the baseline factor BEMD. Please correct the ex-cell sheet according to the formula of the approved PDD (no conditions) and recalcu-late the ERUs. Please correct the MR accordingly.

Response Because of a very low heat production the calculated ERUs in July and August 2011 are negative. These negative values are set zero thus considering that the project has a positive impact on the climate.

Assessment The calculated ERUs are less than in the case of no heat production. Hence, the calculation has to be considered conservative and CAR 1 is solved.



Number of Pages: 40


Clarification Requests by audit team


Issue Clarification Request No. 1 MR section 1.2: Please describe the new mining structure (merger of the two mines, an-nouncement to the ministry of environment) and correct the address of Mr. Lach. Please adjust section 1.3.3 and present a map showing the relevant project area (Ruch Borynia).

MR 1.2 and

1.3.3

Response The appropriate information about the new mining structure (description, map, address) was introduced to the MR.

Assessment The new mining structure is described. The geographical situation is shown on a map in section 1.3.3. Hence, CR 1 is solved.

Issue Clarification Request No. 2 MR section 2.2.2 Please insert a technical description of the boilers/burners (including max. possible methane consumption per hour). Include also the maximum possible methane con-sumption of the CHP.

MR 2.2.2

Response The additional information about technical parameters of the boilers and gas engine was introduced to the MR (page 18/19).

Assessment The technical description is inserted in section 2.2.2. Hence, CR 2 is solved.



Number of Pages: 40


Issue Clarification Request No. 3: The error of the NMHC-analysis is more than 2 % (value described in the PDD). Please consider the higher error in the calculations. Show the results in the MR.

MR 2.4.1

Response The higher errors of the NMHC-analysis were taken into account. Calculations are pre-sented on page 23 of the MR.

Assessment The higher errors are considered in the calculations. Hence, CR 3 is solved.

Issue Clarification Request No. 4: Please provide the hourly electronic raw data of MMElec and MMHeat.and the monthly elec-tronic data of CONSELEC and GENv.

Response The files with raw monitoring data were included:

- amount of methane consumed in CHP and boilers (file: „Methane consumption”)

- records from electricity meters (files „electricity-2010” and „electricity-2011”)

The monitoring system does not allow downloading these records in other, more common formats.

Assessment The electronic raw data were provided and archived by TÜV SÜD.

Issue Clarification Request No. 5: Please make the calculation of THBL x dkmax more transparent in the excel sheet.

IRL 8

Response Calculations was made more in detail – Table 10 in Monitoring Report and column 34 in the excel sheet.

Assessment The calculations are more transparently presented. Hence, CR 5 is solved.



Number of Pages: 40


Issue Clarification Request No. 6: Data transfer and protection (MR page 16): Please describe the electronic data recording in more detail (e.g. back up procedures, data saving).

MR 2.1.5

Response Data transfer and protection procedure on page 16 of the MR was described in more detail.

Assessment The request is solved.

Issue Clarification Request No. 7: Please show the coal and methane production of 2010.

IRL 28

Response Coal production in 2010 was 189,200 tonnes.

The inclusion of pure methane at the methane recovery station in 2010 was 9,273,600 Nm3.

Assessment The requested data are presented. Hence, CR 7 is solved.

Issue Clarification Request No. 8: The presented accreditation certificate of the GIG lab runs till 30/12/2010. Please present the succeeding accreditation certificate.

IRL 22

Response The valid accreditation certificate of testing laboratory sent as attachment.

Assessment A copy of the accreditation certificate is presented. The GIG lab is accredited till 30.12.2014. Hence, CR 8 is solved.

Issue Clarification Request No. 9: Table 1 Parameter F2 - Turbine flow meter: Please correct the period of participation (it is 9/11/2009).

2.1.5

Table 1

Response The correct date was introduced to the MR (page 10).



Number of Pages: 40


Assessment The table is corrected according to the comment. Hence, CR 9 is solved.

Issue Clarification Request No. 10: - MR section 1.5: Please insert the unit (ERUs) - MR 2.1.4: Please insert „for approval of changes“ instead of „deviation - MR Table 1: Please insert a column with the calibration frequency.

Parameter C2: Please insert the date of sampling.

Paramter F2 Flowmeter 325634: Please insert the previous calibration date

- MR Table 7: Please explain how CONSELEC is calculated from the reading data.

MR sec-tions 1.5, 2.1.4, ta-ble 1 and table 7

Response The sections 1.5 and 2.1.4 of the MR were corrected accordingly. All information was en-tered into the Table 1. Adequate explanations, how CONSELEC is calculated, were put into the MR, above Table 7.

Assessment All comments have been considered in the latest version of the MR. Hence, CR10 is solved.

Issue Clarification Request No. 11: The annual figures of ERs should be separately demonstrated (division of table 20 into two tables).

general

Response Table 20 was divided into two tables, i.e. Table 20 for year 2010 and Table 21 for year 2011

Assessment The final MR contains two separate tables (20 and 21).

Forward Action Requests by audit team




Number of Pages: 40


Forward Action Requests by audit team

Issue none

Response

Assessment

No FARs arose in this verification.


Annex 2: Information Reference List

Annex 2

07-02-2012

2nd Verification of the JI Track 1 Project: Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland

Information Reference List

Page 1 of 7

TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH

Ref. No.

Author/Editor/ Issuer Title/Type of Document. Publication place

Issuance and/or submission

date(dd/mm/yyyy)

Additional Information

(Relevance in JI Context)

1. UNFCCC

Approved CDM Methodology ACM0008 “Consolidated baseline methodology for coal bed methane and coal mine methane capture and use for power (electrical and motive) and heat and/or destruction by flaring” version 03

22/12/2006

2. Mizuho Corporate

Bank Ltd. PDD “Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland”, version-2.4

06/11/2009

3. Det Norske Veritas Determination Report No. 2008-0610, revision 01 13/11/2009

4. Participant list of the audit 12 – 13/10/2011

5. TÜV SÜD

On-site interviews conducted by TÜV SÜD. Validation Team: Dr. Albert Geiger TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH (GHG-Auditor) Interviewed persons:

Name Company Function Pawlinów Józef KWK „BORYNIA and

Zofiowka” The BORYNIA Coal Mine

Technical Director

Łach Stefan KWK „BORYNIA and Zofiowka” The BORYNIA Coal Mine

Chief Power Engineer

Bednarek Irena KWK „BORYNIA and Energy department at

12 – 13/10/2011

Annex 2

07-02-2012



Page 2 of 7


Ref. No.



date(dd/mm/yyyy)



Zofiowka” The BORYNIA Coal Mine

Borynia

Sudlitz Sebastian KWK „BORYNIA and Zofiowka” The BORYNIA Coal Mine

Energy department at Borynia

Drewicz Remisgiusz KWK „BORYNIA and Zofiowka” The BORYNIA Coal Mine

Inspector monitoring

Brzoza Roman KWK „BORYNIA and Zofiowka” The BORYNIA Coal Mine

Technical staff

Kapusta Krzysztof Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute

Specialist in the Department Energy Saving and Air Protection

Krawczyk Piotr Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute


Krzemień Joanna Główny Instytut Górnictwa The Central Mining Institute


Yata Hideo The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc.

Company representative

Umeda Yoshiho The Yoho Co., Inc. President of the company

Annex 2

07-02-2012



Page 3 of 7


Ref. No.



date(dd/mm/yyyy)



6. Central Mining

Institute Second Verification: Monitoring Report to the project “Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland”, version 1

22/09/2011

7. Central Mining

Institute

Second Verification: Final Monitoring Report to the project “Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coal Mine, Poland”, version 4

06/02/2012

8. Central Mining

Institute and KWK Borynia

MR v.4: ERU calculation (excel sheet) 06/02/2011

9. Mining Ministry Mining licenses: Concession from 27/10/2009 (valid till 31/12/2025)

10. Authorities Commissioning report of the boilers 08/03/1999

11. Testing Institutes Technical approval documentation of the Burners 1998

12. Authorities Commissioning report of the CHP 14/05/2008

13. Dunphy England Specifications of the Burners 1997

14. Thermapol Specifications of the boilers 11/1996

15. GE Jenbacher Specifications of the gas engine JMS 612 GS 2002-2008

16.

Specifications of the monitoring meters: CHP:

- Electricity Meter TK/30001/013/004 from POZYTON - Electricity Meter C52 from PAFAL - Methane Analyzer G1/CH4/IR-DP-OS from NANOSENS - Flow Meter ST51 from Introl

Annex 2

07-02-2012



Page 4 of 7


Ref. No.



date(dd/mm/yyyy)



Boiler:

- Turbine Flow Meter CPT-01 from Common - Corrector CMK-02 from Common - Flow Meter ST51 from Introl - Heat meter from Kamstrup

17.

Calibration Certificates: CHP:

- Electricity Meter TK/30001/013/004 from POZYTON: 24/11/2009 - Electricity Meter C52 from PAFAL:

Sr.-no. 13557836 and 13067831: 12/03/2009 and 25/11/2009 - Methane Analyzer G1/CH4/IR-DP-OS from NANOSENS:

Sr.-no. N 08006: 30/06/2010 and 02/08/2011 Sr.-no. N 10091: 24/08/2010

- Flow Meter ST51 from Introl: Sr.-no. 297399: 13/07/2010, 07/07/2011 Sr.-no. 335935: 22/12/2010

Boiler:

- Flow Meter ST51 from Introl: Sr.-no. 325634: 14/05/2010 and 02/06/2011 Sr.-no. 335935: 22/12/2010

- Heat meter from Kamstrup: Sr.-no. 4716831: 29/10/2009 Sr.-no. 225224: June 2008

18. Allowance for Calibration:

Annex 2

07-02-2012



Page 5 of 7


Ref. No.



date(dd/mm/yyyy)



- Certificates of Kamstrup (heat meters), 14/03/2007 - Certificate of Pozyton (sea electricity meter), 11/12/2006 - Certificate of Energomoc (pafal electricity meter), 28/04/2006

19.

Electronic Raw Data from the CHP unit - CONSELEC - MMELEC (NVolume) - GENELEC

12 – 13/10/2011

20. Electronic Raw Data from the boilers

- MMHEAT ((NVolume) - GENHEAT

12 – 13/10/2011

21. Project Manager

Handwritten monthly Data Sheets with daily data: - CONSELEC - MMELEC (NVolume) - MMHEAT ((NVolume) - GENELEC - GENHEAT

14/10/2011

22.

NMHC Analyses: - Sampling protocol from 08/12/2010, KWK Borynia - Analysis protocol from 08/12/2010 , Central Mining Institute - Accreditation Certificate, valid from 01/12/93 till 30/12/2010 - Accreditation Certificate, valid from 21/12/2010 till 30/12/2014

23. Central Mining Institute and KWK

Monitoring Manual - Monitoring Procedures

06/07/2010 22/11/2010 (revision)

Annex 2

07-02-2012



Page 6 of 7


Ref. No.



date(dd/mm/yyyy)



Borynia - Monitoring and Reporting

24. Central Mining


Reports of internal audits 08/06/2010 30/05/2011

25. Central Mining


Schedule of the calibrations 2010 till 2011

26. KWK Borynia Coal production 2010 24/11/2011

27. KWK Borynia Participant lists of trainings

04/03/10 29/12/10 18/08/11 18/03/11 13/04/11 20/04/11

28. Central Mining


E-Mails 09/2011 – 12/2011

29. TÜV SÜD IS Photographs of the on-site visit 12 – 13/10/2011

30. Polish Ministry of

Environment Letter of Approval 05/02/2010

31. JSW SA Borynia-

Zofiowka Letter to the Polish Environmental Ministry indicating the merger of KWK Borynia and KWK Zofiowka

14/02/2011

32. KWK Borynia- Map showing the mining area of Ruch Borynia 10/2011

Annex 2

07-02-2012



Page 7 of 7


Ref. No.



date(dd/mm/yyyy)



Zofiowka

33. KWK Borynia-Zofiowka Ruch

Borynia Mining plan with degasification system 10/2011


Annex 3: JI Verification Report Template of the Polish Ministry of Environment

2ND PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 1 of 3

Datum: 07.02.2012 Unsere Zeichen: IS-CMS-MUC/EM Das Dokument besteht aus 3 Seiten. Seite 1 von 3 Die auszugsweise Wiedergabe des Dokumentes und die Verwendung zu Werbezwecken bedürfen der schriftlichen Genehmigung der TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH. Die Prüfergebnisse beziehen sich ausschließlich auf die untersuchten Prüfgegenstände.

Sitz: München Amtsgericht München HRB 96 869 USt-IdNr. DE129484218 Informationen gemäß § 2 Abs. 1 DL-InfoV unter www.tuev-sued.de/impressum

Aufsichtsrat: Karsten Xander (Vorsitzender) Geschäftsführer: Ferdinand Neuwieser (Sprecher), Dr. Ulrich Klotz, Thomas Kainz

Telefon: +49 89 5791-2246 Telefax: +49 89 5791-2756 www.tuev-sued.de/is

TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Niederlassung München Umwelt Service Westendstraße 199 80686 München Deutschland

1. Project information 1.1. Project title Coal Mine Methane Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia 1.2. Name, designation of office and address of the project applicant Kopalnia Węgla Kamiennego "Borynia-Zofiówka" (The Borynia-Zofiówka Coal Mine) 44-335 Jastrzębie-Zdrój ul. Rybnicka 6 1.3. Location of the project activity 1.3.1. Voivodeship Śląskie Voivodeship 1.3.2. Community and city Community: Jastrzębie Zdrój City: Jastrzębie Zdrój 1.3.3. Address or parcel identification number JSW S.A. – KWK Borynia – Zofiówka, Ruch „Borynia” ul. Węglowa 4 44-268 Jastrzębie Zdrój 1.4. Type of greenhouse gas, which emission was reduced, avoided or absorbed (please tick the appropriate gas): ■CH4 □N2O □HFCs □ PFCs □SF6 □CO2 1.5. Results of conducted R&D activities As a result of the conducted activities, the total emission reductions achieved in the monitoring period 01.09.2010 – 31.08.2011 amounted to 35,673 ERU. 1.6. Reporting period 01.09.2010 – 31.08.2011 2. Assessment of applied monitoring methodology 2.1. Assessment of data/information collection and analysis The data/Information collection occurred according to the procedures defined in the approved PDD. The data reported in the Monitoring Report for the relevant Monitoring Period comply with the data of the calculations and the raw data. Hence, the verifier confirms that the Data/information collection and analysis is done correctly according to the defined procedures. 2.2. Assessment of collected data and information

2ND PERIODIC VERIFICATION Coal Mine Capture and Utilization at KWK Borynia Coalmine, Poland Page 2 of 3

The collected data are assessed and confirmed to be correct. The verifier can confirm that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material mis-statements. This confirmation is based on a detailed check on raw data and cal-culated data using all cross-checking options. Our opinion refers to the project GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions reported, determined using the valid and approved project baseline, its monitoring plan and its associ-ated documents. 2.3. Assessment of applied monitoring plan The applied monitoring plan complies fully with the monitoring plan of the ap-proved PDD. No changes of the monitoring plan occurred in this monitoring pe-riod. 3. Information on verification carried out 3.1. Name of institution that carried out the verification TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH 3.2. Date of verification 07/02/2012 (report date) 4. Assessment of the project implementation 4.1. Assessment of compliance of the project implementation with design docu-ments The project is implemented as designed. The project has been operating accord-ing to the approved PDD. 4.2. Assessment of compliance of the project monitoring with the approved monitoring plan The project monitoring fully complies with the monitoring plan of the registered PDD. 4.3. Assessment of the selected methodology. The project fulfils the applicability criteria of the applied methodology ACM0008. For details please see the registered PDD version 2.4 from November 6, 2009 and the relating determination report rev.01 from DNV, 13th of November 2009. 5. Assessment of the emission reduction calculations 5.1. Assessment of determination of the baseline scenario The baseline scenario was determined by DNV. For details please see determi-nation report rev.01 from 13th of November 2009. The verifier can confirm that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements. This confirmation is based on a detailed check on raw data and calculated data using all cross-checking options. Our opinion refers to the project GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions reported, determined using the valid and approved project baseline, its monitoring plan and its associated documents. 5.2. Assessment of monitoring results of the GHG emission reduction, avoidance or absorbance The verifier can confirm that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements. This confirmation is based on a detailed check on raw data and calculated data using all cross-checking options. Our opinion refers to the project GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions reported, determined using the valid and approved project baseline, its monitoring plan