Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi SENC

Transcription

Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi
S.E.N.C.
Verification report on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (“GHG”)
reduction project – Fuel switching & Energy efficiency project
September 4, 2012
September 4, 2012
Mr. Daniel Gendron
Director
Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.
767 Jacques-Cartier Street East
Chicoutimi, Quebec G7H 6A3
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 2000
National Bank Tower
600 De La Gauchetière Street West
Montréal, Quebec H3B 4L8
Telephone: 514-878-2691
Fax: 514-878-2127
www.rcgt.com
Dear Sir:
Subject: Verification Report on a Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) Emissions Reduction Project –
Fuel switching & Energy efficiency project
Enclosed herewith is our verification report on a GHG emissions reduction project performed at
767 Jacques-Cartier Street East, Chicoutimi, Quebec, G7H 6A3.
The quantification report that is subject to our verification is included in Appendix 1.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any additional information you may require.
Yours truly,
Chartered Professional Accountants
Roger Fournier, CPA, CA
Lead Senior Manager
Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
Verification Notice on the Declaration
of GHG Emissions Reductions
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 2000
National Bank Tower
600 De La Gauchetière Street West
Montréal, Quebec H3B 4L8
Telephone: 514-878-2691
Fax: 514-878-2127
www.rcgt.com
Mr. Daniel Gendron
Director
767 Jacques-Cartier Street East
Chicoutimi, Quebec G7H 6A3
Dear Sir:
We have been engaged by Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. to perform the verification of
Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. GHG emissions reduction project as an independent third
party verifier.
We have verified the accompanying greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions reduction quantification report
entitled Greenhouse gas Project Plan and Report Period 2005-2010 (the “quantification report”). This
quantification report dated August 7, 2012 is included, along with the related GHG assertions, in
Appendix 1 of our report which is intended to be publicly posted on CSA’s GHG CleanProjectsTM
Registry. The present report is the first verification report issued for this project.
Responsibilities
Management is responsible for the relevance, consistency, transparency, conservativeness, completeness,
accuracy and method of presentation of the quantification report. This responsibility includes the design,
implementation and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation of a GHG emissions
reduction quantification report that is free from material misstatements. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion based on our verification.
Standards
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with
guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006). This standard requires that we plan
and perform the verification to obtain either a reasonable assurance or a limited assurance about whether
the emission reductions declaration that is contained in the attached quantification report is fairly stated,
is free of material misstatements, is an appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of
Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. and the materiality threshold has not been reached or
exceeded.
Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
2
Level of assurance
It was agreed with Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s representatives that a reasonable
assurance level of opinion would be issued and we planned and executed our work accordingly.
Consequently, our verification included those procedures we considered necessary in the circumstances
to obtain a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Scope
A reasonable assurance engagement with respect to a GHG statement involves performing procedures
to obtain evidence about the quantification of emissions, and about the other information disclosed as
part of the statement. Our verification procedures were selected based on professional judgment,
including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement in the GHG statement. In making those
risk assessments, we considered internal control relevant to the entity‘s preparation of the GHG
statement. Our engagement also included:
 Assessing physical and technological infrastructure, processes and control over data.
 Evaluating the appropriateness of quantification methods and reporting policies used and the
reasonableness of necessary estimates made by Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.
 Identifying GHG sources sinks and reservoirs, types of GHG involved and time periods when
emissions occurred.
 Establishing quantitative materiality thresholds and assessing compliance of results to these
thresholds.
 Ensuring ownership of the project by observing that all reductions are obtained directly by the client.
In this regard, we ensured that different elements allowing Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi
S.E.N.C. to achieve GHG reductions belong to Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. For
the GHG emissions reductions obtained by Cégep de Chicoutimi, we ensured there was an
agreement between Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. and Cégep the Chicoutimi where
Cégep de Chicoutimi transfers the rights to their carbon credits to Centrale de chauffage de
Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.
The verification team
Before undertaking this assignment we ensured there were no conflicts of interest that could impair our
ability to express an opinion and the conflict of interest review form was completed by all participants to
this assignment (see Appendix 2). We also ensured we had the skills, competencies and appropriate
training to perform this specific assignment.
The work was performed by ISO 14064-3 trained professionals. Training was provided by the Canadian
Standards Association. This is a fuel efficiency strategy project that all the team members are competent
to undertake since, on top of their professional training, they all have performed many similar projects.
The auditors assigned to this audit work were:
 Roger Fournier, CPA, CA, Lead Verifier
Mr. Fournier is an ISO 14064-3 trained professional. He has issued more than 80 GHG reduction
project verification reports. The majority of which are registered on the GHG CleanProjectsTM
Registry.
Mr. Fournier was responsible for the verification work and ensured the production of this report.
 Deborah Lob, B. Eng., Verifier
Ms. Lobo assisted the lead verifier in charge.
3
The verification team has reviewed and understands GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry’s registrations
requirements.
Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. produces and sells approximately 150 million pounds of
steam per year to its partners. One of its principal partners is Cégep de Chicoutimi.
The emissions reduction project
The project is located at 767 Jacques-Cartier Street East, Chicoutimi, Quebec, G7H 6A3, and the
geographical coordinates are Lat. 48°25'31''N Long. 71°2'41''W, and also at 534 Jacques-Cartier Street
East, Chicoutimi, Quebec, G7H 1Z6 with geographical coordinates Lat. 48°25'28''N and Long.
71°3'8''W.
Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s project consists in the optimization of it’s steam
production by implementing new boilers, optimized control systems, and heat recovery systems. In
addition Cégep de Chicoutimi reduced it’s steam needs by implementing a geothermal heating system.
The project has started on January 1, 2005 and the emissions reduction initiatives were completed on
December 31, 2010.
The main GHG sources for the project are the consumption of natural gas and fuel oil at Centrale de
chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. and the electricity consumption at Cégep de Chicoutimi. The various
gases involved at Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane
(CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O).
The expected life time of this project, as per page 3 of the attached quantification report entitled
Greenhouse gas Project Plan and Report Period 2005-2010, is 10 years.
The project was under the responsibility of Mr. Daniel Gendron, Director, who is the signing authority
in this matter and the person responsible for the data collection and monitoring.
Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. has implemented a monitoring system that aims at
insuring that all installed elements of the project that contribute to GHG emissions reduction are in
operation constantly and consistently.
The quantification report
The quantification report was prepared by L2I Financial Solutions, in accordance with ISO 14064-2
“Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission
reductions or removal enhancement (2006)”.
Because the project involves characteristics of district heating project, building energy efficiency, fuel
switching and steam production optimization project, no known quantification protocol was found that
reliably describes the reality of this project. Hence, a unique methodology that adequately deals with all
these aspects has been developed. The proposed methodology may relate in some considerations to the
following CDM methodologies:
 AMS-II.E.: Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings;
 AMS-II.C.: Demand-side energy efficiency activities for specific technologies;
 AM0018: Baseline methodology for steam optimization systems;
 AM0044: Energy efficiency improvement projects: boiler rehabilitation or replacement in industrial
and district heating sectors.
4
The approach that was used for the quantification of the GHG emission reductions was one of
comparing emissions related to the project with the baseline scenario and taking into account the steam
production intensity for each year. The quantifier determined the GHG emissions for every source of
energy by using appropriate emission factors multiplied by the consumption of every GHG source.
The emission factors chosen are based on the National Inventory Report 1990-2009, Greenhouse Gas
Sources and Sinks in Canada.
The verification work
Planning
At the planning phase of this verification assignment, the following points were reviewed with Centrale
de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s representatives: Major processes of Centrale de chauffage de
Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s operations, comprehension of the different operation stages with the purpose of
assessing the complexity of the operation, Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s internal
control with the purpose of assessing their risk mitigation capacity and finally, emission sources and
GHG involved.
This preliminary review resulted in the assessment of the following risks:
 The inherent risk which is associated with the complexity of the project and the task being
performed;
 The control risk which concerns the risk that the GHG project controls will not be able to prevent
or detect a material discrepancy; and
 The detection risk which concerns the risk that the verifier will not detect a material discrepancy that
has not been detected or prevented by the GHG project controls.
As a result of the assessment of the inherent and control risks, a materiality level was defined, a
verification program was designed to mitigate the detection risk and a sampling plan was developed
accordingly.
Assessing performance materiality
Materiality is an amount that, if omitted or misstated, will influence the reader of the report in his
decision making. Performance materiality is defined in the Canadian Auditing Standards as an amount,
set by the auditor at less than materiality to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the
aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceeds the materiality.
We have assessed a materiality level based on the above definitions, using Raymond Chabot Grant
Thornton’s performance materiality determination system. This system considers the following
information:
 User expectations;
 Prior year’s measures of materiality;
 Industry standards;
 The entity’s concept of materiality;
 Our assessment of detection risks;
 Other entity specific information.
We have assessed performance materiality at 5% of declared GHG emission reductions.
5
The inherent risk and the control risk were assessed at an acceptable level for verification purposes.
The detection risk, considering the verification program that was designed, is assessed at an acceptable
level for verification purposes.
Sampling plan determination
Standard sampling and testing procedures were the following and were not modified during the
verification:
 Documentation review;
 Interviews with key personnel;
 Cross-checking of Quantification report’s calculations;
 Reconciliation of Quantification report to worksheets;
 Sampling 25% of emissions where concentrated;
 Obtention of a declaration of ownership of reductions and removals;
 Description of relevant information systems used for data collection and monitoring.
Conclusion of planning
No outstanding issues remained unresolved after the preliminary review.
Consequently we could proceed with the verification work.
Execution
A draft of the quantification report was submitted to us on November 7, 2011. Our initial review of the
documentation was undertaken on January 10, 2012 and a verification plan was prepared. We then
toured Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s premises on February 24, 2012. In doing so we
interviewed Mr. Daniel Gendron. We subsequently received the final quantification report dated
August 7, 2012.
Information systems
Each monitoring system that may have an effect on the data used for emissions reduction calculations
has been identified. Mr. Gendron who is responsible for data input and reporting of these systems was
interviewed and the control procedures were described and assessed. Where deemed necessary, spot
checking was used to ensure the controls had been operating properly throughout the verified period. All
reports used in the calculation were reconciled to the calculations results.
Assessing quantification methodology
We have assessed the unique methodology used for this project. Since it is a unique methodology every
step of it was analysed to ensure that results obtained were in agreement with the principles set forth by
the CDM methodologies listed above in the paragraph on the quantification report and were also well
reflected in the report. We also made sure that the constituants of the unique methodology which
originate from different sources are not conflicting with each other.
Findings
Findings were listed, valued and compared to our established materiality levels. No findings have
exceeded the materiality level.
6
During the course of our verification, we obtained all the necessary cooperation and documents required
from Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s management.
Criteria
1. The attached quantification report is in conformance with the requirements and principles of
ISO 14064-2.
2. The approach and methodology used for the quantification are appropriate.
3. The baseline scenario is appropriate.
4. The supporting data are subject to sufficient controls to be considered fair and accurate and should
not cause any material discrepancy.
5. The calculations supporting the GHG assertion are sufficiently accurate to be considered fair and
should not cause any material discrepancy.
6. There are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the resulting emission
reductions or removals.
7. The project start date is accurate and the lifetime estimation of the project is fairly stated.
8. The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been
reached or exceeded.
Reasonable assurance opinion
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with
guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006).
In our opinion:
1. The quantification report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard: Specification with
guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or
removal enhancements (2006), and the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy,
transparency and conservativeness have been respected.
2. The approach and methodology used for the quantification are appropriate.
3. The baseline scenario is appropriate.
4. Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.’s data controls management system is appropriate.
5. The quantification report and the GHG assertion are free of material misstatements and are an
appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi
S.E.N.C.
6. To our knowledge, there are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the
resulting emission reductions or removals.
7. The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been
reached or exceeded.
8. The GHG emission reductions presented in the quantification report entitled Greenhouse gas
Project Plan and Report Period 2005-2010 and dated April 27, 2012 are, in all material respect, fairly
stated at 468 tCO 2 eq in 2005, 1,702 tCO 2 eq in 2006, 1,588 tCO 2 eq in 2007, 2,282 tCO 2 eq in
2008, 2,463 tCO 2 eq in 2009 and 1,809 tCO 2 eq. in 2010 for a total of 10,312 tCO 2 e and are
additional to what would have occurred in the baseline scenario. The following breakdown of those
emission reductions by vintage year is fairly stated:
7
Year
CO2
CH4
N2 O
2005
465
-
3
2006
1,691
-
11
2007
1,578
-
10
2008
2,268
1
13
2009
2,449
1
13
2010
1,797
1
11
9. The project start date is accurate and the lifetime estimation of the project is fairly stated.
Restricted usage and confidentiality
This verification report is produced to be used by the management of Centrale de chauffage de
Chicoutimi S.E.N.C. and parties interested in the above described GHG emissions reduction project.
Reliance on the conclusions of this verification report for any other usage may not be suitable.
The quantification report entitled Greenhouse gas Project Plan and Report Period 2005-2010 and dated
August 7, 2012 is an integral part of this verification report and should in no circumstances be separated
from it.
This verification report and the supporting work files are kept confidential and are available to the client
on request and will not be disclosed to anyone else unless compelled by law. They will be safeguarded
for 10 years after which period they will be safely destroyed.
Roger Fournier, CPA, CA
Lead Verifier
Montréal, September 4, 2012
Appendix 1- Quantification report
Centrale de chauffage de
Chicoutimi (S.E.N.C.)
Greenhouse Gas Project Plan and Report
Period 2005-2010
Project proponent:
Centrale de chauffage S.E.N.C.
767, rue Jacques-Cartier Est,
Chicoutimi, (Québec) G7H 6A3
Prepared by:
L2I Financial Solutions
2015, Victoria Street, Suite 200
Saint-Lambert (Québec)
J4S 1H1
August 7th, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... iii
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... iv
Sommaire Exécutif ............................................................................................................ 1
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 2
2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 4
2.1.
Project title .......................................................................................................... 4
2.2.
Objectives ........................................................................................................... 4
2.3.
Type of GHG project .......................................................................................... 4
2.4.
Location .............................................................................................................. 4
2.5.
Project lifetime and crediting period................................................................... 4
2.6.
Conditions prior to project initiation................................................................... 4
2.7.
Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions or
removal enhancements ....................................................................................... 5
2.8.
Project technologies, products, services and expected level of activity ............. 5
2.9.
Aggregate GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements likely to occur
from the GHG project......................................................................................... 5
2.10.
Identification of risks .......................................................................................... 5
2.11.
Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................. 6
2.11.1.
2.11.2.
Project proponent and representative ........................................................ 6
Quantification and reporting responsible entity ........................................ 6
2.12.
Project eligibility under the GHG program ........................................................ 7
2.13.
Environmental impact assessment ...................................................................... 7
2.14.
Stakeholder consultations and mechanisms for on-going communication ......... 7
2.15.
Detailed chronological plan ................................................................................ 7
3.
SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND ASSESMENT OF
ADDITIONALITY ........................................................................................................... 8
4.
IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF GHG SOURCES, SINKS
AND RESERVOIRS ......................................................................................................... 9
5.
QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS ............ 10
5.1.
Baseline GHG emissions/removals................................................................... 10
5.2.
Project GHG emissions/removals ..................................................................... 12
GHG Project plan and report
ii
5.3.
Emission reductions .......................................................................................... 13
6.
DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL ................................................... 14
7.
REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS....................................... 17
ANNEX I .......................................................................................................................... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Expected and achieved Emission Reductions (t CO2e) .................................... 5
Table 4-1: SSRs inventory .................................................................................................. 9
Table 6-1: Data description ............................................................................................... 14
Table 7-1: Summary of monitored data* ........................................................................... 17
Table 7-2: GHG emissions and emission reductions (t CO2e) ......................................... 17
Table 7-3: Project GHG emissions by source and GHG type (t CO2e) ............................ 18
Table 7-4: Baseline GHG emissions by source and GHG type (t CO2e).......................... 18
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
BS:
CDM:
CH4:
CO2:
CO2e:
CSA:
EF:
GHG:
ISO:
IPCC:
kWh :
N2O:
PS:
SSR :
t:
VER :
Baseline Scenario (GHG Emission Source)
Clean Development Mechanism
Methane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide equivalent (usually expressed in metric tons)
Canadian Standards Association
Emission Factor
Greenhouse gases
International Organization for Standardization
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Kilowatt hour
Nitrous oxide
Project Scenario (GHG emission source)
Source, Sink and Reservoir
Ton
Verified Emission Reduction
iv
Sommaire Exécutif
(Please take note that the remainder of this document is in English)
La Centrale de chauffage S.E.N.C. ainsi que ses membres ont conjointement convenu de
se doter de systèmes plus performants et de mener des projets d’amélioration de
l’efficacité énergétique visant à réduire leur empreinte de carbone et leur impact sur le
réchauffement climatique.
Le projet de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) s’est déroulé en deux
phases principales. En un premier temps, en 2005, des activités de modernisation de la
centrale ont eu lieu. De nouveaux brûleurs, des systèmes de contrôles optimisés et des
méthodes de récupération de chaleur ont été mis en place et ont pu commencer à donner
des résultats dès 2005.
En un deuxième temps, le CEGEP de Chicoutimi, membre de la société, a fait installer en
2008 un système géothermique permettant de diminuer considérablement la demande de
vapeur et l’utilisation de combustibles fossiles qui est rattachée à sa production. Les
effets combinés de ces activités de projet permettent d’obtenir des réductions d’émission
de gaz à effet de serre non négligeables.
Le projet et les réductions d’émission de GES seront enregistrés au GHG
CleanProjectsTM Registry. Ces réductions sont obtenues et leur quantification effectuée
suivant les principes et lignes directrices de la norme ISO 14064 tel que stipulé par le
GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry.
Les réductions de GES obtenues pour la période couverte par ce rapport sont présentées
dans le tableau suivant.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
GHG Report
Reductions
d’émission de
GES
t CO2 e
468
1 702
1 588
2 282
2 463
1 809
10 312
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi (S.E.N.C). is a not for profit organization that
produces and sell steam for the heating needs of its members. Located in the heart of
Chicoutimi, Quebec, it serves some of the most important institutions and buildings in the
city center. As an important player in the economic and social fields of the city, the
Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi wants to play a role of leader in the community
social and environmental issues. Hence, for the benefit of its members and the entire
society, it has decided to implement a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction project.
Along with the society members, it has been decided to modernize the steam production
facility and to evaluate the possibility of reducing the demand for steam. In the first time,
efforts have been made to enhance the efficiency of the steam production process. New
burners, controls and heat recovery systems have been implemented.
Later, an important project activity has been implemented at the CEGEP de Chicoutimi, a
society member. This second project activity consists in the installation of a geothermal
system that will significantly reduce the needs for steam production and related usage of
fossil fuel.
Those two components of a grouped project greatly contribute to mitigate the combined
impact of the Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi.and its members on global warming.
The overall GHG project is first described with statements of its objectives, nature,
location, lifetime and main characteristics. The most appropriate baseline scenario is
identified and the GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) for the baseline and the
project scenarios are inventoried. A quantification methodology is described and a
detailed monitoring plan is outlined. Values of monitored data and results of emission
reductions quantification are given in the final section.
This GHG report is presented in a format that meets the requirements of CSA
CleanProjectsTM Registry and the ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles:
 Relevance:
All relevant GHG sources are meticulously selected and presented in section 4. A precise
methodology is used along with project specific parameters values.
 Completeness:
A complete assessment of GHG sources is made and all GHG types are considered in the
applied quantification methodology. Complete information regarding project
implementation, activities and GHG quantification is given through this GHG report.

Consistency:
2
Chosen quantification methodology is appropriate for Centrale de chauffage de
Chicoutimi’s specific project. Established baseline scenario, as explained in section 3, is
consistent with the project level of activity related to the steam needs of buildings.
 Accuracy:
Calculation uncertainties are kept as small as possible.
 Transparency:
Project related information is transparently communicated through this document so that
the intended user knows what the important data are, how they are collected and how the
project actually leads to GHG emissions reduction. Data monitoring and GHG emission
reductions calculation are clearly detailed in order to provide the reader sufficient
information to allow the user to confidently make decisions.
 Conservativeness:
GHG emission reductions are not overestimated. When accuracy is jeopardized because
of assumptions, conservative choices are made to make sure that GHG reductions are not
overestimated.
This report will be made available for public consultation. It is intended to serve as a
transparent reference document to support the prospection of potential verified emission
reductions (VER) buyers.
3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1.
Project title
Energy efficiency grouped project at district heating plant and connected buildings in
Chicoutimi.
2.2.
Objectives
This project has two objectives :
 Enhance the efficiency of the steam production plant
 Lower the needs for energy on demand side
2.3.
Type of GHG project
This project is a grouped project classified in the energy efficiency type of project with
effects on both production and demand side.
2.4.
Location
Project activities are implemented at two locations:
Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi
Chicoutimi, (Québec) G7H 6A3
Latitude : 48o 25’ 31’’ N
Longitude : 71o 2’ 41’’ W
CÉGEP de Chicoutimi
Chicoutimi, (Québec) G7H 1Z6
Latitude : 48o 25’ 28’’ N
Longitude : 71o 3’ 8’’ W
2.5.
Project lifetime and crediting period
The project started being implemented in 2005. The official start date is January 1st 2005
as is the crediting period. Emission reductions are planned to be quantified and claimed
over a ten years period extending from January 1st 2005 through December 31st 2014.
2.6.
Conditions prior to project initiation
At the steam production plant, the four boilers were using old combustion technology and
were operated with deficient control. Excess production was purged significant heat was
lost through exhaust gas.
At the CEGEP, all the heating needs were fulfilled with steam produced at the Centrale
de chauffage. Before 2008, there was no other heating means and no energy efficiency
measure.
4
2.7.
Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission
reductions or removal enhancements
Emission reductions will result from both a smaller demand of steam due to geothermal
system and a more effective production allowing for more steam being produced by unit
fossil energy.
2.8.
Project technologies, products, services and expected level of
activity
The technologies that contribute to higher steam production efficiency are a new high
efficiency burner in boiler 1, the implementation of an optimized controlled combustion
system in boiler 2, 3 and 4, the recovery of purged steam and a heat recovery system on
exhaust chimney. All together, the measures are expected to enhance the production
efficiency by about 15%. From 600 lbs of steam being produced per GJ of fossil fuel
before the project, it is expected a rise to 700 lbs of steam per GJ of fossil fuel.
The Centrale de chauffage produces about 150 million pounds of steam yearly. This
quantity can significantly vary over time due to changing needs of all the connected
customers. By the implementation of a geothermal system, the CEGEP minimizes its
need for steam by about 40%. Expected steam consumption will drop from 25 million lbs
to 15 million lbs.
2.9.
Aggregate GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements
likely to occur from the GHG project
Table 2-1: Expected and achieved Emission Reductions (t CO2e)
Year
Expected Emission
Reductions (t CO2e)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
2 000
2 000
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 000
3 000
3 000
3 000
3 000
26 500
Achieved Emission
Reductions (t CO2e)
468
1 702
1 588
2 282
2 463
1 809
10 312
2.10. Identification of risks
Emission reductions are not only the results of technological improvements. They are also
closely related to management methods. Great attention must be paid to energy use practices
and management in order to achieve emissions reduction.
5
Energy efficiency and/or fuel switching might become common practice or required by law
in institutional buildings for instance. The project would therefore no longer generate
emission reductions.
2.11. Roles and Responsibilities
2.11.1. Project proponent and representative
Centrale de chauffage, S.E.N.C. is a not for profit organization which serves the interests
of its members. Several representatives of these member establishements have
contributed to this project. The director of the Centrale de chauffage itself has been
designated as the representative of the project proponent entity.
Centrale de chauffage, S.E.N.C.
Daniel Gendron,
Director
[email protected]
2.11.2. Quantification and reporting responsible entity
L2I Financial Solutions is a firm specialized in non-traditional corporate financing. An
expertise has been developed in the quantification and exchange of carbon credits. In that
capacity, we help companies count, quantify and accrue their carbon offsets and ensure
their sale. Our expertise consists in selecting, applying and elaborating quantification
methodologies to quantify the emissions reductions based on reputable international
sources.
Quantification and report writing
Mr. David Beaudoin holds a Bachelor's Degree in Biotechnological Engineering from the
University of Sherbrooke. During his career, Mr. Beaudoin has occupied several
positions such as Process Engineering Consultant, Project Manager in R&D and research
assistant for different engineering firms. He works at L2i Financial Solutions as Carbon
Credit Advisor. He is responsible for the quantification and the project plan and report
redaction.
Supervision
Mrs. Melina Valero is responsible for supervising the carbon credits quantification team.
For many years now, the firm has been looking-out for their customers’ needs regarding
the quantification of greenhouse gases. They offer services of GHG quantification, report
redaction and the subsequent sale of the carbon credits on organized markets such as the
Voluntary Carbon Market.
Report Use and Users
The target users are the potential offset VER (Verified Emission Reductions) buyers on
the voluntary carbon market. The present report will serve as an indicator of the GHG
emissions reductions performance of the project and will support the prospective sale of
the resulting carbon credits.
6
2.12. Project eligibility under the GHG program
The project is eligible under the GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry. It is implemented
following the ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles, is not attempted to be registered
under another GHG program and does not create any other environmental credit.
2.13. Environmental impact assessment
The nature of the project does not involve a required environmental impact assessment as
the impact on the environment is limited to the GHG emissions.
2.14. Stakeholder consultations
communication
and
mechanisms
for
on-going
As a society serving the needs of its members, Centrale de chauffage S.E.N.C is
implementing a project in the name of eight distinct members. They all have been
consulted through board meetings and all agreed with this project. Mr. Daniel Gendron is
responsible for the communications with the quantifier, the verifier and between the
members.
2.15. Detailed chronological plan
The first project activity was implemented in 2005. Data monitoring started in 2004 for
the purpose of establishing the baseline. Monitoring will be ongoing until the end of the
crediting period in 2014. GHG emission reductions are planned to be reported for the first
time in 2011 (for the period 2005-2010) and on a yearly basis afterward.
7
3. SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND
ASSESMENT OF ADDITIONALITY
The baseline scenario is selected among alternative scenarios representing what would
have happened without the project. The alternative scenario that is most likely to occur is
selected as the baseline scenario. In this case, the project is voluntary. It aims to lower the
GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. The scenario that is most likely to
occur in the absence of this project is to keep using the equipment in place prior to the
project activities initiation and the GHG emissions that are associated with the
consumption of energy in that case. An equipment change or retrofit is not required by
law and to stick with in-place systems remains the least expensive and efforts demanding
scenario. Therefore the energy performance of steam production and usage in the year
2004 prior to the project activity initiation is used as the baseline scenario.
The emission reductions achieved by the project are additional to what would have
occurred in the absence of the GHG project since it is voluntary and faces significant
investment barriers. Its implementation is highly motivated by the GHG emission
reductions potential.
8
4. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF GHG
SOURCES, SINKS AND RESERVOIRS
The SSRs for the baseline and the project scenario are identified in the table below and it
is stated whether they are included or excluded from the quantification.
Table 4-1: SSRs inventory
Source
Fuel extraction and
processing
Fossil fuel
Baseline combustion at the
plant
Production of
electricity used at the
plant
Source
Project
Included?
Type
Explanation
Excluded This emission source is assumed to be negligible
Related compared to the combustion.
Included CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are considered. An
Controlled important source of greenhouse gases.
Excluded Assumed to be functionally equivalent to the project
Related scenario. Emissions from electricity are negligible.
Included?
Type
Explanation
Fuel extraction and
processing
Excluded This emission source is assumed to be negligible
Related compared to the combustion.
Developing and
installation of new
technologies
Installation of equipment creates negligible
Excluded
emissions compared to achievable reductions on the
Related
long term.
Production of
electricity used at the
plant
Excluded Assumed to be functionally equivalent to the project
Related scenario.
Fossil fuel
combustion at the
plant
Included CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are considered. An
Controlled important source of greenhouse gases.
Production of
incremental
electricity used for
the geothermal
system
Included
Related
CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are considered
Although small, it is conservative to consider this
GHG source.
9
5. QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND
REMOVALS
5.1.
Baseline GHG emissions/removals
BEy = BNGEy + BOEy
y:
Year index, runs from 2005 to 2014
BEy:
Baseline scenario emissions for year “y” (t CO2e)
BNGEy:
Baseline emissions from natural gas combustion in year “y” (t CO2e)
BOEy:
Baseline emissions from oil #6 combustion in year “y” (t CO2e)
BNGEy = BNGCy * [EFNGCO2 + (EFNGCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EFNGN2O *GWPN2O)]
BNGCy: Baseline natural gas consumption in year “y” (m3)
EFNGCO2: CO2 emission factor from natural gas combustion (1,878*10-3 t CO2/m3) 1
EFNGCH4: CH4 emission factor from natural gas combustion (3,7*10-8 t CH4/m3)
EFNGN2O: N2O emission factor from natural gas combustion (3,5*10-8 t N2O /m3)
GWPCH4: Global Warning Potential of methane (21)
GWPN2O: Global Warning Potential of nitrous oxide (310)
BNGCy = BSPy * NGRy * YRy
BSPy:
Baseline steam production in year “y” (lbs)
NGRy:
Natural gas consumption rate in year “y” (m3 / lb of steam
produced)
YRy:
Ratio of production yields: year “y” yield over baseline year “b”
yield
BSPy = ASPy + AddSy
ASPy:
Actual steam production in year “y” (lbs)
AddSy:
Additional steam that has been avoided due to geothermal system
(lbs)
AddSy:
If y ≤ 2007; AddSy = 0
If y > 2007; AddSy = BSUCy - ASUCy
BSUCy: Baseline steam usage at CEGEP in year “y” (lbs)
ASUCy: Actual steam usage at CEGEP in year “y” (lbs)
BSUCy = BSDDR * DDy
BSDDR:
Baseline steam per degree-day ratio (lbs of steam / degreeday)
DDy:
Number of degree-days bellow 18oC in the year “y”, taken
from the Bagotville airport weather station data archive2
1
National Inventory Report 1990-2009, Greenhouse Gas Source and Sinks in Canada, Part 2, Table A8-1 and A8-2
Environment Canada, National Climate Data and Information Archive, Available at :
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/cdn_climate_summary_e.html
2
10
BSDDR = ASUC2007 / DD2007
ASUC2007: Actual steam usage at CEGEP in year 2007 prior to
geothermal system implementation ( 28 157 621 lbs of
steam)
DD2007:
Number of degree-days bellow 18oC in the year 2007 taken
from the Bagotville airport weather station data archive
(5603.5)
NGRy = ANGCy / ASPy
ANGCy:
Actual natural gas consumption in year “y” (m3)
ASPy:
YRy = PYy / PY2004
PYy:
Production yield in year “y” (lbs of steam / GJ of fossil fuel)
PY2004:
Production yield in year 2004 prior to project initiation (lbs of
steam / GJ of fossil fuel)
PYy = ASPy / TFFy
ASPy:
TFFy:
Total fossil fuel energy in year “y” (GJ)
TFFy = ANGCy * HCNG + AOCy * HCO
ANGCy:
Actual natural gas consumption in year “y” (m3)
AOCy:
Actual oil #6 consumption in year “y” (L)
HCNG:
Heat content of natural gas (0.0371 GJ/m3)3
HCO:
Heat content of oil #6 (0.04173 GJ/L)
BOEy = BOCy * [EFOCO2 + (EFOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EFON2O *GWPN2O)]
BOCy:
Baseline oil consumption in year “y” (m3)
EFOCO2: CO2 emission factor from oil combustion (3,124*10-3 t CO2/L) 4
EFOCH4: CH4 emission factor from oil combustion (5,7*10-8 t CH4/L)
EFON2O: N2O emission factor from oil combustion (6,4*10-8 t N2O /L)
BOCy = BSPy * ORy * YRy
BSPy:
Baseline steam production in year “y” (lbs) (see above for
equations)
ORy:
Oil #6 consumption rate in year “y” (L / lb of steam produced)
YRy:
Ratio of production yields, year “y” yield over baseline year “b”
yield (see above for equations)
3
Office national de l'énergie; http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/nrgycnvrsntbl/nrgycnvrsntblfra.html#s1ss2
4
National Inventory Report 1990-2009, Greenhouse Gas Source and Sinks in Canada, Part 2, p.193
11
ORy = AOCy / ASPy
AOCy:
ASPy:
5.2.
Project GHG emissions/removals
PEy = PNGEy + POEy + PGEy
PEy:
Project scenario emissions in year “y” (t CO2e)
PNGEy:
Project emissions from natural gas combustion in year “y” (t CO2e)
POEy:
Project emissions from oil #6 combustion in year “y” (t CO2e)
PGEy:
Project scenario emissions from incremental electricity usage for
geothermal system in year “y” (t CO2e)
PNGEy = ANGCy * [EFNGCO2 + (EFNGCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EFNGN2O *GWPN2O)]
ANGCy: Actual natural gas consumption in year “y” (m3)
EFNGCO2: CO2 emission factor from natural gas combustion (1,878*10-3 t CO2/m3)
EFNGCH4: CH4 emission factor from natural gas combustion (3,7*10-8 t CH4/m3)
EFNGN2O: N2O emission factor from natural gas combustion (3,5*10-8 t N2O /m3)
POEy = AOCy * [EFOCO2 + (EFOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EFON2O *GWPN2O)]
AOCy:
EFOCO2: CO2 emission factor from oil combustion (3,124*10-3 t CO2/L)
EFOCH4: CH4 emission factor from oil combustion (5,7*10-8 t CH4/L)
EFON2O: N2O emission factor from oil combustion (6,4*10-8 t N2O /L)
PGEy:
If y ≤ 2007; PGEy = 0
If y > 2007; PGEy = IEUGy * EFECO2
IEUGy:
Incremental electricity usage for geothermal system in year “y” (kWh)
EFECO2:
CO2 emission factor from the production of electricity (3*10-6 t CO2e/kWh)5
IEUGy = AEUCy – AveEUC2005-2007
AEUCy:
Actual electricity usage at CEGEP in year “y” (kWh)
AveEUC2005-2007:
Average electricity usage at CEGEP for years 2005 to 2007
(5 568 800 kWh). This is considered to be the electricity
usage for non-heating needs.
5
National Inventory Report 1990-2009, Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, Part 3, Table A136, p.49
12
5.3.
Emission reductions
ERy = BEy - PEy
ERy:
GHG emission reductions in year “y” (t CO2e)
BEy:
Baseline scenario emissions for year “y” (t CO2e)
PEy:
Project scenario emissions in year “y” (t CO2e)
13
6. DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL
As shown in the previous section describing the quantification methodology, six
parameters must be monitored. They are described below. Monitoring must start in 2004.
Table 6-1: Data description
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
Source of data to be used :
Value of data applied for the
purpose of calculating expected
emission reductions :
Description of measurement
methods and procedures to be
applied :
QA/QC procedures to be
applied :
Any comment :
ASPy
lbs
Steam production
Centrale de chauffage data log system
150 million lbs
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
ASUCy
lbs
Steam usage at CEGEP
Invoice from steam producer (Centrale de
chauffage)
ASUCy = 18 million lbs
applied :
applied :
Any comment :
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
The outflow of steam must continuously be
monitored along with temperature and pressure
conditions.
Occasional calibration is done by qualified body.
The inflow of steam at CEGEP port is
continuously monitored along with temperature
and pressure conditions.
DDy
Degree-days below 18oC in the year
Taken from the Bagotville airport weather station
data archive Available at :
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/cdn_climate_summar
y_e.html
DDy = 5603.5
14
applied :
applied :
Any comment :
The measurement method is consistent with
Environment Canada criteria.
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
applied :
applied :
Any comment :
ANGCy
m3
Natural gas consumption
Invoices from natural gas supplier
6 million m3
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
applied :
AOCy
L
Fuel oil #6 consumption
Invoices from oil supplier
350 000 L
applied :
Any comment :
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
No specific procedure must be applied by the
project proponent.
A gas flow meter continuously measures the
inflow. Integrated data over a certain period is
reported on natural gas invoices.
An oil reservoir is filled when required. The
volume of each fill is measured by volumetric
flow meter upon delivery. Invoices reflect the
delivered oil quantity. Entire year invoices are
compiled and assumed to adequately reflect the
actual usage in that year.
No specific procedure
AEUCy
kWh
Electricity usage at CEGEP
Invoices from power supplier
7 million kWh
15
applied :
applied :
Any comment :
Electricity meter monitors the power usage.
Monthly reading of the meter is achieved and
invoices reflect the usage of that period.
16
7. REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS
The project plan and report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard and the
GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry requirements. The methodology that is used, the choice
of region specific emission factors and a rigorous monitoring plan allow for a reasonably
low level of uncertainty. L2I Solutions is confident that the emission reductions are not
overestimated and that the numbers of emission reductions that are reported here are real
and reflect the actual impacts of the project.
Monitoring started in 2004 for the purpose of establishing the baseline. Below is a
summary of the monitored data and calculated GHG emission reductions for the covered
period. Emission reductions are reported here for the years 2005-2010
The GHG report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and GHG CleanProjectsTM
Registry requirements. Emission reductions will be verified by an independent third party
to a reasonable level of assurance. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton will be the verifying
firm for this reporting period.
This is the first GHG assertion for this project.
Table 7-1: Summary of monitored data*
year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
ASPy
lbs
162 162 333
154 266 137
163 044 956
167 292 375
166 396 337
173 310 248
149 701 898
ASUCy
lbs
DDy
-
28 157 621
22 898 802
17 339 422
14 479 417
ANGCy
m3
-
5603,5
5525,5
5622,6
4837,8
6 281 337
6 013 097
6 094 717
5 759 451
5 878 900
5 869 874
5 625 862
AOCy
L
622 580
344 786
23 475
569 946
280 298
737 682
272 536
AEUCy
kWh
5 488 800
5 496 000
5 721 600
5 732 400
6 768 000
7 178 400
*See table 6.1 for the variables’ acronyms meaning
Table 7-2: GHG emissions and emission reductions (t CO2e)
Baseline scenario
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
12 915
13 293
14 264
14 274
15 878
13 301
Project scenario
12 447
11 591
12 676
11 992
13 415
11 492
Emission reductions
468
1 702
1 588
2 282
2 463
1 809
10 312
17
Table 7-3: Project GHG emissions by source and GHG type (t CO2e)
Sources
GHG type
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Incremental Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
TOTAL
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
GHG
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
11 293
11 446
10 816
11 041
11 024
10 566
5
5
5
4
4
4
65
66
62
64
64
61
11 363
11 517
10 883
11 109
11 092
10 631
1 077
74
1 781
877
2 305
853
0
0
1
0
1
0
7
0
11
6
15
5
1 084
74
1 793
883
2 321
858
12 447
11 591
12 676
11 992
13 415
11 492
Table 7-4: Baseline GHG emissions by source and GHG type (t CO2e)
Sources
GHG type
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Total
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
CO2
CH4
N2O
GHG
GHG
11 717
13 127
12 172
13 143
13 051
12 232
5
5
5
5
5
5
68
76
70
76
75
71
11 790
13 208
12 247
13 224
13 131
12 308
1 118
84
2 003
1 043
2 729
987
0
0
1
0
1
0
7
1
13
7
17
6
1 125
85
2 017
1 050
2 747
993
12 915
13 293
14 264
14 274
15 878
13 301
18
ANNEX I
Calculation examples for year 2010
Baseline calculation for 2010
= BNGEy
+
BEy
13300,7509 =
BNGEy
=
12308,356 +
BNGCy
BOEy
992,394901
*[ EFNGCO2
+ ( EFNGCH4
12308,356 =
6513643,16 *[
=
6513643,16 =
BSPy
*
159532455 *
NGRy
*
0,03758043 *
=
AddSy
159532455 =
ASPy
+
149 701
898 +
AddSy
=
9830556,92 =
BSUCy
24309973,9 -
ASUCy
14 479 417
=
24309973,9 =
BSDDR
*
5 025 *
DDy
=
5025,00598 =
ASUC2007 /
28 157 621 /
DD2007
5603,5
BNGCy
BSPy
BSUCy
BSDDR
*
0,001878 + ( 0,000000037 *
GWPCH4
)+
(
EFNGN2O
*
)+
21 (
0,000000035 *
YRy
1,08645851
9830556,92
4837,8
19
GWPN2O
)]
310 )]
NGRy
=
0,03758043 =
ANGCy
/
5 625 862 /
ASPy
149701898
=
1,08645851 =
Pyy
/
680,518416 /
PY2004
PYy
=
680,518416 =
ASPy
/
149701898 /
TFFy
219982,141
=
219982,141 =
ANGCy
*
5 625 862 *
HCNG
+
0,0370804 +
YRy
TFFy
BOEy
=
BOCy
626
+
(
+
0,003124 (
* [ EFOCO2
992,394901 =
315543,156 * [
BOCy
=
315543,156 =
BSPy
*
159532455 *
Ory
*
0,00182052 *
=
0,00182052 =
AOCy
/
272536 /
ASPy
149701898
Ory
AOCy
*
272 536 *
EFOCH4
*
0,000000057 *
HCO
0,04173
)+
(
EFON2O
*
)+
21 (
0,000000064 *
GWPCH4
YRy
1,08645851
20
GWPN2O
)]
310 )]
Project calculation for 2010
= PNGEy
+
Pey
11491,1958 =
PNGEy
=
10630,7807 =
POEy
=
857,135804 =
PGEy
=
3,27923808 =
=
1 609 600 =
IEUGy
10630,7807 +
*
ANGCy
[
*
5 625 862 [
AOCy
POEy
+
857,135804 +
EFNGCO2
*
[
*
1 609 600 [
IEUGy
AEUCy
7 178 400 -
+ ( EFNGCH4
*
0,001878 + ( 0,000000037 *
* [ EFOCO2
272 536 * [
PGEy
3,27923808
+ ( EFOCH4
*
)+
GWPCH4
(
EFNGN2O
*
)+
21 (
0,000000035 *
+
(
+
21 (
GWPCH4)
0,003124 + ( 0,000000057 *
+
(
+
0,000002 (
EFECO2
EFECH4
*
3E-10 *
GWPCH4
+
(
+
21 (
EFON2O
0,000000064 *
EFEN2O
*
1E-10 *
AveEUC2005-2007
5 568 800
Emission reductions for 2010
ERy = BEy - PEy
1 809 = 13 301- 11 492
*
21
GWPN2O
)]
310 )]
GWPN2O
)]
310 )]
GWPN2O
)]
310 )]
Appendix 2 – Conflict of interest review checklist
Conflict of interest review checklist
The verifier and the verification team must ensure that they are truly independent from the project,
project proponent(s), quantifier, and/or other agents related to the project. The verifier shall avoid any
actual or potential conflicts of interest with the project proponent and the intended users of the GHG
information.
Client name:
Report identification:
Verification report on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (“GHG”) reduction
project – Fuel switching & Energy efficiency project
Date of report:
September 4, 2012
Professional:
Roger Fournier, CPA, CA, Lead verifier
I confirm the following:
Yes
No
Details
Independence
I remained independent of the activity being verified,
and free from bias and conflict of interest.
I maintained objectivity throughout the verification to
ensure that the findings and conclusions will be based
on objective evidence generated during the
verification.
Ethical conduct
I have demonstrated ethical conduct through trust,
integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the
verification process.
Fair presentation
I have reflected truthfully and accurately verification
activities, findings, conclusions and reports.
I have reported significant obstacles encountered
during the verification process, as well as unresolved,
diverging opinions among verifiers, the responsible
party and the client.
Due professional care
I have exercised due professional care and judgment
in accordance with the importance of the task
performed and the confidence placed by clients and
intended users.
I have the necessary skills and competences to
undertake the verification.
September 4, 2012
Signature
Date

Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi SENC

Transcription

Similar documents

Project Description

Linda Tran Executive Summary

Climate Change - Ev-K2-CNR

rhizomatous tall fescue - Greenhorizons Sod Farms

Centrale de chauffage de Chicoutimi S.E.N.C.

Van Houtte Coffee Services

BLJC 2011 Sustainability Report Final_3

Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys

Centre de Santé et de Services sociaux du Nord de Lanaudière