Catalytic Reduction of N2

Transcription

Verification
Report
BASF SE
6TH PERIODIC VERIFICATION OF THE
JI TRACK-1 PROJECT IN POLAND
ITL project ID: PL1000055
”Catalytic Reduction of N2 O inside the Ammonia
Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy,
Poland”
REPORT NO. 600501153
25 March 2013
TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH
Carbon Management Service
Westendstr. 199 - 80686 Munich - GERMANY
Periodic Verification of the JI track-1 Project:
“Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the
Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland”
Page 1 of 29
Report No.
Date of first issue
Revision:
Date of this revision
Certificate No.
600501153
05/03/2013
2
25/03/2013
-
Subject:
Periodic Verification of a JI track-1 Project
Executing Operational Unit:
Carbon Management Service
Westendstr. 199 - 80686 Munich, Federal Republic of Germany
Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A. (Poland)
BNP Paribas (France)
Orbeo (France)
Project Participants:
Rhodia Japan Ltd. (Japan)
Client : BASF SE (Germany)
Registration number / Project Title
PL1000055 / Catalytic Reduction of N 2 O inside the Ammonia
Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland
First Monitoring Report
(version/date)
Version 1, dated 11/02/2013
Final Monitoring Report
(version/date)
Version 2, dated 15/03/2013
Monitoring Period includes
following campaigns
s. table below
Line
L211
L212
L213
L214
*
#08 Project Campaign
08/05/2012 – 22/10/2012
13/06/2012 – 02/12/2012
14/08/2012 – 31/12/2012*
24/10/2012 – 31/12/2012 *
05/09/2012 – 31/12/2012*
05/12/2012 – 31/12/2012*
-
Remark: It is the matter of partial project campaign limited by the end date of the 1st commitment period (2008-2012)
Page 2 of 29
Summary:
The certification body “climate and energy” of TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH has been ordered
by BASF SE, Germany to carry out the 6th periodic verification of the registered JI track-1 project
“Catalytic Reduction of N 2 O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland”.
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 JISC (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. Based
on the assessment carried out, the verifier confirms that
• the project has been implemented and operated in accordance with the description given in the
registered PDD, i.e. in its latest edition including Annex 4 titled “Revision of the planned
emission reductions”; based on the “Decision of 13/01/2012 on amending of the LoA” issued by
the national DFP (host country);
• the project is completely implemented as described in the approved and registered PDD;
• the emission reductions presented in the current monitoring report does not deviate significantly
from the emission reductions as indicated in the final PDD;
• the project follows in principle AM0034, whereas some elements of the methodology have been
adjusted due to project specific conditions (JI approach). It is also confirmed that main issues of
the revised monitoring plan complies with the applied methodology AM0034, version 03;
• the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the revised monitoring plan (here: JI
Handbook) version 9 dated February11th, 2013;
• the installed equipment essential for generating emission reductions run reliably and the meters
are calibrated appropriately. The project is generating emission reductions as a JI track-1
project.
The management of Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A. and BASF SE in cooperation with project
consultant FutureCamp Climate GmbH is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emissions data
and the reported GHG emissions reductions.
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 ERs are related to different periods in 4 lines as follows (values presented in tCO 2 e):
8th Project Campaigns at
Lines: 211, 213, and 214
9th Project Campaigns at
Lines: 211, 212, and 213
Total of claimed emission
reductions
600,137
314,302
870,588 *
This is because the lines are working independently. The credits are going to be issued for the verified
campaigns only. The project will overlap in its overall monitoring periods. The overlapping of
monitoring periods in this JI project is accepted by Polish DFP.
Work carried out by:
•
•
*
Anna Peretykina (Assessment Team Leader)
Martin Hammer (JI Verifier)
Internal Quality Control by:
•
•
Javier Castro (Technical reviewer)
Thomas Kleiser (CB Approval)
The annual production volume in 2012 was beyond the plant design production capacity of 900,000 tHNO3. Only up
to this volume credits for emission reductions are claimed. As verified the emission reductions claimed were reduced by the emission reductions achieved during campaign 09 of Line 213.
Page 3 of 29
Abbreviations
AIE
Accredited Independent Entity
AM
Approved baseline and monitoring methodology
AMS
Automated Monitoring System
CAR
Corrective Action Request
CO 2 e
Carbon dioxide equivalent
CL
Clarification Request
DCS
Distributed Control System; the DCS refers to a control system usually of a
manufacturing system, process or any kind of dynamic system, in which the
controller elements are not central in location but are distributed throughout
the system with each component sub-system controlled by one or more
controllers
DFP
Designated Focal Point
EIA / EA
Environmental Impact Assessment / Environmental Assessment
ER
Emission reduction
ERUs
Emission Reduction Unit(s)
FAR
Forward Action Request
FC
FutureCamp Climate GmbH, Consultant
GHG
Greenhouse gas(s)
GWP
Global Warming Potential
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRL
Information Reference List
JI-SC
Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee
LoA
Letter of Approval
MP
Monitoring Plan
N/A
Not applicable
PDD
Project Design Document
PP
Project Participant
SCR
Selective Catalytic Reduction
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
TÜV SÜD
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
DVM
Determination and Verification Manual
ZAP
Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A.
Page 4 of 29
Main Documents (referred to in this report)
Methodology (name / version)
Scope
Technical Area(s)
Registered PDD:
Revised PDD:
Revised Monitoring Plan
(revised JI Handbook):
Published Monitoring Report
Revised Monitoring Report
AM0034, version 03 (some elements of the methodology
have been adjusted due to project specific conditions – JI
approach)
5
5.1
version 02 dated 24/07/2008
version 02 dated 05/09/2011
Accepted via “Decision Nr. DZKiOApek-443O45/1891/12/MK of 13 January 2012 on Amending of LoA”
(IRL 2h)
Date: 11/02/2013
Version: 9
Date of approval: with this verification
1
11/02/2013
2
15/03/2013
At netinform.de:
http://www.netinform.de/KE/Wegweiser/Guide22.aspx?Eb
ene2_ID=2062&mode=5
Project documentation link(s):
At UNFCCC / JISC webpage:
http://ji.unfccc.int/JIITLProject/DB/6BTBRQ9M9XN56P7W
WBTIOZOWQC5OZQ/details
Page 5 of 29
Table of Contents
Page
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 6
Objective
6
Scope - Verification Approach
7
GHG Project Description
7
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................ 8
Verification Process
8
Verification Team
8
Review of Documents
9
On-site Assessment and follow-up Interviews
9
Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions
10
Resolution of Clarification and Corrective and Forward Action Requests
10
Internal Quality Control
11
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
VERIFICATION OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS........................................ 12
Remaining FARs from previous verification
12
Project implementation as per the registered PDD
12
Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology
12
Compliance of the monitoring activities with the monitoring plan
12
Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission
reductions
22
4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................... 23
5
VERIFICATION STATEMENT ...................................................................... 28
Annex 1: Verification Protocol
Annex 2: Information Reference List
Annex 3: JI Verification Report Form of the DFP (host country)
Page 6 of 29
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
BASF SE acting on behalf of the project owner Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A. has
commissioned TÜV SÜD to conduct the 6th independent verification of the registered JI track-1
project titled: “Catalytic Reduction of N 2 O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in
Puławy, Poland”.
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. 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 track1 requirements in the host country as specified by the Designated Focal Point (DFP) for JI
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 JISC and available on the UNFCCC JI website http://ji.unfccc.int/index.html.
The objective of the verification work is to comply with the requirements of the JI guidelines.
According to this assessment TÜV SÜD shall make, upon receipt of a monitoring report, a
verification of the reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources reported by project
participants (PP). Thus, the responsible accredited independent entity (AIE) shall:
•
ensure that the project activity has been implemented and operated as per the
registered PDD “Catalytic Reduction of N 2 O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric
Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland” in its latest edition incl. Annex 4 ”Revision of estimated
Emission Reductions”, version 02 dated 05/09/2011, and that all physical features
(technology, project equipment, monitoring and metering equipment) of the project
are in place;
•
ensure that the published MR and other supporting documents provided are
complete, verifiable and in accordance with applicable requirements for JI track-1;
•
ensure that the actual monitoring systems and procedures comply with the
monitoring systems and procedures described in the revised monitoring plan and the
applied methodology;
•
evaluate the data recorded and stored as per the methodology (some elements of
the CDM methodology AM0034 version 03 have been adjusted due to project
specific conditions – JI approach).
Page 7 of 29
1.2 Scope - Verification Approach
The verification scope encompasses an independent and objective review and ex-post
verification of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions by the AIE. The verification is based
on the submitted monitoring report, the validated project design documents including its
monitoring plan and determination report, previous verification reports, revisions to the
monitoring plan, the applied monitoring methodology(s), relevant decisions, clarifications and
guidance from the JISC and procedures as required by the host Party as well as any other
information and references relevant to the project activity’s resulting emission reductions. These
documents are reviewed against the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, the relevant JI
guidelines and Guidance on Monitoring.
TÜV SÜD has applied a rule-based approach for the verification of the project. The principles of
accuracy, completeness, relevance, reliability and credibility were combined with a conservative
approach to establish a traceable and transparent verification opinion.
The verification considers both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions.
The verification is not meant to provide any consultancy towards the client. However, stated
requests for clarification, corrective and/or forward actions may provide input for improvement of
the monitoring activities.
1.3 GHG Project Description
Project activity:
UNFCCC registration number:
Project Participants (IRL2h):
Location of the project:
Date of registration:
Starting date of the crediting period:
“Catalytic Reduction of N 2 O inside the Ammonia
Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland”
ITL-ID: PL1000055
Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A. (Poland)
BNP Paribas (France)
Orbeo (France)
Rhodia Japan Ltd. (Japan)
BASF SE (Germany)
Al. Tysiąclecia Państwa Polskiego 13, 24 – 110 Puławy
Poland
21.07.2009 (date of initial LoA issued by the Host
Party); 13/01/2012 (date of LoA amendment), s. IRL2 h.
25/11/2008
The project activity involves the installation of a secondary catalyst to abate N 2 O inside the
ammonia burners once it is formed. Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O) is an undesired by-product gas from
the manufacture of nitric acid. N 2 O is formed during the catalytic oxidation of ammonia. Over a
suitable catalyst, a maximum 98% (typically 92-96%) of the fed ammonia is converted to Nitric
Oxide (NO). The remainder participates in undesirable side reactions that lead to the production
of N 2 O, among other compounds. Waste N 2 O from HNO 3 production is typically released into
the atmosphere, as it does not have any economic value or toxicity at typical emission levels.
N 2 O is an important greenhouse gas which has a high Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 310.
Page 8 of 29
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 JISC 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 Joint Implementation Determination and Verification
Manual (DVM) were also taken into consideration.
Standard auditing techniques have been adopted. The means of verification for the fulfilment of
the requirements and reporting are as per the DVM. Thus, compliance with JI relevant guidance
is ensured, too.
2.2 Verification Team
The appointment of the verification team takes into account the technical area(s), sectoral
scope(s) and relevant host country experience required amongst team members for verifying
the ER achieved by the project activity in the relevant monitoring period for this verification.
The CB TÜV SÜD operates the following qualification levels for team members that are
assigned by formal appointment rules:
•
Assessment Team Leader (ATL);
•
Verifier (V);
•
Verifier Trainee (T);
•
Technical Experts (TE).
The verification team consisted of the following members:
Name
Anna Peretykina
Martin Hammer
Qualification
Coverage of
scope
Coverage of
technical area
Host country
experience
On-site
ATL, V
V

 (5.1)




Anna Peretykina (M.Sc., M.Eng.) has an academic background in environmental sciences and
engineering. In her position she is responsible for validation and verification of CDM/JI projects
as well as for the project coordination within the Scope Management for Industrial Gases
worldwide. Being a GHG verifier based in the TÜV SÜD Hamburg office, she has received an
extensive experience in the CDM/JI process and participated in diverse project assessments.
She assisted the assessment team during on-site inspection by evaluating of audit evidences
and data records and as a host country expert. In addition, she was involved in the desk review
of project documentation, reporting and in charge for the general project management.
Martin Hammer is environmental and mechanical engineer and is working as GHG
Determiner/Validator/Verifier with a special focus on the scope “Industrial Gases” at the Carbon
Management Service Department of TUEV Sued Industry Service GmbH in Munich, Germany.
He has more than seven years experience in JI/CDM projects with special focus on industrial
gases. Additionally he gained extensive experience in renewable energies working on various
Page 9 of 29
consulting projects (wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, geothermal) and working as operator of a
small hydro power plant in Austria.
Technical reviewers:
• Javier Castro
2.3 Review of Documents
The Monitoring Report dated 11/02/2013 was made publicly available on the TÜV SÜD
publication platform in internet “netinform.de/KE” (as it is the matter of JI track-1 project) before
the verification activities started. The published MR was assessed based on all the relevant
main documents as listed above in “Main Documents (referred to in this report)”, page 4. The
aim of the assessment in the desk review was to:
•
•
•
verify the completeness of the data and the information presented in the MR,
check the compliance of the MR with respect to the revised monitoring plan depicted in
the registered PDD and verify that the applied methodology was carried out. Particular
attention to the frequency of measurements, the quality of the metering equipment
including calibration requirements, and the quality assurance and quality control
procedures was paid,
evaluate the data management and the quality assurance and quality control 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
On 26/02/2013 as part of the periodic verification procedure, TÜV SÜD assessment team has
performed the physical site inspection and on-site interviews with project stakeholders. The
purpose of the on-site visit was to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
confirm the implementation and operation of the project,
review the data flow for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring
parameters,
confirm the correct implementation of procedures for operations and data collection,
cross-check the information provided in the MR documentation with other sources,
check the monitoring equipment against the requirements of the PDD and the approved
methodology, including calibrations, maintenance etc,
review the calculations and assumptions used to obtain the GHG data and ER,
identify whether the quality control and quality assurance procedures are in place to
prevent or correct errors or omissions in the reported parameters.
A list of the persons interviewed during this verification activity is included into the Annex 2.
Page 10 of 29
2.5 Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions
Among several evidence items submitted, the following relevant and reliable evidence material
have been used by the audit team during the verification process:
•
On-site review and printouts of the DCS (Honeywell 3000 TDC) and DURAG-system
•
Protocols of nitric acid production
•
External data and national regulations
•
Quality assurance documents
•
Calibration certificates and maintenance list
Sufficient evidence covering the full verification period in the required frequency is available to
validate the figures stated in the final MR. The source of the evidence will be discussed in
chapter 3 of this report. Specific cross-checks have been done in cases that further sources
were available. The monitoring report’s figures were checked by the audit team against the raw
data. The data collection system meets the requirements of the revised monitoring plan as per
the methodology.
2.6 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective 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 positive conclusion of the achieved GHG emission reduction.
The findings raised as Forward Action Requests (if any) indicated in previous reports (determination/verification) were discussed during this phase and issues raised in the FARs were resolved as far as possible during communications between the PP and TÜV SÜD if applicable.
Concerns rose in the desk review, the on-site audit assessments and the follow up interviews
and the responses provided for the raised concerns are documented in Annex 1 (verification
protocol) to guarantee the transparency of the verification process.
A Corrective Action Request (CAR) 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;
• FARs stated during determination that are not solved until the on-site visit.
A Clarification Request (CL) is raised where TÜV SÜD does not have enough information or the
information is not clear in order to confirm a statement or data.
A Forward Action Request (FAR) 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, CL or FAR could also lead to a
new CAR.
Page 11 of 29
2.7 Internal Quality Control
As a final step of verification the final documentation including the verification report and
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 can be submitted
to the Ministry of Environment, which is representing the National DFP in Poland along with the
relevant documents. The final verification statement in this report is valid only with the
confirmation/approval of the Host Party to use these verified emission reductions for ERUs
transfer.
Page 12 of 29
3 VERIFICATION OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Remaining FARs from previous verification
There were no remaining FARs from the previous (here: 5th) periodic verification.
3.2 Project implementation as per the registered PDD
The project is fully implemented according with the description presented in the PDD. The TÜV
SÜD assessment team verified through the visual inspection of all physical features installed at
the project site including data collecting systems and storage that all aforementioned physical
features have been implemented in accordance with the registered PDD. The IT system is
based on the DURAG EMS and on standard PC and MS-office solutions. The project activity is
completely operational and the same has been confirmed on-site.
Since the time of 5th monitoring period a SCR DeNOx is installed at Line 214. The fact of
proposed installation of the SCR DeNOx facility was described in the approved PDD. The
applicability criterion of the applicable CDM methodology AM0034 (i.e. it shall be selective
DeNOx facility) has been fulfilled, cf. IRL 9i.
3.3 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology
The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology AM0034, version 03
applied by the JI project activity though with one deviation regarding baseline calculation: in
order to implement the project activity as soon as possible, the campaign specific baseline
emission factor has been derived by monitoring of both N 2 O concentration and gas volume flow
over a production period that equals the HNO 3 production volume of one campaign, but
stretches across two actual campaigns. During the Determination, this deviation has been
discussed and found conservative by TÜV SÜD assessment team, see respective
Determination Report, cf. IRL2(b).
3.4 Compliance of the monitoring activities with the monitoring plan
The 2nd verification resulted in modifications of the monitoring plan (JI handbook version 3 dated
on 19/07/2010 and version 04 dated on 06/09/2010) which are listed below. As confirmed in 2nd
verification report (Verification Report No. 1497353).
Issue
No
Reference
Annex 12 of EB
51
EB 51, baseline
calculations in case of
shorter project period
10
JI Handbook:
Sec 9.1
Comment
For calculation of baseline emissions in case of shorter
project campaigns EB51 stipulations shall be taken
into account. In Annex 12 of EB 51 a clarification to the
application of baseline calculation procedures of
AM0034 is given.
Page 13 of 29
CAR 3
Project parameter table 2 now contains
• Further data relevant for project monitoring: This
includes indication of serial number, measurement
type and measurement range;
• Further project parameters AFR and OT as they are
relevant for determination of project monitoring
parameter OH);
• Calibration information for AFR and OT (also
amended in table 3).
Extension of
measurement
instrument data
11
Inclusion of
assessment of
calculation risk
12
Treatment of AST
related mavericks
13
Description of
procedure for NAP
concentration
measurement
14
Reshuffle of formulae
order
15
Calibration
requirements NAP
measurement
16
Section 4.2, table
2, ID4
Inclusion of calibration frequency of NAP flow meters
and last two calibration dates.
Reformulation and
corrections
17
Chapter 8.4,
headlines etc
Wording in respective chapters and content has been
corrected / improved.
JI Handbook:
Sections 4.2,
(table 2) and 4.3
(table 3).
JI Handbook:
Section 8.4
CAR 4
JI Handbook:
Section 5.2
CR 8
JI Handbook:
Sections 8.3,
(table 6)
CR 6, CAR 8
JI Handbook:
Section 9.5.
New chapter 8.4 presents risks assessment.
The following stipulation has been amended: “The
downtime value shall also be applied in case of
mavericks due to an ongoing AST procedure.”
Short description of regular procedure amended in
table 6.
Procedure on NAP default value setting.
Harmonization of
parameter indication
between Handbook,
MR and Excel files
18
Sections 4.2
(table 2) and 4.3
(table 3)
For improved transparency slight differences in
denominations of parameters in the reporting
documents (Report/excel file) and of the Monitoring
Plan have been corrected. The harmonization will
support the implementation of a transparent
conservative monitoring.
Corrections
19
Sections 4.2, 4.3
and 8.2
Wrong indication of QAL2 date has been corrected.
The 3rd verification resulted in modifications of the monitoring plan (JI handbook version 6.1
dated 04/11/2011) which are listed below. It is confirmed that all those modifications result in an
improvement of the monitoring plan. PPs provided appropriate justification for the proposed
modifications. They improve accuracy compared to the original monitoring plan without
changing conformity with the relevant rules.
Issue
No
Reference
CAR 4
Shifting data to
Monitoring
Report
20
JI Handbook:
Sections 4.2,
table 2,
and 4.3, table 3
Comment
Monitoring data on instrumentation, calibration/maintenance of
the instrumentation parameters has been shifted to the
Monitoring report while remaining parameter data has been
consolidated.
Page 14 of 29
Correction of
inconsistent
description of
QAL3 reporting
Procedure for
data correction
in case of
exceeding
allowed QAL 3
limits
Procedure to
avoid input
mistakes (NAP
concentration)
from control
room staff
Amendments in
connection to
LoA renewal
CAR 7
21
JI Handbook:
Sections 8.3,
table 6
Inconsistency regarding QAL3 frequency has been corrected.
FAR 1
22
JI Handbook:
Sections 8.3,
table 6
The JI handbook now contains a detailed description of the
applicable procedure for data correction in case the allowed
QAL3 limits of the analyser are exceeded.
FAR 2
23
24
JI Handbook:
Sections 8.3,
table 6
JI Handbook:
Sections 11
The JI handbook now contains a detailed description of the
applicable procedures that shall help avoid input mistakes by
control room staff.
A new chapter on the LoA renewal (briefly outlining the
background/referring to background documentation) informing
about the application for LoA modification as PPs intend to
apply for modification of LoA to widen the limitation of allowed
ERUs generation in the existing LoA of the host country
Poland.
The 4th verification resulted in modification nr. 25 and 26 to the monitoring plan (s. JI handbook
version 7.2 dated 03/03/2012) and also listed below.
Issue
Description of
the information
flow procedure
for calculation
of project
emissions
Correction /
updating of
information in
regard to
instruments and
calibrations
No
25
Reference
FAR 1 (after
3rd verification)
JI Handbook:
new Section
9.6
CL1 (subject of
4th Verification)
26
Section 4.2,
table 2 and 2b,
and 8.2
Comment
In order to make the data flow for the calculation of emission
reductions between Project Operator (ZAP), BASF
(technology provider and co-financer) and FutureCamp more
transparent and control/improve it, applicable procedure has
been described in a new section of the JI Handbook.
Due to wrong indications of serial numbers and denominations
(due to lack of updates and mistakes); which were corrected.
In order to assure the correct implementation of calibrations
the calibration frequency applicable to all relevant instruments
was checked thoroughly, including slight corrections
implemented (wording). The implemented calibrations meet
the requirements for adequate monitoring.
At the time of the 5th verification the PP has voluntary included modifications nr. 27, 28 and 29
to the monitoring plan (s. JI handbook version 8.1 dated 05/01/2013) and also listed below.
Issue
Including of
Up-to-date
information
No
Reference
27
JI Handbook,
Sections 10
and 11
Comment
Campaign data in Section 10 has been updated.
Furthermore due to LoA amendment Section 11 has been
updated.
Page 15 of 29
Streamlining of/
amendments to
instrumentation
tables
Update of data
flowcharts
28
JI Handbook,
Sections 4.2
and 4.3
29
JI Handbook,
Sections 4.1
and 5.1, Fig. 2
and Fig.3
Instrumentation data, sf. tables 2a and 2b have been streamlined/updated and amended by information in tables 2c-2f.
Editorial mistake in table 3 has been corrected.
Figure 2: newly installed SCR reactor at Line 214 added
Figure 3: new status after modernization of the DCS
At the time of the 6th verification the PP has voluntary included modifications nr. 30 to the
monitoring plan (s. JI handbook version 9 dated 11/02/2013) and also listed below:
Issue
No
Reference
Updates to
instrumentation
tables
30
JI Handbook,
Section 4.2
Comment
Respective instrumentation data has been updated. It is
mainly about reporting of the last calibration dates for the key
monitoring instruments.
The update of the actual calibration dates does not have any impact on the quality or
accurateness of the monitoring plan. Calibration evidences were checked by the verifiers and
consistency of reported dates has been verified for all those key monitoring instruments (IRL
10).
Monitoring data reliability and completeness have been verified by using DCS records and the
PI graphs over the reported monitoring period for all key parameters. In case of peculiarities the
graph was zoomed and checked with special awareness taking into consideration the specific
operation of the facility as demonstrated by other related parameters to verify explanations
given by the plant operator (Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A., ZAP). Some of these peculiarities
(calibrations, adjustments or shutdowns) were used to check the data transfer from the metering
systems to the data acquisition systems.
Verification of the performance of the data collection system
The assessment of the quality of the data collection system is the key to ensure the data
reliability and completeness, as well as the consistency, the transparency and the correct
application of the PDD and the methodology.
TÜV SÜD has checked the data collection system:
I.
necessary procedures are in place and are followed (s. JI Handbook, production,
training, maintenance procedure, etc in IRL5, IRL11)
II.
responsibilities are defined (see JI Handbook, IRL5)
III.
internal data validation and cross-check is performed (via Daily and Monthly production
meetings, s. IRL6, IRL7)
IV.
JI project plant staff is trained, (s. IRL11)
V.
IT systems are transparent, reliable and secured (s. IRL5, IRL6)
Page 16 of 29
VI.
all JI project related measurement equipment is adjusted and/or calibrated timely and
correctly (s. IRL10)
Data flow
An automated monitoring system (AMS) has been installed using the guidance document EN
14181. The AMS covers a N 2 O concentration measurement (N 2 O analyser), a volume flow
meter (VTG measurement), metering of pressure and temperature of stack gas (PTG, TTG).
Data control is provided by a Data Control System (DCS). This system is operated around the
clock by staff in the control room. During 5th Monitoring Period a new DCS from Emerson has
been installed at the plant. The old system (Honeywell ST-3000 SMART) is still in operation and
it is mirroring the data of the new DCS .
The data for the JI project is collected by DURAG D-EMS 2000 which provides separate
readings for N 2 O concentration and gas volume flow continuously, generating average values
for every 60 minutes of operation. Apart from these two parameters, temperature and pressure
of the tail gas are recorded and – together with further process parameters – stored. The
applied software (D-EMS 2000 QAL) is adequate for complete documentation of AMS, drift and
precision (QAL3) according to EN 14181. Routine data back-up from the DURAG system is
conducted (via a portable hard disc). This back-up is kept separately in safe custody.
Durag D-EMS 2000 obtains the data used in this JI projects from the old DCS (Honeywell ST3000 SMART).
From the data archive, the monitoring report extracts the essential data.
Data handling
The calculation of the GHG emission reductions is done after each campaign by the Nitric Acid
Plant Technologist (AGRO Division) or Technology Specialist (Strategy and Development
Department), based on the campaign data, and validated by the Ammonium Nitrate Department
Manager. Data is processed via the Durag D-EMS 2000 where it is also stored. On request it
can be monitored there in line diagrams and bar graphs and detailed logs.
The calculation procedures take account for eventual downtime of the AMS: during project
monitoring the highest measured value in the whole campaign shall be applied for the downtime
period as EF. For downtime periods during baseline monitoring the lowest between the
conservative IPCC value (4.5 kg N 2 O/tHNO 3 ) or the last measured value is applied.
During the project lifetime PPs collect and archive data on relevant parameters of the project on
a regular basis. This is defined by monitoring periods. Their data is presented in monitoring
reports compiled for each production line (L211, L212, L213 and L214). This approach had
been accepted by Polish DFP.
The data of parameters for baseline campaign monitoring and approach used to define baseline
period (s. JI Handbook, Chapter 9.1) have been verified during the First Periodic Verification of
TÜV SÜD (IRL 2).
The CDM procedure (EB 51 Annex 12) in case of shorter project campaign length has been
included in the JI Handbook during 2nd verification and it is correctly applied for this monitoring
period.
The verification of the parameters required by the monitoring plan during project campaigns is
provided as follows:
Page 17 of 29
Data / Parameter:
NCTG 211, 212, 213, 214
Data unit:
mg/Nm3
Description:
N 2 O concentration in the stack gas
Source of data used:
Equipment used: ABB Infrared analyzer model AO2020, URAS26;
instrument with TAG number 3.341103.8 (NCTG 211 and NCTG 212 ) and with
TAG number 3.341104.8 (NCTG 213 and NCTG 214 ). Each Line is
independently measured with a separate analyser cell (IRL 9k). The
measurement principle is a non-dispersive infrared absorption.
The data output from the analyzers will be processed using data processing
system from DURAG GmbH. The information is stored in electronic records
for at least 2 years.
The equipments used are certified according to QAL1 and have been
calibrated according to the requirements of EN 14181 as could be
demonstrated by the QAL2 reports performed by a third party accredited for
this activity due to DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005. QAL3 is done on regular
basis (zero span adjustment is done every 3 weeks) and the QAL3 control
charts (CUSUM) are in place. AST is also done in on regular basis according
to the EN14181. The equipments used have been calibrated according to the
requirements of the approved monitoring plan. The laboratory / third party
used are accredited for the activity, hence the information can be considered
verifiable. No adjustment has been necessary.
The verifier could review stack gas analysis (IRL 9h) that shows that the
water content in the stack gas is far below 1%Vol and thus it can be
classified as dry.
Means of
verification/Comments:
Raw Data (Original NCTG data) provided in the Excel calculation sheets
were traced by the verifier over the whole period. In case of peculiarities the
graph was zoomed and checked with special awareness taking into
consideration the specific operation of the facility as demonstrated by other
related parameter to verify explanations given. The reported data found to be
consistent with the graphs. QAL3 procedure is maintained and CUSUM
charts provided for verification.
Cross-check
In order to assess the correct adjustment and the data transfer from the
analyzer to the DURAG system, data obtained at DURAG system during
QAL3 adjustment during onsite audit was compared with certified reference
value of test gas concentration. The verifier confirms that the data were
transferred correctly.
Data / Parameter:
VTG 211, 212, 213, 214
Data unit:
Nm3/h
Description:
Volume flow rate of stack gas
This parameter is continuously measured by a gas volume flow metering
(Torbar) using electronic differential pressure transmitter with the TAG
numbers FYI-2197 / 2297 / 2397 / 2497 respectively for the lines 211, 212,
213 and 214. The data output from the pressure transmitters is processed
using data processing system from DURAG GmbH. The information is stored
in electronic records for at least 2 years.
The equipments used have been calibrated according to the requirements of
the revised monitoring plan. (i.e. QAL2/AST according EN14181 and the
Page 18 of 29
transmitters once a year).
The verifier could review stack gas analysis (IRL 9h) that shows that the
water content in the stack gas is far below 1%Vol and thus it can be
classified as dry.
Means of
Data provided in the MR were traced by the verifier over the whole period. In
case of peculiarities the graph was zoomed and checked with special
awareness taking into consideration the specific operation of the facility as
demonstrated by other related parameter to verify explanations given. The
reported data found to be consistent with the graphs.
Cross-check
The reported volume flow rates of stack gas were crosschecked by the audit
team with ammonia flow rates over the whole period. A reasonable similarity
was found.
Data / Parameter:
NAP 211, 212, 213, 214
Data unit:
t HNO 3
Description:
Nitric acid production (100% concentrate)
The relevant data for nitric acid production (100% concentrate) is derived
from Vortex flow meter – Foxboro (manufacturer) and laboratory HNO3
concentration analysis via DCS to emission calculator (DURAG system)..
The measurements are performed continuously. The TAG numbers are: FI
2112/CI 2115 (line 211), FI 2212/CI 2215 (line 212), FI 2312/CI 2315 (line
213) and FI 01071403 since 09 June 2012 [24112/CI] 2415 (line 214).
Derivation of HNO3 concentration is done with the help of 2 hourly laboratory
analyses.
These data are the official data also entered in the management system for
accounting purpose. Input data is kept in retraceable form in multiple paper
copies as well as electronic format.
The instruments are calibrated following a pre-defined plan which is part of
the Quality System and reported in the ”JI Handbook”. The documents
provided by ZAP allowed the audit team to confirm that these instruments
have been calibrated as required. ZAP nitric acid plant is ISO 9001 certified.
Calibration routines and periodic check-up is followed up by the quality
system. The calibration certificates were provided as evidence of the work
performed.
Emission reductions are limited to the design capacity of the existing nitric
acid production plant. According to the registered PDD and the
Determination Report the design capacity is 900 000 tHNO3 /year.
Means of
With regard to nitric acid concentration, the DURAG system receives the
concentration raw data from the process control system, where every two
hours laboratory measurements are entered. DURAG saves these values on
a minute basis. When a new concentration value is entered during an hour,
the calculated hourly concentration is an average of the concentration values
at the beginning and the end of this hour. A comparison (between DURAG
hourly HNO3 concentration averages and HNO3 concentration values from
control room report (i.e. laboratory measurement results) from 20/12/2012
(IRL 6f) where found to be in a reasonable range taking into the account the
above described procedure.
Data provided in the MR were traced by the verifier over the whole period. In
case of peculiarities the graph was zoomed and checked with special
awareness taking into consideration the specific operation of the facility as
Page 19 of 29
demonstrated by other related parameter to verify explanations given. The
reported data found to be consistent with the graphs.
The produced amount of Nitric Acid in 2012 exceeded the design capacity
as indicated in the registered PDD. As explained in CAR 06, PPs have
capped the claimed emission reductions appropriately. The exact duration
(hours) of the production/project campaigns’ period had been verified via
“Weekly_data_protocol” included in IRL 10a. The weekly data protocol
contains weekly screenshots of DCS graphs.
Cross-check
The production of nitric acid was cross-checked by the ammonia input for
nitric acid production. The data show a reliable consistency. Thus, the
reported “final acid” production data are plausible.
Data / Parameter:
TTG 211,212, 213, 214
Data unit:
°C
Description:
Temperature of the tail gas
Probe (part of gas volume flow meter) TAG numbers: TI-2199 (line 211), TI2299 (line 212), TI-2399 (line 213) and TI-2499 (line 214). Producer
PEPPERL + FUCHS.
The actual temperature of the stack gas is measured continuously.
the revised monitoring plan (i.e. QAL2/AST according EN14181 and the
Means of
Data provided in the MR were traced by the verifier with the help of DURAG
csv files over the whole period. In case of peculiarities the graph was
zoomed and checked with special awareness taking into consideration the
specific operation of the facility as demonstrated by other related parameter
to verify explanations given. The reported data found to be consistent with
the graphs.
Cross-check
-
Data / Parameter:
PTG 211, 212, 213, 214
Data unit:
Pa
Description:
Pressure of the tail gas
Probe (part of gas volume flow meter) TAG numbers: PI-2198 (line 211), PI2298 (line 212), PI-2398 (line 213) and PI-2498 (line 214). Manufacturer
Honeywell.
The actual pressure of the stack gas is measured continuously by a probe
that is part of gas volume flow meter.
the revised monitoring plan (i.e. QAL2/AST according EN14181 and the
Means of
Data provided in the MR were traced by the verifier with the help of DURAG
csv files over the whole period. In case of peculiarities the graph was
zoomed and checked with special awareness taking into consideration the
specific operation of the facility as demonstrated by other related parameter
to verify explanations given. The reported data found to be consistent with
the graphs.
Page 20 of 29
Cross-check
-
Data / Parameter:
AFR 211, 212, 213, 214
Data unit:
kg NH 3 /h
Description:
Ammonia gas flow rate
Measured by a flow meter with TAG numbers FFC-2101 (line 211), FFC2201 (line 212), FFC-2301 (line 213) and FFC-2401 (line 214). Manufacturer
Honeywell. Data are acquired continuously.
The instrument is calibrated according to the manufacturer`s specification
and the internal calibration and maintenance plan which is part of the Quality
System. The calibration certificates were provided as evidence.
Means of verification/Comments:
Data provided in the excel calculations were traced by the verifier with the
help of DCS over the whole period. The reported data found to be consistent
with the manual records.
Cross-check
The ammonia gas flow rate to the ammonia oxidation reactor for nitric acid
production was crosschecked by the nitric acid production. The data show a
reasonable consistency.
Data / Parameter:
OT 211, 212, 213, 214
Data unit:
°C
Description:
Oxidation temperature for each hour
Measured by thermocouples (PIA-ZAP) with TAGs: TI 2138/39/40 for line
211, TI 2238/39/40 for line 212, TI 2338/39/40 for line 213 and TI 2438/39/40
for line 214. Data are acquired every hour by the DCS and are saved continuously and automatically in the SCADA system. After damage or incorrect
values indicator is exchanged for new one (as per internal QA Procedures as
part of the Integrated Management System).
Data provided in the excel sheets were traced by the verifier over the whole
period. The reported data found to be consistent. The parameter is not a
monitoring parameter during measurements of project campaigns according
to PDD. This parameter is used to indicate the plant status (on/off) among
other parameters like AFR. Hence this parameter is not directly used to calculate emission reduction and hence the verifier accepted QA/QC procedure
applied which requires only the exchange to new thermocouples after damage or incorrect values.
Cross-check
To cross-check the data the values of the three thermocouples at each AOR
were compared to each other. Reasonable similarities were found for all four
lines.
Data / Parameter:
OH
Data unit:
h
Description:
Operating hours
The DCS automatically records the hours of full operation of the plant during
a campaign. The plant is operating if: (a) temperature of two of the three reactors is above 600 °C and at the same time (b) AFR is above 5000 m3/h.
.The information is then sent to the DURAG system. The information will be
Page 21 of 29
stored in electronic records and paper for at least 2 years.
Data provided in the MR were traced by the verifier with the help of DCS and
DURAG system over the whole period. The reported data found to be consistent. The thresholds to define operation of nitric acid production - OH (i.e.
oxidation temperature >600°C and AFR > 5000Nm³/h) are found to be plausible using the sectoral knowledge of the assessment team.
Cross-check
-
Data / Parameter:
GS project
Data unit:
-
Description:
Gauzes supplier for the project campaigns
Primary gauze certificates
By assessing the delivery notes it can be confirmed that ZAP used the same
composition and supplier of the primary gauzes as in the baseline. The
information presented in the MR is correct.
Cross-check
The specification documents have been crosschecked with the provided
invoice (IRL 9).
Data / Parameter:
GC project
Data unit:
-
Description:
Gauzes composition for the project campaigns
Primary gauze certificates
By assessing the delivery notes and the related specification of the
composition it can be confirmed that ZAP used the same composition of the
primary gauzes as in the baseline. The information presented in the MR is
correct.
Cross-check
The specification documents have been crosschecked with the provided
invoice (IRL 9).
Data / Parameter:
EF reg
Data unit:
-
Description:
Emissions level set by incoming policies or regulations
National regulations.
According to IPPC Environmental Permit and http://www.mos.gov.pl/mos/aktyp/dostep_eng.html there are no new regulations in force.
Cross-check
This complies with the knowledge and experience of the verification team.
Page 22 of 29
3.5 Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission
reductions
All data has been available and all the parameters have been monitored in accordance with the
revised monitoring plan.
The reported data have been cross-checked against other sources available as explained
above in chapter 3.4.
The verifier confirms that the methods and formulae used to obtain the baseline, project and
leakage emissions are appropriate. The same has been done in accordance with the methods
and formulae described in the registered monitoring plan and applicable methodology.
The verifier confirms that the monitoring report includes all parameters and the monitored data
at the intervals required by the revised Monitoring Plan (JI Handbook version 9 dated
11/02/2013).
The verifier confirms that all the default values (ex-ante values from PDD) have been correctly
justified and applied. All the emission factors and default values are explicitly mentioned in the
monitoring report.
By comparing the actual emission reductions achieved in 2012 (here: total value over MR#5 and
MR#6 monitoring periods) with the PDD estimation the verifier could confirm that the result is
higher, but absolutely in the range (even lower) that is stated in revised LoA (cf. IRL2f, IRL2h for
“Decision of 13/01/2012 on amending of the LoA” issued by the national DFP.)
Refer to the final MR for the 6th monitoring period, page 2 and Table “Total Emission Reductions
from MR#1 to MR#6 for years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 - Measured values, PDD estimations
and as per revised LoA” for overview and more details on this issue.
The differences between calculated emission reductions and PDD estimates are attributable to
(a) an inaccurate/underrated estimation of plant baseline emissions and (b) a substantially
higher abatement rate (here comment by the technology provider: emission reduction efficiency
could be improved by installation of a second oxidation stage). The revised and valid LoA took
both effects into consideration, cf. IRL2f, IRL2h.
The annual production volume in 2012 was beyond the plant design production capacity of
900,000 tHNO3. Only up to this volume credits for emission reductions are claimed. As verified
the emission reductions claimed were reduced by the emission reductions achieved during
campaign 09 of Line 213 (refer also to CAR06)
Page 23 of 29
4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
All the findings raised by the verification team, the responses by the PPs and the conclusion
from the team are presented in Annex 1. The means of verification and resulting changes in the
MR or related documents are identified in the following tables:
CAR 1: Cf. trend of NCTG data over reported monitoring period at Line 214 (in particular: 8th
project campaign): at the end of August 2012 the N2O concentration (NCTG) values have
increase from approx. 200 mg/Nm3 to 400 mg/Nm3. As discussed onsite, this event was result
of the switch over of measurement range of analyser from 600 to 1000 [ppm].
Hence, the recalculation of data is necessary; then in the presented documentation the
DURAG (here: AMS calculator) used default setting of the 0-600 ppm range
Moreover, the MR shall include additional information about this special event (incl. the reason
for the extension of measurement range) and data handling approach in this case.
The revised calculation tool and respective DURAG parameter protocols are to be provided to
the verifier.
CAR 1, means of verification
The verifier reviewed PP´s response including the supporting documents (IRL 10o) and the
revised MR (IRL 3b) and Excel Calculation Tool (IRL 4b). The verifier can confirm that the
switch to the larger measurement range during the previous monitoring period 05 (IRL 10m)
was verified during previous verification (IRL 2m). The NCTG data in Excel calculation Tool
(IRL 4b) based on the DURAG data for campaign 08 of Line 214 were found to be corrected to
the range 0-600ppm. The relevant DURAG parameter protocol (IRL 10o) stating the range
applied was submitted to the verifier. The overall trend of NCTG over the monitoring period is
found to plausible.
The data handling for the incorrect time range for recalculation of second DURAG run
described under (b) of PP´s response is found to be conservative as the downtime value is
applied.
The values reported in the revised MR are found to be consistent with the revised Excel
Calculation Tool.
CAR 1, changes in the MR or related documents
The NCTG data for Line 214 campaign 08 has been recalculated. The MR has been revised
accordingly.
CAR 2: Cf. special event at Line 214 (project campaign, P8) dated 06-08.10.2012. It is
necessary to improve the description of this event in the revised MR.
In addition: VSG downtime data handling needs to be corrected in the calculation tool for this
campaign to comply with AMS downtime procedure described in the Monitoring Plan (JI
Handbook).
The verifier has reviewed the revised MR (IRL 3b). The description of the aforementioned
special event has been corrected. The description is found to be plausible and transparent.
Page 24 of 29
Also the described data handling – appliance of downtime procedure according to the
Monitoring Plan (i.e. as it is defined in AM0034) – is found to be implemented in the revised
Excel Calculation Tool (IRL 4b) for that event.
The description of the aforementioned special event has been corrected.
CAR 3: Starting with 14.11.2012 the new SCR DeNOx was put into operation at Line 214,
which caused the off-gas temperature increase from approx. 40°C to 90°C. Additionally the
verifier team was informed onsite that the sealing of secondary catalyst basket has been
improved at Line 211 and Line 214, which resulted in decreasing of N2O concentration in the
tail gas. The MR shall handle these events and their impacts to the monitoring parameters and
emission reductions.
The verifier reviewed PP´s response and the revised MR (IRL 3b) with special focus on the
aforementioned events. The events were found to be transparently described in the MR to
explain their impacts on the monitoring parameters.
The description of the aforementioned events has been improved.
CAR 4: Several editorial issues identified during desk review and discussed during onsite
audit shall be corrected accordingly in the MR. It is the matter of inconsistencies between the
reported information in the JI Handbook, Excel calculation tools and/or calibration certificates
(dates, serial numbers).
The verifier reviewed the revised MR with special focus on the identified editorial issues.
Several editorial issues were found to be resolved.
CAR 5: Cf. Line 214 (P8): The formula to accumulate NAP values in the calculation tool was
found to be deficient and shall be corrected.
The verifier reviewed the revised Excel Calculation Tool for project campaign of Line 214 and
the Calculation tool to recalculate the EFBL with special focus on the NAP integration of project
campaign 08 and NCTG BC calculation. The calculation was found to be correctly revised.
The values reported in the revised MR were found to be consistent.
The formula to integrate NAP over project campaign 08 of Line214 and the formula to calculate
the NCTG BC mean for Line 214 campaign 08 has been corrected. The MR has been revised
accordingly. The correction of the formula to integrate NAP of Line 214 campaign 08 resulted
in an almost doubling of the NAP of campaign 08 Line214 as due to the formula mistake only
each second hourly value was summed up.
Page 25 of 29
CAR 6: The annual HNO3 production in 2012 has exceeded the plant’s design production
capacity, which is set with 900,000 [tHNO3, 100%], s. IRL2 for the reported value in the
registered PDD. The requirement of the methodology/monitoring plan shall be followed for that
case. Excel calculation tools and MR shall be corrected accordingly.
The verifier reviewed revised MR (IRL 3b) with special focus on the total amount of claimed
emission reduction, the NAP produced in 2012 and the cap.
PPs applied following procedure
900,000 tHNO3. Only up to this volume credits for emission reductions may be claimed. A
conservative discounting of emission reductions was implemented, thereby reducing the claims
for production below the 900kt threshold. The conservative treatment procedure is as follows:
(a)
Non-consideration of NAP for crediting at the last campaign at lines 211-214 with the
highest delta between applicable baseline EF and project EF (thus also the highest claims for
emission reductions). This campaign is P9 at line 213 (∆=7.93 tCO2e/tHNO3 for calculation of
the delta).
(b)
As a simplified and conservative approach, all NAP of P9 at line 213 (17,822 tHNO3
shall be excluded from crediting (thus for this campaign no credits shall be claimed at all).
As a result of the above described procedure, the NAP for which emission reductions in 2012
are claimed for amounts to 899,988 tHNO3 (<900kt HNO3 threshold).
This procedure is found to be implemented and the emission reductions claimed are reduced
compared to the real emission reductions due to exceeding the cap defined in the PDD in
2012. The procedure to do this is found to be conservative as emission reduction from Line
213 with the highest delta between baseline EF and project EF are capped. The simplified
approach to cancel emission reduction from complete project campaign 09 of Line 213 results
in a more conservative bias.
The MR has been revised accordingly.
CAR 7: Cf. Line 212 (P9): The formula to recalculate the EFBL (new NCTG mean) due to
shorter project campaign length was found to be deficient. The correct data handling shall be
applied as defined in the Monitoring Plan.
The verifier reviewed the revised Excel Calculation Tool to recalculate EFBL due to shorter
project campaign 09 of Line 212” Py_212_P9_BL_v2.xls”. The formula to calculate the NCTG
mean value (cell B14) was found to be corrected.
The formula to calculate the NCTG mean value (cell B14) was corrected. The MR has been
revised accordingly.
Page 26 of 29
CAR 8: The regular AST test acc. EN14181 has been performed at all Lines on 1315/11/2012. Though, implausible values were found in the monitored data for that period (e.g.
Line 211 parameter TSG on 14/11/2012). Provisions of JI Handbook, s. “Treatment of AST
related mavericks” have to be taken into account.
The verifier reviewed the Excel Calculation tools (IRL 4b) with special focus on the monitoring
data and data handling during AST 13-15/11/2012. The data handling was found to be in
compliance with the procedure defined in the JI Handbook i.e. mavericks due to AST where
treated as AMS downtime.
The values reported in the revised MR (IRL 3b) were found to be consistent.
In the Excel Calculation Tools the mavericks due to AST where treated as AMS downtime. The
MR has been revised accordingly.
CL 1: Cf. Line 212 (P9): the calibration frequency defined in the monitoring plan has been
exceeded for the HNO3 flow meter (NAP). The reason of this delay and the reliability of the
measured data shall be clarified (cf. validity of calibration, by taking into account the instrument
vendor’s recommendations).
CL 1, means of verification
A manufacturer recommendation on calibration requirement for Foxboro Vortex 83 instrument
(IRL 9j) was reviewed by the verifier.
The verification team has accepted the delay of calibration for some days at line 212 in this
monitoring period because the instrument was calibrated with a much higher frequency than
indicated by the manufacturer and the recommended frequency for re-calibration was indeed
not exceeded.
CL 1, changes in the MR or related documents
N/A
CL 2: The AST report for Line 214 could not be provided to the audit team during onsite audit.
It is required to submit the latest AST report for that Line.
CL 2, means of verification
The outstanding AST report for line 214 is submitted together with the answers to this LoF. The
verifier reviewed the AST report for Line 214 (IRL 10j). The report confirms positive results.
CL 2, changes in the MR or related documents
N/A
Page 27 of 29
FAR 1: Calculated mean values for the key monitoring parameters such as NCTG and VTG
applied in calculation of EFn, PEn, ERn are based on data sets, which are not complete in
case of 9th project campaigns at production Lines with IDs L211, 212, 213 and in case of 8th
project campaign at Line 214; the duration of those campaigns is limited by the end date of the
1st commitment period for Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012).
In case of extension of the crediting period, starting from 01.01.2013, the last project
campaigns’ emission factor and emission reductions for the aforementioned project campaigns
must be re-evaluated.
Additionally the emission reductions for these campaigns shall be calculated as a normal
situation (i.e. until the primary gauze change) and the ER already verified in this period shall be
deducted. To avoid any double counting due to this approach.
FAR 1, means of verification
The subject of subsequent verification activities, i.e. post 31.12.2012.
FAR 1, changes in the MR or related documents
-
Page 28 of 29
5 VERIFICATION STATEMENT
TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH has performed the 6th periodic verification of the JI project:
“Catalytic Reduction of N 2 O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy,
Poland”. The verification is based on the currently valid documentation of the UNFCCC, JISC as
well as on requirements set by the host country (Poland) for approving projects under JI track-1.
The management of Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A. and BASF SE in cooperation with project
consultant FutureCamp Climate GmbH is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emissions
data and the reported GHG emission reductions on the basis set out within the project’s
Monitoring Plan indicated in the final revised PDD incl. Annex 4 “On revision of estimated
emission reductions” version 02, dated 05/09/2011 and the applied methodology which is based
on AM0034, version 03. Note: Current monitoring plan is an up-to-date documentation to the
monitoring procedures and their implementation: “JI Handbook”. The assessment TÜV SÜD
team confirms that revisions undertaken improve the quality of the initial monitoring plan. JI
Handbook is to be considered as a living document which is to be uploaded together with the
Final Verification and Monitoring Report. This approach has been accepted by the DFP.
The verifier can confirm that:
•
the development and maintenance of records and reporting procedures are in
accordance with the revised Monitoring Plan (revised JI Handbook version 9 dated
11/02/2013);
•
the project is operated as planned and described in the PDD approved by the DFP in the
host country (cf. its amended version, including Annex 4 to the registered PDD, which
was approved on 13/01/2012);
•
the installed equipment being essential for generating emission reduction runs reliably
and is calibrated appropriately;
•
the monitoring system is in place and generates GHG emission reductions data;
•
the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements;
Our opinion is based on the project’s GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions
reported, which have been both determined through the valid and registered project’s baseline,
its monitoring plan and its associated documents.
Based on the information we have seen and evaluated, we confirm the following statement:
Verified calculated emission reductions in the reporting period for each line (tCO 2 e):
Line
L211
L212
L213
L214
08/05/2012 – 22/10/2012
13/06/2012 – 02/12/2012
14/08/2012 – 31/12/2012
Emission Reductions in
156,126
251,260
192,751
24/10/2012 – 31/12/2012
05/09/2012 – 31/12/2012
05/12/2012 – 31/12/2012
-
Emission Reductions in
94,014
176,437
(43,851)
-
Annex 1: Periodic Verification Protocol
Verification Protocol
Project Title: “Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland”
Date of Completion: 25-03-2013
Table of Contents
1.
Project Activity Implementation
1.1.
Technology
1.2.
Organization
1.3.
Quality Management System
1.4.
Remaining FARs from previous Verifications (or
forwarded issues of validation report)
2.
Monitoring Plan Implementation
2.1.
Parameters
2.2.
Parameters measured directly with instruments
2.3.
Parameters measured through sampling
2.4.
Parameters obtained through external sources and
accounting data
2.5.
Other parameters not included in the methodology/tool
but included in the PDD
3.
Data Processing and ER calculation
4.
Additional assessment
4.1.
Internal Review
4.2.
Peculiarities
4.3.
Additional requirements
4.4.
Data Reporting
5.
Compilation and Resolutions of CARs, CRs and FARs
Checklist is applicable to JI track 1 Project Activity: Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, ITL-ID: PL1000055
Page A-1
1. Project Activity Implementation
1.1. Technology
Location
PDD Description
Verified Situation
Description /
Address:
Zaklady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A. Al. Tysiąclecia Państwa Polskiego 13, 24110 Puławy, Poland
Puławy, in the Lublin Voivodeship.
The nitric acid production is housed
in the buildings G66 and G68
GSP
coordinates:
The GSP coordinates were provided for the city of Pulawy only:
51.4581 0N and 21.9815 0E
51.4581 0N and 21.9815 0E
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 1

Technical Equipment – Main Components
Description
PDD Description
Verified Situation
Figure 1 and figure 2:
The PDD description reflects reality
and all equipment described were
correctly identified during the on-site
visit.
The nitric acid plant in Puławy
consists of four production lines.
Each line is fed by a cluster of three
ammonia oxidation reactors,
supplying NO gas to an absorption
process train with four absorption
columns. With secondary air added
to the gas stream, NO oxidizes to
NO2 which is then available for the
absorption in water and the reaction
to nitric acid in the absorption
columns.1 After leaving the
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 1, 2, 3
IRL 9i
Page A-2
absorption stage, the tail gas
undergoes a selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) of NOx residues
with the help of ammonia. With an
operating pressure of 4.9 barg in
the oxidation reactors and 4.3 barg
in the absorption stage, the nitric
acid plant is counted among the
Mono Medium/Medium (M/M) plant
type.
Line 4 does in addition add pure
oxygen in the absorption stage in
order to enhance the nitrogen
dioxide feedstock and with this the
efficiency of the production process.
This has no influence on the N2O
load in the tail gas.
As stated in the registered PDD it is
foreseen to install a DeNOx unit
also at Line 214, because of new
NOx emitting units should be
erected but emission limit need to
be complied with. When writing the
PDD the commission of this DeNOx
unit was planned in 2010 together
with new NOx emitting sources.
During 5th monitoring period the
DeNOx has been installed as also
verified during onsite visit. The
DeNOx is in operation since
14/11/2012.
The submitted documentation of the
installed SCR-unit carries
Page A-3
After SCR DeNOx installation:
characteristic features of a state-ofthe-art SCR reactor installed tailend in front of the expander of a
nitric acid production facility. Distinct
features include NH3 injection and
intelligent control of “key
parameters”. Being built as a radialaxial flow-reactor, the reactor is
specially designed to reduce
pressure loss.
Confidential background
documentation to this is provided
(IRL 9i).
Page A-4
Before SCR DeNOx installation:
Component 1
(the overall
configuration
of the nitric
acid plant
including
Ammonia
Oxidization
Reactor)
Description of the project activity:
Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A. operates a nitric acid production plant at
the production site in Puławy, Poland. Nitric acid has been produced in
Puławy since 1967, with no capacity changes since then.
The nitric acid from the Puławy plant is mainly used for fertilizer production.
Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable
to the project activity:
Extract from original plant diagram
(see “Design_Cap_Pulawy.pdf” –
IRL 24 from Determination Report)
shows the number of 204,544.
This is the hourly production
capacity [kg] for 55% nitric acid
204,544 x 24 x 0.55 / 1000 x 365 =
appr. 985,550 tHNO 3 /a (100%
concentrate).
CAR6
IRL 1, 2

Page A-5
Technical
Features
Component 2
Primary
Gauze
Technical
Features
Nitric Acid is produced through the oxidation of ammonia (NH3) on precious
metal catalyst gauze in the ammonia burner of a nitric acid plant. During the
production of nitric acid, nitrous oxide (N2O) is generated as an unintended
by-product of the high temperature catalytic oxidation of ammonia. This
waste N2O is typically released into the atmosphere, as it does not have
any economic value or toxicity at emission levels typical for nitric acid
manufacture
At the nitric acid plant in Puławy up to 900,000 tonnes nitric acid (calculated
100%) are produced annually. The plant comprises twelve oxidation
reactors, of which three each feed one absorption process train. The tail
gas leaves the four process trains through two stacks. A selective catalytic
reduction system for NOx reduction is integrated into three of the four
process trains to reduce NOx in the waste gas under the threshold value
specified by Polish regulation and documented in the IPPC permission of
the plant. Since there is no obligation for Puławy to decompose the N2O
from the nitric acid plant so far, it is released to the atmosphere with an
intensity of appr. 7 kg N2O per tonne nitric acid, leading to overall
emissions of some 6,300 tonnes of N2O, equal to 1,953,000 tCO2e per
year. This is common practice in the nitric acid industry.
The production capacity in the PDD
as well as connected values
(baseline and project emissions) are
adjusted to a maximum annual
production of 900,000 tHNO 3 p.a.
(100% concentrate). This value
does consider some 30 days of
shutdown for maintenance and
gauze change and is in line with the
working hours (8.000 h) stated in
the IPPC approval.
Data and parameters that were available at validation:
GSnormal (Normal gauze supplier for the operation condition campaigns),
GCnormal (Normal gauze composition for the operation condition
campaigns):
The information is confidential according to registered PDD. For
determining and verifying issues the information was accessible to the audit
teams.
The gauze composition and the
gauze suppliers have been
unchanged from historic campaigns
to the on-going project campaigns
in accordance with delivery
invoices.
Refer to CAR 06

IRL 4
Operation Status during verification
Verified Situation
Approvals /
Licenses
IPCC Permit (IRL 5
Conclusion
and IRL

Page A-6
Actual
Operation
Status
Under construction
In operation
Out of operation

The verifier confirms during the periodic verification using different documents provided by the PPs and/or visits in
the on-site verifications that the project is implemented as planned and as described in the validated and
registered PDD. Installed equipment essential for generating emissions reductions runs reliably. The monitoring
system is in place and is calibrated appropriately and the project is generating emission reduction as a JI project.

This project has been registered at UNFCCC
http://ji.unfccc.int/JI_Projects/DB/DJGT6U3O8IS2777NZ7GAZEJG0UCRKS/
PublicPDD/LWK8VUEB14RS1ME6S0SPYKW1HYYNJ0/view.html
Line 211
NAP
CAR5
FAR1

OH
Normal Campaign Length (CL n )
108,162
Baseline Campaign 11 /06 /2008 - 19 /11 /2008
108,135
3,721
1 Project Campaign 10 /12 /2008 - 11 /05 /2009
108,878
3,632
2 Project Campaign 12 /05 /2009 - 10 /11 /2009
110,294
3,807
3 Project Campaign 30 /11/2009 – 02/05/2010
103,737
3,613
4 Project Campaign 18/05/2010 - 28 /11 /2010
101,102
3,620
5 Project Campaign 06 /12/2010 - 16/05/2011
111,022
3,862
111,319
3,806
111,476
3,772
100,306
3,543
9 Project Campaign 24 /10/2012 - 31/12/2012*
50,800
1,638
NAP
OH
*cut with end of JI project
Line 212
Page A-7
Normal Campaign Length (CLn)
100,180
Baseline Campaign 24/04/2008 - 31/10/2008
100,158
3,627
1 Project Campaign 25/11/2008 - 27/04/2009
104,872
3,644
103,839
3,673
97,512
3,326
104,498
3,739
110,980
3,942
107,859
3,672
109,286
3,757
103,340
3,680
9 Project Campaign 05/09/2012 - 31/12/2012*
81,343
2,808
NAP
OH
Line 213
106,435
106,423
3,896
32,138
1,129
104,095
3,800
112,593
3,895
103,838
3,784
108,235
3,880
107,746
3,886
100,401
3,677
104,240
3,932
Page A-8
17,822
648
NAP
OH
Line 214
107,923
107,908
4,018
1 Project Campaign 21/01/2009 -14/04/2009
50,844
1,899
105,503
4004
101,125
3,827
107,539
3,963
105,525
3,912
109,054
3,801
7 Project Campaign 08/02/2012 - 31/07 /2012
111,557
4,048
Refer to CAR 05
3,230
See FAR 1
Remarks to
Special
Operational
Status During
the
Verification
Period
All four Lines were in normal operation during this monitoring period. During previous monitoring period the plant
got equipped with a new DCS system. But, the old DCS is still in operation and serves as data source for the JI
project.

Page A-9
1.2. Organization
Project Participant (s)
Verified Situation
Entity /
Responsible
person:
Conclusion
and IRL
Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A, Krzysztof Dziuba, Wieslaw Chloj, Andrej Czerniak and Bogdan Kaplonski.

IRL 1, 3
JI Project
Nitric Acid Department Manager from AGRO Division is responsible for the supervision of the Automated
management: Measurement System (AMS) and Emission Calculator for the measurements of emissions and installation process
parameters. He is also responsible for the system-generated data processing in special calculation sheets.
Collected data are transferred to the Strategy and Development Department.

IRL 1, 3
1.3. Quality Management System
General aspects of the Quality Management System
Verified Situation
Quality Management Manual:
PPs maintain a JI Handbook including project specific procedures. The JI Handbook
also serves as Monitoring Plan.
Responsibilities:
See above.
Qualification and Training:
The operational procedures regarding management structure, responsibilities and
training implemented at the nitric acid plant fulfill standard Integrated Management
System norms (ISO 9001:2000, ISO 14001:2004 and PN-N-18001:2004). This has
been additionally described in procedure P-05.01 „Documentation supervision”, P09.01, „Production Process Control” and P-18.01 „Training”.
Implementation of QM-system
See above.
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 3


IRL 3, 8
Page A-10
1.4. Remaining FARs from previous Verifications (or forwarded issues of validation report)
Remaining Requests
from Previous Verifications
Summary of project owner responses
Audit team
Conclusion and IRL
none
n.a.
n.a.
Page A-11
2. Monitoring Plan Implementation
2.1. Parameters
This protocol includes only parameters that are relevant for verification of campaigns of this monitoring period. Measured baseline parameters
are not included as they were already verified during first periodic verification (IRL 2i)
[I ... line 211, 212, 213, 214]
Parameters
Meth/tool
PDD/MP
MR
Included in table
Compliance
Conclusion
and IRL
NCSG
N2O
concentration in the
stack gas
(mgN 2 O/m3
(converted
from ppm if
necessary))
NCTG
N2O
stack gas
(mgN 2 O/m3
(converted
from ppm if
necessary))
NCTGI
N2O
stack gas
(mgN 2 O/m3)
of line I
Chapter 2.2
table 1
Compliant

IRL 1, 2, 3
VSG
Volume flow
rate of the
stack gas
(m3/h)
VTG
Volume flow
rate of the
stack gas
(m3/h)
VTGI
Normal gas
volume flow
rate of the
stack gas
(Nm3/h) of
line I
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
Chapter 2.2
table 2
Compliant

IRL 1, 2, 3
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
Page A-12
Parameters
Meth/tool
PDD/MP
MR
Included in table
Compliance
OH
Operating
hours
(Hours)
OHl
Operating
hours of line l
OHl
Operating
hours of line l
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
No, as this is calculated
In compliance
NAP
Nitric Acid
production
(100%
concentrate)
(tHNO 3 )
NAPl
Nitric acid
production
(100%
concentrate)
of line l
NAPl
Nitric acid
production
(100%
concentrate)
of line l
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
Chapter 2.2
Table 5
Compliant

IRL 1, 2, 3
TSG
Temperature
of stack gas
TTGl
Temperature
of tail gas at
each line
TTGl
Temperature
of tail gas at
each line I
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
Chapter 2.2
Table 3
Compliant

IRL 1, 2, 3
PSG
Pressure of
stack gas
PTGl
Pressure of
tail
PTGl
Pressure of
tail
Chapter 2.2
Table 4
Compliant

IRL 1, 2, 3
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 2, 3,
5, 6
Page A-13
Parameters
Meth/tool
PDD/MP
MR
Included in table
Compliance
Conclusion
and IRL
(unit is not
specified)
gas at each
line (Pa)
gas at each
line I (Pa)
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
GS,
Gauze
supplier
GS I ,
Gauze
supplier for
line I
GS I ,
Gauze
supplier for
line I
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
Stated at Chapter 2.4, Table 1
Compliant

IRL 1, 2, 3
GC
Gauze
composition
GC, l
Gauze
composition
of
line l
GC, l
Gauze
composition
of line l
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
Delivery Note

IRL 1, 2, 3
AFR
Ammonia
gas flow rate
to the AOR
(kgNH3/h)
AFR
Ammonia
gas flow rate
to the AOR of
line l
Daily mean
(kgNH3/h)
AFR
Ammonia
gas flow rate
to the AOR of
line l
Operating
manual (OM)
This parameter is relevant for calculation
of operating hour (OH) of the campaign

IRL 1, 2, 3
Page A-14
Parameters
Meth/tool
PDD/MP
MR
Included in table
Compliance
Conclusion
and IRL
This parameter is relevant for calculation
of operating hour (OH) of the campaign.

IRL 1, 2, 3
(kgNH 3 /h)
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
OT h
Oxidation
temperature
for each hour
(°C)
OTd,r,l
Daily mean
oxidation
temperature
of each of
three
oxidation
reactors (r) of
each line (l)
(°C)
(for baseline)
OTd,r,l
Operating
manual (OM)
of each of
three
oxidation
reactors (r) of
each line (l)
(°C)
(for baseline)
I ... line 211,
212, 213,
214
2.2. Parameters measured directly with instruments
Table 1
Parameter and instrumentation Information
Parameter title
PDD
Meth/Tool
MR
Verified
N 2 O concentration
N 2 O concentration
N2O
In compliance
Conclusi
on and
IRL

Page A-15
in the stack gas
in the stack gas
concentration in
the stack gas
Parameter ID (if available)
NCTG
NCSG
NCTG,I
I ... line 211,
212, 213, 214
In compliance (with
revised MP)

Data Unit
mgN 2 O/m3
(converted from
ppm if necessary)
mgN 2 O/m3
(converted from
ppm if necessary)
(mgN 2 O/m3)
In compliance

Monitoring frequency (reading)
not referred
not referred
not referred
In compliance

Monitoring frequency (recording)
Every 2 seconds
Every 2 seconds
Every 2
seconds
In compliance

Calibration requirements
Regular calibrations
according to vendor
specifications and
recognized industry
standards
(EN14181)
The monitoring
system is to be
installed using the
European Norm
14181 (2004).
Regular calibrations
according to vendor
specifications and
recognised industry
standards
(EN14181).
zero and span
calibrations”
“A parallel
measurement
[QAL2] was
done by
accredited
laboratory as
per the
requirement of
EN14181.”
In compliance
QAL2 parameters
obtained during November
2011 were found to be
implemented in DURAG
calculator (IRL 10o) to
determine emission
reduction for this
monitoring period.
CR2
IRL 10h
IRL 10i

Latest calibrations:
Line 211:
Last calibration, according
to EN14181 (QAL 2)
16-19 Sept. 2008 and
14-19 November 2011
last AST on
13-16 November 2012
Page A-16
Line 212:
to EN14181 (QAL 2)
16-19 Sept. 2008 and
14-19 November 2011
last AST on
13-16 November 2012
Line 213:
to EN14181
19-20 November 2008;
14-19 November 2011
last AST on
13-16 November 2012
Line 214:
to EN14181
19-20 November 2008 and
25-31 August 2009
14-19 November 2011
last AST on
26/27 October 2010.
See CR02
Page A-17
Uncertainty level
Not included
Low
Not referred as
the total
uncertainty of
AMS has been
determined with
QAL2 result.
Line 211: 2.77%
Line 212: 2.65%
Line 213: 2.67%
Line 214: 2.65%

IRL 10h
Based on the result of
QAL2 done by the
accredited laboratory,
AIRTEC in 2011
Measurement Principle (if
applicable)
Non-dispersive
infrared absorption
photometer (ABB
Uras26)
N 2 O analyzer
N 2 O analyzer
Humidity
measurements
show that the
off-gas is dry.
In compliance
Technical aspects

IRL 3
IRL 7
IRL 9f
Conclusi
on and
IRL
Instrument Type:
Optic Continuous Gas Analyzer

Serial Number:
Line 211: 3.341103.8
Line 212: 3.341103.8
Line 213: 3.341104.8
Line 214: 3.341104.8

Manufacturer Model Nr.:
ABB, AO 2020 Uras-26

Specific Location:
The analyzers are installed in the control room near AOR. Tail gas is extracted from the
horizontal tail gas piping connected to the stack. There is only a 90゜bend between the
horizontal piping and the stack without having any air intake or other piping connected so
that such difference of measurement location will not affect the calculation of N2O
emissions.

Page A-18
Measurement Range:

0-600; 0-3000 ppm

Gaps in operating time
of instrument :
campaign
Number
of hours
Line 211
8
9
0 0
Line 212
9
3 05.09.12 09:00
03.10.12 18:00
31.12.12 09:00
Line 213
8
9
0 0
Line 214
8
0 -
The audit team reviewed the hourly values in the calculation tool. In case of problems, the
status is documented. (e.g. “Out of op”, “Fault” “ Main/Flt” ).
Default value used:
Downtime requirements of methodology are applied. “...highest measured value in the
campaign will be applied for the downtime period for the campaign emission factor”
The highest measured values are:
Line 212
campaign
kg N2O/t HNO3
9
1.61
Justification: According to downtime procedure according AM0034.
QA/QC aspects


Conclusi
on and
Page A-19
IRL
Source of data
Archiving of raw data and protection
measures
QA/QC on the credibility of the measured data has been secured mainly with QAL2/AST
and QAL3 to comply with EN14181. The measured data is transmitted to DURAG and
TDC 3000.

Procedures: JI Handbook (especially Chapter 8)

As mentioned above all the measured data is archived on the PC. All Information is stored
in electronic records.

Data transfer and protection of input
data for calculations

IRL 8
Page A-20
The information stored in DURAG is password protected.
Quality of evidence
Conclusi
on and
IRL
Completeness of data
Data were reviewed which show complete and credible data. Any deviation is described
above in section “Gaps in operating time of instrument”.
Data verification
The verifier has checked hourly data submitted in the calculation spreadsheet.
See CAR01
Crosscheck (if available)

CAR1

Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: Values of calculation tool and
Monitoring Report are consistent.

In order to ensure the integrity of the data, the verification team reviewed the series of
hourly data in parallel with other parameters including to make graphs in the Excel file
calculation sheets submitted, e.g. to see peculiarity in the graph shape, to check the
similarity between ammonia supply, nitric acid produced and tail gas flow, to see the
overall integrity of OT, OP, AFR and AIFR.

Table 2
Meth/Tool
PDD
MR
Verification Findings
Parameter title
Volume flow rate
of the stack gas
Volume flow rate
of the stack gas
Normal gas
volume flow rate
of the stack gas
In compliance
VSG
VTG
VTG,I
I ... line 211, 212,
In compliance with revised MP
Conclusi
on and
IRL

IRL 1,
2, 3
Page A-21
213, 214
Data Unit
m3/h
m3/h
Nm3/h
In compliance
Monitoring frequency
(reading)
not referred
not referred
not referred
In compliance
(recording)
Every 2 seconds
Every 2 seconds
not referred
Actually recording frequency is every
2 second (IRL 3, 6)
The monitoring
system is to be
installed using
the European
Norm 14181
(2004).
Regular
calibrations
according to
vendor
specifications
and recognized
industry
standards
(EN14181).
Regular
calibrations
according to
vendor
specifications and
recognized
industry
standards
(EN14181).
“A parallel
measurement
[QAL2] was done
by accredited
laboratory as per
the requirement of
EN14181.”
In compliance
QAL2 parameters obtained during
November 2011 were found to be
implemented in DURAG calculator
(IRL 10o) to determine emission
reduction for this monitoring period.
Latest calibrations:
Line 211:
Last calibration, according to
EN14181 (QAL 2)
16-19 Sept. 2008 and
14-19 November 2011
last AST on
13-16 November 2012
CR2
IRL 10h
IRL 10i

Line 212:
EN14181 (QAL 2)
16-19 Sept. 2008 and
14-19 November 2011
last AST on
13-16 November 2012
Page A-22
Line 213:
EN14181
19-20 November 2008; 14-19
November 2011
last AST on
13-16 November 2012
Line 214:
EN14181
19-20 November 2008 and 25-31
August 2009
14-19 November 2011
last AST on
26/27 October 2010.
See CR02
Uncertainty level
Low
Low
Not referred as
the total
uncertainty of
AMS has been
determined with
QAL2 result.
In compliance.
Line 211: 2.78%
Line 212: 2.74%
Line 213: 2.56%
Line 214: 3.25%
Based on the result of QAL2 done by
the accredited laboratory, AIRTEC in
2011
applicable)
Gas volume flow
meter
Dynamic
pressure
Dynamic pressure
Humidity
In compliance
Probe: (Torbar) using electronic

IRL 10h

IRL 3,
Page A-23
measurements
show that the offgas is dry
differential pressure transmitter
7
IRL 9f
Technical aspects

Instrument Type:
Dynamic pressure
Serial Number:
Line 211: 09W21C3160068001001
Line 212: 09W34C3182103002001
Line 213: 7052844/0697
Line 214: 0723C2958849002001

IRL 8, 3
Line 211: Honeywell
Line 212: ABB
Line 213: Rosemount
Line 214: Honeywell

IRL 8, 3
Specific Location:
On the horizontal duct at aprox. 5 m height from the ground.
Measurement Range:
Line 211: 0-1,185kPa
Line 212: 0-1,298kPa
Line 213: 0-1,298kPa
Line 214: 0-1,14kPa
Gaps in operating time of
instrument :


IRL 8, 3
campaign
Number
of hours
Line 211
8
9
0 0
Line 212
9
3 05.09.12 09:00
03.10.12 18:00
Hours
CAR2
IRL 3

Page A-24
31.12.12 09:00
Line 213
8
9
Line 214
8
0 0
Refer to Refer to CAR 02
CAR 02
Default value used:
Downtime requirements of methodology are applied. “...highest measured value in the campaign
will be applied for the downtime period for the campaign emission factor”
The highest measured value are
campaign
kg N2O/t HNO3
Line 212
9
1.61
Line 214
8
Refer to CAR 02
QA/QC aspects
Source of data
QA/QC on the credibility of the measured data has been secured mainly with QAL2/AST to comply
with EN14181. The measured data is transmitted to Honeywell TDC 3000 and archived on the PC.
Archiving of raw data and
protection measures
As mentioned above all the measured data is archived on the PC. The data archived including
every 2 seconds’ data is periodically backed up in text files in hard drives.
CAR2
IRL 3,
IRL 8


Conclusi
on and
IRL


IRL 8
Page A-25
Data transfer and protection
of input data for calculations
While there is no physical access control to enter the monitoring room, the personnel who may
operate the PCs has been specified as his responsibility.
Quality of evidence

Conclusi
on and
IRL
Data were reviewed which show complete and credible data. Any deviation is described above in
section “Gaps in operating time of instrument”.

Data verification

Consistency of calculation tool with monitoring report: Values of calculation tool and Monitoring
Report are consistent.

In order to ensure the integrity of the data, the verification team reviewed the series of hourly data
in parallel with other parameters including making a graph with the Excel file calculation sheet
submitted. For an instance, the shape of VSG graph looks similar to one of AFR, the ammonia
supplied and there is no considerable abnormality found.

Table 3
Meth/Tool
PDD
MR
Parameter title
Temperature of
stack gas
Temperature of
tail gas at each
line
Temperature of
tail gas at each
line
In compliance
TSG
TTGi
TTG,I
I ... line 211, 212,
213, 214
In compliance (with approved PDD)
Data Unit
0
0
0
In compliance
C
C
C
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 1, 2,
3
Page A-26
(reading)
not referred
not referred
not referred
In compliance
(recording)
Every 2 seconds
Every 2 seconds
not referred
Actually recording frequency is
every 2 second
The monitoring
system is to be
installed using
the European
Norm 14181
(2004).
Regular
calibrations
according to
vendor
specifications
and recognized
industry
standards
(EN14181).
Regular
calibrations
according to
vendor
specifications and
recognized
industry
standards
(EN14181).
A parallel
measurement
[QAL2] was done
by accredited
laboratory as per
the requirement of
EN14181.
In compliance
Calibrations were done in time.
Calibration done through QAL2 and
AST to comply with EN14181
Same as parameter VTG in Table 2
above.

IRL 10h
IRL 10i
Uncertainty level
Low
Low
Not referred as
the total
uncertainty of
AMS has been
determined with
QAL2 result.
In compliance. Assessed together
with VSG.

IRL 10h
applicable)
N/A
Resistance
thermometer, PT
100
Resistance
thermometer, PT
100
In compliance

IRL 3,
IRL 10h
Technical aspects
Instrument Type:
Resistance thermometer

Page A-27
IRL 8
Serial Number:
Line 211: Pt-92
Line 212: Pt-150
Line 213: Pt-135
Line 214: Pt-82

IRL 8, 3
PEPPERL+ FUCHS- Pt-100

IRL 8, 3
Specific Location:
Measurement Range:
0-200°C
instrument :
For downtimes see also VSG downtimes, there are no additional downtimes for TSG:


IRL 8, 3

IRL 3
Default value used: Highest measured value of the campaign.


QA/QC aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Source of data
QA/QC on the credibility of the measured data has been secured mainly with QAL2/AST to
comply with EN14181. The measured data is transmitted to Honeywell TDC 3000 and archived
on the PC.
The measurement is done on dry basis and QAL2 report mentions that the humidity of the flue
gas is not relevant.

protection measures
every 2 seconds’ data is periodically backed up in text files in hard drives (IRL 6)

IRL 8

Page A-28
Quality of evidence
Conclusion
and IRL

Data verification

are consistent.

In order to ensure the integrity of the data, the verification team reviewed the series of hourly
data in parallel with other parameters including making a graph with the Excel file calculation
sheet submitted.

Table 4
Meth/Tool
PDD
MR
Parameter title
Pressure of
stack gas
Pressure of tail
gas at each line
Pressure of tail
gas at each line
In compliance
PSG
PTG,i
PTG,I
I ... line 211, 212,
213, 214
In compliance (with revised MP)
Data Unit
not referred
Pa
Pa
In compliance
(reading)
not referred
not referred
not referred
In compliance
(recording)
Every 2 seconds
Every 2 seconds
not referred
Actually recording frequency is
every 2 second
The monitoring
Regular
A parallel
In compliance
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 1, 2,
3

Page A-29
system is to be
installed using
the European
Norm 14181
(2004).
Regular
calibrations
according to
vendor
specifications
and recognized
industry
standards
(EN14181).
calibrations
according to
vendor
specifications and
recognized
industry
standards
(EN14181).
measurement
[QAL2] was done
by accredited
laboratory as per
the requirement of
EN14181.
Calibrations were done in time.
Calibration done through QAL2 and
AST to comply with EN14181
Same as parameter VTG in Table 2
above.
IRL 10h
IRL 10i
Uncertainty level
Low
Low
Not referred as
the total
uncertainty of
AMS has been
determined with
QAL2 result.
In compliance. Assessed together
with VSG.

IRL 10h
applicable)
N/A
Probe (part of
gas volume flow
meter)
Probe (part of gas
volume flow
meter)
In compliance

IRL 3, 8
Technical aspects
Instrument Type:
Resistance thermometer
Serial Number:
Line 211: 0751C301812300101
Line 212: 5098012642
Line 213: 7052849/0697
Line 214: 0723C2958849003001

IRL 8

IRL 8, 3
Page A-30

IRL 8, 3
Line 211: Honeywell
Line 212: ABB
Line 213: Rosemount
Line 214: Honeywell
Specific Location:
Measurement Range:
0-150kPa (abs)

IRL 8, 3
instrument :
For downtimes see also VSG downtimes. No further gaps in data were found.

IRL 5, 10

N/A

N/A

QA/QC aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Source of data
QA/QC on the credibility of the measured data has been secured mainly with QAL2/AST to
comply with EN14181. The measured data is transmitted to Honeywell TDC 3000 and archived
on the PC.
The measurement is done on dry basis and QAL2 report mentions that the humidity of the flue
gas is not relevant.

protection measures
every 2 seconds’ data is periodically backed up in text files in hard drives

IRL 8

Quality of evidence
Conclusion
and IRL

Page A-31
Data verification


sheet submitted.

IRL 3
Table 5
Meth/Tool
PDD
MR
Parameter title
Nitric Acid
production(100%
concentrate)
Nitric Acid
production (100%
concentrate)
Nitric Acid (100%
concentrated)
In compliance
NAP
NAP
NAP, I
I ... line 211, 212,
213, 214
In compliance
Data Unit
tHNO 3
tHNO 3
tHNO 3
In compliance
(reading)
not referred
not referred
not referred
In compliance
(recording)
Daily, compiled
for entire
campaign
continuously
continuously
Data has been submitted in the
excel file.
Included in
evaluation by
third party
Regular
calibrations
according to
Regular
calibration
according to
Line 211
Serial number: 07420259
22/02/2011; 05/08/2011;
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 1, 2,
3
CR1
IRL 3b
Page A-32
valuator
vendor
specifications and
recognized
industry
standards
handbook of flow
meter: every six
months, reported
and checked by
Ammonium Nitrate
Department
maintenance
group and
performed by
specialized
company
according to the
Procedure P11.01
“Supervision over
instrumentation”.
28/11/2011; 07/05/2012;
20/08/2012
IRL 5b
IRL 10f

Line 212
Serial number 06130157
14/01/2011; 06/07/2011;
12/03/2012; 20/06/2012;
See CR01
Line 213
Serial number 09271366
21/12/2011; 01/06/2012;
03/12/2012
24/09/2012; 25/05/2011
Line 214
08/06/2012; 07/08/2012
05/10/2011; 06/02/2012
Uncertainty level
Low
not referred
not referred
Actually calibrated within ±1.22% in
acc. Calibration records.
applicable)
Not specified as
only “Production
log” is referred
as the source.
Vortex flow meter
Vortex flow meter
In compliance

IRL 10f

IRL 1, 2,
3,
Technical aspects
Page A-33

IRL 3, 11
Instrument Type:
Vortex flow meter
Serial Number:
Line 211: FI-2112, CI-2115, serial number: 07420259 (installed on 27/04/2011)
Line 212: FI-2212, CI-2215, serial number: 06130157 (installed on 28/03/2011)
Line 213: FI-2312, CI-2315, serial number: / 09271388 (installed on 06/10/2010) / 09271366
(installed on 21/12/2011)
Line 214: FI-2412, CI-2415, serial number: 95161483 / 01071402 (installed on 25/10/2011) /
01071403 (installed on 08/06/2012)
Krohne-Vortex, Foxboro-Vortex
Specific Location:
On the piping of nitric acid being transported from the absorption tower to the ammonium nitrate
production process.
Measurement Range:
0-80 t/h
instrument :

IRL 10f

IRL 3, 7


IRL 3, 7

Line 211 P08
4.06.12 18:00
8.06.12 13:00
9.06.12 09:00
11.06.12 23:00
13.06.12 03:00
15.06.12 18:00
18.06.12 09:00
7.07.12 06:00
1.08.12 13:00
9.08.12 07:00
31.08.12 13:00
5.09.12 02:00
5.09.12 03:00
-
Line 213 P08
-
27.10.12 20:00
Line 214 P09
21.08.12 10:00
25.11.12 13:00
Page A-34
5.09.12 04:00
Line 211 P09
24.10.12 19:00
Line 212 P09
3.10.12 18:00
15.10.12 22:00
Line 213 P09
-
None
-
Whenever during project campaigns a NAP value is faulty or lacking, a default value shall be
applied as its replacement. This default value shall correspond to the minimum value derived by
a 95% confidence interval evaluation of all hourly NAP values during that project campaign.

IRL 3
This procedure is conservative as it guarantees the consideration of a low emission/NAP ratio for
baseline (see BLEF) and a high ratio for project calculation (EFn). Furthermore, a lower project
NAP also leads to calculations of fewer emission reductions (as per equation 7 above) while at
the same time it also results in smaller values for the respective campaign length. Thus the
requirement to conservatively adjust the BL (in case of shorter campaign length, i.e. CL of
respective project campaign < CLnormal) is met earlier. In general the baseline adjustment leads
to a further conservative recalculation of EFBL.
The statistical component is equivalent to the evaluation procedure that is routinely applied to
VTG and NCTG evaluation. It takes account of the rather unstable measurement values, notably
mavericks.
The evaluation of project NAP against the plant production limit (cap) is certainly not undermined
by the above described procedure. The only thing resulting from the procedure is a conservative
reduction of project NAP and thereby also of achieved emission reductions.

IRL 3
QA/QC aspects
Conclusion
and IRL
Source of data
QA/QC on the credibility of the measured data has been secured mainly with annual calibration.
The measured data is manually recorded in the production log and archived.
The data is transferred to the calculation excel file and saved in hard drives too.
Laboratory analysis of nitric acid concentration is done according to standards of PN-C84024:1981. Analysis (Titration of test sample with standard NaOH solution) is carried out every
2 hours. The results of analysis are forwarded by laboratory staff to control room by telephone.

protection measures
The information will be stored in electronic records and paper for the entire crediting period

Page A-35
IRL 5
The production log is hand writing log however is the most important comprehensive information
about the plant operation. This is very carefully maintained in the quality management system.
This information is also stored in TDC 3000, in DURAG and in back-up hard drives.
The concentration data is communicated by phone to the Control Room at the end of each
analyzes (every two hours) and recorded in the internal register of the laboratory.
The operation is performed by the chemist on duty.
Quality of evidence

IRL 8, 4
Conclusion
and IRL
All applicable daily data has been submitted in the Excel file.
The internal logbook of the laboratory has been checked and no missing data found.
Data verification

sheet submitted. For an instance, the shape of NAP graph looks similar to one of AFR, the
ammonia supplied and there is no considerable abnormality found.

Table 6
Meth/Tool
PDD
MR
Parameter title
Ammonia gas
flow rate to the
AOR
Ammonia gas
flow rate to the
AOR
Ammonia gas flow
rate to the AOR
In compliance
AFR
AFR
AFR,I
In compliance
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 1, 2,
3
Page A-36
I ... line 211, 212,
213, 214
Data Unit
kgNH3/h
kgNH3/h
kgNH3/h
In compliance
(reading)
not referred
not referred
not referred
In compliance
(recording)
Continuously
Continuously
not referred
In compliance
Included in
evaluation by
third party
valuator.
Regular
calibrations will
be conducted
annually within
accuracy of
±0.5% according
to vendor
specifications and
the recognized
national standard.
The source of
requirement for
calibration are
internal QA
Procedures as
part of the
Integrated
Management
System.
In compliance.
Line 211
23/06/2009; 10/08/2010,
05/08/2011; 21/08/2012
Line 212
21/08 /2009; 22/07/2010,
05/07/2011; 21/06/2012
Line 213
30/07/2009; 17/09/2010;
08/06/2011; 02/06/2012
Line 214
04/06/2009; 28/06/2010;
30/10/2011; 09/08/2012

IRL 10g
Only used for checking operation
status together with OTh
Uncertainty level
Low
not referred
not referred
Actually calibrated within ±0.5% in
acc. Calibration records.
applicable)
Not specified
Orifice flow meter
and differential
pressure
orifice flow meter
In compliance

IRL 10j

IRL 1, 2,
3,
Page A-37
transmitter
Technical aspects

Instrument Type:
Orifice flow meter and differential pressure transmitter
Serial Number:
Line 211: FFC2101 Serial Number: 9006-00769569033
Line 212: FFC2201 Serial Number: 0622C2834728001005
Honeywell ST 3000 SMART

Specific Location:
On the piping of ammonia supply before NH3 & Air mixer

Measurement Range:
10 – 6,300 Nm3/hr (7.6 – 4,781 kgNH3/hr)
instrument :
There has been no gap in operation

N/A

N/A

QA/QC aspects

IRL 10g

IRL 1
Conclusion
and IRL
Source of data
QA/QC on the credibility of the measured data has been secured mainly with annual calibration.
The measured data is transmitted to TDC 3000 and archived on the PC.

IRL 8
protection measures
daily data is periodically backed up in text files and in hard disks.

The information will be stored in electronic records and paper for at least 2 years.

Quality of evidence
Conclusion
and IRL
Page A-38
All applicable hourly data has been submitted in the Excel file.
Data verification

The comparison between the permitted operating conditions and the data measured during
baseline campaign has been done.
And, in order to ensure the integrity of the data, the verification team reviewed the series of
hourly data in parallel with other parameters including a graph with the Excel file calculation
sheet submitted. For an instance, the shape of AFR graph looks similar to one of VSG and NAP,
and there is no considerable abnormality found.

Table 7
Meth/Tool
PDD
MR
Parameter title
Oxidation
temperature for
each hour
Oxidation
temperature for
each hour
Hourly oxidation
temperature
In compliance
OT h
OTd,r,l
Daily mean
oxidation
temperature of
each of three
oxidation reactors
(r) of each line (l)
OT h , I
I ... line 211, 212,
213, 214
In compliance
Data Unit
°C
°C
°C
In compliance
not referred
not referred
not referred
In compliance
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 2, 3
Page A-39
(reading)
(recording)
Every hour
Hourly
Data recorded
every hour
In compliance
Not specified
Not specified
After damage or
incorrect values
indicator is
exchanged for
new one
In compliance
Only used for checking operation
status together with AFR

Uncertainty level
Not specified
not referred
not referred
In compliance

applicable)
Not specified
Existing thermocouple
Thermal couplers
inside AOR
In compliance

IRL 2, 3,
Technical aspects

IRL 3,
Instrument Type:
Thermo couples (K-type)
Serial Number:
N/A
Thermocouple/ PIA-ZAP
Specific Location:
On AOR
Measurement Range:
300 – 1000 °C
instrument :
There has been no gap in operation

N/A

N/A

QA/QC aspects
N/A

IRL 2, 3,


IRL 3
Conclusion
Page A-40
and IRL
Source of data
The measured data is transmitted to TDC 3000 and archived on the PC.

IRL 3,
protection measures
daily data is periodically backed up in text files and hard disks.

IRL 3,
operate the PCs has been specified as his responsibility. In addition, the data backed up in hard
disks.
Quality of evidence
All applicable hourly data has been submitted in the Excel file.
Data verification

Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 3
Values of calculation tool and Monitoring Report are consistent.
The comparison between the permitted operating conditions and the data measured during
baseline campaign has been done.
And in order to ensure the integrity of the data, the verification team reviewed the series of hourly
sheet submitted. There is no considerable abnormality found.

IRL 3
2.3. Parameters measured through sampling
None
Page A-41
2.4. Parameters obtained through external sources and accounting data
Table 1
Meth/Tool
PDD
MR
Gauze supplier
Gauze
composition
Gauze supplier
Gauze
composition
In compliance
Parameter title
Gauze supplier
Gauze
composition
GS,
GC
GS,
GC
Not referred
Data Unit
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 0, 2

Technical aspects

Description of Data / Data
Refers to:
Gauze certificate from ammonia oxidation catalyst supplier
Date of Data:
Gauze composition invoices dated on:
L211
May 2012; October 2012
L212
August 2012
L213
May 2012, November 2012
L214
July 2012
Gaps in data
Period: There are no gaps in data.

Default value used: not applicable

Justification: not applicable


IRL 9
Page A-42
QA/QC aspects
Source of data
Type: Gauze invoices
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 6
Responsibility: Process Engineer

Representativeness: not applicable

Reliability of Data Source:
The data is reliable as it is gained from commercial supplier.

Is the Data up-to-date?
The new gauzes are installed every campaign , replacing the old gauzes

protection measures
Filed as purchasing records

The information is not used for calculations.

Quality of evidence
The consistency between historic campaign, baseline campaign and project campaign has been
successfully verified, including 100% replacement prior to the start of baseline campaign.
Data verification
There was no change on the gauze supplier and the gauze composition. The information
provided in the Monitoring Report is correct.
-
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 6

-
2.5. Other parameters not included in the methodology/tool but included in the PDD
None
Page A-43
3. Data Processing and ER calculation
Description of data processing from transferred data to final results in the calculation tool
Step
Description
Consistency
All abbreviations and units consistent with the PDD and Methodology and traceable to the raw data.

Calculation Tool
description
Project emissions are determined by calculating the mean values for N2O concentration and gas flow and
multiply those with the number of operating hours. Statistical analysis will be applied to both N2O
concentration and gas volume flow. All calculations are conducted line-wise (per hour)
From the project emissions and the accordant nitric acid production in the monitored campaign, the
specific campaign emission factor is calculated.
The average mass of N2O emissions per hour in baseline campaign is calculated as product of the NCTG
and VTG. The N2O emissions per period are product of N2O emission per hour and the total number of
complete hours of the period.
The line specific baseline emission factor representing the average N2O emissions per tonne of nitric acid
over one full period is derived by dividing the total mass of N2O emissions by the total output of 100%
concentrated nitric acid for that period. The overall uncertainty of the monitoring system is also
determined and the measurement error is expressed as a percentage (UNC). The N2O emission factor
per tonne of nitric acid produced in the baseline period (EFBL,l) is reduced by the UNC.
EB 51 Annex 12 stipulations on baseline calculations in case of a shorter project campaign are applied.
In the absence of any national or regional regulations for N2O emissions, the resulting EFBL is used as
the baseline emission factor.
In order to take into account possible long-term emissions trends over the duration of the project activity
and to take a conservative approach a moving average emission factor (EFma) is established.
To calculate the total emission reductions achieved in a campaign, the higher of the two values EFma
and EFn is applied as the emission factor relevant for the particular campaign to be used to calculate
emissions reductions (EFp)
As an additional measure to guarantee the conservativeness of the calculation, a minimal emission factor
(EFmin) is introduced. After the first ten campaigns of the crediting period of the project, the lowest EFn
observed during those campaigns will be adopted as a minimum (EFmin).

Conclusion
and IRL
Page A-44
Emission reductions for the project activity over a specific project campaign are determined by deducting
the campaign-specific emission factor (EFn) from the baseline emission factor (EFBL) and multiplying the
result by the production output of 100% concentrated nitric acid over that very campaign period and the
GWP of N2O.
Elimination of not
plausible data (if
applicable)
Statistical analysis is applied according to the applied methodology.

Transformation from
useable data to
input data for further
calculation (if
applicable)
The Emission Calculator (DURAG, D-EMS 2000) provides separate readings for N2O concentration and
gas volume flow continuously, generating average values for every 60 minutes of operation. Apart from
these two parameters, temperature and pressure of the tail gas are recorded in the DCS.

Ex-ante data
Following ex-ante data are used in the calculation tool are in compliance with the PDD:
Design capacity:
900,000 tHNO3

L211
L212
L213
L214
OPrange
Pa
0.30-0.41
0.30-0.41
0.30-0.41
0.30-0.41
OTrange
°C
860-910
860-910
860-910
860-910
AFRmax
Kg/h
8500
8500
8500
8500
AIFRmax
%
12
12
12
12
Default parameter
Following default parameters used in the calculation tool are in compliance with the PDD:
N 2 O Global Warming Potential
310
GWPN 2 O
Formulae check
See CAR 05, CAR 07, FAR01
Rounding functions
Rounding functions are correctly and conservatively applied.

CAR5
CAR7
FAR1


Page A-45
Calculation tool
changes and
protection measures
Calculations were done in the spreadsheet as well as in Monitoring Report and those documents were
promptly submitted to the verifier to initiate verification. Any changes on such tool or document were
made traceable with the revision date and/or version.

Reported data
Except the issues raised as Finding the data are correctly reported.

4. Additional assessment
4.1. Internal Review
Description and performance of internal review
Description
Conclusion
and IRL
Procedure
There was no specific internal audit for the monitoring activities
N/A
Documentation
N/A
N/A
Responsibilities
N/A
N/A
4.2. Peculiarities
Description of Peculiarities and unexpected Daily Events during the verification period
Description
Performance
Operators reports daily events of each line in a Daily event protocols.
Documentation
Documentation on the daily events was provided to the audit team.
Pulawy_Protocol_130211_line_211.xls
Conclusion
and IRL

IRL 3

IRL 10a
IRL 6b
Page A-46
A summary of daily events is provided in file campaigns, start-ups, calibration 6th verification
Following daily events occurred in the reporting period.
Line 211
Campaign 8
Line 212
Campaign 9
15 - 31 VIII 2012- shut down to maintain
3 X - blockage of ammonia-air mixture
20-22 IX 2012 - shut down to reserve
15 X - blockage of ammonia-air mixture
29-30 XI 2012 shut down to maintain
Campaign 9
Without problems
Line 213
Campaign 8
11 X 2012 - blockage shut down
14 - 22 X 2012 - shut down to
reserve
27 X - shut down to maintain
Line 214
Campaign 8
20 VIII 2012 - shut down to maintain
29 VIII 2012 - shut down - power failure
26 - 28 X 2012 - shut down to reserve
11 XII 2012 - shut down to maintain
Campaign 9
Without problems
Measures
NA

Further additional requirements
Description of additional requirements to be checked
Description
N/A
Conclusion
and IRL
N/A
Page A-47
4.3. Data Reporting
Description of the Monitoring Report
Comments and Results
Conclusion
and IRL
Compliance with
UNFCCC
regulations
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 relevant provisions set by the
Marrakech Accords and the Kyoto Protocol, specific guidance from Designated Focal Point (host country)
in his responsibility for the approval of JI track 1 projects were taken into consideration.

Completeness and
Transparency
The assessment verified the completeness and transparency of the data and the information presented in
the monitoring report.
See CAR 04
CAR4

Correctness
Values from the assessed calculation tool and other relevant sources were correctly transferred to the
final Monitoring Report.

Page A-48
5. Compilation and Resolutions of CARs, CRs and FARs
Corrective Action Requests by audit team
Issue
Corrective Action Request No.1
Cf. trend of NCTG data over reported monitoring period at Line 214 (in particular: 8th project
campaign): at the end of August 2012 the N 2 O concentration (NCTG) values have increase
from approx. 200 mg/Nm3 to 400 mg/Nm3. As discussed onsite, this event was result of the
switch over of measurement range of analyser from 600 to 1000 [ppm].
Hence, the recalculation of data is necessary; then in the presented documentation the
DURAG (here: AMS calculator) used default setting of the 0-600 ppm range
Moreover, the MR shall include additional information about this special event (incl. the
reason for the extension of measurement range) and data handling approach in this case.
The revised calculation tool and respective DURAG parameter protocols are to be provided
to the verifier.
Ref
2.2
Table 1
Conclusion
and IRL

This Finding
is closed
IRL 3b
IRL 4b
IRL 10n
IRL 10o
Page A-49
PP’s response
P8 started with a measurement range for NCTG of 0-1000 ppm. The application of this
extended range (instead of the standard range 0-600 ppm) at the start of campaign P8
results from utilization of the larger range during the antecedent campaign P7 (verified
during PV5), when higher emissions had made such a range extension necessary. The
switch back to the standard range was made only at the end of August 2012, when it was
agreed on by plant staff that in light of the lower emissions level in P8 the standard range
was adequate again. The exact identification of the timing of the switch-back was learned
only after the onsite audit by drawing on data from the SCADA system and the protocol.
Originally application of the extended range as well as the switch-back to the standard
measurement range was not reflected in the DURAG data processing.
The following steps were implemented for a correct and conservative treatment of data:
(a)
DURAG data was especially recalculated to account for the switch. A first period of
data was thus reprocessed on the basis of a 0-1000 ppm range while for the rest of the
campaign the 0-600 ppm range was set. Implementation of this in DURAG is documented in
the revised parameter protocol for line 214.
(b)
As the timing of the switch-back in this second DURAG data run was slightly
incorrect (applying the 0-1000 ppm range just until 29 August 2012, 7 p.m. while the switchback actually was implemented only on 30 August 2012, 9 a.m.), values between 29 August
2012, 7 p.m. and 30 August, 9 a.m. are not representative (DURAG considers the extended
measurement range while the measurement instrument sends mA signals that reflect the
standard range). In order to guarantee a conservative treatment of NCTG values during this
interval, the downtime EF was generally set and all respective NCTG values deleted from
the data analysis.
Apart from the revised DURAG data, the amended parameter protocol and the screenshot
from SCADA system (N2O trends 30.08.2012 L214.bmp; giving proof to the timing of the
exact switch), a revised calc-tool (v2) is submitted to the verifier. See also changes in
reported data in the resubmitted Monitoring Report (v2).
Page A-50
Assessment
The verifier reviewed PP´s response including the supporting documents (IRL 10o) and the
revised MR (IRL 3b) and Excel Calculation Tool (IRL 4b). The verifier can confirm that the
switch to the larger measurement range during the previous monitoring period 05 (IRL 10n)
was verified during previous verification (IRL 2m).. The NCTG data in Excel calculation Tool
(IRL 4b) based on the DURAG data for campaign 08 of Line 214 were found to be corrected
to the range 0-600ppm. The relevant DURAG parameter protocol (IRL 10o) was submitted
to the verifier. The overall trend of NCTG over the monitoring period is found to plausible.
The data handling for the incorrect time range for recalculation of second DURAG run
described under (b) of PP´s response is found to be conservative as the downtime value is
applied.
The values reported in the revised MR are found to be consistent with the revised Excel
Calculation Tool.
Issue
Cf. special event at Line 214 (project campaign, P8) dated 06-08.10.2012. It is necessary to
improve the description of this event in the revised MR.
In addition: VSG downtime data handling needs to be corrected in the calculation tool for
this campaign to comply with AMS downtime procedure described in the Monitoring Plan (JI
Handbook)
PP’s response
2
Table 2

This Finding
is closed
IRL 3b
IRL 4b
The respective explanation has been amended in the Monitoring Report. It is now stated:
“Leakage of gas from impulse tube (input to flow-meter) leads to incorrect (increased)
measurement values for off-gas flow. In the calculation tool all VTG DURAG values for the
time interval with drifting values have been erased from the value set. Furthermore the
downtime EF is used for all respective hours.”
An accordingly revised calc-tool (v2) is submitted to the verifier. See also changes in reported data in the resubmitted MR (v2).
Page A-51
Assessment
The verifier has reviewed the revised MR (IRL 3b). The description of the aforementioned
special event has been corrected. The description is found to be plausible and transparent.
Also the described data handling – appliance of downtime procedure according to the Monitoring Plan (i.e. as it is defined in AM0034) – is found to be implemented in the revised Excel
Calculation Tool (IRL 4b) for that event.
Issue
Starting with 14.11.2012 the new SCR DeNOx was put into operation at Line 214, which
caused the off-gas temperature increase from approx. 40°C to 90°C. Additionally the verifier
team was informed onsite that the sealing of secondary catalyst basket has been improved
at Line 211 and Line 214, which resulted in decreasing of N 2 O concentration in the tail gas.
The MR shall handle these events and their impacts to the monitoring parameters and
emission reductions.
2.2
Table 1

This Finding
is closed
IRL 3b
Page A-52
PP’s response
Exchange of damaged sealing at lines 211 and 214:
The high temperature level within the ammonia oxidation reactor (usually about 900°C)
caused damages to a sealing, which was placed between the basket construction and the
inner reactor wall.
That sealing usually prevents ammonia from bypassing the basket construction, which
supports the secondary catalyst bed (for N2O abatement) and the primary catalyst gauzes
(for NOx formation).
Ammonia, bypassing the basket construction, in combination with high temperatures,
caused damages to basket construction. Parts of N2O, formed as a by-product at the
precious metal gauzes, was finally able to bypass the secondary catalyst bed. As the
secondary catalyst bed is usually not removed during routine maintenance or replacement of
the precious metal gauzes, the damage to the basket remained undetected for several
months leading to elevated N2O concentrations during the past monitoring period.
The sealing was replaced and the basket was repaired before the beginning of the last
project campaigns at line 211 (P9) and 214 (P8). The low N2O emission level that could be
achieved in the monitoring period ad hand re-establishes the high N2O abatement rates
prior to the bypass situation.
Commissioning of SCR at line 214:
Commissioning of the SCR unit in Line 214 was scheduled for 14.11.2012. For safety
reasons the operation of an SCR unit usually requires an inlet temperature higher than
180°C (see BREF LVIC AAF REFERENCE DOCUMENT DEC 2006, Section 3.4.9). As a
consequence, the temperature of the off-gas was also increased from 40 to 90°C. However,
the operation of an SCR unit does not further reduce N2O emissions (see BREF LVIC AAF
REFERENCE DOCUMENT DEC 2006, Section 3.4.9, cross-media effects).
Both events together with their effect on emission reductions are also documented in the
revised MR (v2) in the form of entries in the events list.
Assessment
The verifier reviewed PP´s response and the revised MR (IRL 3b) with special focus on the
aforementioned events. The events were found to be transparently described in the MR to
explain their impacts on the monitoring parameters.
Page A-53
Issue
Several editorial issues identified during desk review and discussed during onsite audit shall
be corrected accordingly in the MR. It the matter of inconsistencies between the reported
information in the JI Handbook, Excel calculation tools and/or calibration certificates (dates,
serial numbers).
PP’s response
Typos and other editorial mistakes in the MR have been corrected. See resubmitted MR
(v2).
Assessment
The verifier reviewed the revised MR with special focus on the identified editorial issues.
Several editorial issues were found to be resolved.
Issue
Cf. Line 214 (P8): The formula to accumulate NAP values in the calculation tool was found
to be deficient and shall be corrected.
PP’s response
The wrong integration of NAP has been corrected. This made necessary also an adjustment
of the BL-tool (revised NAP value range for NCTG integration) and a resulting revision of the
respective BL EF. Both tools for P8 at line 214 (v2) are resubmitted to the verifier. See also
changes of reported data in resubmitted MR (v2).
Assessment
The verifier reviewed the revised Excel Calculation Tool for project campaign of Line 214
and the Calculation tool to recalculate the EFBL with special focus on the NAP integration of
project campaign 08 and NCTG BC calculation. The calculation was found to be correctly revised.
The values reported in the revised MR were found to be consistent. The correction of the
formula to integrate NAP of Line 214 campaign 08 resulted in an almost doubling of the NAP
of campaign 08 Line214 as due to the formula mistake only each second hourly value was
summed up.
4.3

This Finding
is closed
IRL 3b
3

This Finding
is closed
IRL 3b
IRL 4b
Page A-54
Issue
The annual HNO 3 production in 2012 has exceeded the plant’s design production capacity,
which is set with 900,000 [tHNO 3 , 100%], s. IRL2 for the reported value in the registered
PDD. The requirement of the methodology/monitoring plan shall be followed for that case.
Excel calculation tools and MR shall be corrected accordingly.
PP’s response
900,000 tHNO3. Only up to this volume credits for emission reductions may be claimed. A
conservative discounting of emission reductions was implemented, thereby reducing the
claims for production below the 900kt threshold. The conservative treatment procedure is as
follows:
(a)
Non-consideration of NAP for crediting at the last campaign at lines 211-214 with the
highest delta between applicable baseline EF and project EF (thus also the highest claims
for emission reductions). This campaign is P9 at line 213 (∆=7.93 tCO2e/tHNO3 for calculation of the delta).
(b)
As a simplified and conservative approach, all NAP of P9 at line 213 (17,822 tHNO3
shall be excluded from crediting (thus for this campaign no credits shall be claimed at all).
As a result of the above described procedure, the NAP for which emission reductions in
2012 are claimed for amounts to 899,988 tHNO3 (<900kt HNO3 threshold).
Assessment
The verifier reviewed revised MR (IRL 3b) with special focus on the total amount of claimed
emission reduction, the NAP produced in 2012 and the cap. The procedure described above
is found to be implemented and the emission reductions claimed are reduced compared to
the real emission reductions due to exceeding the cap defined in the PDD in 2012. The procedure to do this is found to be conservative as emission reduction from Line 213 with the
highest delta between baseline EF and project EF are capped. The simplified approach to
cancel emission reduction from complete project campaign 09 of Line 213 results in a more
conservative bias.
Issue
Cf. Line 212 (P9): The formula to recalculate the EF BL (new NCTG mean) due to shorter
project campaign length was found to be deficient. The correct data handling shall be
applied as defined in the Monitoring Plan.
1
1.1

This Finding
is closed
IRL 3b
3

This Finding
Page A-55
PP’s response
The mistake in the calculation tool has been corrected. The derivation of EF BL is now in line
with the procedure, outlined in the MP.
Assessment
The verifier reviewed the revised Excel Calculation Tool to recalculate EFBL due to shorter
project campaign 09 of Line 212” Py_212_P9_BL_v2.xls”. The formula to calculate the
NCTG mean value (cell B14) was found to be corrected.
Issue
The regular AST test acc. EN14181 has been performed at all Lines on 13-15/11/2012.
Though, implausible values were found in the monitored data for that period (e.g. Line 211
parameter TSG on 14/11/2012). Provisions of JI Handbook, s. “Treatment of AST related
mavericks” have to be taken into account.
PP’s response
The correction of AST triggered values (mavericks) was corrected in resubmitted calc-tools
(v2) for L211 (P9), L212 (P9), L213 (P8) and L214 (P8).
Assessment
The verifier reviewed the Excel Calculation tools (IRL 4b) with special focus on the monitoring data and data handling during AST 13-15/11/2012. The data handling was found to be in
compliance with the procedure defined in the JI Handbook i.e. mavericks due to AST where
treated as AMS downtime.
The values reported in the revised MR (IRL 3b) were found to be consistent.
is closed
IRL 3b
IRL 4b

This Finding
is closed
IRL 3b
IRL 4b
Page A-56
Clarification Requests by audit team
Issue
Clarification Request No. 1
Cf. Line 212 (P9): the calibration frequency defined in the monitoring plan has been
exceeded for the HNO 3 flow meter (NAP). The reason of this delay and the reliability of the
measured data shall be clarified (cf. validity of calibration, by taking into account the
instrument vendor’s recommendations).
PP’s response
For operating reasons (that calibration can be done only if the plant is out of operation) a
calibration of the NAP instrument at line 212 (serial number 06130157) at the end of December could not be implemented (due date: 20 December 2012). Thus the internal calibration
frequency defined in the monitoring plan (twice a year, i.e. every 6 months) was exceeded.
Negative effects of this delay on the reliability of the NAP measurements is not to be expected as instrument vendor recommendations/statements and four years of calibration experience during project implementation show. A similar issue of delay has already been verified during 4th verification (see 4th Verification Report, IRL 10g and 10h there).
Based on the project calibration experience and the vendors’ recommendation (10 years
calibration frequency deemed adequate) the previously strict internal procedure for calibration of the NAP instruments has been extended. The revised procedure is valid as of 1 January 2013.
Assessment
A manufacturer recommendation on calibration requirement for Foxboro Vortex 83
instrument (IRL 9j) was reviewed by the verifier.
The verification team has accepted the delay of calibration for some days at line 212 in this
monitoring period because the instrument was calibrated with a much higher frequency than
indicated by the manufacturer and the recommended frequency for re-calibration was indeed
not exceeded.
The indicated change of internal procedure for calibration of NAP instruments has not been
in cooperated in the current version of the Monitoring Plan (JI Handbook). The verification
and acceptance of any future revision of the Monitoring Plan is subject of subsequent
verification activities, i.e. post 31.12.2012.
Ref
2.2
Table 5
Conclusion
and IRL

This Finding
is closed
IRL 9j
Page A-57
Issue
Clarification Request No. 2
The AST report for Line 214 could not be provided to the audit team during onsite audit. It is
required to submit the latest AST report for that Line.
PP’s response
The outstanding AST report for line 214 is submitted together with the answers to this LoF.
Assessment
The verifier reviewed the AST report for Line 214 (IRL 10j). The report confirms positive
results.
2.2
Table 1

This Finding
is closed
IRL 10j
Page A-58
Forward Action Requests by audit team
Issue
Forward Action Request No. 1
Calculated mean values for the key monitoring parameters such as NCTG and VTG applied
in calculation of EF n , PE n , ER n are based on data sets, which are not complete in case of 9th
project campaigns at production Lines with IDs L211, 212, 213 and in case of 8th project
campaign at Line 214; the duration of those campaigns is limited by the end date of the 1st
commitment period for Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012).
In case of extension of the crediting period, starting from 01.01.2013, the last project
campaigns’ emission factor and emission reductions for the aforementioned project
campaigns must be re-evaluated.
Additionally the emission reductions for these campaigns shall be calculated as a normal
situation (i.e. until the primary gauze change) and the ER already verified in this period shall
be deducted. To avoid any double counting due to this approach.
PP’s response
Issue for the 07th monitoring period
Assessment
Issue for the 07th monitoring period
Ref
Conclusion
and IRL
3
Page A-59
Annex 2: Information Reference List
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Ref-No.
6th Periodic Verifications of the JI track 1 project in the Republic of Poland: “Catalytic Reduction of
N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland” , ITL-ID: PL1000055
− Information Reference List (IRL) −
Issuance date
Title/Type of Document
Page
1 of 11
Editor
Audit Participants
1.
a
On-site visit conducted by the TÜV SÜD audit team on 26/02/2013 at HNO3 plant in Puławy, Republic of
Poland. Signed List of Participants.
TÜV SÜD verification team on-site:
Ms. Anna Peretykina
ATL; Verifier CDM/JI projects and host country expert; TÜV SÜD
Mr. Martin Hammer
Lead Verifier on-site, technical expert, CDM/JI projects, TÜV SÜD
Interviewed persons at the project site:
PhD. Krzysztof Dziuba
Manager, Department of Strategy and Development, ZAP
Mr. Andrzej Czerniak
Senior process engineer, Nitric Acid Plant, ZAP
Mr. Pawel Grykalowski
AMS operator (maintenance of gas analyser), PiAZAP
Mr. Maciej Bartosrevicz
Maintenance of key monitoring instruments, PiAZAP
Mr. Markus Wiehe
JI Project manager and Consultant, BASF SE, Ludwigshafen
Mr. Daniel Scholz
Project consultant, CDM/JI projects, FutureCamp Climate GmbH,
Munich
Additional Information,
relevance in JI context
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Ref-No.
Issuance date
Page
2 of 11
Editor
Project Documents:
2.
a
24/07/2008 Final registered PDD for JI project “Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the
Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland”, version 2
BASF, ZAP
Final JI track 1 PDD
as registered by DFP
b
24/07/2008 Determination Report Nr. 1176510
Independent assessment of conformity with the relevant JI requirements
TÜV SÜD
AIE assessment
report
c
21/07/2009 Letter of Approval (host country)
Conditions: ZAP authorized project operator; necessity of baseline adoption in
case of any changes in the legislation for installation that may result in defining
N2O emission limit. Publicly available at:
http://ji.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/IN2UTOV8K4PAL70RMYCQD
GZJ1S9H3F
DFP host
Registered
JI track-1 project
d
02/03/2010 Acceptance of the specific approach for this JI track 1 project (overlapping of
monitoring periods, revision of MP as part of the verification), via e-Mail from
Mrs. Ewelina Bagińska-Sztonyk, Polish DFP // in Py_DFP-accepting-revisionsas-part-of-verification.rtf
DFP host
Host country
requirements
e
05/09/2011 Annex 4 to the Final registered PDD for JI project “Catalytic Reduction of N2O
inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland”,
version 2
BASF, FC,
ZAP
Final revised PDD
as registered by DFP
f
05/09/2011 Technical description document for application of LoA renewal (AOR catalyst
bed height increase from 11 cm to 18 cm, improved secondary catalyst
abatement efficiency), ver. 2
BASF, FC
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Ref-No.
Issuance date
Page
3 of 11
Editor
h
13/01/2012 Acceptance of the revisions to the PDD (Annex 4) for this registered JI track 1
project, via “Decision Nr. DZKiOApek-443O-45/1891/12/MK of 13 January
2012 on Amending of LoA” issued by The National Centre for Emissions
Management / or Polish DFP
DFP host
Approval of the
revised PDD
i
15/04/2010 Initial and First Periodic Verification Report Nr. 1295547
TÜV SÜD
Assessment of MR#1
j
27/10/2010 Second Periodic Verification Report Nr. 1497353
TÜV SÜD
Assessment of MR#2
k
20/09/2011 Determination opinion on the revised project design (PDD) of the registered JI
track 1 project, Report Nr. 600500627
TÜV SÜD
Revised PDD
l
10/11/2011 Third Periodic Verification Report Nr. 600500198
TÜV SÜD
Assessment of MR#3
m
26/07/2012 Fourth Periodic Verification Report Nr. 600500839
TÜV SÜD
Assessment of MR#4
m
28/01/2013 Fifth Periodic Verification Report Nr. 600501118
TÜV SÜD
Assessment of MR#5
BASF, FC
MR #6
BASF, FC
Final MR #6
Reported monitoring period
3.
a
11/10/2012 6th Monitoring Report, (published version 1), in: Py_MR6_v1_2013-02-11.pdf
Link at netinform.de:
http://www.netinform.de/KE/Wegweiser/Guide22.aspx?Ebene2_ID=2062&mode=5
b
15/03/2013 Revised Monitoring Report #6, version 2
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Page
4 of 11
Calculation Tools
4.
a
12/02/2013 Project Calculation Tool, version 1 (initial version for desk review)
DURAG &
ZAP
CalcTool
FC, BASF
Revised CalcTool
Line 211 (BCre-calc, PC#8, PC#9):
Py_211_P8_BL_v1.xls and Py_211_P9_BL_v1.xls
Py_211_P8_v1_2012-05-08_2012-10-22.xls
Py_211_P9_v1_2012-10-24_2012-12-31.xls
Line 212 (BCre-calc, PC#9):
Py_212_P9_BL_v1.xls and Py_212_P9_v1_2012-09-05_2012-12-31.xls
Py_213_P8_v1_2012-06-13_2012-12-02.xls
Py_213_P9_v1_2012-12-05_2012-12-31.xls
Incl. Py_MR6_ER_v1.xls – Emission Reductions Total during monitoring
period #06, per year, per Line; comparison with ER estimations reported in the
registered PDD
b
18/03/2013 Revised calculation Tools, version 2 (final, revised):
Py_211_P8_v1_2012-05-08_2012-10-22.xls
Py_211_P9_v2_2012-10-24_2012-12-31.xls
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Page
5 of 11
Py_213_P8_v2_2012-06-13_2012-12-02.xls
Py_213_P9_v2_2012-12-05_2012-12-31.xls
Revised Emission Reductions Total: in Py_MR6_ER_v2.xls
JI Handbook
5.
a
11/02/2013 JI Handbook (version 9) as a separate document for assessment within the 6th
Verification; with indication of all amendments from MP as presented in the
Final registered PDD, in: Py_JI-Handbook_v9_2013-02-11.pdf
ZAP, BASF,
FC
MP
DURAG,
AMS
Raw Data
ZAP, BASF,
FC
Daily events
TUV SUD
Real time data check
Raw Data, Daily Events, Real time Check
6.
a
12/02/2013 Extracted AMS data, D-EMS 2000 (csv. -files into MS Excel spreadsheet)
Hourly, daily reports for project campaigns (line specific)
b
12/02/2013 Overview: Daily Events during 6th Monitoring Period, Campaign and Line
specific information: Py6_Campaigns start-ups calibration 6th verification.xls
c
26/02/2013 Print Screens from main monitor control room
d
17/12/2012 CAR1_L214-recalc-HNO3.xls
f
20/12/2012
FC
Comparison between HNO3 concentration data DURAG vs. laboratory results
from 20/12/2012
ZAP, BASF,
FC
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Page
6 of 11
Production Records
7.
a
12/02/2013 Monthly Reports on NAP production (2012), via extracts from SAP of Plant
Operator - NAP (t) on daily basis, and Yearly Report 2012 based on SAP data;
in Py6_NAP.zip
b
20/03/2013 Comparison of NAP production in 2012 and design cap:
Overview - HNO3 production on monthly basis
ZAP
NAP: double check;
data plausibility
check; NAP max
ZAP
BASF
NAP vs. cap
External data
8.
a
12/02/2013 Statement on environmental compliance of the ZAP plant and report on
amendments (if any) to the National Legislation in regard to the NOx and N2O
emission limits; in Statement by Environmental Protection Department.pdf
Environmental Protection
Department
EFreg
b
18/06/2010 Current IPCC Permit, IPPC_Permit.pdf
Environmental Protection
Department
IPCC Permit
Mennica,
Johnson
Matthey(JM)
Primary Pt gauze
composition
Mennica
Primary Pt gauze
composition
Equipment Reference Documents
9.
a
12/06/2008 Operating manual (relevant extracts); confirmation of designed HNO3 capacity
(s. IRL9 in Determination Report).
b
12/02/2013 Updated overview: Primary gauze supplier and composition since start of the
project activity on campaign basis; provided via Invoices from Manufacturers
(2008-2012): in Primary catalyst gauzes specification 2005-2012.xls
c
12/02/2013 Line 211 (PC#8, PC#9) - type: MMS; via Invoice from the manufacturer; in:
Mennica L211 07.05.2012.pdf and Mennica L211 23.10.2012.pdf
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Page
7 of 11
Mennica
Primary Pt gauze
composition
12/02/2013 Line 213 (PC#8 and PC#9) - type ECOCAT, via Invoice from the
manufacturer; in Johnson Matthey L213 24.05.2012.pdf and
Johnson Matthey L213 20.11.2012.pdf
JM
Primary Pt gauze
composition
f
12/02/2013 Line 214 (PC#8) – type: ECOCAT, via Invoice from the manufacturer; in
Johnson Matthey L214 27.07.2012.pdf
JM
Primary Pt gauze
composition
g
12/02/2013 Primary gauzes’ installation and decommissioning dates; via Installation and
Decommissioning Protocols: in Py6_PrimaryCats_InstallationRecords.zip
Mennica, JM
Primary Pt gauze
composition
h
06/01/2006 Stack gas analysis for all lines in Analysis 2006 Off-gas Humidity
Zespol
Techniczny
Stack gas humidity
i
18/12/2012 PID of DeNOx system - Confidential.pdf, CR2_Safety Data Sheet DeNOx
catalyst.pdf
PROZAP
L214 SCR DeNOx
j
12/03/2012 Letter: Technology Provider’s Recommendation reg. calibration frequency of
Vortex flow meters series 83, based on Installations- and Maintenance
Requirements in IOM_Bescheinigung_DE.pdf and MI_019-189.pdf; MI_019179.pdf
k
12/02/2008 Electrical / Instrument Block Diagram from Imtech B.U. Anayser Systems
d
12/02/2013 Line 212 (PC#9) - type: MMS; Invoice from the manufacturer
Mennica L212 30.08.2012.pdf
e
INVENSYS
Systems
GmbH
Imtech
Calibration and Maintenance list
10.
a
12/02/2013 Integrated data monitoring protocol and schedule (“Data Protocol and
Schedule”, “Daily events journal and troubleshooting procedure”) Note:
evidence aims at data handling and provides an overview of calibration,
BASF, FC
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Page
8 of 11
maintenance schedule and quality assurance activities
Pulawy_Protocol_130211_line_211(212, 213, 214).xls
b
12/02/2013 Overview table on Calibration frequency for instruments, and incl. exact dates
of calibrations for every of 4 lines for instrument/monitoring parameter: a) Offgas Volume Flow, b) Temperature and c) Pressure; d) Vortex Flow Meters; e)
ZAP
NH3 flow rate.
In: Test frequency and last dates of calibration 6th verification_rev1.doc
Set of calibration certificates: s. IRL 10c-g below and
c
12/02/2013
a) Off-gas Volume Flow meters: Py6_Calibrations.zip and Records cards offgas flow 6th verification.pdf for Lines 211(L212, L213, and L214)
PiA ZAP
Calibration and
Maintenance of
instruments
d
12/02/2013 b) Off-gas Temperature meters: Py6_Calibrations.zip; and Records cards offgas temperature 6th verification.pdf for Lines 211(L212, L213, and L214)
PiA ZAP
Maintenance of
instruments
e
12/02/2013 c) Off-gas Pressure meters: Py6_Calibrations.zip; and Records cards off-gas
pressure.pdf for Lines 211(L212, L213, and L214)
PiA ZAP
Maintenance of
instruments
f
12/02/2013 d)Vortex HNO 3 flow meters: Py6_Calibrations.zip; and Records cards nitric
acid flow 6th verification.pdf for Lines 211(L212, L213, and L214)
PiA ZAP
Maintenance of
instruments
g
12/02/2013 e) AFR flow meters: Calibration certificates in Py6_Calibrations.zip and
Records cards ammonia flow 6th verification.pdf for Lines 211(L2, L3, L4)
PiA ZAP
Maintenance of
instruments
h
Line 211:
16-19/09/2008
14-19/11/2011
Line 212:
20-23/09/2008
2008 QAL2 Reports for every production line
AIRTEC
in Calibration report_Poland Pulawy_L211.pdf (.212.pdf, 213.pdf, and 214.pdf)
Report on the Project implementation status and Calibration of equipment for
continuous measurement of monitoring parameters
Calibration Record
acc. EN14181
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Page
9 of 11
14-19/11/2011
2011 QAL2 and AST Reports for every production line
in Calibration report_Poland Pulawy_L211.pdf (.212.pdf, 213.pdf, and 214.pdf)
22-30/07/2008 Report on the Project implementation status and Calibration of equipment for
19-20/11/2008
14-19/11/2011 continuous measurement of monitoring parameters
Line 214:
Line 213:
22-30/07/2008
19-20/11/2008
14-19/11/2011
i
AST Functional Test:
2009 and 2012 AST Test Reports according to EN 14181 for project facilities:
Lines 211(L212, L213, and L214)
AIRTEC
AST Report acc.
EN14181
j
12/02/2013 QAL3 test: CUSUM-card (for N2O analysers) at Lines 211(L212, L213, and
L214); in Py6_CusumCards.zip
DURAG,
AMS
Drift Control Records
acc. EN14181
k
12/02/2013 ISO Certificates for test gas with indication of composition, uncertainty, ppm
range; in Py6_TestgasCertificates.zip
MESSER
Test gas (AMS)
l
28/09/2012 D-ER500 Parameter Protocols (NCSG, VSG, TSG, VSG) for Lines 211, 212,
213, 214;parameterization of the electronic data evaluation system
DURAG
m
21/09/2012 E-Mail communication: Change of measurement ranges in gas analyser at
Line 214; in: DE-Line 214_Measurement range changes_x2.pdf
BASFDURAG
Daily events
n
18/12/2012 Letter, in German: “Erweiterung der Kalibrierbereiche an den Linien 211-214“
AIRTEC
Extension of QAL2
calibrated ranges
o
18/03/2013 D-ER500 Parameter Protocols (NCSG, VSG, TSG, VSG) for Line 214; new
parameterization of the electronic data evaluation system dated on
10/02/2013.
DURAG
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
Page
10 of 11
QA/QC documents
11.
a
01/02/2008 Procedure P-11.01 – Integrated System for Quality, Environment and Safety
Management
ZAP
Supervision over
instrumentation
b
06/09/2010 Explanation Note on Data acquisition for monitoring of emission reductions of
the project: incl. data streams (DURAG EMS, SAP, etc) // JI-Handbook, IRL5
BASF, FC
Data acquisition and
processing
c
19/06/2012 Annex Nr. 3 to The Framework Agreement with PiA-ZAP for the maintenance
and calibration of gas analysers (Prolongation of Framework Agreement)
PiAZAP &
ZAP
Validity until:
31.12.2012
d
2003, 2004, Training and qualification evidences of instruments maintenance technicians
2009-2011 (ZiP-ZAP) - Topics: operation of gas analysers (Chromatography Training),
EN14181 Standard (QAL3)
ABB, CE2
Training
e
07/07/2011 Certificate ISO9001:2001-Service provider of monitoring equipment, PiA-ZAP
UDT - Cert
Valid by: 06.07.2014
International Regulations
12.
a
Guidelines for the implementation of Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol
Decision 16/CP.7 Appendix B: Criteria for baseline setting and monitoring
COP/MOP decisions
Modalities and procedures for a CDM as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol
Decision 17/CP.7 Appendix B: Project design document and Appendix C: Terms of reference for
establishing guidelines
on baselines and monitoring methodologies
b
Further Guidelines and Procedures as published on UNFCCC homepage – http://www.unfccc.int, JI section
– ji.unfccc.int
- Standard for applying the concept of materiality in verifications, version 01 (JISC 22)
- Procedures regarding changes during project implementation, version 01 (JISC 22)
Guidelines
Verification
Report
25-03-2013
-
Page
11 of 11
Clarification regarding overlapping monitoring periods under the verification procedure under the
JISC, ver. 01
c
Approved CDM methodology AM0034 / ver. 03: “ Catalytic reduction of N2O inside the ammonia burner of
nitric acid plants” and respective requests for clarification and revision clarified by the Meth Panel,
published at:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/X3KHFURC8891R7AFJZ4DEKTT0W2EF4/view.html#footnote
EB50, AM0034
d
AM_CLA_0172: “Recalculation of baseline emission factor due to shortening of campaign length”, in EB 51
(Annex 12)
EB51
e
JI Determination and Verification Manual, version 01, JISC19
Link: http://ji.unfccc.int/Ref/Documents/DVM.pdf
DVM
f
Standard for Applying the Concept of Materiality in Verifications, version 01, JISC22
Materiality
EU and Host country Regulations:
13.
a
“The Act on 17.07.2009 on the System to Manage the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Other
Substances” - National guidelines and procedures for approving JI projects;
Link: http://ji.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/XPN3UEOW4MYJ97CKZLAS5Q2I8DTBHG
b
Quality assurance standards: EN14181 (QAL/AST tests)
c
2007 IPPC: BREF Document on Best Available Techniques for the Manufacture of Large Volume Inorganic
Chemicals – Ammonia, Acids and Fertilisers, dated December 2006 issued by the European Commission;
also incl. statement on the absence of any impact (direct or indirect) on GHG emissions balance by this
secondary N2O abatement technology.
JI guidelines in the
host country
AMS standard
BAT reference, 2007
Annex 3: JI Verification Report Form of the DFP (host country)
6TH PERIODIC VERIFICATION
Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant
in Puławy, Poland
Page 1 of 4
1. Project information
1.1. Project title
in Puławy, Poland
1.2. Name, designation of office and address of the project applicant
Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A.
13 Aleja Tysiąclecia Państwa Polskiego St.,
24-110 Puławy
1.3. Location of the project activity
1.3.1. Voivodeship
Lublin
1.3.2. Community and city
Community:
City:
Puławy
Puławy
1.3.3. Address or parcel identification number
Datum: 25.03.2013
Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A.
13 Aleja Tysiąclecia Państwa Polskiego St.,
24-110 Puławy
Unsere Zeichen:
IS-CMS-HAM/AP
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 6th monitoring period from 08.05.2012 to 31.12.2012, which is the end date
of the 1st commitment period (2008-2012) for Annex I countries as per Kyoto
Protocol, amounted to 870,588 tCO2e.
1.6. Reporting period
Das Dokument besteht aus
5 Seiten.
Seite 1 von 5
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.
08.05.2012 – 31.12.2012, whereas it is the matter of multi-line project and thus,
monitoring / reporting period to be understood as follows:
for Line 211: 08/05/2012 – 31/12/2012
for Line 212: 05/09/2012 – 31/12/2012
for Line 213: 13/06/2012 – 31/12/2012
for Line 214: 14/08/2012 – 31/12/2012
2. Assessment of applied monitoring methodology
2.1. Assessment of data/information collection and analysis
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
Niederlassung München
Umwelt Service
Westendstraße 199
80686 München
Deutschland
in Puławy, Poland
Page 2 of 5
The data/Information collection occurred according to the procedures defined in
the approved PDD version 02 dated 24/07/2008 amended by extended
monitoring plan of the current JI Handbook, version 9 from February 11th, 2013
and amended by Annex No. 4 "Revision of PDD emission projections"
document, version 2, September 5th, 2011 (valid as per amendment to LoA: 13
January 2012). 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
The collected data are assessed and confirmed to be correct. The verifier can
confirm that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material
misstatements. This confirmation is based on a detailed check of raw data and
calculated data using cross-checking options. Our opinion refers to the project
GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions reported, determined
using the registered PDD, amended by extended monitoring plan of the current
JI Handbook, version 9 from February 11th, 2013 by consideration of “Decision of
13/01/2012 on amending of the LoA” issued by the national DFP (host country).
2.3. Assessment of applied monitoring plan
The applied monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology
AM0034, version 03 applied by the JI project activity though with one deviation
regarding baseline calculation: in order to implement the project activity as soon
as possible, the campaign specific baseline emission factor has been derived by
monitoring of both N2O concentration and gas volume flow over a production
period that equals the HNO3 production volume of one campaign, but stretches
across two actual campaigns. During the Determination, this deviation has been
discussed and found conservative by TÜV SÜD assessment team. For details
refer to the determination report Nr. 1176510 from 24.07.2008.
Since project registration the monitoring plan is being amended continuously.
Refer to the chapter 3.4 of this Verification Report for the full list of amendments
made in the monitoring plan (here: JI handbook). As regard to the latest
revisions, which is a result of the current verification: refer to the extended
monitoring plan of the current JI Handbook, version 9 from February 11th, 2013.
The verifying AIE could confirm that all those modifications result in an
improvement of the monitoring plan. PPs provided appropriate justification for all
those proposed modifications, which aim at improvement of accuracy or e.g. the
internal QA/QC procedure compared to the original monitoring plan without
influence on conformity with the relevant rules.
3. Information on verification carried out
3.1. Name of institution that carried out the verification
3.2. Date of verification
25/03/2013 (report date)
4. Assessment of the project implementation
4.1. Assessment of compliance of the project implementation with design
documents
in Puławy, Poland
Page 3 of 5
The project is implemented as designed. The project has been operating
according to the approved PDD.
As stated in the registered PDD it was foreseen to install a DeNOx unit also at
Line 214, because of new NOx emitting units should be erected but emission
limit need to be complied with. When writing the PDD the commission of this
DeNOx unit was planned in 2010 together with new NOx emitting sources.
During 5th monitoring period the DeNOx has been installed as also verified
during onsite visit. The DeNOx is in operation since 14/11/2012.
4.2. Assessment of compliance of the project monitoring with the approved
monitoring plan
The monitoring plan included in the approved PDD version 02 dated 24/07/2008
has been revised to increase quality and accuracy of monitoring. The actual
monitoring plan included the current JI Handbook, version 9 from February 11th,
2013 serves as basis for the project monitoring of this verification. In Chapter 2
of the JI Handbook all changes are transparently documented. The newest
adjustment nr. 30 refers to the reporting of the last calibration dates in the
reported monitoring period for the key monitoring instruments, cf. section 4.2.
The TÜV SÜD assessment team confirms that revisions undertaken improve the
quality of the initial monitoring plan. JI Handbook is to be considered as a living
document which is to be uploaded together with the Final Verification and
Monitoring Report for approval by the DFP of the host country.
4.3. Assessment of the selected methodology.
The project follows in principle the provisions of the approved CDM methodology
AM0034 version 03, whereas some elements of the methodology have been
adjusted due to project specific conditions (JI approach). It is also confirmed that
main issues of the revised monitoring plan (here: JI Handbook) complies with the
applied methodology AM0034, version 03. For details please see the registered
PDD version 2 from July 24, 2008 and the determination report Nr. 1176510
from 24.07.2008 issued by TÜV SÜD and additionally to the Annex 4 to the Final
registered PDD for JI project.
5. Assessment of the emission reduction calculations
5.1. Assessment of determination of the baseline scenario
The baseline scenario was determined by TÜV SÜD. For details please see
determination report Nr. 1176510 from 24.07.2008. Refer to item 2.3 above, too.
The verifying AIE 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 registered PDD, amended by extended
monitoring plan of the current JI Handbook, version 9 from February 11th, 2013
by consideration of “Decision of 13/01/2012 on amending of the LoA” issued by
the national DFP (host country).
5.2. Assessment of monitoring results of the GHG emission reduction, avoidance
or absorbance
The Monitoring results (i.e. the hourly values recorded at DURAG D-EMS 2000)
provided in the Excel calculation sheets were traced by the verifier over the
whole period. In case of peculiarities the graph was zoomed and checked with
in Puławy, Poland
Page 4 of 5
special awareness taking into consideration the specific operation of the facility
as demonstrated by other related parameter to verify explanations given.
Wherever possible a monitoring result was crosschecked against a different
information source.
5.3. Assessment of reliability of data and information used for the verification of
GHG emission reduction, avoidance or absorbance
The data used for the calculation of GHG emission reduction is derived from
calibrated measurement instrument. All relevant calibration certificates were
provided to the verification team.
An automated monitoring system (AMS) has been installed using the guidance
document EN 14181. The AMS covers a N2O concentration measurement (N2O
analyser), a volume flow meter (VTG measurement), metering of pressure and
temperature of stack gas (PTG, TTG).
Data control is provided by a Data Control System (DCS). This system is
operated around the clock by staff in the control room. During 5th Monitoring
Period a new DCS from Emerson has been installed at the plant. The old system
(Honeywell ST-3000 SMART) is still in operation and it is mirroring the data of
the new DCS.
The data for the JI project is collected by DURAG D-EMS 2000 which provides
separate readings for N2O concentration and gas volume flow continuously,
generating average values for every 60 minutes of operation. Apart from these
two parameters, temperature and pressure of the tail gas are recorded and –
together with further process parameters – stored. The applied software (D-EMS
2000 QAL) is adequate for complete documentation of AMS, drift and precision
(QAL3) according to EN 14181. Routine data back-up from the DURAG system
is conducted (via a portable hard disc). This back-up is kept separately in safe
custody.
6. Conclusions from the verification
6.1. Number of emission reduction units, which correspond to the obtained level
of GHG emission reduction, avoidance or absorbance
As a result of the conducted evaluations, the total verified emission reductions
achieved in the 6th monitoring period 08.05.2012 – 31.12.2012 (here: limited to
the end date of the 1st commitment period under Kyoto Protocol) are 870,588
tCO2e.
6.2. Indication whether the GHG emission reductions, avoidance or absorbance
obtained in the project are additional to those, which would be generated without
project realization.
The additionality of the project activity has been assessed during the
determination performed by TÜV SÜD. According to the registered PDD and
final determination report the emission reductions attributable to the project are
additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity. For
details please see the registered PDD version 2 from July 24, 2008 and the
related final determination report Nr. 1176510 from 24.07.2008.
Since the project was implemented as planned and the project monitoring
complies with the provisions of the registered PDD / its monitoring plan,
amended by extended JI Handbook (in its latest version 9 from February 11th,
2013), and the “Decision of 13/01/2012 on amending of the LoA” issued by the
national DFP (host country) was considered, the additionality of the GHG

Catalytic Reduction of N2

Transcription

Similar documents

Social Security Name Verification Window

Verification Services - National Student Clearinghouse

Prezentacja nowego produktu

Presentation () - Association of International Education

ZILUKS IN POLAND Dear Diary, Last week I was in Poland. It is an

COSTUMES IN THE LUBLIN REGION

DTP1OCT11BR.qxd (Page 1)

01DTMay2.qxd (Page 1)

etwinning Parceiro da Polónia

01DTMay3-R.qxd (Page 1)