VERIFICATION REPORT
Date of first issue:
05 July 2010
PRJC-240804-2010-CCS-NOR
Approved by
Project No.:
Ole A. Flagstad
Client:
Ole A. Flagstad
Organisational unit:
YARA Suomi Oy
Summary:
Client ref.:
Taisto Koivumki
Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV) has performed the verification of the emission reductions reported for the YARA Uusikaupunki T2 N2O abatement project in Finland (ITL Project ID FI1000179, JI track 1) for the period 14 June 2009 to 31 May 2010. In our opinion, the GHG emission reductions reported for the project in the monitoring report No. 01 (Version 02)) of 02 September 2010 are fairly stated. The monitoring report (MR) was updated to version 2 in response to clarification requests raised by DNV during verification. The GHG emission reductions were calculated correctly on the basis of the approved CDM monitoring methodology AM0034 / version 3.4 (with some deviations as described in detail in section 3.3 of this report), AM0028 / version 4.2 (for monitoring of project emissions) and the monitoring plan contained in the Project Design Document of 07 April 2010. Det Norske Veritas Certification AS is able to verify that the emission reductions from the YARA Uusikaupunki T2 N2O abatement project in Finland during the period 14 June 2009 to 31 May 2010 amount to 75 851 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
Report No.: Report title: Subject Group:
2011-0058
Environment
Service Area
Verification
Market Sector
Process Industry
No distribution without permission from the client or responsible organisational unit free distribution within DNV after 3 years Strictly confidential Unrestricted distribution
Weidong Yang
Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages:
13 January 2011
01
21
2002 Det Norske Veritas AS All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying or recording, without the prior written consent of Det Norske Veritas AS.
Table of Content
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.7 4 5
Page
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 Objective 1 Scope 1 Description of the Project Activity 1 Methodology for Determining Emission Reductions 2 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 3 Review of Documentation 4 Site Visits 5 Audit Programme 5 Assessment 7 Reporting of Findings 7 VERIFICATION FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 8 Remaining Issues, CARs, FARs from Previous Validation or Verification 8 Project Implementation 8 Project Implementation in accordance with the registered project design document 9 Completeness of Monitoring 9 Accuracy of Emission Reduction Calculations 11 Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions 12 Assessment of Monitoring Parameters 12 Historical data and permitted operating conditions 12 Determination of baseline emissions 12 Monitored data for project emissions within the project boundary 13 Management System and Quality Assurance 18 VERIFICATION STATEMENT ............................................................................... 19 REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 20
Appendix A Corrective action requests, clarification requests and forward action requests
Page i
Abbreviations
AOR AAU CAR CDM CL CO2 CO2e DFP DNV ERU FAR GHG IPCC JI JISC LoA N2O PDD tCO2e UNFCCC GWP Ammonia Oxidation Reactor Assigned Amount Unit Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Clarification request Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Designated Focal Point Det Norske Veritas Emission reduction units Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(es) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Joint Implementation Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee Letter of approval Nitrous oxide Project Design Document Tonnes of CO2 equivalents United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Global Warming Potential
Page ii
1 INTRODUCTION
YARA Suomi Oy has commissioned Det Norske Veritas Certification AS (DNV) to carry out the verification of the emission reductions reported for the YARA Uusikaupunki T2 N2O abatement project in Finland (the project) in the period 14 June 2009 to 31 May 2010. This report contains the findings from the verification and a verification statement for the certified emission reductions.
1.1 Objective
Verification is the periodic independent review and ex-post determination by an Accredited Independent Entity (AIE) of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions that have occurred as a result of a Joint Implementation (JI) track 1 project activity during a defined verification period. The objective of this verification was to verify the emission reductions reported for the YARA Uusikaupunki T2 N2O abatement project in Finland for the period 14 June 2009 to 31 May 2010. DNV is an Independent Entity accredited by the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee (JISC) for all sectoral scopes.
1.2 Scope
The scope of the verification is: To verify that actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan. To evaluate the GHG emission reduction data and express a conclusion with a reasonable level of assurance about whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is free from material misstatement. To verify that reported GHG emission data is sufficiently supported by evidence.
The verification shall ensure that reported emission reductions are complete and accurate in order to be certified.
Project participants
DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-0058, rev. 01 VERIFICATION REPORT Mechelininkatu 1a, Helsinki FI-00181, Finland YARA International ASA, Oslo (Norway) Bygdoy all 2, Oslo 0257, Norway N.serve Environmental Services GmbH (Germany) Groe Theaterstr. 14, 4. OG, Hamburg 20354, Germany Location of the project activity: Projects crediting period: Uusikaupunki, Finland (Line T2) 01 June 2009 to 31 December 2012
Period verified in this verification: 14 June 2009 to 31 May 2010 The project activity involves the installation of a secondary N2O abatement catalyst (YARA 58 Y 1 catalyst), inside the ammonia oxidation reactor (burner) just beneath the precious metal catalyst gauze catalyst at YARAs nitric acid plant at Uusikaupunki, Finland (Line T2). The De-N2O catalyst is selective and promotes the decomposition of N2O to nitrogen and oxygen. The expected average abatement performance of the secondary N2O abatement catalyst is around 85% (the emission reduction estimates in the PDD were made using abatement performance of 85%). The project activity started with full batch of catalyst installed (both primary and secondary) on 14 June 2009. The first monitoring period hence comprises of the first project campaign and is from 14 June 2009 to 31 May 2010. The emission reductions reported form the project for the period from 14 June 2009 to 31 May 2010 amount to 75 851 tonnes of CO2 equivalents.
Page 2
2009
2010
2011
2012
Thus, the scope of this verification includes verifying the project emission factor (EFn) and the amount of nitric acid produced (of 100% concentrated) for the verification period from 14 June 2009 to 31 May 2010. The total mass of N2O emissions in a verification period (PEn) is calculated based on the continuous measurement of the N2O concentration in the tail gas and the volume flow rate of the tail gas stream. The N2O mass-flow is calculated on the basis of the hourly average results, in accordance with the following equation: PEn = NCSGx x VSGx x 10-9 x Mx
x=1 x=vmp
(tN2O)
The plant-specific project emission factor representing the average N2O emissions per tonne of nitric acid over the respective verification period is derived by dividing the total mass of N2O emissions by the total output of 100% concentrated nitric acid for that period. The average N2O emissions per metric ton of 100% concentrated nitric acid for the verification period (EFn) is calculated as follows: EFn = (PEn / NAPn) (tN2O/tHNO3) Where: PEn Total N2O emissions during the verification period (tN2O) Emissions factor used to calculate the emissions from the defined Verification Period EFn n (tN2O/tHNO3) NCSGx Hourly average concentration of N2O in the tail gas stream in each measurement time interval of 1 hour during the verification measurement period (vmp) (mgN2O/m3) VSGx Hourly average tail gas volume flow rate in each measurement time interval of 1 hour during the verification measurement period (vmp) (m3/h) NAPn Nitric acid production during the Verification Period (tHNO3) Length of measurement interval x (hour) Mx x Each measurement interval during the verification period (1 hour) vmp Verification measurement period
2 METHODOLOGY
The verification of the emission reductions has assessed all factors and issues that constitute the basis for emission reductions from the project. As the JI Supervisory Committee (JISC) has not yet formally endorsed the application of any materiality principle for verification of emission reductions from JI projects - implying that emphasis should be on the significant contributors to emission reductions - DNV has checked all factors and issues with the same emphasis. Page 3
DET NORSKE VERITAS Report No: 2011-0058, rev. 01 VERIFICATION REPORT Despite this, DNV has during its preparations identified the key reporting risks and used the assessment to determine to which extent the project operators control systems were adequate for mitigation of these key reporting risks. In addition, other areas that can have an impact on reported emission reductions have also undergone detailed audit testing. All relevant records of data from the automated measuring system for N2O (FTIR Gasmet CEMS model DX4000 Analyzer, the new Dr. Fdisch MCA 04 Analyzer, and the Dr. Fdisch FMD 99 Volume Flow Meter) and records from the production logs (from the Coriolis flow meter for flow and concentration measurements of the nitric acid production) have been examined and verified for the reporting period. The JI project verification team members and the type of involvement for each team member are given in the following table: Verification team Type of involvement
Site visit / Interviews
Technical review
Administrative
Desk review
Role Project manager Technical team leader (JI verifier) Sector expert Technical reviewer Duration of verification Preparations: On-site verification: