MONITORING REPORT FORM (CDM-MR) *

Version 01 - in effect as of: 28/09/2010

CONTENTS

A. General description of the project activity

A.1. Brief description of the project activity
A.2. Project participants
A.3. Location of the project activity
A.4. Technical description of the project
A.5. Title, reference and version of the baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the project
activity
A.6. Registration date of the project activity
A.7. Crediting period of the project activity and related information
A.8. Name of responsible person(s)/entity(ies)

B. Implementation of the project activity

B.1. Implementation status of the project activity
B.2. Revision of the monitoring plan
B.3. Request for deviation applied to this monitoring period
B.4. Notification or request of approval of changes

C. Description of the monitoring system

D. Data and parameters monitored

D.1. Data and parameters used to calculate baseline emissions
D.2. Data and parameters used to calculate project emissions
D.3. Data and parameters used to calculate leakage emissions
D.4. Other relevant data and parameters

E. Emission reductions calculation

E.1. Baseline emissions calculation
E.2. Project emissions calculation
E.3. Leakage calculation
E.4. Emission reductions calculation
E.5. Comparison of actual emission reductions with estimates in the registered CDM-PDD
E.6. Remarks on difference from estimated value
 MONITORING REPORT
Version 1.0 – 16/01/2012

EL GUACAL LANDFILL GAS FLARING PROJECT

Reference number: 3995
First Monitoring Period
Monitoring Period: 23/02/2011 – 31/12/2011

SECTION A. General description of the project activity

A.1. Brief description of the project activity:

Green Gas Management Services SAS (hereafter referred to as “GGMS”) has implemented a landfill gas
extraction system in Medellín, Colombia. The „El Guacal Landfill Gas Flaring Project‟ (hereafter
referred to as “Project”) has been implemented according to the Project Design Document version 4,
dated 06/09/2010 (hereafter referred to as “PDD”) and was validated by Swiss Association for Quality
and Management Systems (hereafter referred to as “SQS”) under reference number 320215/P29203-V1.
The Project was approved by the Colombian Designated National Authority under reference number N°
2000-2-91362 on August 31st, 2010 and registered by the UNFCCC on February 23rd, 2011, under
reference number 3995.

The purpose of this project activity is to efficiently capture the landfill gas (LFG) emitted on the landfill
site El Guacal in Medellín, Colombia and to destroy methane gas, which is a harmful greenhouse gas
(GHG) contained in the LFG with a global warming potential (GWP) of 21, that has an adverse impact
on the environment. The owner of the landfill El Guacal is EVAS Enviambientales S.A. E.S.P.
(“EVAS”). EVAS is in charge of the treatment and final disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW). The
ownership rights to the LFG had been transferred to GGMS in order to support the implementation of the
project activity.

El Guacal Landfill is in operation since 1 July 2006, and it is divided into 3 sections: Sections North,
Centre and South. The total area of the landfill is 26.96 hectare with a potential capacity of around
5,740,203 tonnes according to the Environmental License. Nowadays, North Section is in operation
while the Central Section will begin receiving waste after the North Section is filled.

The landfill receives waste from Envigado and from the following small municipalities located in the
surroundings of the site: Santa Fe de Antiouquia, San Jeronimo, Sopetrán, Sabaneta, Itagüí, La Estrella,
Caldas, Bello, San Pedro de los Milagros, Sur del Municipio de Medellín, Amaga, Armenia Mantequilla,
Heliconia, Ebejico, Hispania, Santa Bárbara, Titiribí, El Retiro and eventually from Jericó and Salgar.
The landfill, El Guacal, is supporting the waste deposit requirement of the region, together with the other
operating landfill, La Pradera. The landfill site of La Pradera is located in the northeast of Antioquia in
the Municipality of Don Matias.

During the Monitoring Period the project activity reduced 38,439 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

A.2. Project Participants

Table A.2.1: Project Participants

Name of Party involved
Colombia (host)
United Kingdom of Great
-2-
Private and or public
entity(ies) project participant
Green Gas Management
Services SAS (private entity)
Green Gas International B.V.
Kindly indicate if the Party involved
wishes to be considered as project
participant (yes/no)
No
No
Britain and Northern Ireland (private entity)

A.3. Location of the project activity:

Country: Republic of Colombia

Region/State/Province etc.: Department of Antioquia
City/Town/Community etc:
El Guacal is located next to Medellín, in the Heliconia Municipality
Approximated GPS coordinates:
6°15‟31‟‟ N and 75°41‟48‟‟ W (6.258611°, -75.696667°)
Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this project
activity (maximum one page):
El Guacal is located next to Medellín, in the Heliconia Municipality within Antioquia Department.
Heliconia has the municipalities of Ebejico to the North, Medellín to the East and Angelopolis to the
South. The site can be reached through Medellín – Itagüi – San Antonio de Prado – Vereda Yarumalito
route, approximately 22 km from Itagüi Municipality. The nearest town, at a distance of 15 km, is San
Antonio de Prado with about 190,000 inhabitants.

Figure A.3: Map of Antioquia showing the location of Heliconia within the Department

El Guacal
landfill site

-3-
A.4. Technical description of the project

The purpose of this project is to efficiently capture, flare and consequently destroy landfill gas,
especially methane, which is a flammable greenhouse gas (GHG) contained in the LFG, in high efficient
flaring station. The biogas capturing system consists of utilizing the existing passive wells, cover them
and seal them properly to avoid gas leakages and conduct the gas with the help of vacuum suction
(blower) system to the high temperature flare.

In this landfill section, there are 24 passive venting wells under construction, reaching from the bottom of
the landfill until the highest point of waste disposal. However, up-to-date, only 8 wells are completed and
have been sealed, the rest of the wells are still growing together with the landfill height.

The planned positions of the wells constructed by 2017 are shown in the drawing below:

Figure A.4: Illustration of the position of wells planned to be constructed on North Section

Additionally to the 24 wells of the North Section, other 35 wells are planned to be constructed during the
filling of the Central Section as from around 2018. The already existing passive wells are constructed
with a perforated PVC pipeline with a diameter of 6 inches; around this pipeline big stones (diameter
between 3 and 6 inches) are placed and then steel mesh is placed around it. Their height is increased
continuously with the increasing height of the landfill.

During the project activity, the wells will be closed with well-heads to avoid significant escape of
methane. Each one of these well-heads will be connected by means of a secondary HDPE pipeline to the
primary HDPE pipeline.

Two different primary pipelines will be used in the area, the first will be placed around the landfill with
the purpose of covering the entire degasification perimeter and the second will be placed in the centre of
-4-
the landfill crossing from the lowest point up to the location of the flare. The idea of having two primary
pipelines is to shorten up the distance between the wells and the pipelines which are collecting the gas
and conducting it to the location of the flare.

On the site, the piping network will be connected to the blowers in order to create a pressure gradient in
the system so that gas can be extracted and conducted to the flare.

Before flaring the gas, it goes through a condensation system in order to cool the gas down and to
eliminate the condensate water before further flow to the blowers. After the condensation, the fraction of
methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen in the LFG is measured in the gas quality analyser and monitored
frequently. After going through the blowers, the gas flows into a pipe, where the gas flow is monitored.
In order to monitor the flow of the landfill gas under normal conditions, the temperature and the pressure
in the pipe, as well as the temperature and pressure in the atmosphere are measured by the thermometer
and the manometer. Besides the combustion and exhaust gas temperature, the fraction of methane in the
exhaust gas will be furthermore measured in order to compile all measured values in the Monitoring
System.

For operating the facility, it requires electricity from the local electricity grid and the electricity
consumption of the project activity will be monitored by the local utility provider.

The gas captured from North Section and the LFG coming from the later connected Centre Section is
flared in the Hofstetter high temperature flare with the capacity of 3,000 Nm3/h, under controlled
pressure at a combustion temperature around 1,000 °C. The flare facility was purchased from the
manufacturer company, Hofstetter Umwelttechnik AG.

This flare is equipped with all the required monitoring equipments which fulfil the specification
requirements of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the selected methodology, ACM0001 -
Consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology for landfill gas project activities, version 11 from
28th of May 2009 and its applicable tools.

The waste management and landfill operation does not constitute to be a part of the proposed project
activity. The responsible entity is EVAS Enviambientales S.A. E.S.P., the owner of the landfill.

The operation of the North Section is carried out according to a combined method called “area & trench”
which improves the daily operation of the landfill and can be applied for a landfill with flat areas and
large slopes. The material used for covering the cells and the landfill itself is brought up from the
surrounding areas, avoiding large costs.

The landfill operation is divided into 3 main zones:

1. Download zone: the collector truck downloads the waste on site and on the place where it will
be deposited
2. Disaggregation zone: area where the waste is distributed in layers in the cells by means of trucks
3. Compaction zone: with the help of heavy trucks the waste is reduced until it has the proper
density

Handling of the leachate water also does not constitute part of the proposed project activity. Currently,
the leachate water is treated by EVAS, the owner of the landfill itself.
The leachate is collected through filters located at the bottom of the landfill and routed via gravity to a
waste water treatment plant located on the site of the landfill. There, it undergoes a series of physical,
chemical and biological processes to which the water is supposed to, and heavy metals, DOC, BOD5, fat
& oils and solid matter is treated. According to the report GIA-126-07 from June 2007, the average of
removal of the system is 88.6 % which is higher removal than required by the law.

-5-
A.5. Title, reference and version of the baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the
project activity:

The approved baseline methodology applied for this project activity is:
ACM0001 – Consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology for landfill gas project
activities, version 11 from 28th of May 2009.

Furthermore the following tools from the CDM Executive Board are applied:
“Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption”
version 01 (EB39; Annex 7);
“Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane”
(EB28; Annex 13);
“Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” Version 02 (EB 50; Annex 14)

A.6. Registration date of the project activity:

Registration date: 23/02/2011

Reference number: 3995

A.7. Crediting period of the project activity and related information (start date and choice of
crediting period):

The crediting period of the first seven years has been fixed to 23/02/2011 to 22/02/2018.

The registration date and start of the crediting period is 23/02/2011.

Since the registration (reference number 3995), no change to the start date of the crediting period of the
project activity has been requested.

A.8. Name of responsible person(s)/entity (ies):

The report is submitted by GGMS and the person in charge of the preparation and submission is:
Miguel Delgado
Director/Representante Legal
Green Gas Management Services SAS
Carrera 43ª No. 1 Sur-188, oficina 904
Torre Empresarial Davivienda
Medellín, Colombia
Phone: +57 4 3542826
E-mail: miguel.delgado@greengas.net

SECTION B. Implementation of the project activity

B.1. Implementation status of the project activity

Construction:
The construction works related to the piping connection with the existing wells has started in December
2010. During the month of January 2011, all relevant tasks regarding the grounding of the area for the
flare facility and the piping connection with the constructed area have been taken over.
The flare facility type HOFGAS®- Ready 3000 CDM (manufactured by Hofstetter Umwelttechnik AG)
has been shipped in February 2011 and installed within March 2011.

-6-
Figure B.1.1: Progress of the construction works

Commissioning:
The installed flare facility has been commissioned on 31/03/2011 by the manufacturer Hofstetter
Umwelttechnik AG. As all required input parameters were adjusted in the data logging system at the
same day, the ex-post emission reduction calculation has started on 01/04/2011. The flare has been
operating since the commissioning date.

Limitations in the control system

Within the flaring system, some limitations have been inserted in order to avoid that e.g. during the
calibration of the gas analysing systems (gas quality analyser of LFG or gas analyser of the exhaust gas)
any emission reduction are claimed.

Table B.1.1: Limitation of the flaring system

ID Source Specific reasons
1) Gas quality Fraction of oxygen (O2) in the landfill gas higher than the 8 Vol.-%.
Result: Status shows that no Baseline Emissions were calculated for the specific time.
2) Gas quality Fraction of methane (CH4) in the landfill gas lower than 30 Vol.-%
Result: Status shows that no Baseline Emissions were calculated for the specific time.

Shutdown of the flare

Due to the setting of limitations in the control system of the flare (as described above), following
shutdowns of the flares were identified:

Table B.1.2: Shutdown details of the Flare

-7-
 Date Shutdown times Shutdown reasons (no CERs claimed)
10/04/2011 1:58 –23:59 O2 limitations (High Oxygen)

11/04/2011 00:00 –23:59 O2 limitations (High Oxygen)

12/04/2011 00:00 – 6:49 ; 14:48 – 23:59 O2 limitations (High Oxygen)

13/04/2011 00:00 – 9:58 O2 limitations (High Oxygen)

15/04/2011 8:52 – 11:50 Temp. limitations (<500°C)

16/04/2011 15:32 – 23:59 Temp. limitations (<500°C)
17/04/2011 00:00 – 23:59 Temp. limitations (<500°C)
18/04/2011 00:00 – 9:25 Power cuts (no data logged)
19/04/2011 10:34 – 11:41 & 11:43 – 12:40 Temp. Limitations((<500°C) and power cuts(no data
logged)
22/04/2011 14:36 – 18:56 Temp. Limitations((<500°C)
23/04/2011 15:03 – 20:38 Temp. Limitations((<500°C)
24/04/2011 8:09 – 23:59 O2 limitation(High Oxygen)
25/04/2011 00:00 – 9:39 O2 limitation(High Oxygen)
29/04/2011 14:25 – 15:35 Temp. Limitations((<500°C)
30/04/2011 17:32 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations((<500°C)
1/05/2011 00:00 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations((<500°C)
2/05/2011 00:00 – 8:52 ; 20:05 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations((<500°C) & power cuts
3/05/2011 00:00 – 12:07 Power cuts (no data logged)
6/05/2011 9:56 – 10:52 & 10:53 - 12:28 Temp. Limitations(<500°C) & power cuts
10/05/2011 8:27 – 9:33 & 9:34 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations((<500°C) & power cuts
11/05/2011 00:00 – 8:55 & 9:43 – 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
12/05/2011 00:00- 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
13/05/2011 00:00- 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
14/05/2011 00:00 – 1:57 Power cuts(no data logged)
30/05/2011 14:33 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
31/05/2011 00:00 – 1:26 & 2:18 – 17:25 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
1/06/2011 3:27 – 4:22 & 8:26 – 9:52 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
2/06/2011 00:00 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations (<500°C) & Power cuts(no data
logged)
3/06/2011 00:00 – 6:57; 10:45 – 14:13 &17:58 – Temp. Limitations(<500°C)
23:59
4/06/2011 4:50 – 15:54 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
5/06/2011 12:56 – 14:40 & 16:15 – 17:04 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
6/06/2011 00:13 – 1:11; 2:37 – 2:59; 4:43 – 5:10 & Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
5:19 – 6:10
7/06/2011 9:47 – 10:40;11:44 – 13:48 & 20:54 – Temp. & Gas flow Limitations
23:59
8/06/2011 00:00 – 7:29 Temp. Limitations(<500°C)
10/06/2011 9:45 – 10:56 Temp. Limitations(<500°C)
15/06/2011 10:45 - 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
16/06/2011 00:00 – 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
17/06/2011 00:00 – 15:57 Power cuts(no data logged)
18/06/2011 00:00 – 1:10 & 1:11 – 10:02 Temp. Limitations(<500°C) & Power cuts(no data
logged)
19/06/2011 15:27 – 17:20 & 17:21 – 19:06 Gas flow Limitations , Power cuts(no data logged)
21/06/2011 12:31 – 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
22/06/2011 00:00 – 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
23/06/2011 00:00 – 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
24/06/2011 00:00 – 8:35 Power cuts(no data logged)
29/06/2011 9:54 – 11:14 & 11:15 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations(<500°C) & Power cuts(no data
logged)

30/06/2011 00:00 – 11:00 & 11:01 – 11:28 Power cuts (no data logged) & Temp.
limitations(<500°C)
9/07/2011 4:08 – 6:08 & 6:09 – 10:49 Temp. limitations(<500°C) & Power cuts(no data logged)
12/07/2011 12:10 – 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
13/07/2011 00:00 – 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)
14/07/2011 00:00 – 23:59 Power cuts(no data logged)

-8-
 15/07/2011 00:00 – 13:07 Power cuts(no data logged)
18/07/2011 11:40 – 15:24 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
19/07/2011 9:12 – 10:27 & 13:04 – 15:03 Temp. Limitations (<500°C) & Power cuts(no data
logged)
25/07/2011 7:20 – 16:23 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
26/07/2011 6:56 – 15:30 Gas flow Limitations
27/07/2011 10:38 – 15:45 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
31/07/2011 15:30 – 17:32 & 17:33 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations (<500°C) & Power cuts(no data
logged)
1/08/2011 00:00 – 8:08 & 8:09 – 8:37 Power cuts (no data logged) & Gas flow Limitations
2/08/2011 17:13 – 23:59 Gas flow Limitations
3/08/2011 00:00 - 7:31; 14:44 – 16:51 & 16:52 – Temp. Limitations(<500°C) & Power cuts (no data
17:36 logged)
28/08/2011 00:15 – 2:30 & 2:31 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations (<500°C) & Power cuts(no data
logged)
29/08/2011 00:00 – 7:19 Power cuts (no data logged)
4/09/2011 15:10 – 19:48 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
24/09/2011 17:01 – 19:09; 19:10 – 20:16 & Gas flow Limitations & Power cuts(no data logged)
20:17 – 23:59
25/09/2011 00:00 to 11:26 & 11:27 – 16:51 Gas flow Limitations & Power cuts(no data logged)
3/10/2011 10:54 – 12:08 Gas flow limitations
11/10/2011 16:00 – 16:50 Temp. Limitations (<500°C)
8/11/2011 6:44 – 7:42 Power cuts(no data logged)
15/11/2011 13:30 – 15:40 & 15:41 – 23:59 Temp. Limitations(<500°C) & Power cuts (no data
logged)
16/11/2011 00:00 – 14:19 Power cuts (no data logged)
20/11/2011 11:35 – 19:33 & 21:29 - 23:59 Temp. Limitations(<500°C) & Power cuts (no data
logged)
21/11/2011 00:00 – 7:29 & 7:30 – 8:02 Power cuts (no data logged) & Temp.
Limitations(<500°C)
27/11/2011 13:15 – 17:39 Temp. Limitations(<500°C)
30/11/2011 7:55 – 11:37 Gas flow limitations

B.2. Revision of the monitoring plan

Since the registration of the project, no revision of the monitoring plan occurred.

B.3. Request for deviation applied to this monitoring period

For this monitoring period, no deviation is scheduled to be applied. There is no deviation of the project
activity or the monitoring plan.

B.4. Notification or request of approval of changes

Since the registration of the project, nor approval of change, neither notification of project change
occurred.

-9-
SECTION C. Description of the monitoring system

The project monitors and calculates greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions based on the validated
monitoring system (as illustrated in Figure C.1.). The list of all measurement devices according to the
monitoring plan of the registered PDD is specified in Section D.1.

The format of values in this monitoring report - including those used for emission reductions - are in
international standard format e.g. 1,000 representing one thousand and 1.0 representing one.

All monitoring parameters, as described in the PDD, are based on the approved consolidated baseline
methodology ACM0001, version 11 from 28th of May 2009.

The following additional documents support this monitoring report:

1) Project Design Document version 4.0, dated 06/09/2010;
2) Validation report dated 22/09/2010;
3) CER calculation spreadsheets, version 3.0
4) ACM0001 version 11 from 28/05/2009 (including its related, applicable tools);
5) Relevant decisions, clarifications and guidance from the CMP and the CDM Executive Board.

Figure C.1: Flow chart including measurement devices according to monitoring plan (for further technical
details see PDD, B.7.1). Electricity consumption is not considered in this flow chart.

The calibration procedures are attested according to the requirements of the manufacturers, including the
measurement equipments. The calibration procedure of the flow meter is certified by the manufacturer
and the calibration procedure of the gas quality analysers is testified by protocols of the specialized
operation personnel on site.

Figure C.2: Drawing of the flare HOFGAS®- Ready 3000 CDM

- 10 -
Data processing and archiving

The whole data processing is based on

the MemoGraph (manufacturer: Endress + Hauser). This system has been supplied by the manufacturer
of the flare facility and primarily used during the whole monitoring period as basis for the quality
control, data analysis and the calculation of emission reductions.

MemoGraph (Endress + Hauser)

The logging system is based on a continuous storage device. All data are stored on an internal smart card.
On a periodical basis (defined in an Operation, Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule (OM&M
Schedule)) the site engineers download the stored data via an interface onto a local PC and furthermore,
all data is stored on a Central data server.

Figure C.3: Data processing and archiving MemoGraph

All relevant parameters (as shown in Figure C.1.) are connected to the data logging system called
“MemoGraph” which permanently receives binary codes from the measurement equipment. The data in
the form of binary codes are stored on a smart card. Due to the size of the smart card, the accumulated
data are stored for approximately three months.

The MemoGraph visualizes the logged values directly on site where the operating personnel can check
the quality of the logged data. Through weekly downloads of the collected logged data from the smart
card, all data are then transferred and stored electronically on the local PC as well as distributed to the
Central data server. The reports (e.g. visit, calibration, maintenance, etc.) prepared manually are scanned
and uploaded onto the Central data server on a weekly basis.

The original handwritten forms are kept on site locally. Only a restricted group of users (Senior
Management of Green Gas, Plant Manager and personnel responsible for the CDM Monitoring) have the
permission to access the data (raw data, documentation as calibration reports, visit reports, etc.). All data
are stored in specific folders on the Central data server. To ensure data security, all data which are stored
on the Central data server are encrypted.

The CDM Monitoring personnel analyses and cross-checks all collected data with the collected and
uploaded reports which are stored by the Plant Manager on the Central data server. The collected raw
data are then used to precede with the calculation of achieved emission reductions. The calculations and

- 11 -
the accordant raw data will be stored digitally on the data server and later on submitted to the verifying
entity to verify and certify the achieved emission reductions.

To ensure data security on the calculation tool for calculating emission reductions, only the personnel
responsible for CDM management (Carbon Revenue Manager and Carbon Project Controller) have
access to the specific folders where the calculations and ERs spreadsheets are stored. Therefore, only the
Carbon Project Controller and for special events the Head of the Carbon Department is entitled to edit
the data spreadsheets. The responsible persons for cross-checks and approvals have got read-only access
and shall directly contact the Carbon Project Controller with comments.

The following process parameters are logged and stored in the MemoGraph at the flare facility:

Table C.1: Parameters logged on MemoGraph

Parameter Unit Location
Absolute pressure mbar Manometer at the flow meter
Landfill gas temperature °C Thermometer at the flow meter
Landfill gas flow m³/h Flow meter
Methane concentration LFG
Carbon dioxide concentration LFG Vol.-% Gas quality analyser
Oxygen concentration in LFG
Methane concentration in flue gas
Vol.-% Flue Gas analyser (after flare)
Oxygen concentration in flue gas
Combustion temperature °C Thermocouple in the flare
Flare temperature °C Thermocouple in the flare
Status of flare OK UV-eye in the flare

Figure C.4: Sample of the visualization through the MemoGraph

All data are kept for at least until the end of the crediting period plus for an additional two (2) years.

The whole data logging and data transfer procedure has been described in a document as a guideline how
to use the raw data, where to store the set of data and how to insert the raw data into the calculation tool.

- 12 -
Based on the above mentioned guideline a separate manual was prepared, which is based on the
procedure according to the data logging system MemoGraph („Data log and transfer procedure
MemoGraph‟)
Organisation

The following organisation chart shows the parties involved in the project activity and their key tasks and
responsibilities according to the monitoring plan.

Figure C.6: Organization Chart

Roles and responsibilities

Green Gas Management Services SAS (GGMS)

The responsibility for the daily operation of the site as well as all interventions (inspections, scheduled
and unscheduled maintenance of the flare facility) have to be carried out in accordance with the
Operation, Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule (hereafter referred to as “OM&M Schedule”).

As an attachment to the registered PDD (version 4.0, dated 06/09/2010), the initial OM&M Schedule
contains all required tasks to operate the flare facility accordingly and to establish a standardized
operation procedure.
In case of revision of the OM&M Schedule, the updated version will be attached to the Monitoring
Report of the upcoming monitoring periods.

External service providers and subcontractors are contracted by GGMS separately on demand. Any work
carried out on site or inside the gas utilisation facilities are supervised and finally accepted by GGMS as
responsible for the Plant Management.

The key responsibilities of the Plant Manager (GGMS) are, inter alia:
Supervision of all required internal calibration procedures as well as reference measurements;
Interface between the local operating Field Engineers and the CDM Monitoring personnel
Identification of sufficient and efficient procedure for troubleshooting in case of failure of
equipment with the support of the CDM Monitoring personnel;
Ensuring accurate documentation of interventions by the Field Engineers according to the
requirements of the CDM Monitoring personnel;
Coordinating the yearly audit and training; respectively additional trainings (if required);

- 13 -
 Collecting and integrating utility (e.g. electricity consumption) data from external service
providers;
Provide the CDM Monitoring personnel with all related documents and/or additional
justifications as basis for the Monitoring Report;
Internal revision and approval of the periodical Monitoring Report before submission;

The key responsibilities of the Field Engineer (GGMS) are, inter alia:
At each site visit a report is prepared and stored on site; at least once a week the visit reports are
stored digitally in a company specific database;
Proceeding with scheduled and unscheduled interventions (e.g. inspection and maintenance
reports on a weekly, monthly, half-yearly or yearly routine) according to the Operation,
Monitoring and & Maintenance Schedule (OM&M);
In case of malfunction or failure of any equipment proceeding as per the troubleshooting
procedures and documenting all activities in the accordant documents;
Documentation of all interventions (scheduled, unscheduled maintenance or troubleshooting);
Internal calibration of measurement equipment is done according to QA/QC procedures and
manufacturers recommendations. In cases where GGMS requires support, the manufacturer of
the flare facility will proceed with the calibrations on site;
Proceeding with reference measurements to check the accuracy of the measurement equipment
and storing all reference measurement certifications (on paper and digitally);
Downloading and archiving the raw data electronically and also entering it into the Central data
server that is set for the analysis of the collected data;
The internal calibration reports are documented and available on site during the on-site visit
(internal audit or during the on-site visit of the verification).

The CDM Monitoring is carried out by the Carbon Project Controller who is responsible for supervising
the quality assurance and the quality control procedures and cross-checking all raw data downloaded
through the Central data server; respectively the internal database.
The Carbon Project Controller is furthermore responsible for analysing the received data, informing the
Plant Manager (GGMS) on relevant updated regulations and guidelines and ensures that the Monitoring
Report is prepared according to all relevant CDM requirements.

The key responsibilities of the Carbon Project Controller are, inter alia:
Ensuring that the calibrations and/or reference measurements of measurement equipments are
dealt with according to QA/QC procedures (listed in PDD under section B.7.1) and to
manufacturers` recommendations, if necessary, respectively whenever it is required;
Preparation of site related reports according to any special events;
Monthly and yearly reports for the Project Participants;
Cross-checking the reference measurements and the accordant accuracy level of the measurement
equipment;
Cross-checking the scheduled and unscheduled inspection and maintenance reports with the raw
data (if applicable);
Ensuring that the internal calibration reports are available for cross-checks;
Preparation of weekly emission reduction calculations;
Preparation of monthly emission reduction production figures as basis for the internal monthly
production reporting on the project;
Collecting all relevant documentations during the monitoring period (special events) and
attaching all external calibration certificates to the monitoring report;
Provide feedback to ensure more efficient operation.

Besides the Carbon Project Controller, the Plant Manager is responsible for the internal revision of the
Monitoring Report to ensure there are no inconsistencies in the Monitoring Report which will be

- 14 -
submitted to the verifying entity to verify and certify the achieved emission reductions. The relevant
periodical Monitoring Report has to be approved by the Plant Manager.

Trainings
During the commissioning of the flare facility between 29/03/2011 and 03/04/2011, a technician from
Hofstetter Umwelttechnik AG (manufacturer of the flare facility) has been on site and provided trainings
to the local team.

Internal audits and control measures

During the monitoring period all collected data were checked on a weekly basis to establish a continuous
internal quality management system. All operational activities which occurred during the monitoring
period were documented according to the OM&M and crosschecked with the raw data to ensure
traceability.

Emergency procedures
In case of any power outages the complete landfill gas extraction system, including booster and flare, is
out of operation as there is no emergency power supply installed. Therefore, all measurement devices are
out of operation. The project operator analyses the situation as soon as possible and solve the failure if
the problem is located internally.

In the unlikely event of emergency cases that can cause unintended emissions the following procedures
will apply:

If fire, gas leak or explosion at the landfill site has occurred the affected area should be identified and
isolated. Personnel are to abandon from the affected area and immediately to be evacuated. If actions
taken to control the emergency are insufficient, the fire department should be notified and further actions
coordinated with the fire department.

If LFG leaks are detected from collection system, piping or wells during system inspections and
monitoring tours the affected system should be determined, and the leak repaired. If it is required that the
entire system is shut, the project operator will be notified and the system will be shut off until repairs are
completed.

Troubleshooting procedure
In case of any potential failure or malfunction at the flare-booster-stations, GGMS is in charge of
handling the exceptional issues and provide the necessary service. The Plant Manager receives text
messages on mobile phone sent by the remote control system. He is responsible to arrange for visiting the
site for inspection and identification of the failure as soon as appropriate.
In order to ensure that failures can be detected in the shortest period of time possible, local technicians
visit the site at least every second day.

On the other hand, the landfill operates 24 hours a day and is opened on all days of the year as the filling
of waste is continuous. Therefore, in very extreme and urgent situations (e.g. explosion) the landfill
operator could inform the local team instantly.

Power supply failure

In case of any power outages the complete landfill gas extraction system, including booster and flare, is
out of operation as there is no emergency power supply installed. Therefore, all measurement devices
would be out of operation. Recorded data log values are secured on a separate memory card in the data

- 15 -
logging system MemoGraph as well as on hard drive of the local computer on site. GGMS will analyse
the situation as soon as possible and solve the failure if the problem is located internally. Any locally
secured data are stored in the internal company database, respectively sent to the Central data server.

Failure of gas flow meter

In the unlikely event of any malfunction of the gas flow meter, this measurement device and/or any other
related equipment will be repaired or exchanged as soon as possible.

Failure of flow corrector

In the unlikely event of any malfunction of the flow corrector, this measurement device and/or any other
related equipment will be repaired or exchanged as soon as possible.
For avoiding data losses during the time of shutdown until the replacement of the flow corrector, the
local site technicians will document the following parameters manually in a separate list which will be
attached to the visit reports:
Table C.3: Parameters for troubleshooting
Parameter Source Unit
LFGflare GEM 2000 m/s
LFGflare Flow meter Deltabar-S m³
t Thermometer °C
p Manometer mbar

This list will contain at least 4 values per hour during the site visit of the local site technicians (8:00 am
to 4:00pm (CST). Using those values, the gas flow under normal conditions will be calculated using the
following parameters:
Table C.4: Default parameters
Parameter Value Unit
t 273.15/0 K/°C
p 1,013.25 mbar

An interpolation of the flow rate will be done to cover the hours where no values were recorded. Using
the visit reports a cross-check with the accumulated values will be prove the reliability of the
interpolation. The documented values will be inserted in the tables of the raw data and highlighted to
ensure traceability. Furthermore, the events of any failure will be listed in the future monitoring reports.

SECTION D. Data and parameters

D.1. Data and parameters determined at registration and not monitored during the
monitoring period, including default values and factors
Data / Parameter: Regulatory requirements related to landfill gas projects
Data unit: --
Description: Regulatory requirements relating to landfill gas projects
Source of data used: Publicly available information of the host country‟s regulatory
requirements relating to landfill gas.
Value applied: 2.5%
Justification of the choice of Further information can be found in the registered PDD, section B.6.1.
data or description of
measurement methods and
- 16 -
procedures actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the choice of
data or description of
measurement methods and
procedures actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the choice of
data or description of
measurement methods and
procedures actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the choice of
data or description of
measurement methods and
procedures actually applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the choice of
data or description of
measurement methods and
procedures actually applied :
Any comment:
- 17 -
The information though recorded annually, is used for changes to the
adjustment factor (AF) or directly MDBL,y at renewal of the crediting
period.
GWPCH4
tCO2e/tCH4
Global Warming Potential of CH4
IPCC
21
Value of 21 is set for the first commitment period. Shall be updated
according to any future COP/MOP decisions.
Factor needed to quantify the amount of landfill gas flared (MDflared).
DCH4
tCH4/m CH4
Methane Density
ACM0001 version 11, adopted at EB 47, “Consolidated baseline and
monitoring methodology for landfill gas project activities”, page 14
0.0007168
At standard temperature and pressure (0 degree Celsius and 1,013.25
mbar), the density of methane is 0.0007168 t/m3
AF
%
Adjustment factor to the baseline
Estimated if there is a contractual or regulations requirement
2.5
Registered PDD, Annex-3
EFgrid,y
tCO2e/MWh
Emission factor for the electricity consumed from the grid during the
project activity
Resolución 180740 DE 2007 (22 May) Ministerio de Minas y Energía
0.4308 tCO2/MWh
There is no captive power plant installed at the site and no on-site
captive power plant exists. Therefore, the electricity is purchased from
the grid only.
A single, fixed value is used for each crediting period.
Data / Parameter: TDLy
Data unit: -
Description: Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing
electricity from the grid.
Source of data: “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from
electricity consumptions” (EB39; Annex 7)
Value applied: 20 %
Justification of the choice of There is no captive power plant installed at the site and no on-site
data or description of captive power plant exists. Therefore the electricity is purchased from
measurement methods and the grid only. As such, the default value of Scenario A is applied.
procedures actually applied :
Any comment: Project electricity consumption is mainly due to the electricity
consumption by the LFG blower.

D.2. Data and parameters monitored

Data / Parameter: LFGtotal,y
Data unit: m3
Description: Total amount of gas captured at Normal Temperature and Pressure
Measured /Calculated Measured by the flow meter placed directly on the installation.
/Default:
Source of data: Flow meter
Value(s) of monitored 6,585,242 Nm³
parameter:
Indicate what the data are Baseline emissions.
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type, Please see below under LFGflare
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/ Measuring: continuously
Recording frequency: Reading/ Recording: minutely
Calculation method (if The amount of captured landfill gas is measured on a minute basis and
applicable): converted into standardized cubic meters (Nm³) using the standardized
conditions (1,013.25 mbar; 273.15 K).
The amount of landfill gas is used for the ex-post calculation to
calculate emission reductions.
QA/QC procedures applied: The flow meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing
regime to ensure accuracy. The flow meter will be calibrated
according to manufacturer`s specifications.

Data / Parameter: LFGflare = FVRG,h

Data unit: m3
Description: Total amount of gas captured at Normal Temperature and Pressure
Measured /Calculated Measured by the flow meter placed directly on the installation.
/Default:
Source of data: Flow meter
Value(s) of monitored 6,585,242 Nm³
parameter:
Indicate what the data are Baseline emissions.

- 18 -
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
Recording frequency:
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Measured /Calculated
/Default:
Source of data:
Value(s) of monitored
parameter:
Indicate what the data are
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
Recording frequency:
- 19 -
Flow meter:
Type: WINFLOW 2. 75 Deltabar S S/N: DB06920109D
Calibration frequency: 5 years (if no damage identified before)
Last calibration: 01/12/2010
Next calibration: 30/11/2015
Flow converter:
Type: RMC621 S/N: DB002604234
Accuracy: +/- 0.233 %
Calibration frequency: 5 years (if no damage identified before)
Last calibration: 22/11/2010
Next calibration: 21/11/2015
Measuring: continuously
Reading/ Recording: minutely
The amount of captured landfill gas is measured on a minute basis and
converted into standardized cubic meters (Nm³) using the standardized
conditions (1,013.25 mbar; 273.15 K).
The amount of landfill gas is used for the ex-post calculation to
calculate emission reductions.
The flow meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing
regime to ensure accuracy. The flow meter will be calibrated
according to manufacturer`s specifications.
wCH4,y = fvCH4,h
m3CH4/ m3LFG
Methane fraction in the landfill gas
Measured
Gas quality analyser
Average of methane in the LFG is
39.22 Vol.-% (m³CH4/m³LFG)
Baseline emissions
Type: NGA5-CH4-CO2-O2
S/N: GAE CH4: A1587
GAE CO2: A1526
GAE O2: A1580
Accuracy: CH4: +/- 2%
CO2: +/- 2%
O2: +/- 10%
Calibration frequency: every 14 days
Last calibration: 29/12/2011
Next calibration: 12/01/2012
Measuring: continuously
Reading/ Recording: minutely
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Measured /Calculated
/Default:
Source of data:
Value(s) of monitored
parameter:
Indicate what the data are
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
Recording frequency:
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Measured /Calculated
/Default:
Source of data:
Value(s) of monitored
parameter:
Indicate what the data are
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
- 20 -
As per the PDD, the gas analyser will be subject to a regular
maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. The gas quality
analyser will be calibrated according manufacturers specifications.
The measuring cells will be calibrated every 14 days.
T
°C
Temperature of the landfill gas
Measured
Thermometer
Baseline emissions
Type: TR10-BBD1BHSCC300A / TPR100-BXX2C30A0
S/N: DB077D14152 / DB1A4D14180
Accuracy: +/- 0.1%
Calibration frequency: yearly
First Calibration: 01/12/2010
Last calibration: 30/11/2011Next calibration: 29/11/2012
Measuring: continuously
Reading/ Recording: minutely
As per the PDD, The thermometer will be subject to a regular
maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.
P
Pa
Pressure of the landfill gas.
Measured
Manometer
Baseline emissions
Type: PMC51-BA21JA2KGBGMJA+AAF1Z1
S/N: DC000F01128
Accuracy: +/- 0.15%
Calibration frequency: yearly
First Calibration: 02/12/2010
Last calibration: 30/11/2011
Next calibration: 29/11/2012
Measuring: continuously
Recording frequency:
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Measured /Calculated
/Default:
Source of data:
Value(s) of monitored
parameter:
Indicate what the data are
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
Recording frequency:
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Measured /Calculated
/Default:
Source of data:
Value(s) of monitored
parameter:
Indicate what the data are
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
- 21 -
Reading/ Recording: minutely
As per the PDD, The manometer will be subject to a regular
maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.
PEflare,y
tCO2e
Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in year y
Calculated
Calculated from the listed parameters LFGflare,y, wCH4,y, fvi,h,
fvCH4,FG,h and tO2,h.
3.96 tCO2e
Baseline emissions
-
Measuring: continuously
Reading/ Recording: minutely
Calculated as per the “Tool to determine project emissions from
flaring gases containing methane” (EB 28; Annex 13).
Regular maintenance will ensure optimal operation of the flare.
Analysers will be calibrated according to manufacturer‟s
recommendations.
fvCH4,FG,h
mg/m3
Concentration of methane in the exhaust gas of the flare in dry basis at
normal conditions in hour
Measured
Gas analyser
Baseline emissions
Type: NGA1-CH4-O2
S/N: 1212002807954
Accuracy: CH4: ≤ 1%
O2: ≤ 1%
Calibration frequency: every 14 days
Last calibration: 29/12/2011
Next calibration: 12/01/2012
Measuring: continuously
Recording frequency:
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Measured /Calculated
/Default:
Source of data:
Value(s) of monitored
parameter:
Indicate what the data are
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
Recording frequency:
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Measured /Calculated
/Default:
Source of data:
Value(s) of monitored
parameter:
Indicate what the data are
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
- 22 -
Reading/ Recording: minutely
The fraction of methane in the flue gas (exhaust gas) is calculated
under mass flow rate of the flue gas in the hour (TMFG,h) as per the
“Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gasses containing
methane” (EB 28; Annex 13).
As per the PDD, the gas analyser will be subject to a regular
maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. The gas analyser
will be calibrated according to manufacturer‟s specification who
recommends a calibration cycle of 14 days.
tO2,h
m3 O2/m3 flue gas
Fraction of O2 in the exhausted gas of the flare in hour.
Measured
Gas analyser and recorded as detailed under section C.
Baseline emissions
Type: NGA1-CH4-O2
S/N: 1212002807954
Accuracy: CH4: ≤ 1%
O2: ≤ 1%
Calibration frequency: every 14 days
Last calibration: 29/12/2011
Next calibration: 12/01/2012
Measuring: continuously
Reading/ Recording: minutely
The fraction of oxygen in the flue gas (exhaust gas) is calculated under
mass flow rate of the flue gas in the hour (TMFG,h) as per the “Tool to
determine project emissions from flaring gasses containing methane”
(EB 28; Annex 13).
As per the PDD, the gas analyser will be subject to a regular
maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. The gas analyser
will be calibrated according to manufacturer‟s specification who
recommends a calibration cycle of 14 days.
Tflare
°C
Temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare
Measured
Thermocouple
Baseline emissions
Type: N KER 710
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
Recording frequency:
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Measured /Calculated
/Default:
Source of data:
Value(s) of monitored
parameter:
Indicate what the data are
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
Recording frequency:
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Measured /Calculated
/Default:
- 23 -
S/N: 12182 (Hofstetter)
Accuracy: +/- 1% of the maximum value
Calibration frequency: yearly calibration or replacement
Installation date: 01/04/2011
Next calibration/replacement: 31/03/2012
Validity : 1 year
Measuring: continuously
Reading/ Recording: minutely
The temperature of the flare is measured in order to calculate baseline
emissions if the temperature in the flare is above 500°C. The
requirement is as per the “Tool to determine project emissions from
flaring gasses containing methane (EB 28; Annex 13)
As per the PDD, the thermocouple will be subject to a regular
maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. The thermocouple
will be calibrated according manufacturers specifications (EN
Standard). According to the “Tool to determine project emissions from
flaring gases containing methane” the thermocouple will be calibrated
or replaced every year.
PEEC
tCO2e
Project emissions from electricity consumption by the project activity
during the year y
Calculated
Power meter
49
Project emissions
Measuring: continuously with electricity meter
The Project emissions from electricity consumption are calculated as
per the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions
from electricity consumption” (EB39; Annex 7).
The consumed electricity invoiced by the local utility provider will be
taken into consideration as the electricity consumed by the project
activity.
-
ECPJ
MWh
On-Site consumption of electricity provided by the grid.
On-site measurement
Source of data:
Value(s) of monitored
parameter:
Indicate what the data are
used for (Baseline/ Project/
Leakage emission
calculations)
Monitoring equipment (type,
accuracy class, serial
number, calibration
frequency, date of last
calibration, validity)
Measuring/ Reading/
Recording frequency:
Calculation method (if
applicable):
QA/QC procedures applied:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the choice of
data or description of
measurement methods and
procedures actually applied :
Any comment:
- 24 -
Power meter
93.71
Project emissions
Type: Type: EMU 32.x4 5(6)A
Serial Number: 0007066
Accuracy class: +/-1%
Last calibration: 22/11/2010
Next Calibration/replacement: 21/11/2017
Measuring: continuously with electricity meter, aggregated monthly
The Project emissions from electricity consumption are calculated as
per the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions
from electricity consumption” (EB39; Annex 7).
The consumed electricity invoiced by the local utility provider will be
taken into consideration as the electricity consumed by the project
activity.
The power meter will be calibrated according manufacturers
specifications. However, no calibration is recommended by the
manufacturer taking into consideration that the product is able to store
data for at least 30 years. Therefore, Operator decided on replace the
power meter after 7 years of operation.
Furthermore, cross check with invoices for purchased electricity if
relevant.
TDLy
Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing
electricity from the grid.
“Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from
electricity consumptions” (EB39; Annex 7)
A default value 20 %
There is no captive power plant installed at the site and no on-site
captive power plant exists. Therefore the electricity is purchased from
the grid only. As such, the default value of Scenario A is applied.
Project electricity consumption is mainly due to the electricity
consumption by the LFG blower.
SECTION E. Emission reductions calculation

E.1. Baseline emissions calculation

BEy= (MDproject,,y - MDBL,y) *GWPCH4 + ELLFG,y * CEFelec,BL,y + ETLFG,y * CEFther,BL,y (1)

Where:

BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e)

MDproject,y = The amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the
year, in tonnes of methane (tCH4) in project scenario
MDBL,y = The amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted
during the year in the absence of the project due to regulatory and/or
contractual requirement, in tonnes of methane (tCH4)
GWPCH4 = Global Warming Potential value for methane for the first commitment period is
21 tCO2e/tCH4
ELLFG,y = Net quantity of electricity produced using LFG, which in the absence of the
project activity would have been produced by power plants connected to the grid
or by an on-site/off-site fossil fuel based captive power generation, during year y,
in Megawatt hours (MWh)
CEFelec,BL,y = CO2 emissions intensity of the baseline source of electricity displaced, in
tCO2e/MWh This is estimated as per equation (9) below
ETLFG,y = The quantity of thermal energy produced utilizing the landfill gas, which in the
absence of the project activity would have been produced from onsite/offsite
fossil fuel fired boiler/air heater, during the year y in TJ
CEFther,BL,y = CO2 emissions intensity of the fuel used by boiler/air heater to generate thermal
energy which is displaced by LFG based thermal energy generation, in tCO2e/TJ.
This is estimated as per equation (10) below

Since the proposed project activity is a simple landfill gas flaring project and does not include electricity
or thermal energy generation, the baseline emissions are calculated with the following simplified formula:

BEy= (MDproject,,y - MDBL,y) * GWPCH4

Where:
BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e)
MDproject,y = The amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the
year, in tonnes of methane (tCH4) in project scenario
MDBL,y = The amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted
during the year in the absence of the project due to regulatory and/or
contractual requirement, in tonnes of methane (tCH4)
GWPCH4 = Global Warming Potential value for methane for the first commitment period is
21 tCO2e/tCH4

1. Methane destroyed by the project activity (MDproject,y):

MDproject,y will be determined ex post by metering the actual quantity of methane captured and destroyed
once the project activity is operational. The methane destroyed by the project activity (MDproject,y) during
a year is determined by monitoring the methane actually flared.

a) Ex post:

MDproject,y = MDflared,y + MDelectricity,y + MDthermal,y + MDPL,y (8)

26
As the proposed project activity is a simple gas flaring project and the LFG is only fed to the flare,
MDproject,y can be simplified as below:

MDproject,y = MDflared,y

Where:
MDproject,y = The amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the
year, in tonnes of methane (tCH4) in project scenario
MDflared,y = Quantity of methane destroyed by flaring during the year (tCH4)

The quantity of methane destroyed by flaring is calculated using the following equation:

MDflared,y = (LFGflare,y * wCH4,y *DCH4) – (PEflare,y / GWPCH4) (9)

Where:
LFGflare,y = Quantity of landfill gas fed to the flare(s) during the year measured in cubic
meters (m3) 1
wCH4,y = Average methane fraction of the landfill gas as measured during the year and
expressed as a fraction (in m3 CH4/ m3 LFG)
DCH4 = Methane density expressed in tonnes of methane per cubic meter of methane
(tCH4/m3CH4)
PEflare,y = Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream during the year in one
flare (tCO2)
GWPCH4 = Global Warming Potential value for methane for the first commitment period is
21 tCO2e/tCH4

2. Methane that would have been destroyed/combusted in the absence of the project activity due to
regulatory and/or contractual requirements (MDBL,y):

For the amount of methane destroyed in the baseline scenario, the following equation is used:

MDBL,y = MDproject,y * AF (2)

Where:
MDBL,y = The amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the
year y in the absence of the project due to regulatory and/or contractual
requirements, in tonnes of methane (tCH4)
MDproject,y = The amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the
year, in tonnes of methane (tCH4) in project scenario
AF = Adjustment factor expressed as a percentage (%)

For the proposed project activity the adjustment factor (AF) was set at 2.5% (fixed ex-ante value) based
on a thorough analysis of the volume of methane. According to the description of the current situation in
section A.4.3, the baseline system for collection and destruction of methane is not yet installed prior to
project implementation.
Therefore, the following analysis has been carried out for estimating the amount of landfill gas that
would be captured and destroyed in the absence of the project activity:

1
LFGflare,y is considered to be equivalent to the variable of FVRG,h (volumetric flow rate of the residual gas) as
described in the “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane” (EB28; Annex 13).
27
 1) Calculation of methane generated by the site. The first step of the analysis calculates the methane
generated by the site as a whole, and is based on the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided
from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site”.

2) Methane destroyed in the baseline. The following step of the analysis involves calculating the
amount of methane that would likely be destroyed in the baseline scenario. This requires
understanding a series of site-specific circumstances, including:

a. Percentage of LFG vented through the passive system. The site operator has installed a
simple passive venting system in the North Section which includes altogether 24 wells, out of
which only 8 wells are already operational. According to the literature: “In controlled landfills,
vertical vent pipes are installed to allow the gas to escape to the surface and to minimize the
risks of fire and explosions. A simple system of vents may collect perhaps 10% of the gas
generated, with the remainder percolating through the landfill and eventually being released to
the atmosphere, depending on the measures used in covering and closing the landfill”2.

In order to be accurate, another perspective was examined as well: according to other industry
experts, passive venting systems are able to vent between one fifth and one fourth of the LFG
of what a properly engineered and managed system would. To be conservative, we have
assumed that the venting system in the baseline scenario is able to capture as much as one
fourth (rather than one fifth) of the LFG of what a properly designed, installed and maintained
system would.

The project developer has several times tried to take samples on the gas flow rate but it was so
low that it could not be measured. This is because at the time of sampling none of the wells
were closed and the leak of gas was high.
The project developer has estimated that in the project scenario an average of 63% of the
generated LFG could actually be captured. This suggests that approximately 15.75% (63%/4)
of the LFG generated by the site is actually channeled to the passive vents in the baseline
scenario.

In order to be conservative, we use the higher estimated 15.75% for the generated LFG that
would be vented through the passive system rather than the 10% which was based on general
literature.

b. Percentage of chimneys available for flaring. As have been stated previously, only 8 wells are
ready today to be used as chimneys. Even though altogether 24 wells are planned, they would
all be lit only after the closure of the landfill.

The construction of the wells at the El Guacal landfill site are meant to function as „escape
routes‟ for gasses that otherwise could build up pressure inside the landfill body. Even though
these wells are constructed vertically, due to compacting and pressure in the landfill body these
wells can lean away from their original vertical position, thus become no longer available for
safely lighting the passive flares on top of them. Also, there is a considerable danger of igniting
passive flares surrounded by waste as the combustion of the gas cannot be controlled,
especially, when they lean closer to the deposited waste. After considering these technical and
safety constraints, it is assumed that on average 50% of the chimneys will be available for
flaring.

c. Percentage of time the chimney was actually lit. An important consideration is the fact that
appropriate flaring equipment is not installed on the chimneys, and therefore they have to be lit
manually. Specifically, an employee would ignite the chimneys manually and many of the

2
IDEAcarbon Sector Insights - October 2007, Performance of Landfill Gas Projects, page 2, What goes on inside a
landfill
28
 chimneys are unlit for considerable periods of time. According to the plans of the landfill
owner, the available flares would be lit 2 times per week during a year.
However, even though they are lit, tropical weather conditions apply to the landfill with high
precipitation level where heavy rain falls and strong winds can easily blow out the flares.
Therefore, the conservative assumption was made that the available flares for lighting would
burn in 50% continuously.

d. Combustion efficiency of an open flame. The last factor to consider in estimating the volume
of methane actually destroyed in the baseline is the combustion efficiency of an open flame.
Taking into account that open flames tend to have a combustion efficiency of only 20-25% due
to variable gas flows and unstable flame conditions, as a conservative variable to use 30% was
selected in the analysis.

3) Methane destroyed in the project activity. The third part of the analysis involves calculating the
methane to be destroyed by the project activity, which involves the following variables:

a. Collection efficiency. The collection efficiency reflects the fraction of total LFG generated by
the site that will actually be captured by the system to be installed.
According to a report from the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States, called
U.S. Methane Emissions 1990-2020: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions
(Section 2 Landfills, page 2-7), the “gas collection efficiency is assumed to be 75 percent of
emitted methane”. Since the project needs some time to reach maturity, there are different
estimated rates of the collection efficiency for the time between 2011 and 2018 starting from
50% and increasing up until 70%. The mean value of the collection efficiency states 63% and
this value will be used to determine the efficiency of the project activity.

b. Flare efficiency. This figure reflects the flare efficiency that will be used to calculate the volume
of ERs generated. According to the “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases
containing methane”, the flare efficiency of the flare-booster-station can be determined by either
the set default value or by continuous monitoring. In the proposed project activity, the flare
efficiency will be continuously monitored, however, for being conservative, for the estimation of
emission reductions the default value of 90% combustion efficiency was applied.

4) Adjustment factor (AF). This figure is calculated by dividing the methane destruction efficiency in
the Baseline by the methane destruction efficiency in the Project. The resulting AF is 2.0833%. In
order to add another element of conservativeness to the AF, the fixed value of 2.5% have been
chosen, which is greater than the calculated 2.0833% which reflects already conservative figures.

Project emissions

1) Determination of project emissions from flaring

According to the “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane” (EB28;
Annex 13), determination of the hourly flare efficiency depends on the operation of flare (e.g.
temperature), the type of flare used (open or enclosed) and, in case of enclosed flares, the approach
selected to determine the flare efficiency (default value or continuous monitoring).

Since the project will use enclosed flare, the temperature in the exhaust gas of the flare is measured to
determine whether the flare is operating or not. The continuous monitoring of the methane destruction
efficiency of the flare has been chosen taking into account that if there is no record of the temperature of
the exhaust gas of the flare or if the recorded temperature is less than 500 °C for any particular hour, it
shall be assumed that during that hour the flare efficiency is zero.

In the proposed project activity, the flare efficiency will be continuously monitored on a minute basis.

29
 :

Where:

I. Variable II. SI Unit III. Description

PEflare,y tCO2e Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas
stream in year y
TMRG,h kg/h Mass flow rate of methane in the residual gas in the
hour h
ηflare,h - Flare efficiency in hour h
GWPCH4 tCO2e/tCH4 Global Warming Potential of methane valid for the
commitment period

Baseline and the project emission (PEflare,y ) is calculated and results are presented in section E4.

E.2. Project emissions calculation

PEy = PEEC,y + PEFC,y (16)

Where:

PEy = Project emissions in year y (tCO2/y)

PEEC,y = Emissions from consumption of electricity in the project case (tCO2/y)
PEFC,y = Emissions from consumption of heat in the project case (tCO2/y)

Since the proposed project activity is a simple landfill gas flaring project and does not include heat
consumption, the project emissions are calculated with the following simplified formula:

PEy = PEEC,y

Where:
PEy = Project emissions in year y (tCO2/y)
PEEC,y = Emissions from consumption of electricity in the project case (tCO2/y)

For this project there will be no use of thermal energy. Furthermore, no back-up fossil fuel generator will
be associated with this project. Therefore, the project emissions will be equal to the project emissions
from electricity consumption which will be calculated according to equation (1) of the “Tool to calculate
baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption” (EB39; Annex 7), justified by
Scenario A: electricity consumption from the grid:

PEEC,y = ECPJ,y * EFgrid,y * (1+TDLy)

Where:
PEEC,y = Project emissions from electricity consumption by the project activity during the
year, (tCO2/y)
30
ECPJ,y = Quantity of electricity consumed by the project activity during the year y (MWh)
EFgrid,y = Emission factor for the grid in year (tCO2/MWh)
TDLy = Average technical transmission and distribution losses in the grid in year y for
the voltage level at which electricity is obtained from the grid at the project site

According to Scenario A of the tool, the official emission factor of the electricity system is used with a
value of 0.4308 tCO2e/MWh (value set by the Ministry of Energy and Mining published on 22/05/2007).

According to the webpage www.nationmaster.com (a database for statistics done by the Australian
company Rapid Intelligence), the electric power transmission and distribution losses for Colombia
(position 23 in the list) were calculated in 2004 with 19.32% 3 grid losses. However, since the data is not
recent and its accuracy and reliability cannot be confirmed, in order to be conservative, the default value
for TDLy was applied (20%) about grid-related transmission and distribution losses for Colombia. At the
time of PDD submission no up-to-date data was available.

E.3. Leakage calculation

As per baseline methodology ACM0001 version 11, no leakage is taken into consideration.

3
Please see: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/ene_ele_pow_tra_and_dis_los_of_out-power-transmission-
distribution-losses-output&b_map=1,
31
E.4. Emission reductions calculation / table

Table E.4.1. Summary Spreadsheet of Emission Reduction calculation – El Guacal (01/04/2011 to 31/12/2011)
Parameter LFGflared,y wCH4,y Fraction in flue gas ηflare,y PEflare,y BE ECPJ,y PE ERy
Unit [Nm³] Vol-% CH4 Vol.- O2 Vol.- % [tCO2e] [tCO2e] [MWh} [tCO2e] [tCO2e]
[m³CH4 / % %
m³LFG]
Data type Measured Mean value Mean value Mean Mean Calculated Calculated Reading Calculated Result
value value
April 2011 599,793 35.85 0.04 11.39 74.27 0.28 2,797 5.14 3 2,794
May 2011 551,583 36.57 0.00 9.67 79.91 0.32 3,060 9.26 5 3,055
June 2011 467,699 33.96 0.00 9.34 63.98 0.25 2,410 7.09 4 2,406
July 2011 637,696 37.44 0.00 8.79 83.78 0.39 3,728 9.28 5 3,723
August 2011 648,053 40.92 0.00 11.06 91.92 0.40 3,855 8.24 4 3,851
September 2011 747,548 41.39 0.00 11.82 95.90 0.47 4,545 9.21 5 4,540
October 2011 1,063,885 41.86 0.00 10.17 99.47 0.67 6,524 15.31 8 6,516
November 2011 898,785 43.69 0.00 10.35 92.27 0.59 5687 15.37 8 5679
December 2011 970,200 41.39 0.00 10.08 99.86 0.60 5879 14.81 8 5872

TOTAL 4,685,517 39.22 0.00 10.30 86.82 3.96 38,488 93.71 49 38,439

Please note:
1) Mean values are merely for illustrative purposes, actual CER calculations are calculated on a minutely basis.
2) Total of Project Emissions (PE) was rounded up and Emission Reductions (ER) was rounded down to meet the conservative approach
3) Flare efficiency is shown as mean value and include also the moments where flare temperature was below 500°C and therefore, the efficiency set to 0%.

32
E.5. Comparison of actual emission reductions with estimates in the CDM-PDD

This section includes a comparison of actual values of the emission reductions achieved during the
monitoring period with the estimations in the registered CDM-PDD.

Table E.5.1: Comparison ex-ante estimation vs. ex-post calculation (01/04/2011 to 31/12/2011)
Values applied in ex-ante Actual values reached
Item calculation of the during the monitoring
registered CDM-PDD period
Emission reductions (tCO2e) 61,777 38,439

E.6. Remarks on difference from estimated value in the PDD

No increase in the actual emission reductions achieved during the current monitoring period occurred.
An explanation for the decrease in emission reductions has been given in section B.1.

33
 History of the document

Version Date Nature of revision

01 EB 54, Annex 34 Initial adoption.

28 May 2010

Decision Class: Regulatory

Document Type: Guideline, Form
Business Function: Issuance

34