clean development mechanism - project design document (cdm ... · project design document (cdm pdd)...

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (CDM PDD) CDM – Executive Board Template Version 02/ July 1st, 2004 November 30th 2005

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM - PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT

(CDM-PDD)

CONTENTS A. General description of project activity B. Application of a baseline methodology C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources F. Environmental impacts G. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information Annex 4: Monitoring plan Annex 5 References



SECTION A. General description of project activity A.1 Title of the project activity: Zámbiza Landfill Gas Project A.2. Description of the project activity: The Zámbiza dumpsite is located in a suburban region northeast of Quito. Since 1979 in total approximately 5 million tons of municipal waste basically generated from the households of Quito were deposited at this site. The organic fraction of the waste accounts for more than 60 % of the total quantity. Between 1995 and 2002 the annual load of waste amounted to 320.000 to 360.000 tons. The area of the Zámbiza dumpsite covers more than 20 hectares. Partially in the dumpsite body water up to a level of 8 to 10 meters below the surface were identified by test wells installed for gas pumping trials in the western part of the dumpsite. The dumpsite was closed by the end of 2002 remaining no installations for environmental protection behind, such as methane capture, leakage control, or whatsoever. The objective of the project is to install a highly efficient landfill gas collection system to capture and destroy methane by flaring at high temperatures. Without the project the methane would emit uncontrolled in the atmosphere. The installation of the project consists of a well based gas collection system with a combustion unit attached behind in order to flare the captured methane under controlled burning conditions. Optionally if a private or commercial power purchaser could be identified in the future a Landfill Gas To Energy (LFGTE) module might be attached within a second construction stage. Though at present this scenario is considered to be unlikely it should be regarded as potential option within the baseline evaluation. Within both periods project installation and project operation a dewatering concept is going to be maintained in order to avoid uncontrolled movements of the waste body and hence secure the local infrastructure. The project strongly contributes to a sustainable development both within the local area as well as within the development of technical standards in Ecuador. Locally the project will have its strongest impacts in social and environmental benefits. The release of landfill gas could directly influence the health of the affected inhabitants negatively and additionally leads to the risk of explosions in the surroundings. Furthermore emissions of other harmful gases, such as H2S, mercaptenes and odorous compounds are going to be reduced. The project will have a small but positive impact on employment in the local area as staff will be needed to maintain the operation of the project. Beside the significant reduction of greenhouse gases, the directly affected neighbourhoods will be a more liveable place. The proposed project activity will enable the plan of the Municipality of Quito to convert parts of the dumpsite area into a recreation park for the people of Quito. Focusing on the Host Country, the project contributes the sustainable development of Ecuador especially by increasing the employment opportunities in the area due to direct or indirect effects of the project realisation, and by establishing efficient technical standards for waste



management systems. In Ecuador the proposed project faces a number of market barriers of which the economic unattractiveness, lack of technical know-how, lack of availability of equipment is the most important. The implementation of this project will assist Ecuador in demonstrating the practice of landfill gas recovery. Important elements are: • Demonstrating the practice of landfill gas recovery in Ecuador; • Demonstrating how trading in emission reductions via the Kyoto mechanisms could assist in

making the practice of landfill gas recovery economically viable; • Transferring the necessary technology and know-how to Ecuador, including:

o making available the required equipment for the dumpsite de-gasification (at this moment there are no providers of landfill gas recovery equipment in Ecuador);

o building of local know-how about the technology of LFG extraction through the involvement of ecuadorian partners in the project;

o establish technical fundamentals allowing potential follow-up investments such as the generation of electrical power out of landfill gas.

The Zámbiza Project brings capital from foreign sources into the country. It is also envisaged that the project will create a better environment for other future investments of similar nature. A.3. Project participants: Party Function Consideration as Project

Participant

ECUADOR (Host Country) Alqimiatec S.A. Quito ECUADOR

no

A.4. Technical description of the project activity: A.4.1. Location of the project activity: A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): Ecuador (Host Country) A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: Province of Pichincha A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:



Quito, State Capital A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page): The Zámbiza dumpsite is located northeast of the city, close to the airport. It is situated in a canyon between the sectors of Monteserrin and Buenos Aires, both highly populated urban living areas. The altitude is approximately 2.700 meters above sea level.

A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity: According to the classification of the CDM Executive Board the project activity is categorised as waste handling and disposal (sectoral scope 13), where the emission baseline is the amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere during the crediting period in the absence of the project activity. The baseline covers capture and flaring of methane that would not have happened without the project activity.



A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity: The technology proposed for the extraction and utilisation of landfill gas can be regarded as standard technology. It is the most up-to-date technology, fully in compliance with EU-legislation. G.A.S. Energietechnologie GmbH as announced equipment supplier has applied the technology with more than 500 installations on landfill sites in Europe and elsewhere. The envisaged investment comprises the following hardware: • Gas collection network, comprising permeable pipes, gas domes; • High temperature gas flares; • Landfill gas monitoring and control equipment; • Civil works; • Potentially: LFGTE with gas engines and generators. The gas collection system includes a grid of approximately 50 vertical gas extraction wells with approximately 900 m of PEHD filter pipes with a diameter of 250 mm. The wells reaches depths of up to 30 m. Each well has a diameter of 60 – 80 cm were the PEHD pipe is centrally located. The pipes are surrounded by a gravel bed. The gas extraction plant is equipped with blowers that create a suction pressure in the system necessary for extraction of the landfill gas. Landfill gas will be flared in a ‘low emission’ with high temperature flare (1.000 - 1.200°C, retention time > 0,3 s). The projected plant is operated by an electrical control system equipped with a monitoring system for methane, oxygen, flow, pressure and temperature. The wells are bundled in a pumping and compressor unit were control and measurement units are installed. The control activities for this system consist of periodic adjusting of the gas wells by means of measuring equipment. The maintenance consists of the control of subsiding and/ or distortion of the gas wells and the pipeline system. In the event a power generation should be is realised within a second project stage most likely a LFGTE equipment with two gas engines would be installed allowing an electricity delivery of approximately 2,0 MW net based on actual gas quality and quantity as well altitude conditions.. At the same time a dewatering concept is going to be installed and maintained during project operation in order to avoid uncontrolled movements of the dumpsite body and hence secure the local infrastructure. The dewatering is realised by using determined gas wells for simultaneous water pumping purposes from the bottom. Though using hardware installations of the project the dewatering concept itself is not part of the project activity. A separate report describing the dewatering approach more detailed is available upon request.



A.4.4. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHGs) by sources are to be reduced by the proposed CDM project activity, including why the emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed project activity, taking into account national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances: The proposed project involves the collection and combustion of landfill gas that is currently released into the atmosphere and the subsequent conversion of the captured methane content into carbon dioxide reducing its greenhouse gas effect significantly. Potentially the generation and supply of electricity to a purchaser would additionally displace a certain amount of fossil fuels used for electricity generation. In Ecuador, common practice is not to collect and flare landfill gas. However very few cities such us Quito (El Inca), Guayaquil (Las Iguanas), Cuenca and Ambato are passively venting and partially flaring the gas in order to avoid explosions and fires on-site. These cities are operating new landfills whereas Zámbiza could be considered as old dumpsite already closed since 2002. In general the Ecuadorian legislation does not require a specific amount of gas flaring neither at landfills nor at dumpsites. According to the national environmental legislation TULAS (Texto Unificado de la Legislación Ambiental Secundaria, March 31st, 2003) passive venting of landfill sites for safety purposes, i.e. to avoid fires and explosions, is contemplated for both new and operational landfill sites and thus not applicable on the Zámbiza dumpsite which was out of operation by the time TULAS became effective. The legislation to be considered formally applicable for the Zámbiza dumpsite is the Registro Oficial – AÑO IV – 3/8 1992 – Numero 991 (1992-1999), prepared by the Ministry of Welfare (Salud). The Registro Oficial declares among others that dump sites have to be fenced (Chapter VI, art. 74) but no indication about ventilation or flaring is given. However commercial landfill gas extraction projects have not been implemented to date because they are not economically attractive. The baseline for the Zámbiza project could be identified as the scenario of “continuation of the current situation”. Hence without the project there will be no reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at the Zámbiza dumpsite. A.4.4.1. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: The estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting life time of 10 years (mid-2006 – mid-2016) accrues in total to 839.662 tons CO2e or rather 941.597 tons CO2e if an electricity generation takes place (table A.4.4.1.-1a and -1b below, for data derivation refer to chapter E.4.).



Table A.4.4.1.-1a Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period (combustion only)

Year Estimation of annual emission reductions in tonnes CO2e

III+IV 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

I+II 2016

53.339 101.475

96.526 91.818 87.340 83.081 79.029 75.174 71.508 68.021 32.352

Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 e)

839.662

Annual average over the crediting period ofestimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 e)

83.966

Table A.4.4.1.-1b Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period (including electricity generation as of 2007)

Year Estimation of annual emission reductions in tonnes CO2e

III+IV 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

I+II 2016

53.339 111.697 106.748 102.041

97.563 93.303 89.251 85.397 81.731 78.243 42.285

Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 e)

941.597

Annual average over the crediting period ofestimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 e)

94.160



A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity: There is no public funding involved within the capitalisation of the project. The project is financed with private capital. SECTION B. Application of a baseline methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline methodology applied to the project activity: The approved consolidated baseline ACM0001, (“consolidated baseline methodology for landfill gas project activities”) in effect as of September 3rd, 2004 has been applied to this project. B.1.1. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity: The ACM0001 is applicable where the baseline is either partial or total atmospheric release of the gas and the project activity either flares or utilises the captured gas. The Zámbiza Project covers the applicability in subsection a): “The captured gas is flared”. In the event a power purchaser should be identified in the future and a LFGTE equipment might be attached within a second construction stage, the project will cover the applicability of subsection c): “The captured gas is used to produce energy, and emission reductions are claimed for displacing or avoiding energy generation from other sources”. In this event for determenation of the emission reductions due to electricity generation the approach AMS ID “renewable electricity generation for the grid” will be eligible. Hence the project meets the applicability requirements outlined under the umbrella of ACM0001. The approach of the chosen baseline methodology is in accordance with paragraph 48 (b) of the CDM modalities and procedures “emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course of action, taking into account barriers to investment”. As the project involves an investment that without revenues of the sale of CERs would not have any financial return or insufficient return in the event a power purchaser could be identified in the future, respectively this approach is appropriate for the project, and at the same time consistent with ACM0001.



B.2. Description of how the methodology is applied in the context of the project activity: Referring to ACM0001, the equation to determine the emission reductions without further consideration of the thermal energy could be expressed as ERy = (MDproject,y – MDreg,y) GWPCH4 + EGy CEFelectricity,y where ERy is the greenhouse gas emission reduction achieved by the project activity during a given year “y”. ERy is calculated as the difference between the amount of methane actually destroyed/combusted during the year (MDproject,y) and the amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the year in the absence of the project activity (MDreg,y), times the approved Global Warming Potential value for methane (GWPCH4), plus, in the event a LFGTE equipment should be established later in the future, the net quantity of electricity displaced during the year (EGy) multiplied by the CO2 emissions intensity of the electricity displaced (CEFelectricity,y). Due to both common practice and the legal framework in the future no treatment of landfill gas is expected for the Zámbiza dumpsite. Furthermore, contractual requirements to technically decrease the methane potential associated with the Zámbiza dumpsite are not existent. Hence in the first time being, MDreg,y could be equated with zero. However, as stipulated in the monitoring plan, laws and regulations in regards to landfill gas extraction/ combustion will be monitored yearly and if there are changes that would affect landfill gas treatment an adjustment factor AF will be incorporated to determine MDreg,y, where MDreg,y = MDproject,y AF Hence the formula simplifies to ERy = MDproject,y GWPCH4+ EGy CEFelectricity,y ERy is measured in tonnes of CO2 equivalents (t CO2e). MDproject,y is measured in tonnes of methane (t CH4). The approved Global Warming Potential value for methane (GWPCH4) for the first commitment period is 21 t CO2e/ t CH4. In the event of electricity generation within a second potential constraction stage, EGy is measured in kWh and CEFelectricity,y is determined according to AMS ID, 7 (b) through “the weighted average emissions of the current generation mix”. Ex ante calculation of futural greenhouse gas emissions will be estimated by the application of a First Order Decay (FOD) model as well as the evaluation of on-site pump tests which have been carried out since May 2005. The destroyed methane emissions associated with the project activity (MDproject,y) will the be determined ex post by monitoring the actual quantity of methane captured and flared and, if applicable electricity generated and replaced. The project boundary is the site of the project activity where the gas is captured and destroyed. According to ACM0001 no leakage effects need to be accounted. The additionality will be proven according to the “tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” dated October 22nd, 2004.



B.3. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity: The additionality is proven according to the “tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” dated on October 22nd, 2004: Step 0. Preliminary screening based on the starting date of the project activity Since CER revenues are the only income stream, the realisation of the project would not be due before registration by the CDM Executive Board. In any case, from the beginning of the project development, CER revenues have been considered as the main factor for the project capitalisation. Step 1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws

and regulations Sub-step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity There is no economically attractive course of action that involves recovery of the landfill gas. The situation without the project implies a full atmospheric release. Below, a probability estimation of different scenarios that could occur without the Zámbiza Project proves the assumption (Table B.3./1): Table B.3.-1 Probability estimations of different baseline scenarios Potential baseline scenarios without the generation and sale of CERs

Probablity

1. Continuation of the current situation: landfill gas recovery does not take place

most probable: currently the technical, organisational, legal, economical and financial conditions for landfill gas recovery are not available in Ecuador

2. Project activity (flaring only) without the generation and sale of CERs

not probable: the sale of CERs would be the only income stream of the project. Hence the project is not going to be capitalised without CER revenues.

3. Investment in a landfill gas collection equipment combined with power generation and grid connection, to supply power to the ecuadorian grid

not probable: within the Ecuadorian Electricity Law and its corresponding Regulation a preferential treatment of non-conventional energy production is established (Electricity Law: chapter 9, Art 63 to 65; Regulation: chapter 18, Art 91 to 92 as well as Price Resolution Conelec-008/00 and 003-05).



However in reality the implementation of such preferential feed-in tariff into a renewable energy project practically is not passable. Since the creation of the electricity wholesale market (Mercado Electrico Mayorista MEM) the large consumers registered in the MEM have been defaulting their payments to the generators on a constant basis. This is mainly caused by the majority of the energy distribution utilities which are operating their networks with high losses and additionally in an inefficient manner. In general terms only 60% of the generated power is being reimbursed by the consumers/ utilities. In consequence most of the independent power producers also suffer losses and long delays in the the settlement of their accounts.

For these reasons most independent power producers (IPP's) have opted for closing or placing individual power purchasing agreements (PPA) with utilities relying on good track records or large consumers located in the private industrial sector, respectively.

In the case of a renewable energy producer as Zámbiza, the operational entity would be forced to issue individual invoices to 19 utilities and undertake a great effort to collect the revenues. This is neither economically justifiable nor practicable at all and therefore it is only passable to forfeit the feed-in tariff.

4. Investment in a landfill gas collection equipment combined with power generation and grid connection, to supply power to a private or a commercial power purchaser

not probable: if a private or commercial purchaser could be identified electrical power could be delivered based on a PPA to be arranged either with a local utility or a private industrial consumer located in the vicinity of the project.

The average pricing in commercial PPA's between October 2000 and December 2004 has been ranged between USD-Cent 2,69 to USD 6,18 per kWh which is not sufficient to realize the project (compare substep 2b, option II).

5. A modified amount of LFG is extracted not probable: this option is economically much less attractive than the project activity given the high necessary investment costs for recovery of any landfill gas.

6. Air or O2 injection in the dumpsite (= alternative technology)

not probable: given the absence of enabling conditions for LGF, this option is even less attractive. It is more expensive than LFG recovery and does not produce LFG, hence does not generate economic revenues from LFG collection.



7. Different use of landfill gas on-site not probable: alternative use could be, for example, upgrading to natural gas quality to be used on site. This process is extremely expensive for the landfill gas volumes produced at the dumpsite (not economically feasible).

8. Different use of landfill gas off-site not probable: alternative use would be, for example, upgrading to natural gas quality and feed it into the national gas grid. This process is extremely expensive for the landfill gas volumes at dumpsite (not economically feasible). Additionally in Ecuador a national gas grid presently does not exist.

The evaluation of alternative scenarios taking place instead of the proposed project activity shows that most likely only the current situation would continue releasing uncontrolled emissions of methane in the atmosphere. Sub-step 1b. Enforcement of applicable laws and regulations As outlined in chapter A.4.4. the applicable legislation does not enforce gas treatment or other utilisations on the Zámbiza dumpsite which additionally is in accordance with the common practice for dumpsites in Ecuador. Hence, all the alternatives comply with the laws and regulatory requirements for the project location. It is unlikely that regulations will change in a way that would render any of the scenarios compliant. Step 2. Investment analysis Sub-step 2a. Determine appropriate analysis method As the project activity generates no financial or economic benefits other than CDM related income, according to the additionality tool, simple cost analysis (option I) should be used. In the event a LFGTE equipment might be installed within a second construction stage to generate and replace electricity, investment comparison analysis is applied for this scenario (option II). Sub-step 2b. Option I. Apply simple cost analysis Compared to the most probable baseline scenario of the continuation of the current situation, the Zámbiza Project will involve calculated extra investments of about 1,6 million USD (including VAT, plus working capital) not to be corresponded by revenues other than CDM related ones. Hence the project is additional.



Sub-step 2b. Option II. Apply investment comparison analysis Taking the option of a LFGTE equipment to be installed within a potential second construction stage into account the appropriate investment has to be analysed through comparison of a LFGTE baseline scenario with revenues from a PPA only with typical benchmark investments or the LFGTE scenario including CER revenues, respectively. Accordingly different financial models including their profit & loss statements were conducted in order to derive the appropriate financial ratios. The financial analysis was undertaken using assumptions which are highly conservative from the point of view of analysing the additionality. Under these conditions the IRR of the reference scenario neutralising all CDM positions accounts for 2,76 % still facing barriers and assuming a rather implausible high power purchase price of 10,06 USD/ kWh. The NPV is negative (- 828.852 USD referred to 1.342.339 USD of equity) derived by the discounting rate of 18,8 % according to the Ecuadorian bond. This would not by any means reflect expectations of investors claiming for IRRs above 20%. Table B.3.-2 shows the most important key data for comparison analysis of the two different scenarios. Table B.3.-2 Financial ratios of LFGTE scenarios with and without CDM implementation LFGTE

(potential option) LFGTE without CDM

(potential baseline) 1)Project Investment 4.557.344 USD 4.474.464 USD ERPA Price Agreement 6,00 USD/ ton CO2e --- PPA Price Agreement 0,06 USD/ kWh 0,06 USD/ kWh IRR to Equity 26,57 % 2,76 % NPV to Equity 538.782 USD - 828.852 USD 1) incl. VAT and Working Capital Hence without CER revenues the potential option of a LFGTE project activity is not an economically attractive course of action proving clearly the additionality of such an approach. Step 3. Barrier analysis The additionality of the Project was sufficiently proven by the investment analysis (step 2). Moreover, barriers are likely to occur which should be drafted in the following subchapters. 1 According to both power purchase prices published by the national energy regulatory agency CONELEC (www.conelec.gov.ec) ranging from 2,69 - 6,18 $Cent/kWh and a LOI of the local distributor Empresa Electrica Quito S.A. indicating a potential purchase price of 4,02 – 4,7 $Cent/kWh



Sub-step 3a. Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of type of the proposed project Barriers due to prevailing practice The project activity of active venting and flaring applied on a closed dumpsite is the first of its kind. No project activity of this type is currently operational in Ecuador. Technical barriers In general there is no guarantee the pre-calculated yield of methane is going to be obtained by the project activity. Conceptually landfill gas projects are comparable with oil or gas exploration referring the typical risks of choosing the location of gas wells to be established. Moreover specifically the water identified on local spots in the dumpsite body could affect the calculated yield of methane negatively if in practice the dewatering concept represented provides other performance than calculated. Market barriers Since this is the first landfill gas recovery project in Ecuador, it faces a number of market barriers. Economic unattractiveness, lack of technical know-how and lack of availability of equipment are the most important. The implementation of this project will assist Ecuador in demonstrating the practice of landfill gas recovery. Important elements are: • Demonstrating the practice of landfill gas recovery in Ecuador; • Demonstrating how trading emission reductions via the Kyoto mechanisms could assist in

making the practice of landfill gas recovery economically viable and promote sustainable development;

• Transferring the necessary technology and know-how to Ecuador, including: o Making available the required equipment (at this moment there are no providers of

landfill gas recovery equipment in Ecuador); o Development of local know-how by means of the involvement of Ecuador partners during

the project implementation; o Providing feedback to the Government of Ecuador through close co-operation with

relevant departments. Legislation In Ecuador regulations for the treatment of landfill gas do exist (see Section A.4.4.) but are not applicable on the Zámbiza Project and additionally are not in compliance with common practice in Ecuador. Sub-step 3 b. Show that the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of at least one of the alternatives (except the proposed project activity): None of the listed barriers would not prevent the most probable alternative scenario 1 (Continuation of the current situation: landfill gas recovery does not take place) to take place.



Step 4. Common practice analysis Sub-step 4a. Analyse other activities similar to the proposed activity Until now there has not been any implementation of an active landfill gas venting and flaring project in Ecuador, neither there is any landfill gas flaring project in development. The technical expertise and equipment is lacking in Ecuador. Very few cities such us Quito (El Inca), Guayaquil (Las Iguanas), Cuenca and Ambato are passively venting and partially flaring the gas in order to avoid explosions and fires on-site which could not be considered as common practice especially when focussing on closed dumpsites. Sub-step 4b Discuss any similar options that are occurring There are no similar options occurring. Step 5. Impact of CDM registration As shown in Step 2 above, the project is very unlikely to move forward without the additional financial support of the CDM. As the project will generate 839.662 tons of CO2e credits (or rather 941.597 tons if an electricity generation is going to be installed) by calculation over its crediting life time of 10 years, the revenues generated by carbon sales would be sufficient to make the project go ahead. Approval and registration as a CDM activity will thus alleviate the economic and financial hurdles. B.4. Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology selected is applied to the project activity: The project boundary is the Zámbiza dumpsite where waste is deposit and treated. The project captures and flares methane in accordance with ACM0001. The flow chart in figure B.4.-1 shows the main components and connections including system boundaries of the project.



waste production,collection andtransportation

landfill

landfill gasproduction

ventinginstallation

flaringinstallation

fugitive+remainingLFG emissions

electricity

CO2 emissions

project boundary

on-site

off-site

transportationand construction

LFGTE electricity

Fig. B.4.-1 Flow chart of system boundaries The different emissions of the project activity could be described as follows: • Emissions from waste production, collection and transportation: excluded, equivalent to

baseline scenario; • Remaining and fugitive landfill gas emissions during capturing; • Energy for ventilation and monitoring: approximately 40 kW, not significant and excluded; • CO2 flaring emissions: excluded (emission factor 0); • Emissions through transportation and construction of the technical installations: insignificant

and excluded; • Potentially: generation of electricity if a power purchaser can be identified. In comparison, the baseline scenario releases landfill gas uncontrolled in the atmosphere. B.5. Details of baseline information, including the date of completion of the baseline study and the name of person (s)/entity (ies) determining the baseline: The baseline study was conducted in November 2005 by Mr. Norbert Heidelmann, by order of: ARA Carbon Finance GmbH Germany +49-221-9424332 [email protected]



SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period C.1 Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: The project activity starts with the beginning of the plant operation and is estimated as of July 1st, 2006. C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: The operational lifetime of the project activity is estimated to 10 years (crediting lifetime). C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information: The project activity will use a fixed crediting period of 10 years. C.2.1. Renewable crediting period C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: C.2.2.1. Starting date: The fixed crediting period begins as of July 1st, 2006. C.2.2.2. Length: The length of the fixed crediting period is determined to 10 years (until June 30th, 2016).



SECTION D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan D.1. Name and reference of approved monitoring methodology applied to the project activity: The approved consolidated monitoring methodology ACM0001, (“consolidated monitoring methodology for landfill gas project activities”) in effect as of September 3rd, 2004 has been applied to this project. D.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity: The chosen methodology is to be used in conjunction with the baseline methodology ACM0001. Since the captured landfill gas will only be flared without further production of energy, the Zámbiza Project covers the applicability in subsection a (“the captured gas is flared”). Hence the project meets the applicability requirements outlined in ACM0001 (Consolidated monitoring methodology for landfill gas projects activities).

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (CDM PDD) CDM – Executive Board Template Version 02/ July 1st, 2004) November 30th 2005


D.2. 1. Option 1: Monitoring of the emissions in the project scenario and the baseline scenario Option 2 (D.2.2.) is chosen. The project direct monitors and calculates CERs. D.2.1.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived: ID number

Data variable

Source of data

Data unit

Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e)

Recording frequency

Proportion of data to be monitored

How will the data be archived? (electronic/ paper)

Comment

D.2.1.2. Description of formulae used to estimate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.) D.2.1.3. Relevant data necessary for determining the baseline of anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs within the project boundary and how such data will be collected and archived : ID number

Data variabl

e

Source of data

Data unit

Measured (m), calculated (c), estimated (e),

Recording

frequency

Proportion of data to

be monitored

How will the data be archived?

(electronic/ paper)

Comment

D.2.1.4. Description of formulae used to estimate baseline emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.)



D. 2.2. Option 2: Direct monitoring of emission reductions from the project activity (values should be consistent with those in section E). D.2.2.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived: ID number according to ACM001 if

(except EGy)

Data variable Source of data

Data unit

Measured (m),

calculated (c),

estimated (e),

Recording frequency


be monitored

How will the data be

archived? (electronic/

paper)

Comment

1. LFGtotal,y

Total amount of LFG captured

Flow meter

m³ m + c continuously 100 % electronically subsequent temperature and pressure correction

2. LFGflared,y

Amount of LFG flared

Flow meter


equal to 1 as long as no power plant is installed

3. LFGelectricity,y

Amount of LFG combusted in power plant (if

installed)

Flow meter

m³ m + c continuously 100 % electronically subsequent temperature and pressure correction,

only if power plant is installed

EGy Amount of electricity

generated (if power plant is

installed)

kWh meter

MWh m continuously 100% electronically only if power plant is installed

5. FE

Flare/combustion efficiency,

determined by the operation

hours (1)and the methane

content in the exhaust gas (2)

(1) operation-

hour counter

(2) Gas analyser

(1) h

(2) %

m / c (1) continuously

(2)

quarterly, monthly if unstable

100 % electronically (2) To be determined through

measuring the carbon monoxide (CO) content



6. wCH4,y

Methane fraction in the

LFG

Gas analyser

m³ CH4/ m3

LFG

m continuously 100 % electronically Measured through IR spectroscopy

7. T

Temperature of LFG

Thermo meter

°C m monthly 100 % electronically Measured to determine the density of methane DCH4

8. p

Pressure of LFG Pressure gauge

Pa m monthly 100 % electronically Measured to determine the density of methane DCH4

11. Regulatory requirements

relating to LFG projects

Data received

from current

legislation

- - yearly 100 % electronically Required for any changes to the adjustment factor (AF) or directly

MDreg

D.2.2.2. Description of formulae used to calculate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.): The applied methodology ACM0001 focuses on the direct determination of emission reductions. The project emissions are determined only indirectly by an ex ante calculation of the baseline emissions and the expected emission reductions through the project activity. Please refer to section E. for that ex ante calculation. However, the project is estimated to recover approximately 40 % of the LFG baseline generated at the Zámbiza dumpsite within the crediting period. Direct emissions through the project activity itself are due to exclusion: Emissions from waste production, collection and transportation: equivalent to baseline scenario; Energy for ventilation and monitoring: approximately 40 kW, not significant; CO2 flaring emissions: emission factor 0; Emissions through transportation and construction of the technical installations: insignificant;



D.2.3. Treatment of leakage in the monitoring plan D.2.3.1. If applicable, please describe the data and information that will be collected in order to monitor leakage effects of the project activity ID number

Data variable

Source of data Data

unit

Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e)

Recording frequency

Proportion of data to be monitored

How will the data be archived? (electronic/ paper)

Comment

Not applicable. D.2.3.2. Description of formulae used to estimate leakage (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.) According to ACM0001, no leakage effects need to be accounted under this methodology. D.2.4. Description of formulae used to estimate emission reductions for the project activity (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.) According to Chapter B and referring to the ACM0001, the emission reductions are calculated by the equation: ERy = (MDproject,y – MDreg,y) GWPCH4 + EGy CEFelectricity,y (1) where ERy is the greenhouse gas emission reduction achieved by the project activity during a given year “y”. ERy is calculated as the difference between the amount of methane actually destroyed/combusted during the year (MDproject,y) and the amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the year in the absence of the project activity (MDreg,y), times the approved Global Warming Potential value for methane (GWPCH4), plus, in the event a power generator should be established later in the future, the net quantity of electricity displaced during the year (EGy) multiplied by the CO2 emissions intensity of the electricity displaced (CEFelectricity,y).



Due to both common practice and the legal framework in the future no treatment of landfill gas is expected for the Zámbiza dumpsite. Furthermore, contractual requirements to technically decrease the methane potential associated with the Zámbiza dumpsite are not existent. Hence in the first time being, MDreg,y could be equated with zero and the formula simplifies to ERy = MDproject,y GWPCH4 + EGy CEFelectricity,y (1´) However, as stipulated in the monitoring plan, laws and regulations in regards to landfill gas extraction/ combustion will be monitored yearly and if there are changes that would affect landfill gas treatment an adjustment factor AF will be incorporated to determine MDreg,y, whith MDreg,y = MDproject,y AF According to ACM0001, the methane destroyed by the project activity (MDproject,y) during a year is determined by monitoring the quantity of methane actually flared and gas used to generate electricity: MDproject,y = MDflared,y + MDelectricity,y (2) with MDflared,y = LGFflared,y wCH4,y DCH4 FE (3b) MDelectricity,y = LGFelectricity,y wCH4,y DCH4 (3b) where MDflared,y is the quantity of methane destroyed by flaring, LFGflare,y is the quantity of landfill gas flared during the year measured in cubic meters (m3), wCH4,y is the average methane fraction of the landfill gas as measured during the year and expressed as a fraction (in m³ CH4 / m³ LFG), FE is the flare efficiency (the fraction of the methane destroyed) and DCH4 is the methane density expressed in tonnes of methane per cubic meter of methane (0,0007168 t CH4/ m³ CH4 at standard temperature and pressure: 273 K and 1,013 bar). MDelectricity,y is the quantity of methane destroyed by generation og electricity and LGFelectricity,y is the quantity of landfill gas fed into an the electricity generator. Equation (3a) and (3b) inserted in (2) and (2) inserted in (1´) results to ERy = GWPCH4 wCH4,y DCH4 (LGFflared,y FE + LGFelectricity,y) + EGy CEFelectricity,y (1´´) For determination of CEFelectricity,y ACM0001 (c) refers to a small scale methodology if the capacity of the generated electricity is < 15 MW. The potential LFGTE activity would involve 2 generators both enabled to produce electrical power of approximately 1.250 kW. Hence AMS ID



(“Renewable electricity generation for a grid”) was chosen for baseline determination of landfill gas projects. According to AMS ID, section 7. (b), CEFelectricity,y will be calculated as “the weighted average emissions of the current generation mix”. According the calculation and new analysis tool developed by CORDELIM (Oficina Nacional de Promoción del Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio (MDL) de Ecuador), DEUMAN and ECOENERGY CEFelectricity,y is determined to 0,723 tons CO2e/ MWh. D.3. Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for data monitored Data (ID number ref. D.2.2.)

Uncertainty level of data (High/Medium/Low)

Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such procedures are not necessary.

1. (LFGtotal,y) Low The flow meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. 2. (LFGflared,y) Low The flow meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. 3. (LFGelectricity,y) Low The flow meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. EGy Low The kWh meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. 5. (FE) Medium Regular maintenance will ensure optimal operation of flares. Flare efficiency should be checked

quarterly, with monthly checks if the efficiency shows significant deviations from previous values. 6. (wCH4,y) Low The gas analyser should be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. 7. (T) Low The thermo meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy. 8. (p) Low The pressure gauge will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.



D.4 Please describe the operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to monitor emission reductions and any leakage effects, generated by the project activity

The project monitoring including the quality control and the quality assurance will be conducted by the project owner and project operator Alquimiatec S.A. Av. 9 de Octubre N19-33 y Av. Patria Quito – Ecuador The person who will be in charge of the monitoring is the environmental coordinator and project manager: Eng. Andrés Tobar +593-9-6124315 [email protected] D.5 Name of person/entity determining the monitoring methodology:

The monitoring methodology was determined by Mr. Norbert Heidelmann, by order of: ARA Carbon Finance GmbH Germany +49-221-9424332 [email protected]



SECTION E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources E.1. Estimate of GHG emissions by sources: The amount of fugitive and remaining landfill gas emissions leaving the project boundary is derived by subtracting the estimated amount of captured methane (according to section E.5.) from the estimated baseline emissions (according to section E.4.). This amount is calculated as follows (table E.1.-1)

Table E.1.-1a Landfill gas emissions during project activity [tons CO2e]

2006 (III+IV)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016(I+II)

total

75.084 142.845 135.878 129.251 122.947 116.951 111.247 105.822 100.661 95.752 45.541 1.181.979

If electricity generation is taken into account, the project activity will reduce slightly:

Table E.1.-1b Project activity emissions with electricity generation taken into account [tons CO2e]

2006 (III+IV)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016(I+II)

total

75.084 132.622 125.656 119.029 112.725 106.729 101.025 95.599 90.438 85.529 35.607 1.080.044

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated as direct source of emissions from the project by combustion of methane. As the methane is fully generated by decomposition of organic content, the appropriate emission factor is zero. Energy for ventilation and monitoring amounts to approximately 40 kW and is not significant. Emissions through transportation and construction of the technical installations are going to be neglected within the calculation. E.2. Estimated leakage: No leakage has been identified and, due to ACM0001, needs to be accounted E.3. The sum of E.1 and E.2 representing the project activity emissions: As there is no leakage taken into account, the sum of E.1. and E.2. corresponds to Table E.1.-1



E.4. Estimated anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the baseline: Following the instructions outlined in the Baseline Methodology (ACM0001), ex ante emission reductions estimates for methane extraction/ destruction are projected for reference purposes only. The project activity, once commissioned, will determine emission reductions on an ex post basis by measuring project data as stipulated in the monitoring plan. The ex ante calculation of the baseline emissions are as follows and refer to a kinetic approach of a 1st order decay model (FOD) according to IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 5 (Waste).

]))()([()( )((04

xtkx

texLxMSWkAxCH −−∗∗∗∗=∑

where: t is the year of inventory x is the year at which the appropriate of waste was disposed A = (1-e-k)/k = 0,9754115

is the normalisation factor which corrects the summation k = 0,05

is the degradation constant MSW(x) is the amount of municipal solid waste [tons] disposed in year x

(data listing see Annex 3, baseline information) L0(x) MCF(x) • DOC(x) • DOCF • F • 16/12 [tons CH4/ ton waste] MCF(x) = 0,8 = const

is the methane correction factor for unmanaged solid waste disposal sites deeper than 5 meter waste

DOC(x) = 0,21 = const

is the degradable organic [tons C/ ton waste] with its maximum default value according to IPCC. Waste data of the KEMA study (2003) indicates even higher values of DOC (0,3)

DOCF = 0,77

is the fraction of DOC dissimilated F 0,5

is the fraction by volume of CH4 in landfill gas 16/12 = 1,3333

is the conversion from C to CH4



The evaluation of the equation results in the baseline emissions of every single year as shown in table E.4.-1 (see also Annex 3, baseline information).

Table E.4.-1 calculated baseline emissions of Zámbiza dumpsite in tons CO2e

2006 (III+IV)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016(I+II)

total

128.423 244.319 232.404 221.069 210.288 200.032 190.276 180.996 172.169 163.772 77.892 2.021.641

E.5. Difference between E.4 and E.3 representing the emission reductions of the project activity: The difference between the calculated baseline emissions and the GHG emissions by sources is shown in table E.5.-1 Table E.5.-1 GHG reductions through project activity, values in tons of CO2e

Year

III+IV 2006200720082009201020112012201320142015

I+II 2016total

1)data 2006: evaluated by pump testdata 2007fu: calculated with k= 0,05

244.319232.404

1.080.044

90.43885.529

142.845135.878129.251221.069

95.599

75.084128.423 75.084

Baseline Project Activity

941.597

53.339111.697106.748102.04197.56393.30389.251

42.285

1)Reductions

85.39781.73178.243

LFGTE

53.339101.47596.526

flaring

91.81887.340

200.032190.276

68.021163.772

122.947116.951111.247

210.288

101.025

839.662

83.08179.02975.17471.508

125.656119.029112.725106.729

1.181.9792.021.641

LFGTEflaring

105.822100.66195.752

132.622

180.996172.169

77.892 45.541 35.607 32.352

The emission reductions were determined directly by performing a Pumping Trial on-site the Zámbiza dumpsite since May 2005. The appropriate key parameters and data obtained by the pumping tests are shown in the following table E.5.-2. A detailed description of the pumping trial is available upon request.



Table E.5.-2 Key data due to the Pumping Trial performed on-site Zámbiza dumpsite Amount of wells 50 upscale scenarioDepth of wells m 23 determined at pump testsFilter pipe per well m 18 determined at pump testsWater level from surface m 25Available filter pipe m 18Suction rate per m filter pipe m³/(h*m) 4,0 measuredAvailability of wells 80% estimated

Landfill gas collection m³/h 2.880Methane content 50%Landfill gas temperature °C 40Ambient pressure mbar 725 measuredLandfill gas collection Nm³/h 1.798Methane volume flow Nm³/h 899Reliability of flare-booster-station 90%Landfill gas collection per year Nm³/a 14.173.789Methane collection per year Nm³/a 7.086.895Density of Methane kg/Nm³ 0,717Methane collection tons/a 5.080CH4/CO2 Equi.-factor 21 GWPdegradation constant 0,05 IPCC E.6. Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above: See E.5. and Annex 3. SECTION F. Environmental impacts F.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts: Due to local legal requirements an Environmental Impact Study on the Zambiza Project has been separately prepared by Fundación Natura, Quito, for the Municipality of Quito. The study is available upon request. As already stated through the project description the project effects the environment in a positive way. The implementation of the project will benefit the environment of the region as it will mainly cause: A reduction of the risk of explosions in the dumpsite that would affect the bordering

residential sectors; An improvement of the climate, by the elimination of landfill gas to be emitted otherwise

uncontrolled, of which 45 % is methane; A reduction of bad odours, mainly in the residential sectors (Zámbiza); An improvement of health quality for the people in the surrounding.



F.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: Apart from the ecological benefits a few negative impacts are going to occur during the construction stage of the project which is expected to last no more than 2 to 3 month. These negative impacts will be characterised by noise and vibrations through heavy truck traffic. Additionally during construction stage an insignificant amount of carbon dioxide will be submitted to the atmosphere which has been already identified at section B4. SECTION G. Stakeholders’ comments G.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: In Quito, the Municipality of Quito and the National Direction for Environment are in charge of the approval of the Environmental Impact Study for the project. The Designated National Authority (DNA) is assigned to the Ministry of Environment. The DNA approves the CDM projects throughout the national authority for CDM projects, the AN-MDL (Autoridad Nacional para proyectos MDL). According to the project a Letter of Endorsement has been issued by the DNA on January 21st, 2005. The Permit of Exploration was reconfirmed by the Municipality of Quito on January 14th, 2005, whereas the Permit of Operation was submitted by EMASEO on December 10th, 2004. Various local stakeholders have been informed about the project activities throughout television, newspapers interviews and some through bulletins distributed to the inhabitants of the suburb Zámbiza. To introduce the project to the public an information bulletin was distributed to the inhabitants of the Zámbiza population. In this bulletin the technical details as well as the architecture of the LFG project was explained. Furthermore on May 25th an inauguration ceremony took place at the Zámbiza dumpsite to celebrate the official starting of the test flaring programme. To this ceremony among others the following people and institutions participated: The Vice-Mayor of Quito A person representing the Minister of Environment High-ranking people of the Municipality of Quito CORDELIM (Corporacón para la Promoción del MDL) / National CDM Promotion Office in

Ecuador EMASEO (Empresa Metropolitana de Aseo); Ing. Mauricio Silva, General Manager/

Ing. Manuel Silva, Technical Manager



EMAP (Empresa Municipal de Agua Potable); Ing. Jorge Rivera Cevallos, Manager for Operations and Maintenance/ Ing. Juan Neira, General Manager

EMOP-Q (Empresa Metropolitana de Obras Públicas); Ing. Iván Alvarado, General Manager SEMAICA – Ing. Mauricio Martinez, Technical Director/ Ing. Esteban Sevilla, General

Manager Ministry of the Environment / DNA – Designated National Authority of Ecuador FN (Fundación Natura) Inhabitants of Zámbiza The press

During this ceremony an extended explanation of the project took place, as well as an invitation to the local stakeholders to submit their comments and ideas. The invitations for this event were handed directly to each person invited. Two detailed newspaper reports were published to announce the Zámbiza LFG project, one in the Diario la Hora on June 25th, 2005, and the second one in the Diario El HOY on July 10th, 2005. Additionally on January 28th Diario HOY presented an article about the project. Also 25 inhabitants nearby the dumpsite were being inquired about the project. None of the inhabitants expressed any objections toward the project. The following questionnaire was used while performing the inquiry:

Fecha: Edad: Lugar: Trabajo/oficio:

1) Conoce del proyecto de captación del gas que se está llevando a cabo en el relleno de Zámbiza, como parte del cierre técnico del relleno?

SI NO

2) Cómo supo del proyecto? - boletín informativo - televisión - periódico - otro…. 3) Sabe usted que el gas metano que produce la basura es altamente explosivo y peligroso? SI NO 4) Le gusta el proyecto, le parece interesante para la ciudad? SI NO 5) Le gustaría tener más información acerca del proyecto? SI NO 6) Prefiere que esta información se difunda a través de: - radio - televisión - periódico - boletines informativos - otro….



7) Cree que este proyecto le aportará algo a usted como habitante de ……………….? SI NO 8) Aprueba el proyecto de captación y quema del gas del vertedero de Zámbiza?

SI NO

The evaluation of the inquiry led to the following results:

Number of Inquires 25

Question YES NO NULE Observations1 20 5 03 19 2 44 19 1 55 25 0 07 19 0 6 work/health8 20 0 5

Question Radio Television NewspaperInformative Bulletin Other

2 0 2 5 3 146 2 13 11 14 6

Other

Encuestas del proyecto

ceremony of inauguration

Meetings with the presiden of Zambiza Parroqueworking in the offices of EMASEO in Zambiza

comments of people of the surroundings

05

101520

25

Cantidad

1 2 3 4 5 6

Preguntas

YES

NONULE



0

5

10

15

Cantidad

Rad

io

Tele

visi

on

New

spap

er

Info

rmat

ive

Bulle

tin

Medios Públicos

pregunta 2 pregunta 6

G.2. Summary of the comments received: Up to present date, none of the people and institutions have expressed any objection towards the project activity. The summary of the local stakeholders involved are listed in table G.2.-1 Table G.2.-1 Local stakeholders of the project activity

Activity/ Announcement

Date Stakeholders involved

Evaluation Reference

Information of the habitants on the project activity

January, 2005 The hole community of Zámbiza

No objections Bulletin

Ceremony/ Party on-site Zambiza, official start

May 25th, 2005 Ministry for Environment, National Direction for the Environment, Municipality of Quito, Fundación Natura, Cordelim, National Authority for the CDM, EMASEO, EMAAP, EMOP, Vida para Quito, community of Zámbiza, Municipality of Cuenca, press.

Good comments about the project, no objections

Invitations, press bulletins,

Inquiry July 2005 Inhabitants of the surroundings of the dumpsite/ Locals

No objections (Appendix 11)

Questionaire

Newspapers Interviews:

Diario HOY

January 28th, 2005

Inhabitants of Quito No objections Newspaper Articles



Diario LA HORA

Diario HOY

MetroHOY

June 25th, 2005

June 10th, 2005

July 11th, 2005

Television Interview: Channel 8 ECUAVISA

May 25th, 2005 Inhabitants of Quito No objections Personal Interviews

DNA/ Ministry of Environment

Host Government Approval – process ongoing

Municipality of Quito Evaluation of EIA – process ongoing

EMASEO No objections

Fundación Natura Composer of EIA

National Direction for Environment (Dirección Nacional de Medio Ambiente)

Evaluation of EIA – process ongoing

From 2004 CORDELIM (National CDM Promotion Office)

CORDELIM has supported the Zámbiza project along the CDM cycle

G.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: Neither negative comments nor comments that should lead to any change of the project activity were received.



Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY Organization: Alquimiatec S.A. Street/P.O.Box: Av. 9 de Octubre N19-33 y Av. Patria / Casilla Postal 17-17-589 Building: ETECO Building City: Quito State/Region: Pichincha Postfix/ZIP: Country: Ecuador Telephone: +593-2-2558506 FAX: +593-2-2907406 E-Mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.alquimiatec.com Represented by: Mathias Zohm Title: General Manager Salutation: Mr. Last Name: Zohm Middle Name: Georg First Name: Mathias Mobile: +49-173-2325943 Direct FAX: +49-40-7216917 Direct tel: +49-40-7242279 Personal E-Mail: [email protected]



Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

There is no public funding involved within the capitalisation of the project. The project is going to be financed with private capital.



Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

Organic waste

Paper / cardboard

Plastics / Glas / Metall

Lether / textils Inert Others

60,5% 9,8% 10,7% 2,2% 9,7% 7,1%

500 250 0 100 0 50

Year Index Waste Fraction Disposal per year in tons SumAverage dry organic

carbon fraction in kgCarbon/tonswaste

per day in tons

days / week

weeks / year

tons per year

1979 1 30.250 4.900 5.350 1.100 4.850 3.550 50.000 210 200 5 50 50.0001980 2 45.375 7.350 8.025 1.650 7.275 5.325 75.000 210 300 5 50 75.0001981 3 52.938 8.575 9.363 1.925 8.488 6.213 87.500 210 350 5 50 87.5001982 4 60.500 9.800 10.700 2.200 9.700 7.100 100.000 210 400 5 50 100.0001983 5 68.063 11.025 12.038 2.475 10.913 7.988 112.500 210 450 5 50 112.5001984 6 75.625 12.250 13.375 2.750 12.125 8.875 125.000 210 500 5 50 125.0001985 7 83.188 13.475 14.713 3.025 13.338 9.763 137.500 210 550 5 50 137.5001986 8 90.750 14.700 16.050 3.300 14.550 10.650 150.000 210 600 5 50 150.0001987 9 98.313 15.925 17.388 3.575 15.763 11.538 162.500 210 650 5 50 162.5001988 10 105.875 17.150 18.725 3.850 16.975 12.425 175.000 210 700 5 50 175.0001989 11 121.000 19.600 21.400 4.400 19.400 14.200 200.000 210 800 5 50 200.0001990 12 136.125 22.050 24.075 4.950 21.825 15.975 225.000 210 900 5 50 225.0001991 13 151.250 24.500 26.750 5.500 24.250 17.750 250.000 210 1000 5 50 250.0001992 14 166.375 26.950 29.425 6.050 26.675 19.525 275.000 210 1100 5 50 275.0001993 15 166.375 26.950 29.425 6.050 26.675 19.525 275.000 210 1100 5 50 275.0001994 16 166.375 26.950 29.425 6.050 26.675 19.525 275.000 210 1100 5 50 275.0001995 17 181.500 29.400 32.100 6.600 29.100 21.300 300.000 210 1200 5 50 300.0001996 18 181.500 29.400 32.100 6.600 29.100 21.300 300.000 210 1200 5 50 300.0001997 19 196.625 31.850 34.775 7.150 31.525 23.075 325.000 210 1300 5 50 325.0001998 20 196.625 31.850 34.775 7.150 31.525 23.075 325.000 210 1300 5 50 325.0001999 21 196.625 31.850 34.775 7.150 31.525 23.075 325.000 210 1300 5 50 325.0002000 22 196.625 31.850 34.775 7.150 31.525 23.075 325.000 210 1300 5 50 325.0002001 23 196.625 31.850 34.775 7.150 31.525 23.075 325.000 210 1300 5 50 325.0002002 24 196.625 31.850 34.775 7.150 31.525 23.075 325.000 210 1300 5 50 325.000

total 5.225.000

Organic contaminated waste disposal (KEMA 2003)

Dry organic carbon fraction in kgCarbon / tonswaste Waste disposal (Krüger/ Marzo de 1997; EPN/ Quito)



CH4 generation [tons] of mass fraction deposit in the corresponding year (according to First Order Decay Model, IPCC Good Practice Guidance)

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

1979 200 190 181 172 164 156 148 141 134 128 121 115 110 104 99 94 90 86 811980 300 285 272 258 246 234 222 211 201 191 182 173 165 157 149 142 135 1281981 350 333 317 301 287 273 259 247 235 223 212 202 192 183 174 165 1571982 400 381 362 344 328 312 296 282 268 255 243 231 220 209 199 1891983 450 428 407 387 369 351 333 317 302 287 273 260 247 235 2241984 500 476 453 430 409 389 370 352 335 319 303 289 274 2611985 550 523 498 473 450 428 408 388 369 351 334 317 3021986 600 571 543 517 491 467 445 423 402 383 364 3461987 650 618 588 560 532 506 482 458 436 415 3941988 700 666 634 603 573 545 519 493 469 4461989 800 761 724 689 655 623 593 564 5361990 900 856 815 775 737 701 667 6341991 1.000 951 905 861 819 779 7411992 1.100 1.047 996 947 901 8571993 1.100 1.047 996 947 9011994 1.100 1.047 996 9471995 1.200 1.142 1.0861996 Parameters 1.200 1.1421997 k methane generation rate constant 0,05 IPCC default value 1.3001998 MCF methane correction factor 0,8 IPCC: unmanaged, deep (> 5m waste)1999 DOC (x) degradable organic carbon 0,21 IPCC default max. value (accoording to KEMA: 0,33)2000 DOCF fraction of DOC dissimilated 0,77 IPCC default value2001 F fraction bei volume of CH4 in LFG 0,5 IPCC default value2002 GWP methane global warming potential 21 kg CO2e/ kg CH4

year 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998CH4 [tons] 0 200 490 817 1.177 1.569 1.993 2.446 2.950 3.434 3.967 4.574 5.251 5.995 6.803 7.571 8.302 9.097 9.854 10.674

CO2e [tons] 0 4.201 10.297 17.147 24.712 32.959 41.854 51.365 61.952 72.118 83.304 96.045 110.264 125.891 142.856 158.994 174.345 191.047 206.935 224.148



1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

1979 77 74 70 67 63 60 57 55 52 49 47 45 42 40 38 37 35 33 31 30 281980 122 116 110 105 100 95 90 86 82 78 74 70 67 64 61 58 55 52 50 47 451981 150 142 135 129 123 117 111 105 100 95 91 86 82 78 74 71 67 64 61 58 551982 180 171 163 155 147 140 133 127 121 115 109 104 99 94 89 85 81 77 73 70 661983 213 202 192 183 174 166 158 150 143 136 129 123 117 111 106 100 96 91 86 82 781984 248 236 225 214 203 193 184 175 166 158 151 143 136 130 123 117 112 106 101 96 911985 287 273 260 247 235 224 213 202 193 183 174 166 158 150 143 136 129 123 117 111 1061986 329 313 298 283 270 257 244 232 221 210 200 190 181 172 164 156 148 141 134 127 1211987 375 357 339 323 307 292 278 264 251 239 228 216 206 196 186 177 169 160 153 145 1381988 425 404 384 366 348 331 315 299 285 271 258 245 233 222 211 201 191 182 173 164 1561989 510 485 462 439 418 397 378 360 342 325 309 294 280 266 253 241 229 218 207 197 1881990 603 574 546 519 494 470 447 425 404 385 366 348 331 315 300 285 271 258 245 233 2221991 705 670 638 607 577 549 522 497 472 449 428 407 387 368 350 333 317 301 287 273 2591992 815 775 738 702 667 635 604 574 546 520 494 470 447 426 405 385 366 348 331 315 3001993 857 815 775 738 702 667 635 604 574 546 520 494 470 447 426 405 385 366 348 331 3151994 901 857 815 775 738 702 667 635 604 574 546 520 494 470 447 426 405 385 366 348 3311995 1.033 983 935 889 846 805 765 728 692 659 627 596 567 539 513 488 464 442 420 400 3801996 1.086 1.033 983 935 889 846 805 765 728 692 659 627 596 567 539 513 488 464 442 420 4001997 1.237 1.177 1.119 1.065 1.013 963 916 872 829 789 750 714 679 646 614 584 556 529 503 478 4551998 1.300 1.237 1.177 1.119 1.065 1.013 963 916 872 829 789 750 714 679 646 614 584 556 529 503 4781999 1.300 1.237 1.177 1.119 1.065 1.013 963 916 872 829 789 750 714 679 646 614 584 556 529 5032000 1.300 1.237 1.177 1.119 1.065 1.013 963 916 872 829 789 750 714 679 646 614 584 556 5292001 1.300 1.237 1.177 1.119 1.065 1.013 963 916 872 829 789 750 714 679 646 614 584 5562002 1.300 1.237 1.177 1.119 1.065 1.013 963 916 872 829 789 750 714 679 646 614 584

year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019CH4 [tons] 11.453 12.195 12.901 13.572 14.210 13.517 12.858 12.231 11.634 11.067 10.527 10.014 9.525 9.061 8.619 8.199 7.799 7.418 7.057 6.712 6.385

CO2e [tons] 240.522 256.098 270.913 285.007 298.412 283.859 270.015 256.846 244.319 232.404 221.069 210.288 200.032 190.276 180.996 172.169 163.772 155.785 148.187 140.960 134.085



Year

III+IV 2006200720082009201020112012201320142015

I+II 2016total

1)data 2006: evaluated by pump testdata 2007fu: calculated with k= 0,05

244.319232.404

1.080.044

90.43885.529

142.845135.878129.251221.069

95.599

75.084128.423 75.084

Baseline Project Activity

941.597

53.339111.697106.748102.04197.56393.30389.251

42.285

1)Reductions

85.39781.73178.243

LFGTE

53.339101.47596.526

flaring

91.81887.340

200.032190.276

68.021163.772

122.947116.951111.247

210.288

101.025

839.662

83.08179.02975.17471.508

125.656119.029112.725106.729

1.181.9792.021.641

LFGTEflaring

105.822100.66195.752

132.622

180.996172.169

77.892 45.541 35.607 32.352



GHG emissions in tons CO2e per year (flaring only)

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

III+IV 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Project Activity

Reductions



Annex 4

MONITORING PLAN

The chosen methodology for monitoring is the “approved consolidated monitoring methodology ACM0001” which utilises direct monitoring of the emission reductions from the project activity. The following data is going to be collected: ID number according to ACM001 if

(except EGy)

Data variable Source of data

Data unit

Measured (m),

calculated (c),

estimated (e),

Recording frequency


be monitored

How will the data be

archived? (electronic/

paper)

Comment

1. LFGtotal,y

Total amount of LFG captured

Flow meter


2. LFGflared,y

Amount of LFG flared

Flow meter


equal to 1 as long as no power plant is installed

3. LFGelectricity,y

Amount of LFG combusted in power plant (if

installed)

Flow meter

m³ m + c continuously 100 % electronically subsequent temperature and pressure correction,

only if power plant is installed

EGy Amount of electricity

generated (if power plant is

installed)

kWh meter

MWh m continuously 100% electronically only if power plant is installed



5. FE

Flare/combustion efficiency,

determined by the operation

hours (1)and the methane

content in the exhaust gas (2)

(1) operation-

hour counter

(2) Gas analyser

(1) h

(2) %

m / c (1) continuously

(2)

quarterly, monthly if unstable

100 % electronically (2) To be determined through

measuring the carbon monoxide (CO) content

6. wCH4,y

Methane fraction in the

LFG

Gas analyser

m³ CH4/ m3

LFG

m continuously 100 % electronically Measured through IR Spectroscopy

7. T

Temperature of LFG

Thermo meter

°C m monthly 100 % electronically Measured to determine the density of methane DCH4

8. p

Pressure of LFG Pressure gauge

Pa m monthly 100 % electronically Measured to determine the density of methane DCH4

11. Regulatory requirements

relating to LFG projects

Data received

from current

legislation

- - yearly 100 % electronically Required for any changes to the adjustment factor (AF) or directly

MDreg



The quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) being undertaken for the data monitored are to be as follows: Data (ID number ref. D.2.2.)

Uncertainty level of data (High/Medium/Low)

Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such procedures are not necessary.

1. (LFGflared,y) Low The flow meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.

2. (LFGflared,y) Low The flow meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.

3. (LFGelectricity,y) Low The flow meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.

EGy Low The kWh meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.

5. (FE) Medium Regular maintenance will ensure optimal operation of flares. Flare efficiency should be checked quarterly, with monthly checks if the efficiency shows significant deviations from previous values.

6. (wCH4,y) Low The gas analyser should be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.

7. (T) Low The thermo meter will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.

8. (p) Low The pressure gauge will be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.

According to Chapter B and referring to the ACM0001, the emission reductions are calculated by the equation: ERy = (MDproject,y – MDreg,y) GWPCH4 + EGy CEFelectricity,y (1) where ERy is the greenhouse gas emission reduction achieved by the project activity during a given year “y”. ERy is calculated as the difference between the amount of methane actually destroyed/combusted during the year (MDproject,y) and the amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the year in the absence of the project activity (MDreg,y), times the approved Global Warming Potential value for methane (GWPCH4), plus, in the event a power generator should be established later in the future, the net quantity of electricity displaced during the year (EGy) multiplied by the CO2 emissions intensity of the electricity displaced (CEFelectricity,y). Due to both common practice and the legal framework in the future no treatment of landfill gas is expected for the Zámbiza dumpsite. Furthermore, contractual requirements to technically decrease the methane potential associated with the Zámbiza dumpsite are not existent. Hence in the first time being, MDreg,y could be equated with zero and the formula simplifies to ERy = MDproject,y GWPCH4 + EGy CEFelectricity,y (1´)



However, as stipulated in the monitoring plan, laws and regulations in regards to landfill gas extraction/ combustion will be monitored yearly and if there are changes that would affect landfill gas treatment an adjustment factor AF will be incorporated to determine MDreg,y, whith MDreg,y = MDproject,y AF According to ACM0001, the methane destroyed by the project activity (MDproject,y) during a year is determined by monitoring the quantity of methane actually flared and gas used to generate electricity: MDproject,y = MDflared,y + MDelectricity,y (2) with MDflared,y = LGFflared,y wCH4,y DCH4 FE (3b) MDelectricity,y = LGFelectricity,y wCH4,y DCH4 (3b) where MDflared,y is the quantity of methane destroyed by flaring, LFGflare,y is the quantity of landfill gas flared during the year measured in cubic meters (m3), wCH4,y is the average methane fraction of the landfill gas as measured during the year and expressed as a fraction (in m³ CH4 / m³ LFG), FE is the flare efficiency (the fraction of the methane destroyed) and DCH4 is the methane density expressed in tonnes of methane per cubic meter of methane (0,0007168 t CH4/ m³ CH4 at standard temperature and pressure: 273 K and 1,013 bar). MDelectricity,y is the quantity of methane destroyed by generation og electricity and LGFelectricity,y is the quantity of landfill gas fed into an the electricity generator. Equation (3a) and (3b) inserted in (2) and (2) inserted in (1´) results to ERy = GWPCH4 wCH4,y DCH4 (LGFflared,y FE + LGFelectricity,y) + EGy CEFelectricity,y (1´´) For determination of CEFelectricity,y ACM0001 (c) refers to a small scale methodology if the capacity of the generated electricity is < 15 MW. The potential activity would involve 2 generators both enabled to produce electrical power of approximately 1.250 kW. Hence AMS ID (“Renewable electricity generation for a grid”) was chosen for baseline determination of landfill gas projects. According to AMS I D, section 7. (b), CEFelectricity,y will be calculated as “the weighted average emissions of the current generation mix”. According the calculation and new analysis tool developed by CORDELIM (Oficina Nacional de Promoción del Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio (MDL) de Ecuador), DEUMAN and ECOENERGY CEFelectricity,y is determined to 0,723 tons CO2e/ MWh.



Annex 5

References

Alquimiatec S.A. (Ecuador), ETECO C.A: (Ecuador), G.A.S. Energietechnologie GmbH

(Germany); Gas Pumping Trial for Verification of Landfill Gas Production at Zámbiza Landfill Site in Quito, Ecuador; November 2005 (updated version)

ARA Carbon Finance GmbH, Germany; Financial Model of Project Scenario including

LFGTE option and reference analysis (confidential); November 2005 (updated version) CONELEC (Consejo Nacional de Electricidad), Ecuador; Estructura del Precio Medio de la

Energía para las Empresas Eléctricas Distribuidoras en los Contratos a plazo fijo (USD Cent/kWh) www.conelec.gov.ec - Estatisticas - Mercado Electrico Mayorista - Estructura del Precio (Contratos)

CORDELIM (Oficina Nacional de Promoción del Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio (MDL) de

Ecuador), DEUMAN and ECOENERGY; Factor de Emision de la Línea Base, November 2005

EMASEO (Empreso Motropolitana de Aseo), Ecuador; Operation Permit; December 2004

Empresa Electrica Quito S.A., Ecuador; Price Indication potential PPA; October 2005

Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Departamento de Medio Ambiente: “OPERACIÓN FINAL DEL

RELLENO SANITARIO DE ZÁMBIZA DE LA CIUDAD DE QUITO”, (I) Memoria Tecnica Esecutiva; (II) Memoria Tecnica

ETECO C.A, Ecuador; Information Bulletin for Local Stakeholders; 2005

Fundacion Natura, Ecuador; Estudio de Impacto Ambiental “Captación y Quema del Biogás

del Vertedero de Zámbiza” [Environmental Impact Study]; September 2005 G.A.S. Energietechnologie GmbH; Schedule and technical details of the project; November

2005 Groundsolution GmbH, Germany; Dewatering Concept for Zámbiza Dumpsite in Quito,

Ecuador; November 2005 (updated version) Good Practise Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas

Inventories; IPCC, 2001; Chapter 5: “Waste Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; The Reference

Manual (Volume 3), Chapter 6: “Waste KEMA Nederland B.V., Arnhem, 29. August 2003: „Feasibility W-t-e plant Quito, MSW

characterisation”



Krüger A/S, 1997: “Quito Landfill Gas Project Feasibility Study” Krüger A/S, Marzo de 997: “Evaluación del aprovechamiente de gas del botadero Zámbiza”

La Hora, Ecuador; Extraen gas metano del botadero de Zámbiza; Newspaper Report; June

2005 Hoy, Ecuador; Quito tiene el primer quemador de gas metano; Newspaper Report; July

2005 Ministerio del Ambiente [DNA], Ecuador; Letter of Endorsement; January 2005

QUITO, Distrito Metropolitano, Ecuador; Exploration Permit; January 2005

Registro Oficial – AÑO IV – 3/8 1992 – Numero 991; Legislation; 1992-1999

TULAS (Texto Unificado de la Legislación Ambiental Secundaria); Legislation; March 31st,

2003

clean development mechanism - project design document (cdm ... · project design document (cdm pdd)...

Documents