clean development mechanism simplified project design ... · pdf fileclean development...

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

SIMPLIFIED PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FOR SMALL-SCALE PROJECT ACTIVITIES (SSC-CDM-PDD)

Version 02

CONTENTS

A. General description of the small-scale project activity B. Baseline methodology C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period D. Monitoring methodology and plan E. Calculation of GHG emission reductions by sources F. Environmental impacts G. Stakeholders comments Annexes Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Abbreviations Enclosure 1

Calculation for CO2 emission reduction


Revision history of this document

Version Number

Date Description and reason of revision

01 21 January 2003

Initial adoption

02 8 July 2005 • The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since version 01 of this document.

• As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest version can be found at <http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents>.

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 3 SECTION A. General description of the small-scale project activity A.1. Title of the small-scale project activity: >> Energy efficiency by purge gas recovery at Nagothane Manufacturing Complex of IPCL

Version No 1 Dated 08/09/061. Project Reference No. RIL/I/PDD/0607/008 A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity: >> Introduction Reliance Group has acquired control of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (IPCL) in the year

2002 when Government of India, as a measure of privatisation of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs),

divested its equity holding to IPCL to Reliance Group Company. IPCL is the pioneering petrochemical

company in India, established on March 22, 1969. Today, IPCL is one of the leading petrochemical

companies in India involved in the business of manufacturing polymers, synthetic fiber, fiber

intermediates, solvents, surfactants, industrial chemicals, catalysts and adsorbents. The Company is backed

by strong Research Centre, Product Application Centers, Technology Management Centers and Customer

Relations Centers. The company owns and operates three petrochemical complexes - a Naphtha based

complex at Vadodara, Gujarat and Gas based complexes at Nagothane near Mumbai in Maharashtra and at

Dahej near Bharuch in Gujarat. The company produces over one million tonnes of merchant products and

has a turnover close to USD 2bn.

The first manufacturing Plant in Nagothane Manufacturing Complex was commissioned in March 1989.

The Complex houses 6 manufacturing units within the complex spread over nearly 1000 hectares of land.

The different products manufactured at the manufacturing sites are Ethylene, Propylene, Acetylene,

Butene-1, Ethylene Oxide, Ethylene Glycol, Low Density Polyethylene, Linear Low Density

Polyethylene, High Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene and Dehydration catalyst. It also has a Captive

Power Plant. Nagothane Manufacturing Complex is the first fully integrated gas-based Petrochemical

Complex of India.

Purpose Reliance Group, after having taken over management control of Nagothane Manufacturing Complex,

introduced the concept of CDM in energy conservation schemes that result from audit programmes with

the aim of benefit to employees and neighborhood, which were carried out in-house to assess energy

conservation potential at the complex by identifying possibilities to adopt new technologies/ modifications

to minimise the energy losses and reduce specific energy consumption. Reliance Industries Limited is

1 All dates are in dd/mm/yy format

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 4 consciously working in the field of energy conservation and management to reduce Greenhouse Gas

emission. In recognition of its effort, contribution and success, Nagothane Complex became winners of

various energy conservation awards like National Energy Conservation Award in Petrochemicals Sector

by Ministry of Power, Government of India, Award for Excellence in Natural Gas Conservation by GAIL

and also is also recipient of various awards for its work in the field of Environment protection, Pollution

reduction and safety.

The purpose of undertaking this project activity was recovery of the heat that was being wasted on flaring

of the Purge Gas from the LLDPE/HDPE2 reactor in Train-I, and using the same to increase the gaseous

fuel component and reducing LSHS in the fuel mix being fired for steam generation in Heat Recovery

Steam Generator (HRSG) at the Captive Power Plant. This results in useful utilization of the heat

component of a hydrocarbon stream that was being flared and thus improves energy efficiency by reducing

additional fuel usage in the form of LSHS at Captive Power Plant for steam generation. The project

activity also contributes towards reduction of emission of Greenhouse Gas from burning equivalent

quantity of LSHS.

In Nagothane Manufacturing Complex there are two manufacturing lines, called trains, of manufacturing

LLDPE and HDPE in fluidised bed swing reactor process. Train-I has a capacity of 140,000 TPA and

Train-II is of 80,000 TPA.

In the fluidized bed polymerisation reactors, the partial pressures of different reacting components like

ethylene, hydrogen, 1-Butene and inerts like hexane, pentane and nitrogen are maintained depending upon

the grade of product. The active pre-polymerised catalyst powder is continuously injected in the reactor

by using high-pressure nitrogen. In this process some amount of nitrogen continuously goes into the

reactor. A quantity of gas, rich in hydrocarbons and hydrogen, is continuously purged from the reactor gas

loop in order to maintain the constant partial pressure of nitrogen and other inert components, including

ethane and butane that are produced as by-products. Prior to the project activity, this Purge Gas from

Train-I was sent to flare where it was burnt.

The steam generated in Captive Power Plant is used in various manufacturing processes in the Nagothane

Manufacturing Complex and for power generation in a Steam Turbine Generator. The Captive Power Plant

uses a mix of liquid and gaseous fuel for seam generation. Heat from combusting fuels like LSHS, Mixed

Oil Lean Gas and Fuel gas are regularly used in HRSGs, along with the hot combustion gases from Gas

Turbine Generators, to generate steam.

Purge gases from Train-I are routed through a hydrocarbon recovery unit using membrane assisted

separation process where most of the hydrocarbons, sources of carbon dioxide, are removed allowing

2 Linear Low Density Polyethylene; High Density Polyethylene

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 5 hydrogen to go through. The effluent gases from the Membrane Separation Unit (MSU) are routed through

a cyclone separator and filter to separate polymer powder from the gas and the latter joins the Fuel Gas

drum 10-V-206 in Gas Cracker Plant. Fuel Gas from Gas Cracker unit is fed under pressure control into

this Fuel gas drum 10-V-206. Addition of Purge Gas from LLD/HD Plant to the Fuel Gas Drum displaces

Fuel Gas, which is now available for use in HRSGs of Captive Power Plant for generation of steam. A

schematic diagram of the routing of these gases is provided in Fig.1. All these gases, both before and after

implementation of the project, were undergoing combustion, with the difference that the heat from the

Purge gas was lost to the atmosphere. In the project scenario energy in the form of heat is recovered and

used in steam generation leading to an improvement in energy efficiency. As the Purge Gas replaces an

equivalent quantity of LSHS in the HRSG, the project achieves it objective of reducing Greenhouse Gas

emission from that LSHS that is now conserved.

Sustainable development:

The project also contributes to sustainable development in terms of environmental, socio-economic and

technological development by

• Reduction in fossil fuel consumption - a non-renewable source of limited availability.

• Reduction in GHG emission, mainly carbon dioxide.

• Prevention of air quality deterioration due to adverse effects of

o Fossil fuel extraction,

o Petroleum processing, and

o Fuel transportation.

• Reduction in atmospheric vent of hydrocarbon.

• Encouraging other large facilities irrespective of sector to adopt small but effective fuel switch

measures.

• Release the available primary source of energy, LSHS, for processes where it is necessary

The four criteria for sustainable development as defined by Host Government are addressed as follows:

Community Development

Nagothane Manufacturing Complex is resolved to Reduce – Reuse – Recycle the waste generated in the

manufacturing process and the residential township nearby housing its employees. This is what is being

practiced at by way of implementation of Internationally Accredited Environmental Management System

of ISO-14001.

The key Resource Conservation measures implemented are

• Reduction and re-use of water aiming towards Zero Discharge ,

• Reduction in emission of Greenhouse gases by re-use of hydrocarbon streams,


• Reduction in generation of waste and re-cycling for beneficial use,

• Switchover from Ozone depleting substances

The latest initiative is implementation of “ZERO GARBAGE” concept to make the residential township an

eco-friendly zone.

Socially oriented Activities: Nagothane Manufacturing Complex is continuously striving and working for

socio-economic development of villages around the Complex. The programmes/activities are three

pronged and includes:

1) Training : Imparting training/awareness to village youth, women and men folk in farm as well

non-farm trade skills e.g. training in tailoring, vaccination of poultry, motor driving, computer

education, awareness on AIDS, Balwadi teacher training, typing, welding, etc.

2) Input supply – The villagers and tribal people are aided by providing following inputs-

a) Distribution of improved variety paddy seeds and other Agricultural inputs -

Organizing an exhibition and sale Camp of improved variety of paddy seeds, mixed

fertilizer, pesticides & other agricultural inputs at subsidized cost.

b) Distribution of glass Roof Tiles - As an energy conservation measure and to improve

illumination, villagers have been provided glass Roof Tiles at subsidised rates.

c) Promoting Kisan nursery – Financial and technical aid to raise saplings of trees in the

nursery run by farmers.

d) Distribution of fruit tree graft & vegetable saplings to schools and Panchyats.

3) Developmental :

a) Formation of Self - Help Groups has been initiated to promote and inculcate the habit of

saving money, strengthen the hands of women folk & promote entrepreneurship among

women folk. The efforts have yielded results with 47 self-help groups in operation with

more than 600 women members from neighbouring villages. Recently an SHG has been

formed in 2 tribal Hamlet of Killawadi AND Gangawane with 20 and 19 Members

respectively. Efforts are on to form SHG in other tribal hamlets as well.

b) Animal husbandry & Poultry: The onset of disease wipes away the cattle and poultry

raised by the villagers. As a preventive measure, Vaccination camps are organized and the

response for such initiatives from villagers is very encouraging.

c) Construction of check dams, rain water harvesting demonstrations, Kirtan programmes,

cultural programme, etc.


d) Infrastructure development projects in the neighbouring villages which includes

construction of internal roads, bus-stops, laying of pipeline for supply of water and

reservoir for water. Free water supply is also provided to the neighbouring villages.

The testimony to the efforts put in by Nagothane Manufacturing Complex towards resource

conservation, environmental up-gradation and ecological conservation is reflected from the awards

bestowed to it which includes.

a) Maharashtra State Vanashree Award for ecological up-gradation and afforestation efforts.

b) Dr R.J Rathi Award of Environmental Pollution control for “Outstanding efforts in

controlling Pollution and protecting the Environment”.

c) Indo-German Greentech Award for “Outstanding achievement in the field of

Environmental protection”.

d) Indira Gandhi National Award for “Best Environmental and Ecological Implementation”.

Environmental impact: The project activity has reduced consumption of fossil fuel for generation of heat

energy based on LSHS, thus directly reducing emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) like carbon dioxide

in addition to other pollutants like NOx and SOx. It has also resulted in an indirect improvement in air

quality by way of reduced emissions as a result of exploration, processing and transportation of fuel. This

contributes to the sustainable development of environment.

Social impact: The project activity generated employment during the erection and commissioning of the

project. Interaction with the Technology provider for the Membrane Separation Unit and enhanced the

skill sets of manpower.

Economic impact: The project activity reduces fossil fuel consumption in the Heat Recovery Steam

Generators, thus reducing the variable cost of steam production. Though the quantum of savings are

negligible as compared to total turnover of the site, directionally the project contributes to economic

development.

Technological impact : This kind of innovative and effective energy efficiency measures serve to

demonstrate the operational efficacy of such systems and encourage others to adopt similar measures

leading to further conservation of fuel and protection of environment.

A.3. Project participants: >>

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 8 Name of the Party involved (*) ((Host ) indicates a host Party )

Private and / or Public entity(ies) project participants (*)( as applicable )

Indicate if the party involved wishes to be considered as project participant ( Yes / No )

India [ (Ministry of Environment

and Forest (MoEF)(Host party)]

Reliance Industries Limited

(Private entity)

No

Contact information of project proponent is attached as Annex-I.

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 9 A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity: >> Nagothane Manufacturing Complex is an integrated Petrochemical complex using ethane/propane as the

main feedstock. There are downstream production units to convert the cracked products of ethane and

propane to value added products.

In Nagothane Manufacturing Complex there are two manufacturing lines, called trains, of manufacturing

LLDPE and HDPE in fluidised bed reactors. Train-I has a capacity of 140,000 TPA and Train-II is of

80,000 TPA.

In the fluidized bed polymerisation reactor of Train-I, the reactants are ethylene, hydrogen and 1-Butene,

that polymerise in the presence of a partially pre-polymerised Ziegler-Nata catalyst to form either LLDPE

or HDPE depending on the reaction conditions and the partial pressure of these reactants. The active pre-

polymerised catalyst powder is continuously injected into the reactor by using high-pressure nitrogen. In

this process some amount of nitrogen continuously goes into the reactor. Other inert components that play

an enabling role in the reaction but do not participate directly in it e.g. hexane and pentane, are also

present in the reactor gas loop. The un-reacted gases along with inert substances are withdrawn from the

top of the reactor and recycled back after adjusting the same for concentration of reactants and the inert

substances. In order to control the concentration of inert substances in the reactor gas loops, some amount

of the gas from these loops is withdrawn and purged to flare. This stream is rich in hydrocarbons and

hydrogen, including ethane and butane that are produced as by-products. Prior to the project activity, as

recommended by the process licensor, this Purge Gas from the reactor gas loops was sent to flare where it

was burnt.

The steam generated in Captive Power Plant is used in various manufacturing processes in the Nagothane

Manufacturing Complex and for power generation in a Steam Turbine Generator. The Captive Power Plant

uses a mix of liquid and gaseous fuel for steam generation. Heat from combusting fuels like LSHS, Mixed

Oil, Lean Gas and Fuel gas are regularly used in HRSGs, along with the hot combustion gases from Gas

Turbine Generators, to generate steam.

In order to further restrict the passage of higher hydrocarbons to combustion process, the scheme was

developed wherein Purge gases from Train-I are routed through a hydrocarbon recovery unit using

membrane assisted separation process. Most of the hydrocarbons, sources of carbon dioxide, are removed

in this Membrane Separation Unit (MSU).

The membrane can be defined essentially as a barrier, which separates two phases and restricts transport of

various chemicals in a selective manner. A membrane separation system separates an influent stream into

two effluent streams known as the permeate and the concentrate. The permeate is the portion of the fluid

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 10 that has passed through the semi-permeable membrane, whereas the concentrate stream contains the

constituents that have been rejected by the membrane.

The effluent gases from the Membrane Separation Unit (MSU) are routed through a cyclone separator and

filter to separate polymer powder from the gas and the latter joins the Fuel Gas drum 10-V-206 in Gas

Cracker Plant. Fuel Gas from Gas Cracker unit is fed under pressure control into this Fuel gas drum 10-V-

206. Addition of Purge Gas from LLDPE/HDPE Plant to the Fuel Gas Drum displaces Fuel Gas, which is

now available for use in HRSGs of Captive Power Plant for generation of steam. A schematic diagram of

the routing of these gases is provided in Fig.1. All these gases, both before and after implementation of the

project, were undergoing combustion, with the difference that the heat from the Purge gas was lost to the

atmosphere. In the project scenario energy in the form of heat is recovered and used in steam generation

leading to an improvement in energy efficiency as the energy input from additional quantity of LSHS is

eliminated. As the Purge Gas replaces an equivalent quantity of LSHS in the HRSG, the project achieves it

objective of reducing Greenhouse Gas emission from that LSHS that is now conserved.

Fig 1. Schematic of Purge Gas recovery A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity:

To HRSG at CPP

10-V-206

PV4002

PV4001

To Gas Cracker

Fuel Gas from Gas Cracker

Cyclone separator

Filter

Membrane Separation

Unit

Lean Gas from GAIL

Purge Gas from Train-I

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 11 >> INDIA A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): >> INDIA A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: >> MAHARASHTRA A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc: >> P.O. : Petrochemicals Township, Nagothane – 402 125 Dist. : Raigad. A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this small-scale project activity(ies): >>

The project site is located at the manufacturing premises of Nagothane Manufacturing Complex,

in the state of Maharashtra in the Western part of India. It is about 120 Km from Mumbai. The

nearest National Highway is NH-17 and the nearest railway station is at Nagothane. The site

coordinates are Latitude 180. 33’ 51” E and Longitude 730 6’ 14.6” N.

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 12 A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology of the small-scale project activity: >> Type II D( Ver 07 ): Energy efficiency by purge gas recovery at Nagothane Complex of IPCL

Sectoral Scope: Manufacturing Industries;

Scope Number: 4

A.4.3. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHGs) by sources are to be reduced by the proposed small-scale project activity, including why the emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed small-scale project activity, taking into account national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances: >> Prior to the implementation of the project activity, Purge Gas from the reactor gas loop in the

LLDPE/HDPE Plant was being flared. As a result, the thermal energy available from this stream was lost.

At CPP, the HRSGs consume a mix of liquid and gaseous fuels like LSHS, Mixed Oil, Lean Gas and Fuel

Gas. It has always been an endeavour to maximize usage of the hydrogen rich Fuel gas stream and

minimize firing LSHS and Mixed oil. Hence, after the project was implemented, the Purge Gas from

LLDPE/HDPE Plant is consumed at Gas Cracker Plant, releasing extra quantity of Fuel Gas to be

consumed for steam generation at CPP.

Carbon dioxide emission from combustion of Purge gas remains the same before and after the

implementation of the project. However, in the post project scenario, the energy from an internally

generated reaction product that was lost in flare was recovered and additional energy input in the form of

an energy-wise equivalent quantity of LSHS firing was reduced leading to reduction in carbon dioxide

emission.

Hence, in the event, the Purge Gas stream was not used as a fuel, an energy-wise equivalent LSHS

would have been continued to burn in the HRSGs, additionally contributing to carbon dioxide

emission.

A.4.3.1 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: >> As stated above, the reduction in emission of carbon dioxide is a resultant of the project activity. The

project was commissioned on 09/07/05. The estimated reduction of carbon dioxide emission from the

project is given in the Table A.1 below. Details are indicated in the tables in Section B.

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 13 Emission reductions

Table A.1 Year Annual estimation of emission reduction

tonnes CO2 e Jan'07 to Dec'07 6700

Jan'08 to Dec'08 6700

Jan'09 to Dec'09 6700

Jan'10 to Dec'10 6700

Jan'11 to Dec'11 6700

Jan'12 to Dec'12 6700

Jan'13 to Dec'13 6700

Jan'14 to Dec'14 6700

Jan'15 to Dec'15 6700

Jan'16 to Dec'16 6700

Total estimated reductions ( tonnes CO2 e ) 67000

Total Number of crediting years 10

Annual Average over the crediting period of

estimated reductions ( tonnes of CO2 e )

6700

A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity: >> No public funding has been sought for the project activity and the project proponent made the entire

investment for the project from funds available with itself.

A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a larger project activity: >> As mentioned under Appendix C of the simplified Modalities and Procedure for Small-Scale CDM project

Activities, “ A proposed small-scale project activity shall be deemed to be a debundled component of a

large project activity if there is a registered small-scale CDM project activity or an application to register

another small-scale CDM project activity:

• With the same project participants

• In the same project category and technology / measure and

• Registered within the previous 2 years and

• Whose boundary is within 1 km of the project boundary of the proposed small-scaled activity at the

closest point.”

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 14 The project activity is not a debundled component of a large project activity as there is no small scale

CDM project activity or an application registered by Nagothane Manufacturing complex, in the same

project category in the last two years within 1 km of the project boundary of the proposed small-scale

project activity.

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 15 SECTION B. Application of a baseline methodology: B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline methodology applied to the small-scale project activity: >> Type II D ( Ver 7 ): Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities

Reference : Categorisation of Appendix B to the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale

CDM project activities.

B.2 Project category applicable to the small-scale project activity: >> Applicability criteria of the project as mentioned in the methodology AMS IID are as follows:

These criteria in the context of the project are point-wise addressed in the following table:

Table B.1 Category Criteria Project Activity Applicability Type II D Energy efficiency measures

implemented at a single

industrial facility

The project is implemented at a single

facility, i.e. at the Nagothane

Manufacturing Complex. The project

is aimed at energy efficiency.

Methodology

is applicable

The category covers project

activities aimed primarily at

energy efficiency

The Project activity improves energy

efficiency as it reduces wastage of

energy through flaring of

hydrocarbons.

Methodology

is applicable

The measures may replace

existing equipment or be

installed in a new facility

The project involves recovery of

waste hydrocarbon stream.

Methodology

is applicable

The aggregate energy savings of a single project may not exceed the equivalent of 15 GWhe per year. A total saving of 15 GWhe per year is equivalent to a maximum saving of 45 GWhth per year in fuel input to the generation unit.

The enrgy saving through this activity

is 24.3 GWHTh per year.

Methodology

is applicable

From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the project meets all the applicability criteria set out

under the selected small-scale methodology and hence the project category is applicable to the project.

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 16 The emission factor for LSHS has been taken from IPCC Good Practice Guidance, 2000. The calculation

procedure has been provided in Annexure 3.

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 small-scale CDM project activity: >> As explained above, the project initiatives qualify under Type II, D- Energy efficiency and fuel switching

measures for industrial facilities of small scale CDM simplified modalities and procedure. The project

additionality is analysed below.

In accordance with paragraph 28 of the simplified modalities and procedures for small scale CDM

projects, a simplified baseline and monitoring methodology is listed in Appendix B may be used if the

project participant can demonstrate that project activity would otherwise not be implemented due to the

existence of one or more barrier (s) listed in the attachment A to Appendix B. Similarly, for the identified

CDM project, following barriers have been overcome:

The project proponent is actively participating in efforts towards reduction in emission of Greenhouse

Gases. The company has contributed to sustainable development initiatives of the country through various

boards, advisory committees. The backup papers can be furnished to the validator if so desired. As

described before, the project, commissioned on 09/07/2005, aims at reducing wastage of energy, in other

words improving energy efficiency by recovering the hydrocarbon stream being flared and using it to

reduce LSHS consumption. The project activity would not have occurred anyway due to at least one of the

following barriers.

As described before, the project aims at reducing wastage of energy, that is improving energy efficiency

by recovering the hydrocarbon stream being flared and using it to partially eliminate additional LSHS

consumption in the HRSGs at Captive Power Plant.

Additionality of the project is justified based on the guidelines in Attachment A to Appendix B of the

simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale projects. The project activity would not have occurred

anyway due to at least one of the following barriers.

Investment barrier: A financially more viable alternative to the project activity would have led to higher

emissions;

Technological barrier: A less technologically advanced alternative to the project activity involves lower

risks due to the performance uncertainty or low market share of the new technology adopted for the project

activity and so would have led to higher emissions;

Barrier due to prevailing practice: Prevailing practice or existing regulatory or policy requirements

would have led to implementation of a technology with higher emissions;


Other barriers: Without the project activity, for another specific reason identified by the project

participant, such as institutional barriers or limited information, managerial resources, organizational

capacity, financial resources, or capacity to absorb new technologies, emissions would have been higher.

Table B.2 Steps Additionality Requirements Status of Additionality

Check Step 1 Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent

with current laws and regulations

Sub-step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity:

Following alternatives for the project are identified

1) Project activity without CDM benefit

2) Continuation of existing practice

The first alternatives is ruled out because of various

investments, technological and prevailing practice barrier

which are elaborated below.

Continuation with the existing practice i.e. flaring the Purge

Gas stream would have been the most plausible alternative as

this alternative was not affecting business scenario. Hence,

continuation with the existing practice is the baseline scenario.

The project proponent has executed this project as an effort to

reduce Greenhouse Gas emission.

Sub-step 1b. Enforcement of applicable laws and

regulations:

There are/were no regulations and programs either at the State

or Municipal or Country levels that compel or constrain the

facility from implementing energy efficiency projects. In the

Manufacturing sector in India, energy efficiency projects are

not under the purview of any legal act. However, this project

activity complies with all good and safe engineering practices.

The additionality check for Step 1 has been crossed.

Step 2 & 3 Identification of Barrier

Technological barriers:

Concerns identified are as follows:

1. Risks involved: The project activity involves

The additionality check

for Steps 2 & 3 has been

crossed.

3 Document available for reference


Steps Additionality Requirements Status of Additionality Check

recovering a stream that is a mixture of hydrocarbons

and other gases like ethane, ethylene, butane, 1-Butene,

pentane, hexane, hydrogen, nitrogen and suspended

particles of polythelene powder. The nitrogen content

in the Purge stream is almost 50% by volume. Nitrogen

being an inert gas, can cause flame out of burners

resulting in shutdown of furnaces. The fine particles of

polymer present in the stream gets deposited on filters

and sensitive flow measuring equipment causing

fluctuation in fuel flow. The polymer particles also

deposit as char on the burner tips resulting in

deteriorated burner performance. Fluctuation in fuel

flow and under-performance of burners can result in

shutdown of furnaces. In continuous chemical

industries, such equipment failures are a cause of major

financial setback due to both loss of production and

loss of material that take place due to emergency

procedures.

2. Other operation risks: The membrane separation unit

installed is the first such equipment installed in India3.

Project proponent has to train the employees as they are

neither experienced nor trained to handle emergency

troubleshooting and crisis situations in the operation of

Membrane Separation Unit. Since the operation and

maintenance of this equipment is new, the risks

associated with the unforeseen circumstances are not

identified. Implementation of the project has resulted in

additional risks which the operating personnel have to

tackle on a day to day basis by vigilant monitoring of

the Membrane Separation Unit as well as the attached

systems.

It can be appreciated that the risks involved in operating the

system of recovery were sufficient to warrant non-approval of

the scheme. Further noting that the business in general of



Nagothane Manufacturing Complex was not impacted by

flaring of this stream as was being practiced, there was no

compelling reason for Nagothane Manufacturing Complex,

other than reducing GHG emission reduction, to recognize the

risks and still implement the recovery scheme.

The project activity crosses technological barriers as the

project proponent has mitigated significant risk by installing

safety instruments and automations, although project

proponent had no experience to implement this project. The

system becomes much more complicate which may disturb the

main product quality if things go wrong.

Step 4: Barrier due to prevailing practice

The Membrane Separation Unit installed to reduce

hydrocarbon content in the Purge Gas and thus reduce GHG

emissions, is the first such equipment installed in India4.The

prevailing practice in similar sized plants elsewhere, is flaring

of this stream, thus losing the energy therein and consuming

GHG emitting fossil fuel making the process energy

inefficient.

Nagothane Manufacturing Complex has adopted a scheme that

is not a common practice and does not lead to additional

emission of GHG.

For the Petrochemicals sector in India, energy efficiency

projects are not under the purview of any legal act. However,

this project activity complies with all good and safe

engineering practices. Hence, there is no mandatory

requirement for project proponent to implement the energy

efficiency project such as this project activity

The project proponent regularly initiate energy efficiency

programmes at their manufacturing sites and have also taken

voluntary initiatives to realize the potential of Clean


for Step 4 has been

crossed.

4 http://www.mtrinc.com/Pages/News/news_old.html



Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol by

organizing workshop / Energy Conservation meet. Such

initiative needs considerable investment, highly skilled &

trained personnel and dedicated technical personnel to monitor

the energy utilized. Awareness and systematic approach

towards energy conservation and reduction of GHG emission

is not a common practice in the country.

It is also not a common practice in Indian industries to carry

out such major modifications in the process on ground of

energy conservation alone. In recognition of its effort,

contribution and success, Project proponent became winners

of various energy conservation awards like National Energy

Conservation Award in Petrochemicals Sector by Ministry of

Power, Government of India, and Award for Excellence in

Natural Gas Conservation by GAIL and is also recipient of

various awards for its work in the field of Environment

protection, Pollution reduction and safety.

Step 5 Impact of CDM registration The approval and registration of the project activity as a CDM

activity would result inter alias in the following benefits:

• Reduction in GHG emissions.

• CDM fund will provide additional coverage to cover the

risk due to failure of project, shut down of plant and loss

of production.

• The fund will stimulate efforts in Nagothane

Manufacturing Complex to find methods of mitigating

risks and enhance replication of such projects to promote

GHG abatement in the industry.

• Publicity of the efforts taken by the project proponent

towards energy efficiency would result in sustainable

development; and

The social status of the company would be enhanced.


for Step 5 has been

crossed.

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 21 B.4. Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology selected is applied to the small-scale project activity: >> The project boundary is the physical, geographical site of the industrial facility, process or equipment that

is affected by the project activity”. A simple schematic diagram showing the project boundary and the

equipments considered in the project activity is shown below.

Fig 3. Schematic of Project Boundary B.5. Details of the baseline and its development: >> In the absence of the project activity, the HRSGs at Captive Power Plant (CPP) would have continued to

consume LSHS equivalent to the energy obtained from the recovered stream. Had the project activity not

been carried out at Nagothane Manufacturing Complex, it would have, additionally, continued to flare the

Purge Gas stream..

Hence the baseline for the project activity will be the energy equivalent quantity of LSHS used in the

HRSGs at Captive Power Plant.

Date of completing of this baseline development: 08/09/06

Name of person/entity determining the baseline: Reliance Industries Limited

Contact details are given in Annexure 1.

Table B.2 Emission reduction due to recovered Purge Gas Stream

1 Monthly average Purge Gas recovered (Apr’04 to Jun’05)

Kg/month QPG Calculated

Membrane Separation Unit

Gas Cracker Plant

Purge Gas to Flare

Cyclone separator and Filter

Train-I Gas Loop

HRSGs at CPP

Project Boundary


2 Composton of AWC 2.a Avg Ethane (C2) content in Purge gas % wt NET Laboratory analysis 2.b Avg Ethylene (C2') content in Purge gas % wt NETY Laboratory analysis 2.c Avg Butane (C4) content in Purge gas % wt NBU Laboratory analysis 2.d Avg 1-Butene (C4') content in Purge gas % wt NBU1 Laboratory analysis 2.e Avg Pentane (C5) content in Purge gas % wt NPE Laboratory analysis 2.f Avg Hexane (C6) content in Purge gas % wt NHX Laboratory analysis 2.g Avg Hydrogen (H2) content in Purge gas % wt NH2 Laboratory analysis 3 Quantty of recovered hyrocarbon 3.a Quantity of C2 Kg/month QET Calculated 3.b Quantity of C2' Kg/month QETY Calculated 3.c Quantity of C4 Kg/month QBU Calculated 3.d Quantity of C4' Kg/month QBU1 Calculated 3.e Quantity of C5 Kg/month QPE Calculated 3.f Quantity of C6 Kg/month QHX Calculated 3.g Quantity of H2 Kg/month QH2 Calculated 4 Molecular weight of components 4.a Molecular wt of C2 MWET Standard figures 4.b Molecular wt of C2' MWETY Standard figures 4.c Molecular wt of C4 MWBU Standard figures 4.d Molecular wt of C4' MWBU1 Standard figures 4.e Molecular wt of C5 MWPE Standard figures 4.f Molecular wt of C6 MWHX Standard figures 4.g Molecular wt of H2 MWH2 Standard figures 5 Moles of CO2 from recovered

components

5.a Moles of CO2 from C2 Kg-moles/month MET Calculated 5.b Moles of CO2 from C2' Kg-moles/month METY Calculated 5.c Moles of CO2 from C4 Kg-moles/month MBU Calculated 5.d Moles of CO2 from C4' Kg-moles/month MBU1 Calculated 5.e Moles of CO2 from C5 Kg-moles/month MPE Calculated 5.f Moles of CO2 from C6 Kg-moles/month MHX Calculated 5.g Moles of CO2 from H2 Kg-moles/month MH2 Calculated 5.h Total CO2 emission Kg-moles/month MCO2 Calculated 6 Energy from recovered Purge Gas 6.a NCV of C2 TJ/T NCVET Standard figures 6.b NCV of C2' TJ/T NCVETY Standard figures 6.c NCV of C4 TJ/T NCVBU Standard figures 6.d NCV of C4' TJ/T NCVBU1 Standard figures 6.e NCV of C5 TJ/T NCVPE Standard figures 6.f NCV of C6 TJ/T NCVHX Standard figures 6.g NCV of H2 TJ/T NCVH2 Standard figures 6.h Energy from recovered C2 TJ/month HET Calculated 6.i Energy from recovered C2' TJ/month HETY Calculated 6.j Energy from recovered C4 TJ/month HBU Calculated 6.k Energy from recovered C4' TJ/month HBU1 Calculated 6.l Energy from recovered C5 TJ/month HET Calculated

6.m Energy from recovered C6 TJ/month HHX Calculated 6.n Energy from recovered H2 TJ/month HH2 Calculated


6.o Total energy recovered TJ/month HPG Calculated 7 Baseline: CO2 emission due to LSHS 7.a Ratio of heater efficiency before and after

project implementation Reff

Calculated 7.b Carbon emission factor for LSHS tC/TJ EfC IPCC Default 7.c Oxidation factor Of IPCC Default 7.d CO2 emission factor of LSHS tCO2/TJ EfCO2 Calculated 7.e Emission due to LSHS consumption

equivalent to energy of Purge Gas recovered

tCO2/month E

Calculated 7.f Total operating months in a year months OP Annual 7.g Baseline:Total CO2 emissions in a year tCO2/year Eyear Calculated

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 24 SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period: C.1. Duration of the small-scale project activity: >> C.1.1. Starting date of the small-scale project activity: >> 10/01/2004

(Date of start of procurement)

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the small-scale project activity: >> 20 years C.2. Choice of crediting period and related information: >> Fixed crediting period has been selected

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period: >> Not applicable

C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: >> Not applicable

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: >> Not applicable C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: >> Yes C.2.2.1. Starting date: >> 01/01/2007 ( date by which the project is expected to be registered ) C.2.2.2. Length: >> 10 Years

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 25 SECTION D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan: >> D.1. Name and reference of approved monitoring methodology applied to the small-scale project activity: >> As per Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities, the

name and reference of approved monitoring methodology applied to this project activity are:

Type II D( Ver 7 ): Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities

D.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the small-scale project activity: >> In addition to the emissions arising from LSHS/Liquid fuel combustion in HRSGs, additional CO2

emissions occur during fossil fuel extraction, processing and transportation to the consumption site. In

view of insufficient specific data on these activities as applicable to this project activity, the resultant

emissions are not included in the project. This also provides a conservative estimate of the emission

reductions.

As per the provisions of paragraph 14 of Draft Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small Scale CDM

Project Activities [FCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.3, English, Page 21] the “Project participants may use the

simplified baseline and monitoring methodologies specified in appendix B for their project category” if

they meet the applicability criteria of Small scale CDM project activity. As detailed in Section B.2 of this

Project design Document, Category IID is applicable to the project activity. Hence, the monitoring

methodology and plan has been developed in line with the guidance provided in Appendix B.

The baseline emission is CO2 emission from combustion of LSHS to the extent limited by the energy

available from the recovered Purge Gas stream.

As per the provisions set in the Category IID methodology, the following parameters are to be measured

and monitored in the project activity.

• Quantity of Purge Gas stream recovered and sent to Gas Cracker Plant.

• Laboratory analysis of the composition of this stream

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 26 D.3 Data to be monitored: >>

ID number

Data type

Data Variable

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)

For how long is

archived data kept

Comment

Parameters to determine recovery of hydrocarbon stream and thereby obtain energy of equivalent LSHS to be replaced. D.3.1 Purge Gas to Gas

Cracker Plant QPG T m Monthly 100% Electronic

Crediting period (10 years)+ 2

yrs Available on DCS

D.3.2 Ethane content in Purge Gas stream

NET % wt m

Daily 100% Electronic

Crediting period (10 years)+ 2 yrs

Available from Laboratory analysis of sample collected of Purge Gas stream

D.3.3 Ethylene content in Purge Gas stream

NETY % wt m




D.3.4 Butane content in Purge Gas stream

NBU % wt m




D.3.5 1-Butene content in Purge Gas stream

NBU1 % wt m




D.3.6 Pentane content in Purge Gas stream

NPE % wt m




CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 27 D.3.7 Hexane content

in Purge Gas stream

NHX % wt m




D.3.8 Hydrogen content in Purge Gas stream

NH2 % wt m




Constants used D.3.9 Net Calorific

Value of LSHS NCVLSHS -- -- -- -- -- --

IPCC default = 40.19 TJ/kT (IPCC ID: 17154)

D.3.10 Emission factor for LSHS

EfC tC/TJ IPCC default = 21.1 tC/TJ (IPCC ID: 110660)

D.3.11 Oxidation factor for LSHS

IPCC default = 0.99 (IPCC ID: 110712)

D.3.12 Net Calorific Value of Ethane

NCVET Kcal/Kg -- -- -- -- -- 11332 Kcal/Kg Standard value – applicable throughout the project duration

D.3.13 Net Calorific Value of Ethylene

NCVETY Kcal/Kg -- -- -- -- -- 11279 Kcal/Kg Standard value – applicable throughout the project duration

D.3.14 Net Calorific Value of Butane

NCVBU Kcal/Kg -- -- -- -- -- 11010 Kcal/Kg Standard value – applicable throughout the project duration

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 28 D.3.15 Net Calorific

Value of 1-Butene

NCVBU1 Kcal/Kg -- -- -- -- -- 11226 Kcal/Kg Standard value – applicable throughout the project duration

D.3.16 Net Calorific Value of Pentane

NCVPE Kcal/Kg -- -- -- -- -- 11383 Kcal/Kg Standard value – applicable throughout the project duration

D.3.17 Net Calorific Value of Hexane

NCVHX Kcal/Kg -- -- -- -- -- 10782 Kcal/Kg Standard value – applicable throughout the project duration

D.3.18 Net Calorific Value of Hydrogen

NCVH2 Kcal/Kg -- -- -- -- -- 28676 Kcal/Kg Standard value – applicable throughout the project duration

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 29 D.4. Qualitative explanation of how quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are undertaken: >> Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures that are being undertaken for data monitored

Data (Indicate table and

ID number e.g. 3.-1.; 3.2.)

Uncertainty level of data (High/Medium/Low)

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

D.3.1 Low QA / QC procedure for all these measurements are part of GHG Emission Reduction Management System System which is hooked up to plant ISO system that is reviewed internally on monthly basis.








CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 30 D.5. Please describe briefly the operational and management structure that the project participant(s) will implement in order to monitor emission reductions and any leakage effects generated by the project activity: >> No leakages due to project activity

The process monitoring and control system at the Nagothane Manufacturing Complex is automated. All

the parameters covered under monitoring plan are monitored. This Worksheet Doc No

RIL/I/PM/0607/008 is designed for both the measures and is an in-house development to monitor the

projects on daily basis.

Technology department (TLS) monitors the data on monthly basis in the form of monthly reports.

Technology department (TLS) Engineer will monitor and document the data on regular basis as per the

monitoring plan outlined in Section D.3.

Report on emission reductions will be maintained on a monthly basis and will be available with

Technology Department.

Project proponent has established a project specific GHG Emission Reduction Management System

RIL/I/MS/ 0607/008 which mentions QC & QA details, that is hooked up to Plant ISO system. This has

made the CDM project system driven. This document gives detailed responsibility matrix, emergency

preparedness, calibration / measurement / monitoring and reporting parameters, control of records,

internal audits, performance review, and corrective action for sustaining the CDM project.

D.6. Name of person/entity determining the monitoring methodology: >> The contact information is furnished in Annexure 1

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 31 SECTION E.: Estimation of GHG emissions by sources: E.1. Formulae used: >> E.1.1 Selected formulae as provided in appendix B: >> Not Applicable E.1.2 Description of formulae when not provided in appendix B: >> In the estimation and calculation of GHG emissions, both in the baseline and in the project activity,

emissions of methane and nitrous oxide have not been considered as they are negligible. As a result,

the emission reduction calculated is conservative.

E.1.2.1 Describe the formulae used to estimate anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs due to the project activity within the project boundary: >> The Purge Gas stream, a stream consisting of hydrocarbons, nitrogen, hydrogen was being flared in the

baseline case. Hence emission due to combustion of this stream in the project scenario has not been

considered.

Hence, in this case project emission is nil.

E.1.2.2 Describe the formulae used to estimate leakage due to the project activity, where required, for the applicable project category in appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities >> Leakage is not applicable in the project activity. E.1.2.3 The sum of E.1.2.1 and E.1.2.2 represents the small-scale project activity emissions: >> Project emission, as sum of emissions shown in E.1.2.1 and E.1.2.2 is nil.

E.1.2.4 Describe the formulae used to estimate the anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs in the baseline using the baseline methodology for the applicable project category in appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities: >> In the baseline the Purge Gas stream was being flared. In the project case the same stream is recovered

and is used as fuel in the HRSG at CPP. In both cases, baseline as well as project, the quantity of carbon

dioxide emission from the Purge gas stream remains the same, and hence is not considered. In the

baseline, the emission was due to the combustion of LSHS equivalent to the Purge Gas recovered.

Table E.1


Emission reduction due to recovered Purge Gas Stream 1 Monthly average Purge Gas recovered

(Apr’04 to Jun’05) Kg/month QPG

105600.51 2 Composton of AWC 2.a Avg Ethane (C2) content in Purge gas % wt NET 15.69 2.b Avg Ethylene (C2') content in Purge gas % wt NETY 48.00 2.c Avg Butane (C4) content in Purge gas % wt NBU 0.13 2.d Avg 1-Butene (C4') content in Purge gas % wt NBU1 0.63 2.e Avg Pentane (C5) content in Purge gas % wt NPE 4.03 2.f Avg Hexane (C6) content in Purge gas % wt NHX 1.61 2.g Avg Hydrogen (H2) content in Purge gas % wt NH2 29.91 3 Quantty of recovered hyrocarbon 3.a Quantity of C2 Kg/month QET = QPG * NET 16566.15 3.b Quantity of C2' Kg/month QETY = QPG * NETY 50692.41 3.c Quantity of C4 Kg/month QBU = QPG * NBU 137.26 3.d Quantity of C4' Kg/month QBU1 = QPG * NBU1 662.65 3.e Quantity of C5 Kg/month QPE = QPG * NPE 4259.87 3.f Quantity of C6 Kg/month QHX = QPG * NHX 1696.06 3.g Quantity of H2 Kg/month QH2 = QPG * NH2 31586.12 4 Molecular weight of components 4.a Molecular wt of C2 MWET 30 4.b Molecular wt of C2' MWETY 28 4.c Molecular wt of C4 MWBU 58 4.d Molecular wt of C4' MWBU1 56 4.e Molecular wt of C5 MWPE 72 4.f Molecular wt of C6 MWHX 86 4.g Molecular wt of H2 MWH2 2 5 Moles of CO2 from recovered

components

5.a Moles of CO2 from C2 Kg-moles/month MET = (QET / MWET) *

2 1104.410 5.b Moles of CO2 from C2' Kg-moles/month METY = (QETY /

MWETY) * 2 3620.886 5.c Moles of CO2 from C4 Kg-moles/month MBU = (QBU / MWBU) *

4 9.466 5.d Moles of CO2 from C4' Kg-moles/month MBU1 = (QBU1 / MWBU1)

* 5 47.332 5.e Moles of CO2 from C5 Kg-moles/month MPE = (QPE / MWPE) *

5 295.824 5.f Moles of CO2 from C6 Kg-moles/month MHX = (QHX / MWHX) *

6 118.330 5.g Moles of CO2 from H2 Kg-moles/month MH2 = (QH2 / MWH2) *

0 0.000 5.h Total CO2 emission Kg-moles/month MCO2 = MET + METY +

MBU + MBU1 + MPE + MHX + MH2 5196.248

6 Energy from recovered Purge Gas 6.a NCV of C2 TJ/T NCVET 0.0474 6.b NCV of C2' TJ/T NCVETY 0.0472 6.c NCV of C4 TJ/T NCVBU 0.0461 6.d NCV of C4' TJ/T NCVBU1 0.0470 6.e NCV of C5 TJ/T NCVPE 0.0477 6.f NCV of C6 TJ/T NCVHX 0.0451


6.g NCV of H2 TJ/T NCVH2 0.1201 6.h Energy from recovered C2 TJ/month HET = (QET * NCVET) /

1000 0.786 6.i Energy from recovered C2' TJ/month HETY = (QETY *

NCVETY) / 1000 2.394 6.j Energy from recovered C4 TJ/month HBU = (QBU * NCVBU) /

1000 0.006 6.k Energy from recovered C4' TJ/month HBU1 = (QBU1 *

NCVBU1) /1000 0.031 6.l Energy from recovered C5 TJ/month HET = (QPE * NCVPE) /

1000 0.203 6.m Energy from recovered C6 TJ/month HHX = (QHX * NCVHX) /

1000 0.077 6.n Energy from recovered H2 TJ/month HH2 = (QH2 * NCVH2) /

1000 3.792 6.o Total energy recovered TJ/month HPG = HET + HETY +

HBU + HBU1 + HPE + HHX + HH2 7.289

7 Baseline: CO2 emission due to LSHS 7.a Ratio of heater efficiency before and after

project implementation Reff 1.000

7.b Carbon emission factor for LSHS tC/TJ EfC 21.1 7.c Oxidation factor Of 0.99 7.d CO2 emission factor of LSHS tCO2/TJ EfCO2 = EfC * Of * (44 /

12) 76.59 7.e Emission due to LSHS consumption


tCO2/month E = HPG * Reff * EfCO2

558.30 7.f Total operating months in a year months OP 12 7.g Baseline:Total CO2 emissions in a year tCO2/year Eyear = E * OP 6700.00

E.1.2.5 Difference between E.1.2.4 and E.1.2.3 represents the emission reductions due to the project activity during a given period: >> Emission reduction: 6700 – 0 = 6700 tCO2/year

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 34 E.2 Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above: >>

Table E.2 Emission reduction

Year Estimation of Project activity

emission

Estimation of baseline emissions

Estimation of leakage

Estimation of emission reduction

(tonnes CO2 e) (tonnes CO2 e) (tonnes CO2 e) (tonnes CO2 e) Jan'07 to Dec'07 0 6700 0 6700

Jan'08 to Dec'08 0 6700 0 6700

Jan'09 to Dec'09 0 6700 0 6700

Jan'10 to Dec'10 0 6700 0 6700

Jan'11 to Dec'11 0 6700 0 6700

Jan'12 to Dec'12 0 6700 0 6700

Jan'13 to Dec'13 0 6700 0 6700

Jan'14 to Dec'14 0 6700 0 6700

Jan'15 to Dec'15 0 6700 0 6700

Jan'16 to Dec'16 0 6700 0 6700

Total 0 67,000 0 67,000

CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02) CDM – Executive Board page 35 SECTION F.: Environmental impacts: F.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity: >>

As per the guidelines for conducting the EIA, the project activity does not fall into any of the two

categories, hence EIA is not required to be done as per the guidelines. However, the project proponent

has carried out Aspect-Impact analysis as a good engineering practice.

The different Aspects considered under the Aspect impact assessment are as follows:

• Land – There is no degradation of land quality due to the project. The quality of the land is not

negatively affected by the project activity as it is non-polluting, clean and there is no land

development activity or discharge of effluents into the soil from the equipment installed in the

project boundary.

• Water – There is no degradation of water quality due to the project. The quality of the water is not

negatively affected by the project activity.

• Air quality – The MSU installed does not emit any contaminants into the air that can be attributed

solely as a result of its operation.

• Noise – There is no contribution to noise level at site that can be attributed solely as a result of its

operation.

• Solid / Hazardous waste – In the project activity there is no generation of solid or hazardous waste

attributable to the project activity.

• Resource Depletion – The project activity aims at reduction in fossil fuel consumption and,

thereby conserving resources rather than causing its depletion.

• Biological Environment – Not applicable.

• Public Health and Safety – The project activity does not endanger public health and safety as it

reduces emission of harmful Greenhouse Gases. Moreover. In the project activity adequate safety

measures have been implemented and persons involved have been trained in the operation of the

recovery system.

• Socio-economic and cultural environment – Due to the project activity the Socio- Economic and

cultural environment has improved as successful implementation of the project has improved the

skill sets of the people, instilled confidence and has provided fresh impetus to the personnel to

conserve energy by identifying more areas in the process where energy can be conserved and GHG

emissions can be reduced.


SECTION G. Stakeholders’ comments: G.1. Brief description of how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: >> The Stakeholders were explained in totality and in depth about the project activity .The related document

on the project was also circulated among them. The stakeholders, after going through the project activity

rated it as environment friendly and without any negative impact on the work environment. They also

praised the environment friendly approach of the company.

The stakeholders have filled in questionnaires given to them to assess the impact of the project on the

environment. The same are available with the project proponent as records and can be made available if

so desired by the Validator.

The project activity involves modifications within the existing operational plant. There are well-

established procedures within the company for involving technical as well as operating staff in the

decision making for implementation of any project. Field Change Order (FCO) is circulated through all

key departments within the plant concerned with the project activity. Comments from the department

chiefs are available in such FCOs.

G.2. Summary of the comments received: >> The stakeholders who were interviewed include panel superintendent, field engineer, Technical services

engineer and plant production manager. After providing all the details of project activity, the questions

were asked to evaluate what the stakeholder thinks about impact of project activity on following :

1. Air pollution

2. Water pollution

3. Water availability

4. Water allocation

5. Natural drainage pattern

6. Drainage in general

7. Solid waste generation and disposal

8. Land use / landscape

9. Plant life

10. Agriculture / horticulture

11. Habitat fragmentation

12. Employment

13. Vocational opportunities


14. Income levels

15. Stress on infrastructure

The stakeholders have indicated that there is no significant impact of the project activity in terms of any

of the above parameters.

G.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: >> Stakeholders have appraised the project as an environment friendly project and have expressed their

satisfaction on the fact that it reduces emissions and contributes to well-being of society. There are no

negative comments received that require the project proponent to take any corrective action.


Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: Reliance Industries Limited Street/P.O.Box: Thane-Belapur Road, Koparkhairane Building: 2nd Floor, B Wing, PHQ, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City (DAKC) City: Navi Mumbai State/Region: Maharashtra Postfix/ZIP: 400709 Country: India Telephone: + 91 22 67270585 FAX: + 91 22 67270699 E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.ril.com Represented by: Title: General Manager Salutation: Mr Last Name: Mukherjee Middle Name: K First Name: Kisor Department: Projects Mobile: + 91 9322645078 Direct FAX: + 91 22 67270699 Direct tel: + 91 22 67270585 Personal E-Mail: [email protected]


Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

There was no public funding in procurement or implementation of the project activity. The entire investment was from funds generated internally.

- - - - -


Annex 3

ABBREVIATIONS

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CER Certified Emission Reduction

CPP Captive Power Plant

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FCO Field Change Order

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator

KTA Kilo Tonnes per Annum

LLDPE Linear Low Density Polyethylene

LSHS Low Sulphur Heavy Stock

MSU Membrane Separation Unit

TPH Tonnes per Hour

UNFCCC United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change


Enclosure 1

Calculation for CO2 emission reduction

Table A : Purge Gas stream recovered per month

Month Purge Gas (MT)

Apr-04 71.797

May-04 88.412Jun-04 128.585Jul-04 77.7732Aug-04 132.0964Sep-04 111.746Oct-04 65.815Nov-04 82.778Dec-04 124.892Jan-05 148.558Feb-05 118.415Mar-05 126.569Apr-05 59.092May-05 110.783Jun-05 136.696

Average 105.600

Table B : Calculation for emission reduction Emission reduction due to recovered Purge Gas Stream

1 Monthly average Purge Gas recovered (Apr’04 to Jun’05)

Kg/month QPG 105600.51

2 Composton of AWC 2.a Avg Ethane (C2) content in Purge gas % wt NET 15.69 2.b Avg Ethylene (C2') content in Purge gas % wt NETY 48.00 2.c Avg Butane (C4) content in Purge gas % wt NBU 0.13 2.d Avg 1-Butene (C4') content in Purge gas % wt NBU1 0.63 2.e Avg Pentane (C5) content in Purge gas % wt NPE 4.03 2.f Avg Hexane (C6) content in Purge gas % wt NHX 1.61 2.g Avg Hydrogen (H2) content in Purge gas % wt NH2 29.91 3 Quantty of recovered hyrocarbon 3.a Quantity of C2 Kg/month QET = QPG * NET 16566.15 3.b Quantity of C2' Kg/month QETY = QPG * NETY 50692.41 3.c Quantity of C4 Kg/month QBU = QPG * NBU 137.26 3.d Quantity of C4' Kg/month QBU1 = QPG * NBU1 662.65 3.e Quantity of C5 Kg/month QPE = QPG * NPE 4259.87 3.f Quantity of C6 Kg/month QHX = QPG * NHX 1696.06 3.g Quantity of H2 Kg/month QH2 = QPG * NH2 31586.12 4 Molecular weight of components 4.a Molecular wt of C2 MWET 30 4.b Molecular wt of C2' MWETY 28 4.c Molecular wt of C4 MWBU 58


4.d Molecular wt of C4' MWBU1 56 4.e Molecular wt of C5 MWPE 72 4.f Molecular wt of C6 MWHX 86 4.g Molecular wt of H2 MWH2 2 5 Moles of CO2 from recovered

components

5.a Moles of CO2 from C2 Kg-moles/month MET = (QET / MWET) *

2 1104.410 5.b Moles of CO2 from C2' Kg-moles/month METY = (QETY /

MWETY) * 2 3620.886 5.c Moles of CO2 from C4 Kg-moles/month MBU = (QBU / MWBU) *

4 9.466 5.d Moles of CO2 from C4' Kg-moles/month MBU1 = (QBU1 / MWBU1)

* 5 47.332 5.e Moles of CO2 from C5 Kg-moles/month MPE = (QPE / MWPE) *

5 295.824 5.f Moles of CO2 from C6 Kg-moles/month MHX = (QHX / MWHX) *

6 118.330 5.g Moles of CO2 from H2 Kg-moles/month MH2 = (QH2 / MWH2) *

0 0.000 5.h Total CO2 emission Kg-moles/month MCO2 = MET + METY +

MBU + MBU1 + MPE + MHX + MH2 5196.248

6 Energy from recovered Purge Gas 6.a NCV of C2 TJ/T NCVET 0.0474 6.b NCV of C2' TJ/T NCVETY 0.0472 6.c NCV of C4 TJ/T NCVBU 0.0461 6.d NCV of C4' TJ/T NCVBU1 0.0470 6.e NCV of C5 TJ/T NCVPE 0.0477 6.f NCV of C6 TJ/T NCVHX 0.0451 6.g NCV of H2 TJ/T NCVH2 0.1201 6.h Energy from recovered C2 TJ/month HET = (QET * NCVET) /

1000 0.786 6.i Energy from recovered C2' TJ/month HETY = (QETY *

NCVETY) / 1000 2.394 6.j Energy from recovered C4 TJ/month HBU = (QBU * NCVBU) /

1000 0.006 6.k Energy from recovered C4' TJ/month HBU1 = (QBU1 *

NCVBU1) /1000 0.031 6.l Energy from recovered C5 TJ/month HET = (QPE * NCVPE) /

1000 0.203 6.m Energy from recovered C6 TJ/month HHX = (QHX * NCVHX) /

1000 0.077 6.n Energy from recovered H2 TJ/month HH2 = (QH2 * NCVH2) /

1000 3.792 6.o Total energy recovered TJ/month HPG = HET + HETY +

HBU + HBU1 + HPE + HHX + HH2 7.289

7 Baseline: CO2 emission due to LSHS 7.a Ratio of heater efficiency before and after

project implementation Reff 1.000

7.b Carbon emission factor for LSHS tC/TJ EfC 21.1


7.c Oxidation factor Of 0.99 7.d CO2 emission factor of LSHS tCO2/TJ EfCO2 = EfC * Of * (44 /

12) 76.59 7.e Emission due to LSHS consumption


tCO2/month E = HPG * Reff * EfCO2

558.30 7.f Total operating months in a year months OP 12 7.g Baseline:Total CO2 emissions in a year tCO2/year Eyear = E * OP 6700.00