monitoring report #3 - netinform · monitoring report #3 version 1 project ... 3 march 2011. itl-id...

JI MONITORING REPORT

Monitoring Report: „Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy”

Monitoring Report #3 Version 1

Project Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, lines 211 – 214

Plant Design Capacity 900,000 t HNO3 per year

Location (GPS) 51.4581 °N, 21.9815 °E

Date / Version of

Monitoring Report 03 March 2011 / Version 1

Line Baseline 3rd Project

Campaign

4th Project

Campaign

L211 11-06-2008 – 19-11-2008

/ 18-05-2010 – 28-11-2010

L212 24-04-2008 – 31-10-2008

/ 08-04-2010 – 11-10-2010

L213 22-04-2008 – 14-12-2008

05-11-2009 – 22-05-2010

26-05-2010 – 01-12-2010

L214 22-04-2008 – 09-12-2008

13-12-2009 – 19-06-2010

14-07-2010 – 03-01-2011

Monitoring Period

(Cf. JI Guidance on

overlapping monitoring

periods (13th Meeting

Report, Annex 13),

all 22-04-2008 –

14-12-2008

05-11-2009 –

19-06-2010

08-04-2010 –

03-01-2011

Underlying PDD

Version 2 from 24 July 2008, validated and approved, amended by extended monitoring plan of the JI Handbook, Version 5, 3 March 2011.

ITL-ID and Date of LoA PL1000055, 21 July 2009

Emission Reductions [tCO2equ]

3rd Project

Campaign, total Thereof in 2009 Thereof in 2010

L213 293,229 83,848 209,381

L214 232,342 21,977 210,366

Sum 525,571 105,825 419,747

For summarized emission calculations, please see attached excel file (Py_MR3_ER_v1_2011-03-03.xls).

2

Emission Reductions [tCO2equ]

4th Project

Campaign, total Thereof in 2010 Thereof in 2011

L211 195,834 195,834 /

L212 235,248 235,248 /

L213 272,966 272,966 /

L214 233,982 230,342 3,640

Sum 938,029 934,389 3,640

Total Emission Reductions as reported per MR #3

for all four lines [tCO2equ]

Total Thereof in

2009

Thereof in

2010

Thereof in

2011

3rd Project Campaign 525,571 105,825 419,747 /

4th Project Campaign 938,029 / 934,389 3,640

Total 1,463,601 105,825 1,354,136 3,640

Total Emission Reductions from MR #1, MR #2 and MR #3

for 2009, 2010, 2011 and PDD estimations [tCO2equ]

Thereof in 2009 Thereof in 2010 Thereof in

2011

MR #1 591,396 / /

MR #2 1,077,661 300,276 /

MR #3 105,825 1,354,136 3,640

Total 1,774,882 t.b.d. (MR #4) t.b.d. (MR #5)

PDD estimation 1,562,400 1,562,400 1,562,400

Differences between calculated emission reductions and PDD estimates are attributable in the first place to inexact estimations of (a) plant efficiency and (b) emission reduction efficiency of the applied secondary catalysts. Due to an underestimation of both factors achieved emission reductions are higher than originally assumed. The annual production volume in 2009 and 2010 did not exceed the plant design production capacity of the plant (900,000 t HNO3). For 3rd verification the all-over production of 2010 has been conservatively checked and respective documentation for proof has been submitted for verification. The annual capacity check for 2011 shall be considered in upcoming Monitoring Reports #4 or #5.

presented by: Zakłady Azotowe “Puławy” S.A. Al. Tysiąclecia Państwa Polskiego 13 24 – 110 Puławy Poland

3

Content

1 Monitoring Report #3, Puławy, Line 211 ............................................................. 4 1.1 Documentation structure and reference........................................................ 5 1.2 General project and monitoring information.................................................. 6 1.3 Monitoring results...................................................................................... 6 Annex I – Baseline Emission Factor Line 211.......................................................... 9 Annex II – Project campaign Line 211 ................................................................... 9

2 Monitoring Report #3, Puławy, Line 212 ............................................................10 Monitoring Period.................................................................................................10 2.1 Documentation structure and reference.......................................................11 2.2 General project and monitoring information.................................................12 2.3 Monitoring results.....................................................................................12 Annex I – Baseline Emission Factor Line 212.........................................................15 Annex II – Project campaign Line 212 ..................................................................15

3 Monitoring Report #2, Puławy, Line 213 ...........................................................16 3.1 Documentation structure and reference.......................................................17 3.2 General project and monitoring information.................................................18 3.3 Monitoring results.....................................................................................18 Annex I – Baseline Emission Factor Line 213.........................................................21 Annex II – Project campaigns Line 213 ................................................................21

4 Monitoring Report #2, Puławy, Line 214 ...........................................................22 Emission Reductions [tCO2equ] ...............................................................................22 4.1 Documentation structure and reference.......................................................23 4.2 General project and monitoring information.................................................24 4.3 Monitoring results.....................................................................................24 Annex I – Baseline Emission Factor Line 214.........................................................27 Annex II – Project campaigns Line 214 ................................................................27

5 Version Control of Monitoring Plan ....................................................................28

4

1 Monitoring Report #3, Puławy, Line 211

By reference to the comprehensive and up-to-date monitoring plan, the monitoring report can be structured as a concise document, thus improving the usability of the content and supporting the transparency of the monitoring.

Project, Line Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, line 211

Date / Version of


Monitoring Period 4th Campaign (P4) 18-05-2010 – 28-11-2010

Underlying PDD



Emission Reductions [tCO2equ] P4 195,834


5

1.1 Documentation structure and reference

The purpose of this monitoring report is to provide relevant information about GHG emission reductions achieved during the defined monitoring period. The monitoring report thus contains values of all parameters which have to be controlled according to the PDD, the applied methodology AM0034 and the current monitoring plan (JI handbook). It describes the implementation of all monitoring steps, referring to the handbook (monitoring schedule and protocol), and provides a summary of the calculations of emission reductions. This report has been prepared for third verification of emission reductions at line 211 of Puławy plant. As basic documentation for verification it refers to:

� Approved baseline and monitoring methodology AM0034: “Catalytic reduction of N2O inside the ammonia burner of nitric acid plants”, version 3, which is used in the PDD.

� Project design document to the project in its validated version: “Catalytic Reduction of

N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland”, version 2, 24 July 2008, validated and approved.

� Final determination report: “DETERMINATION OF THE JI-PROJECT: Catalytic Reduction

of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy, Poland”, REPORT NO. 1176510, 24 July 2008.

� Monitoring plan as an up-to-date documentation to the monitoring procedures and their

implementation: “JI Handbook“, version 5, 3 March 2011.

� Integrated data monitoring schedule and protocol where continuous monitoring of the plant operation is documented.

� Extracted Durag AMS data and project calculation tool where relevant calculations

are presented in a transparent way.

� Calibration reports according EN14181 for L211 from 16 – 19 Sept. 2008.

� Monitoring Report #2 in verified version 3.


6

1.2 General project and monitoring information

1.2.1 Project background

Title of project activity: “Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy” Status of implementation: Table 1 below illustrates the project implementation at line 211 as of February 2011. Activity Date Baseline measurement period 11 June 2008 until 19 November 2008

Maintenance period weeks before 11 June 2008 Onsite validation 10 – 12 June 2008 Abatement technology implementation & installation of new oxidation gauzes

21 November – 10 December 2008

Onsite initial verification 29 – 31 October 2008 First project campaign (P1) 10 December 2008 – 11 May 2009 Onsite first verification 19 – 21 October 2009 Second project campaign (P2) 12 May 2009 – 10 November 2009 Third project campaign (P3) 30 November 2009 – 02 May 2010 Onsite second verification 09 – 10 June 2010 Fourth project campaign (P4) 18 May 2010 – 28 November 2010

Table 1: Status of implementation

1.2.2 Applied methodology and monitoring plan

Calculation of emission reductions is being realized on basis of the JI Handbook (version 5) which constitutes an extended and amended/up-dated version to the monitoring section of the PDD (PDD, version 2). Methodological basis to the monitoring plan is approved methodology AM0034 (version 3).

1.3 Monitoring results

The third monitoring report for line 211 covers the fourth project campaign. For this monitoring campaign, the baseline calculation had to be adjusted (due to the shorter project campaign length). The recalculation is part of the monitoring report at hand. Where required, equipment was calibrated according to relevant national standards. Quality of stack monitoring equipment was ensured by applying EN14181. Humidity measurements show that the off-gas is dry (as per thresholds defined in “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream (version 01)”). Thus the basis of measurements of VTG211 as well as NCTG211 is dry.

7

1.3.1 Analysis of baseline period

The baseline campaign was subject to previous verification. For details on the baseline period, please refer to the respective verification reports. For the fourth project campaign (P4), the baseline emission factor had to be recalculated due to a shorter project campaign length. For the recalculation of EFBL for P4, all NCTGBL,211 values that were obtained during the baseline measurements beyond the production volume of 101,331 tHNO3 have been eliminated. The recalculation is presented in the Excel file which is attached to the monitoring report. For P4, the following baseline emission factors were applied:

Comment

4th Campaign (P4) Adjusted baseline EF due to shorter length of P4. Recalculation with reduced NCTGBL,211 dataset.

1.3.2 Analysis of project campaign

The fourth project campaign took place from 18-05-2010 to 28-11-2010. Where possible project campaign data was reviewed on consistency and correctness by crosschecking with data from the SCADA system. This procedure was undertaken by the Nitric Acid Plant Technologist as defined in the monitoring plan. The results have been internally approved by the Nitric Acid Department Manager. The use of default values follows AM0034 stipulations and further conservative approaches. For the latter, section 9.5 of the JI Handbook describes the applied special procedures to account for lacking/faulty NAP values. Process data

Monitored parameters NCTG211 Nitrous oxide concentration in tail gas during project campaign(mgN2O/m³) VTG211 Volume flow of tail gas during project campaign (m³/h) TTG211 Temperature of tail gas during project campaign (°C) PTG211 Pressure of tail gas during project campaign (Pa) Statistical data processing To eliminate mavericks from the VTG211 and NCTG211 samples, data sets have been statistically analyzed along AM0034 procedures (elimination of the 2.5% highest and lowest VTG211 and NCTG211 values). Gauze information Information on the gauze supplier and the oxidation catalyst composition have been gathered and compared to the normal gauze composition and supplier. Documents show that there are no respective changes. Calculated Parameters PEn Emissions of project campaign EFn Emission factor of project campaign

8

For AMS down-time intervals the highest measured emission factor of the campaign has been applied. Moving average emission factor The moving average emission factor (EFma) is calculated for the project campaigns and compared to the actual project emission factor of a campaign (EFn). The higher of the two values is applied for the calculation of the project emissions. The minimum project emission factor (EFmin) is not applicable before the tenth campaign (P10). An overview of the results from calculations is provided in the Annex II.

Operating parameters quality assurance and quality control

Measurements and recordings of OT211 and AFR211 was conducted in compliance with the monitoring plan. Thus quality procedures alongside regular calibrations of the analyzer according to manufacturer requirements have been implemented.

1.3.3 Procedure to account for lacking/faulty NAP values

Both in baseline and project data analysis a conservative approach to account for eventually lacking NAP values is applied. It is applied as a rule that (1) whenever during baseline period a NAP value (NAPBL,211) is faulty, a default value is

applied as its replacement. This default value corresponds to the maximum value derived by a 95% confidence interval evaluation of all hourly NAP values during that baseline period.

(2) whenever during project campaigns a NAP value (NAP211) is faulty, a default value is applied as its replacement. This default value corresponds to the minimum value derived by a 95% confidence interval evaluation of all hourly NAP values during that project campaign.

1.3.4 Emission reductions

Emissions reductions have been calculated as per methodology. For results see Annex II. The NAP production level was within the plant design capacity. No N2O emission legislation applying to nitric acid plants (EFreg) has been introduced during baseline or project campaign. Thus the baseline is valid.

9

Annex I – Baseline Emission Factor Line 211

Normal Campaign Length (CLn): 108,162 tHNO3 (see PDD).

Campaign EFBL [kgN2O/tHNO3] Comment

P4 7.46097145 Adjusted baseline EF due to shorter length of P4. Recalculation with reduced NCTGBL,211 dataset. See attached Excel file (Py_211_P4_Project_18052010-28112010_v1.xls).

Table AI.1: Applicable Baseline Emission Factors

Annex II – Project campaign Line 211

See attached Excel file (Py_211_P4_Project_18052010-28112010_v1.xls).

Campaign Period NAP211

(t HNO3) OH211

(hours)

OH211 where AMS was down

(hours)

EF default (highest value during campaign)

(kg N2O/HNO3)

P4 18-05-10 13:00 – 28-11-10 23:00

101,331 3,620 1 4.27039069

Table AII.1: Key parameters of monitoring periods

Campaign Campaign Specific Emission

Factor (EFn) Moving Average Emission

Factor (EFma) Final Project Emission

Factor (EFP)

P4 1.22675820 0.88847709 1.22675820

Table AII.2: Comparison between campaign specific EF and moving average EF

Campaign Project Emissions

(tN2O)

Campaign specific Baseline Emissions

(tN2O)

Emission Reduction (tN2O)

Emission Reduction (tCO2e)

P4 124.22 756.03 631.72 195,834

Table AII.3: Baseline and Project Emissions, Emission Reduction1

1 Indicated value of Emission Reduction (ER) is smaller than the difference between Project Emissions (PE) and Campaign specific Baseline Emissions as it also considers the applied downtime emission factor.

10

2 Monitoring Report #3, Puławy, Line 212

By reference to the comprehensive and up-to-date monitoring plan, the monitoring report can be structured as a concise document, thus improving the usability of the content and supporting the transparency of the monitoring.


Date / Version of


Monitoring Period 4th Campaign (P4) 08-04-2010 – 11-10-2010

Underlying PDD

Version 2 from 24 July 2008, validated and approved, amended by extended monitoring plan of JI Handbook, Version 5, 3 March 2011.


Emission Reductions [tCO2equ] P4 235,248


11






� Final Determination report: “DETERMINATION OF THE JI-PROJECT: Catalytic Reduction







� Calibration Reports according EN14181 for L212 from 20 – 23 Sept. 2008.



12



Title of project activity: “Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy” Status of implementation: Table 1 below illustrates the project implementation at line 212 as of February 2011. Activity Date Baseline measurement period 24 April 2008 – 31 October 2008

Maintenance period 01 - 29 June 2008 Onsite validation 10 – 12 June 2008 Abatement technology implementation & installation of new oxidation gauzes

05 – 25 November 2008

Onsite initial verification 29 – 31 October 2008 First project campaign (P1) 25 November 2008 – 27 April 2009 Onsite first verification 19 – 21 October 2009 Second project campaign (P2) 29 April 2009 – 15 October 2009 Third project campaign (P3) 03 November 2009 – 27 March 2010 Onsite second verification 09 – 10 June 2010 Fourth project campaign (P4) 08 April 2010 – 11 October 2010





The third monitoring report for line 212 covers the fourth project campaign. Where required, equipment was calibrated according to relevant national standards. Quality of stack monitoring equipment was ensured by applying EN14181. Humidity measurements show that the off-gas is dry (as per thresholds defined in “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream (version 01)”). Thus the basis of measurements of VTG212 as well as NCTG212 is dry.


The baseline campaign was subject to previous verification. For details on the baseline period, please refer to the respective verification documents.

13

For P4, the following baseline emission factor was applied:

Comment

4th Campaign (P4) Verified baseline EF from First Verification.

2.3.2 Analysis of project campaign

The fourth project campaign took place from 08-04-2010 to 11-10-2010. All acquired project campaign data was reviewed on consistency and correctness by crosschecking with data from the SCADA system. This procedure was undertaken by the Nitric Acid Plant Technologist as defined in the monitoring plan. The results have been internally approved by the Nitric Acid Department Manager. The use of default values follows AM0034 stipulations and further conservative approaches. For the latter, section 9.5 of the JI Handbook describes the applied special procedures to account for lacking/faulty NAP values. Process data

Monitored parameters NCTG212 Nitrous oxide concentration in tail gas during project campaign (mgN2O/m³) VTG212 Volume flow of tail gas during project campaign (m³/h) TTG212 Temperature of tail gas during project campaign (°C) PTG212 Pressure of tail gas during project campaign (Pa) Statistical data processing To eliminate mavericks from the VTG212 and NCTG212 samples, data sets have been statistically analyzed along AM0034 procedures (elimination of the 2.5% highest and lowest VTG212 and NCTG212 values). Gauze information Information on the gauze supplier and the oxidation catalyst composition have been gathered and compared to the normal gauze composition and supplier. Documents show that there are no respective changes. Calculated Parameters PEn Emissions of project campaign EFn Emission factor of project campaign For AMS down-time intervals the highest measured emission factor of the campaign has been applied.

14

Moving average emission factor The moving average emission factor (EFma) is calculated for the project campaigns and compared to the actual project emission factor of a campaign (EFn). The higher of the two values is applied for the calculation of the project emissions. The minimum project emission factor (EFmin) is not applicable before the tenth campaign (P10). An overview of the results from calculations is provided in the Annex.




Both in baseline and project data analysis a conservative approach to account for eventually lacking NAP values is applied. It is applied as a rule that

(1) whenever during baseline period a NAP value (NAPBL,212) is faulty, a default value is applied as its replacement. This default value corresponds to the maximum value derived by a 95% confidence interval evaluation of all hourly NAP values during that baseline period.




15



EFBL [kgN2O/tHNO3] Comment

4th Campaign (P4)

8.123298094 Verified baseline EF from First Verification. See attached Excel file (Py_212_P4_BLn_Verif1.xls)

Table AI.1: Applicable Baseline Emission Factors

Annex II – Project campaign Line 212

See attached Excel file (Py_212_P4_Project_08042010-11102010_v1.xls).


(t HNO3) OH212

(hours)


(hours)


(kg N2O/HNO3)

P4 8-04-10 12:00 – 11-10-10 23:00

104,569 3,739 6 3.61563534

Table AII.1: Key parameters of monitoring period

Campaign Campaign Specific

Emission Factor (EFn) Moving Average Emission

Factor (EFma) Final Project Emission Factor

(EFP)

P4 0.70610928 0.86622693 0.86622693



(tN2O)


(tN2O)



P4 73.35 849.44 758.86 235,248



16

3 Monitoring Report #2, Puławy, Line 213 By reference to the comprehensive and up-to-date monitoring plan, the monitoring report can be structured as a concise document, thus improving the usability of the content and supporting the transparency of the monitoring.


Date / Version of


3rd Campaign (P3) 05-11-2009 – 22-05-2010 Monitoring Period

4th Campaign (P4) 26-05-2009 – 01-12-2010

Underlying PDD



P3 293,229 Emission Reductions [tCO2equ]

P4 272,966


17
















18



Title of project activity: “Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy” Status of implementation: Table 1 below illustrates the project implementation at line 213 as of February 2011. Activity Date Baseline measurement period 22 April 2008 - 14 December 2008

Maintenance period 05 – 15 June 2008 Onsite validation 10 – 12 June 2008 Abatement technology implementation & installation of new oxidation gauzes

14 December 2008 – 28 January 2009

Onsite initial verification 29 – 31 October 2008 First project campaign (P1) 28 January 2009 – 16 March 2009 Onsite first verification 19 – 21 October 2009 Second project campaign (P2) 18 March 2009 – 12 September 2009 Third project campaign (P3) 05 November 2009 – 22 May 2010 Onsite second verification 09 – 10 June 2010 Fourth project campaign (P4) 26 May 2009 – 01 December 2010





The monitoring report at hand covers the third and fourth project campaigns of line 213. For both monitoring campaign, the baseline calculation had to be adjusted (due to the shorter project campaign length in case of P4 and first time calculation of normal campaign length for P3). The recalculation is part of the monitoring report at hand. Where required, equipment was calibrated according to relevant national standards. Quality of stack monitoring equipment was ensured by applying EN14181. Humidity measurements show that the off-gas is dry (as per thresholds defined in “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream (version 01)”). Thus the basis of measurements of VTG213 as well as NCTG213 is dry.

19


The baseline campaign was subject to previous verification. For details on the baseline period, please refer to the respective verification reports. For P4, the baseline emission factor had to be recalculated due to a shorter project campaign length than the normal campaign length (CLn < CLnormal). For the recalculation of EFBL for P4, all NCTGBL,213 values that were obtained during the baseline measurements beyond the production volume of 104,247 tHNO3 have been eliminated. The recalculation is presented in the Excel file which is attached to the monitoring report. A recalculation also applies to baseline EF for P3 as for the first time in verification of line 213 the normal campaign length criterion was met. For the project campaign covered by this report, the following baseline emission factor is applied:

Comment

3rd Campaign (P3) Adjusted baseline EF due to first time calculation for normal campaign length of P3.

4th Campaign (P4) Adjusted baseline EF due to shorter length of P3. Recalculation with reduced NCTGBL,213 dataset.

3.3.2 Analysis of project campaigns

The third project campaign took place from 26-05-2010 to 01-12-2010. The fourth project campaign took place from 05-11-2009 to 22-05-2010. All acquired project campaign data was reviewed on consistency and correctness by crosschecking with data from the SCADA system. This procedure was undertaken by the Nitric Acid Plant Technologist as defined in the monitoring plan. The results have been internally approved by the Nitric Acid Department Manager. The use of default values follows AM0034 stipulations and further conservative approaches. For the latter, section 9.5 of the JI Handbook describes the applied special procedures to account for lacking/faulty NAP values. Process data

Monitored parameters NCTG213 Nitrous oxide concentration in tail gas during project campaign (mgN2O/m³) VTG213 Volume flow of tail gas during project campaign (m³/h) TTG213 Temperature of tail gas during project campaign (°C) PTG213 Pressure of tail gas during project campaign (Pa) Statistical data processing To eliminate mavericks from the VTG213 and NCTG213 samples, data sets have been statistically analyzed along AM0034 procedures (elimination of the 2.5% highest and lowest VTG213 and NCTG213 values).

20

Gauze information Information on the gauze supplier and the oxidation catalyst composition have been gathered and compared to the normal gauze composition and supplier. Documents show that there are no respective changes. Calculated Parameters PEn Emissions of project campaign EFn Emission factor of project campaign For AMS down-time intervals the highest measured emission factor of the campaign has been applied. Moving average emission factor The moving average emission factor (EFma) is calculated for the project campaigns and compared to the actual project emission factor of a campaign (EFn). The higher of the two values is applied for the calculation of the project emissions. The minimum project emission factor (EFmin) is not applicable before the tenth campaign (P10). An overview of the results from calculations is provided in the Annex.









21




3rd Campaign (P3)

9.48979393 Adjusted baseline EF due to first time calculation for normal campaign length of P3. See attached Excel file (Py_213_P3_BLn_v1.xls).

4th Campaign (P4)

9.51114485 Adjusted baseline EF due to shorter length of P4. Recalculation with reduced NCTGBL,213 dataset. See attached Excel file (Py_213_P4_BL_v1.xls).

Table AI.1: Applicable Baseline Emission Factor

Annex II – Project campaigns Line 213

See attached Excel files (Py_213_P3_Project_05112009-22052010_v1.xls; Py_213_P4_Project_260510-011210_v1.xls).


(t HNO3) OH213

(hours)


(hours)


(kg N2O/HNO3)

P3 05-11-2009 – 22-05-2010

112,643 3,895 1 4.68858472

P4 26-05-2009 – 01-12-2010

104,248 3,784 10 5.84504126





Factor (EFP)

P3 1.09244909 0.90921011 1.09244909

P4 1.53074710 1.06459436 1.53074710



(tN2O)


(tN2O)



P3 122.95 1,068.96 945.90 293,229

P4 158.39 991.52 880.53 272,966



22

4 Monitoring Report #2, Puławy, Line 214 By reference to the comprehensive and up-to-date monitoring plan, the monitoring report can be structured as a concise document, thus improving the usability of the content and supporting the transparency of the monitoring.


Date / Version of Monitoring

Report 03 March 2011 / Version 1

3rd Campaign (P3) 13-12-2009 – 19-06-2010 Monitoring Period

4th Campaign (P4) 14-07-2010 – 03-01-2011

Underlying PDD



P3 232,342 Emission Reductions [tCO2equ]

P4 233,982


23
















24



Title of project activity: “Catalytic Reduction of N2O inside the Ammonia Burners of the Nitric Acid Plant in Puławy” Status of implementation: Table 1 below illustrates the project implementation at line 214 as of February 2011. Activity Date Baseline measurement period 22 April 2008 - 19 December 2008

Maintenance period 23 – 28 June 2008 Onsite validation 10 – 12 June 2008 Abatement technology implementation & installation of new oxidation gauzes

9 December 2008— 21 January 2009

Onsite initial verification 29 – 31 October 2008 First project campaign (P1) 21 January – 14 April 2009 Onsite first verification 19 – 21 October 2009 Second project campaign (P2) 09 April 2009 – 03 December 2009 Third project campaign (P3) 13 December 2009 – 19 June 2010 Onsite second verification 9 – 10 June 2010 Fourth project campaign (P4) 14 July 2010 – 03 January 2011





The monitoring report at hand covers the third and fourth project campaigns of line 214. For both monitoring campaign, the baseline calculation had to be adjusted (due to shorter project campaign length). The recalculation is part of the monitoring report at hand. Where required, equipment was calibrated according to relevant national standards. Quality of stack monitoring equipment was ensured by applying EN14181. Humidity measurements show that the off-gas is dry (as per thresholds defined in “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream (version 01)”). Thus the basis of measurements of VTG214 as well as NCTG214 is dry.

25


The baseline campaign was subject to previous verification. For details on the baseline period, please refer to the respective verification reports. For both project campaigns (P3/P4), the baseline emission factor had to be recalculated due to a shorter project campaign length. For the recalculation of EFBL per project campaign, all NCTGBL,211 values that were obtained during the baseline measurements beyond the production volume of (P3: 101,310 tHNO3 / P4: 107,657 tHNO3) have been eliminated. The recalculation is presented in the Excel file which is attached to the monitoring report. For the project campaigns covered by this report, the following baseline emission factor is applied:

Comment

3rd Campaign (P3) Adjusted baseline EF due to shorter length of P3. Recalculation with reduced NCTGBL,214 dataset.

4th Campaign (P4) Adjusted baseline EF due to shorter length of P4. Recalculation with reduced NCTGBL,214 dataset..

4.3.2 Analysis of project campaigns

The third project campaign took place from 13 December2009 to 19 June 2010. The fourth project campaign took place from 14 July 2010 to 03 January 2011. All acquired project campaign data was reviewed on consistency and correctness by crosschecking with data from the SCADA system. This procedure was undertaken by the Nitric Acid Plant Technologist as defined in the monitoring plan. The results have been internally approved by the Nitric Acid Department Manager. The use of default values follows AM0034 stipulations and further conservative approaches. For the latter, section 9.5 of the JI Handbook describes the applied special procedures to account for lacking/faulty NAP values. Process data

Monitored parameters NCTG214 Nitrous oxide concentration in tail gas during project campaign (mgN2O/m³) VTG214 Volume flow of tail gas during project campaign (m³/h) TTG214 Temperature of tail gas during project campaign (°C) PTG214 Pressure of tail gas during project campaign (Pa) Statistical data processing To eliminate mavericks from the VTG214 and NCTG214 samples, data sets have been statistically analyzed along AM0034 procedures (elimination of the 2.5% highest and lowest VTG214 and NCTG214 values).

26

Gauze information Information on the gauze supplier and the oxidation catalyst composition have been gathered and compared to the normal gauze composition and supplier. Documents show that there are no respective changes. Calculated Parameters PEn Emissions of project campaign EFn Emission factor of project campaign For AMS down-time intervals the highest measured emission factor of the campaign has been applied. Moving average emission factor The moving average emission factor (EFma) is calculated for the project campaigns and compared to the actual project emission factor of a campaign (EFn). The higher of the two values is applied for the calculation of the project emissions. The minimum project emission factor (EFmin) is not applicable before the tenth campaign (P10). An overview of the results from calculations is provided in the Annex.









27




3rd Campaign (P3)

8.66206361 Adjusted baseline EF due to shorter length of P3. Recalculation with reduced NCTGBL,214 dataset, see attached Excel file (Py_214_P3_BL_v1.xls).

4th Campaign (P4)

8.63052720 Adjusted baseline EF due to shorter length of P4. Recalculation with reduced NCTGBL,214 dataset, see attached Excel file (Py_214_P4_BL_v1.xls).

Table AI.1: Applicable Baseline Emission Factor

Annex II – Project campaigns Line 214

See attached Excel files (Py_214_P3_Project_131209-190610_v1.xls; Py_214_P4_Project_140710-030111_v1.xls)


(t HNO3) OH214

(hours)


(hours)


(kg N2O/HNO3)

P3 13-12-2009 – 19-06-2010

101,310 3,827 6 2.79495326

P4 14-07-2010 – 03-01-2011

107,657 3,963 14 5.97553499





Factor (EFP)

P3 1.11375379 1.26409659 1.26409659

P4 1.61956956 1.35296483 1.61956956



(tN2O)


(tN2O)



P3 112.57 877.56 749.49 232,342

P4 172.70 929.14 754.78 233,982



28

5 Version Control of Monitoring Plan

Since 1st Verification changes have been applied to the Monitoring Plan (JI Handbook). The following list has been taken from that document where further information on the changes is given. Version 5 of the Monitoring Plan contains data updates and further amendments relevant to the preparation of the 3rd Monitoring Report.

Issue Comment

Amendment 4: AST related mavericks shall be treated by application of downtime value

The change improves the implementation of conservative monitoring procedures.

Amendment 5: The applied procedure for NAP concentration measurement is described in detail.

The amended description of regular procedures serves the improved comprehensiveness and transparency of relevant monitoring information. It has no negative effect on the conservativeness of the applied monitoring procedure.

Amendment 6: Conservative default NAP values shall be applied: (a) For the accumulation of NAP per

respective campaign where hourly NAP values exceed plausible maximum values; (b) For the

calculation of hourly EF where NAP values are implausibly low, namely during the first 3 hours after start

ups.

The procedures for treatment of faulty NAP values are conservative. They serve a conservative determination of emission reductions.

Amendment 7: Inclusion of calibration requirements for NAP

measurement

The amended description of calibration information serves the improved comprehensiveness and transparency of the monitoring information. It has no effects on the conservativeness of the applied monitoring procedures.

Amendment 8: Reformulations and corrections

Formal improvements and corrections serve an improved and transparent monitoring. Thus there is no negative effect of this change on the conservativeness of the applied monitoring procedures. A wrong indication of a QAL 2 date constitute an improvement while it has no effects on the calculation of emission reductions.

Amendment 9: Harmonization of parameter indices of Handbook, MR

and Excel files

For improved transparency slight differences in denominations of parameters in the reporting documents (Report/excel file) and of the Monitoring Plan have been corrected. The harmonization will support the implementation of a transparent conservative monitoring.

Amendment 1: The calculation of baseline emissions shall be in line with EB 51 clarifications (See EB 51, Annex 12 on baseline calculations in case of shorter project campaign).

By endorsing the EB stipulations, new regulations regarding a conservative monitoring of emission reductions have been applied. Thus there is no negative effect of this change on the conservativeness of the applied monitoring procedure.

Amendment 2: Further measurement instrument data has been included (further instrument data, further project parameters AFR and OT – relevant for monitoring of OH;

further calibration information (for AFR, OT)

The amendment of data (instruments, parameters, calibrations) serves the improved comprehensiveness and transparency of relevant monitoring information. Thus there is no negative effect of this change on the conservativeness of the applied monitoring procedure.

Amendment 3: Inclusion of assessment of calculation risk

New chapter presents a concise analysis of risks linked to potential flaws in data acquisition, processing, storage and calculation of emission reductions. Thus it supports the implementation of conservative monitoring procedures.