verification report

7/27/2019 Verification report

1/79

Verification Report-1ST PERIODIC

ORISSA POWER CONSORTIUM LTD.

20MWSAMAL GRID-CONNECTED HYDROELECTRICPROJECT IN ORISSA,INDIA

UNFCCCREF.NO.:0895

Monitoring Period: 2009-05-31 to 2011-03-31(incl. both days)

Report No: 8106772122 10/269


2/79

1st Periodic Verification Report: 20MW Samal Grid-connected

Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India

TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program

P-No:8106772122 10/269

Verification Report: Report No. Rev. No. Date of 1stissue: Date of this rev.

8106772122 10/269 0 2011-12-13 2011-12-13Project: Title: Registration date: UNFCCC-No.:

20MW Samal Grid-connected HydroelectricProject in Orissa, India

2007-06-01 0895

Host Country: Verification No.:

India 1st periodic verification

Crediting period: From: To.:

Renewable (7y) Fixed (10y) 2009-05-31 2019-05-30

Project Scale:

Large Scale Small Scale

Project Participant(s): Host Party: Other involved Parties:

Orissa Power Consortium Ltd., India PTC India Financial Services

Limited. - Switzerland Macquarie Bank Limited -

United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland

Client: Project Owner:Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.

Appliedmethodology/ies:

Title: No.: Scope(s) / TA(s)

Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation fromrenewable sources

ACM0002Version 6

1/ 1.2

Monitoring: Monitoring period (MP): No. of days: MP No.

2009-05-31 to 2011-03-31

(both days included)670 First

Monitoring report: Title: Draft version: Final version:

20MW Samal Grid-connected HydroelectricProject in Orissa, India

01 03

Verification team /

Technical Review andFinal Approval

Verification Team: Technical review: Final approval:

Manojkumar Borekar(TL, TE),Dr. AtulTakarkhede (TM, TE)

Swapnil Thanekar(TM, TE)

Rainer WinterKatja Beyer

Rainer Winter

Emission reductions:[t CO2e]

Verified amount As per draft MR: As per PDD:

60,583 t 60929 106789(average) t /a

O i P C ti Ltd h i i d th TV NORD JI/CDM


3/79




P-No:8106772122 10/269

a conservative and appropriate manner.

TV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the project has achieved emissionreductions in the above mentioned reporting period as follows:

Emission reductions: 60,583 t CO2e

Documentinformation: Filename: No. of pages:S01-VA050-A1.doc 79


4/79




P-No:8106772122 10/269

Abbreviations:

CA Corrective Action / Clarification Action

CAR Corrective Action Request

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CEA Central Electricity Authority

CER Certified Emission Reduction

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2eq Carbon dioxide equivalentCL Clarification Request

DG Diesel Generator Set

ER Emission Reduction

FAR Forward Action Request

GHG Greenhouse gas(es)

GRIDCO Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited

HT High Tension

MP Monitoring Plan

MR Monitoring Report

OPCL Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.

O & M Operation and Management

OPTCL Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited

PA Project Activity

PDD Project Design Document


5/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Table of Contents Page

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 71.1. Objective 71.2. Scope 72. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................... 92.1. Technical Project Description 92.2. Project Verification History 102.3. Involved Parties and Project Participants 102.4. Project Location 11

3.

METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE .................................. 12

3.1. Verification Steps 123.2. Contract review 123.3. Appointment of team members and technical reviewers 133.4. Publication of the Monitoring Report 143.5. Verification Planning 143.6. Desk review 163.7. On-site assessment 163.8. Draft verification reporting 183.9. Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs 183.10. Final reporting 183.11. Technical review 193.12. Final approval 194. VERIFICATION FINDINGS ........................................................................... 205. SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS ........................................ 345.1. Implementation of the project 345 2 Project history 35


6/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

5.12. Hints for next periodic Verification 416. VERIFICATION OPINION ............................................................................. 427. REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 43ANNEX 1: VERIFICATION PROTOCOL ................................................................... 50ANNEX 2: STATEMENTS OF COMPETENCE OF ALL INVOLVED PERSONNEL.......... 78


7/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

1. INTRODUCTION

Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. has commissioned the TV NORD JI/CDMCertification Program (CP) to carry out the 1st periodic verification of the project

20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India

with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. The verifiers havereviewed the implementation of the monitoring plan (MP) in the registered CDMproject.

GHG data for the monitoring period was verified in detailed manner applying the setof requirements, audit practices and principles as required under the Validation and

Verification Manual/VVM/

of the UNFCCC.This report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this 1st periodic verificationof the above mentioned UNFCCC registered project activity.

1.1. Objective

The objective of the verification is the review and ex-post determination by an

independent entity of the GHG emission reductions. It includes the verification of the:- implementation and operation of the project activity as given in the PDD,- compliance with applied approved methodology and the provisions of the

monitoring plan,- data given in the monitoring report by checking the monitoring records, the

emissions reduction calculation and supporting evidence,- accuracy of the monitoring equipment,

- quality of evidence,- significance of reporting risks and risks of material misstatements.

1.2. Scope

The verification of this registered project is based on the validated project design


8/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

- other relevant rules, including the host country legislation,- CDM Validation and Verification Manual/VVM/,- monitoring plan as given in the registered PDD/PDD/,- Approved CDM Methodology ACM0002 version 6: Consolidated baseline

methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources.- Change in start date of crediting period/VAL-2/


9/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1. Technical Project Description

The project activity is generation of electricity for a grid system using the power

generation potential available at Samal barrage in the state of Orissa. The projectwith an installed capacity of 20 MW (5x4000 kW) will rely on the water dischargesfrom Samal Barrage which had been constructed at Samal, 34 km downstream ofRengali Dam, across Brahmani river in Orissa. During the site visit (dated 2011-05-24and 2011-05-25) the verification team checked the physical installation, verified thetechnical details of installed equipments and compared the number platespecifications of the installed equipments with the technical description as providedunder the Supply contract facility performance data/TD/ and deems the projectimplementation as consistent with the description made during the validation.

The key parameters of the project are given in Table 2-1:

Table 2-1: Technical data of the project activity/TD/

Equipment Parameter Unit Value1. Turbine Make - VA TECH, Faridabad

Type -Horizontal S Type KaplanTurbine

No. of generating units - 5Rated net head m 9.85Rated discharge m3/sec 52

2. Generator Make TDPS, Bangalore

No. of units 05

Type - synchronous typeRated speed rpm 750


10/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

water resource thereby displacing, electricity generated by fossil fuel fired powerplants or future capacity additions in the NEWNE grid.

Based on the assessment of the verification during the site visit and subsequentdocument review of submitted documents, it is confirmed that during this verification,covering the period 2009-05-31 to 2011-03-31 (inclusive of both days), there is no

change of the capacity of turbines used under the project activity. The proposedproject activity has been implemented as described in the registered PDD. Also theproject complies with all relevant statutory requirements. The amount of emissionreductions over the monitoring period is 60,583 tCO2e.

2.2. Project Verification History

Essential events since the registration of the project are presented in the followingTable 2-2.Table 2-2: Project verification history

# Item Time Status1 Date of registration 2007-06-01 Registered2 Start of crediting period 2009-05-31 Approved by

UNFCCC /VAL-2/3 1stMonitoring period 2009-05-31 to

2011-03-31(inclusive both

days)

Ongoing

2.3. Involved Parties and Project Participants

The following parties to the Kyoto Protocol and project participants are involved in

this project activity (Table 2-3).Table 2-3: Project Parties and project participants

Characteristic Party Project ParticipantHost party India Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.1


11/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

2.4. Project Location

The details of the project location are given in Table 2-4:

Table 2-4: Project Location4

No. Project Location

Host Country IndiaRegion: OrissaProject location address: Samal Village, Angul DistrictLatitude: 2104'44NLongitude: 8507'45 E

The verification team undertook the site visit and document review of the geographical

coordinates and confirms that the above mentioned project location is correct. Please referclosure of finding A1 for more details.


12/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

3. METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE

3.1. Verification Steps

The verification consisted of the following steps: Contract review

Appointment of team members and technical reviewers

Publication of the monitoring report

A desk review of the Monitoring Report/MR/ submitted by the client andadditional supporting documents with the use of customised verification

protocol /CPM/according to the Validation and Verification Manual/VVM/, Verification planning,

On-Site assessment,

Background investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of theproject developer and its contractors,

Draft verification reporting Resolution of corrective actions (if any)

Final verification reporting

Technical review

Final approval of the verification.

The sequence of the verification is given in the Table 3-1 below:

Table 3-1: Verification sequenceTable

Topic Time

Assignment of verification 2010-04-26/CON/P bli i f M i i R


13/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

the necessary competences to carry out the verification can be provided,

Impartiality issues are clear and in line with the CDM accreditationrequirements

a contract review was carried out before the contract was signed.

3.3. Appointment of team members and technical reviewers

On the basis of a competence analysis and individual availabilities a verificationteam, consisting of one team leader and 2 additional team members, was appointed.

The list of involved personnel, the tasks assigned and the qualification status aresummarized in the Table 3-2 below.

Table 3-2: Involved Personnel

Name Company

Function

1)

Qualification

Status

2)

Scheme

competence

3)

Technical

competence

4)

Verification

competence

5)

Hostcountry

Competence

On-sitevisit

Mr.Ms.

ManojkumarBorekar

TUV IndiaPvt. Ltd.

TL, TE SA 1.2

Mr.Ms.

SwapnilThanekar

TUV IndiaPvt. Ltd.

TM,TE LA 1.2

Mr.Ms. AtulTakarkhede

TUV IndiaPvt. Ltd.

TM A 1.2

Mr.Ms.

Katja Beyer

TUVNORDCert TR

3) LA


14/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

B) No team member

All team members contributed to the review of documents, the assessment of theproject activity and to the preparation of this report under the leadership of the teamleader.

Technical experts contributed to the assessment of special aspects of the project

activity, e.g. technical or host country aspects.In order to qualify further personnel the project team was accompanied by observersand/or trainees as indicated in the table above. They are usually not considered asteam members.

Statements of competence for the above mentioned team members are enclosed inannex 6 of this report.

3.4. Publication of the Monitoring Report

In accordance with the CDM M&P ( 62) the draft monitoring report, as received fromthe project participants, has been made publicly available on the dedicated UNFCCCCDM website prior to the verification activity commenced. Comments received aretaken into account in the course of the verification, if applicable.

3.5. Verification Planning

In order to ensure a complete, transparent and timely execution of the verificationtask the team leader has planned the complete sequence of events necessary toarrive at a substantiated final verification opinion.

Various tools have been established in order to ensure an effective verificationplanning.

Risk analysis and detailed audit testing planning

For the identification of potential reporting risks and the necessary detailed audittesting procedures for residual risk areas table A-1 is used. The structure and contentof this table is given in Table 3-3 below.

T bl 3 3 T bl A 1 Id tifi ti f ifi ti i k


15/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Table A-1: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing / Detailed audittesting of residual risk areas and random testing

Identificationof potential

reporting risk

Identification,assessment and

testing ofmanagement

controls

Areas ofresidual

risks

Additionalverification testing

performed

Conclusions andAreas Requiring

Improvement(including

Forward ActionRequests)

The followingpotential riskswere identifiedand divided andstructuredaccording tothe possible

areas ofoccurance.

The potential risksof raw datageneration havebeen identified inthe course of themonitoring systemimplementation.

The followingmeasures weretaken in order tominimize thecorrespondingrisks.

The followingmeasures areimplemented:

Despite themeasuresimplementedin order toreduce theoccurrenceprobability the

followingresidual risksremain andhave to beaddressed inthe course ofeveryverification.

The additionalverification testingperformed isdescribed. Testingmay include:- Sample cross

checking of

manual transfers ofdata

- Recalculation- Spreadsheet walk

throughs to checklinks and equations

- Inspection ofcalibration andmaintenance

records for keyequipment

- Check samplinganalysis results

Discussions withprocess engineerswho have detailedknowledge ofprocess

uncertainty/errorbands.

Having investigatedthe residual risks,the conclusionsshould be notedhere. Errors anduncertainties arehighlighted.

The completed table A-1 is enclosed in the Annex 1 (table A-1) to this report.


16/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Table 3-4: Structure of the project specific periodic verification checklist

Table A-2: Periodic verification checklist

Checklist Item Reference Verification TeamComments

DraftConclusion

FinalConclusion

The checklist items in

Table A-2 are linked tothe various require-ments the monitoringof the project shouldmeet. The checklist isorganised in varioussections as per therequirements of thetopic and the individualproject activity. Itfurther includesguidance for theverification team.

Gives

reference totheinformationsource onwhich theassessmentis based on.

The section is used to

elaborate and discuss thechecklist item in detail. Itincludes the assessmentof the verification teamand how the assessmentwas carried out. Thereporting requirements ofthe VVM shall be coveredin this section.

Assessment

based onevidenceprovided if thecriterion isfulfilled (OK), ora CAR, CL orFAR (seebelow)israised. Theassessmentrefers to thedraft verifi-cation stage.

In case of a

correctiveaction or aclarificationthe finalassessmentat the finalverificationstage isgiven.

The periodic verification checklist (verification protocol) is the backbone of thecomplete verification starting from the desk review until final assessment. Detailedassessments and findings are discussed within this checklist and not necessarilyrepeated in the main text of this report.

The completed verification protocol is enclosed in the annex (table A-2) to this report.

3.6. Desk review

During the desk review all documents initially provided by the client and publiclyavailable documents relevant for the verification were reviewed. The main documents

are listed below: the last revision of the PDD including the monitoring plan/PDD/, the last revision of the validation report/VAL/, documentation of previous verifications/VER/ the monitoring report, including the claimed emission reductions for the

j t/MR/


17/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

The on-site assessment included an investigation of whether all relevantequipment is installed and works as anticipated.

The operating staff was interviewed and observed in order to check therisks of inappropriate operation and data collection procedures.

Information processes for generating, aggregating and reporting theselected monitored parameters were reviewed.

The duly calibration of all metering equipment was checked. The monitoring processes, routines and documentations were audited to

check their proper application. The monitoring data were checked completely. The data aggregation trails were checked via spot sample down to the level

of the meter recordings.Before and during the on-site visit the verification team performed interviews with the

project participants to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified inthe document review.

Representatives of Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. and Zenith Energy Services Pvt.Ltd. (project consultant) including the operational staff of the plant were interviewed.The main topics of the interviews are summarised in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5: Interviewed persons and interview topics

Interviewed Persons /Entities

Interview topics

1. Projects & OperationsPersonnel, OrissaPower Consortium Ltd.;India /IM 01/, /IM 02/;

2. Zenith Energy ServicesPvt. Ltd, /IM 03/

- General aspects of the project- Technical equipment and operation- Changes since validation / previous verification- Monitoring and measurement equipment- Remaining issues from validation/ previous

verification- Calibration procedures- Quality management system- Involved personnel and responsibilities- Training and practice of the operational personnel- Implementation of the monitoring plan


18/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

3.8. Draft verification reporting

On the basis of the desk review, the on-site visit, follow-up interviews and furtherbackground investigation the verification protocol is completed. This protocol togetherwith a general project and procedural description of the verification and a detailed listof the verification findings form the draft verification report. This report is sent to the

client for resolution of raised CARs, CLs and FARs.

3.9. Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs

Nonconformities raised during the verification can either be seen as a non-fulfilmentof criteria ensuring the proper implementation of a project or where a risk to deliverhigh quality emission reductions is identified.

Corrective Action Requests (CARs) are issued, if: Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in

monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity isinsufficient;

Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations ofemission reductions which will impair the estimate of emission reductions;

Issues identified in a FAR during validation or previous verifications requiring

actions by the project participants to be verified during verification have notbeen resolved.

The verification team uses the term Clarification Request (CL), which is be issued if:

information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether theapplicable CDM requirements have been met.

Forward Action Requests (FAR) indicate essential risks for further periodic

verifications. Forward Action Requests are issued, if: the monitoring and reporting require attention and / or adjustment for the next

verification period.

For a detailed list of all CARs, CLs and FARs raised in the course of the verificationpl refer to chapter 4


19/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

3.11. Technical review

Before submission of the final verification report a technical review of the wholeverification procedure is carried out. The technical reviewer is a competent GHGauditor being appointed for the scope this project falls under. The technical revieweris not considered to be part of the verification team and thus not involved in the

decision making process up to the technical review.As a result of the technical review process the verification opinion and the topicspecific assessments as prepared by the verification team leader may be confirmedor revised. Furthermore reporting improvements might be achieved.

3.12. Final approval

After successful technical review an overall (esp. procedural) assessment of thecomplete verification will be carried out by a senior assessor located in the accreditedpremises of TV NORD.

After this step the request for issuance can be started.


20/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

4. VERIFICATION FINDINGS

In the following paragraphs the findings from the desk review of the monitoringreport/MR/, the calculation spreadsheet/XLS/, PDD/PDD/, the Validation Report/VAL/ and

other supporting documents, as well as from the on-site assessment and theinterviews are summarised.

The summary of CAR, CL and FAR issued are shown in Table 4-1:

Table 4-1: Summary of CAR, CL and FAR

Verification topic No. of

CAR

No. of CL No. of FAR

A General description of the project activity 0 1 0

B Implementation of the project activity 1 0 0

C Description of the monitoring system 3 0 0

D Data and parameters monitored 0 0 0

E - Emission Reductions Calculation 4 0 0

SUM 8 1 0

The following tables include all raised CARs, CLs and FARs and the assessments ofthe same by the verification team. For an in depth evaluation of all verification items itshould be referred to the verification protocols (see Annex).


21/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: A1

Corrective Action #1This section shall be filled bythe PP. It shall address the cor-rective action taken in details.

The Geographical coordinates mentioned in the MR version01 are based on Project Design Document which is sourcedfrom DPR (which provided the coordinates till minuteresolution). Consequent to verification site visit finding by

DOE, the exact geographical coordinates up to accuracy ofsecond is incorporated under section A.3 the MR Ver 02.DOE Assessment #1The assessment shall encom-pass all open issues in annex A-2. In case of non-closure,additional corrective action andDOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.)shall be added.

Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28

The verification team checked section A.3 of the monitoringreport and confirms that the PP has appropriately updated thecoordinates up to the resolution till seconds. The coordinatesconsistent with and are substantiated by publicly available

traceable link(http://wikimapia.org/#lat=21.0786338&lon=85.1291084&z=16&l=0&m=b&v=1). The verification team confirms thecorrectness of the updated geographical coordinatessubstantiated by publically traceable link.

Section A.7 of the monitoring report is deficient.

The clarification request raised under finding A1 has beenkept OPEN.Corrective Action #2

This section shall be filled by

the PP. It shall address the cor-

rective action taken in details.

The section A.7 is updated to include the clarity on thechange of the start date of the crediting period postregistration under submitted MR Ver 03.

DOE Assessment #2

The assessment shall encom-

pass all open issues in annex A-

2. In case of non-closure,

additional corrective action and

DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.)

shall be added.


The MR is updated with respect to the details on the changein the start date of the crediting period/VAL-2/.

The corrections are found traceable and appropriate, thus theclarification request raised under finding A1 has beenCLOSED


22/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: B1

Classification CAR CL FARDescription of findingDescribe the finding in unam-biguous style; address thecontext (e.g. section)

Below findings are raised by the Verification Team:

1. The sentence accept delay in project .applicabilityof the methodology under section B.1 of monitoring

report needs correction as it is correlating twoindependent issues.

2. The note provided under section B.1 is mis-leading forthe reader, as the description mentions Shutdown dueto less water in river and TRC river bed linings.Furthermore, the details of the shutdowns due to

Insufficient water flows are missing.Corrective Action #1This section shall be filled bythe PP. It shall address the cor-rective action taken in details.

1. The sentence is now corrected. The revised sentenceis as follows No other significant events occurredduring the monitored period, which may impact theapplicability of the methodology. Thus, the issues areno more mixed with each other.

2. MR revised suitably and shut down details due to

insufficient water are furnished. Log sheet is attachedfor your reference. The PP also clarified that there wasno down times of the installed metering equipmentresponsible for monitoring the project activity inline withmonitoring plan.


23/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: B1

DOE Assessment #1The assessment shall encom-pass all open issues in annex A-2. In case of non-closure,additional corrective action andDOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.)

shall be added.


1. The verification team checked and confirms that thesentence under section B.1 of monitoring report is nowcorrected (refer corrected sentence: No othersignificant events occurred during the monitored period,which may impact the applicability of the methodology).The delay in implementation of project is appropriatelyseparated from the applicability condition.

2. Revision under section B.1 of monitoring report isaccepted; supportive log of shut down is reviewed andfound consistent with the reporting under monitoring

report. The Annex-2 of the monitoring report is alsoreviewed and the details of major shut downs andreasons are verified based on the log sheetrecords/LOG/. The corrections are thus deemedappropriate. The Verification team also reviewed theJMR issued by the GRIDCO, LOG of real-time mainmeter readings captured by the 132 kV meterauthenticated with covering letter issued by GRIDCOLimited, dated 2011-07-11 issued by AGM (Electrical),Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited as supportive toJMR and the submitted calibration reports and deemsthat there was no downtime/ malfunction of installedmetering system.

The CAR raised under finding B1 has been CLOSED.ConclusionTick the appropriate checkbox

To be checked during the next periodic verificationAppropriate action was takenProject documentation was corrected correspondinglyAdditional action should be takenThe project complies with the requirements


24/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: C1

Description of findingDescribe the finding in unam-biguous style; address thecontext (e.g. section)

1. The metering diagram under section C of monitoringreport is inconsistent with single line diagram/site visitof the verification team. Appropriate corrections alongwith metering locations are missing.

2. The following sentence under section C of MR thecalibration of theis as per the monitoring plan isnot unambiguous. Furthermore, the role of shift incharge mentions maintaining reading on daily basiswhich is inconsistent with monitoring plan andmethodology.


a. Suitable correction made under section C ofmonitoring report. The line diagram is updated byproviding metering location for gross and auxiliarymeters which are in control of PP and the main andcheck meter at 132 kV substation which are sealedand in control of OPTCL.

b. Appropriate changes have been incorporated undersection C of revised MR.


25/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: C1

DOE Assessment #1The assessment shall encom-pass all open issues in annex A-2. In case of non-closure,additional corrective action andDOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.)

shall be added.


a. The section C of the monitoring report is appropriatelyupdated and includes the line diagram providing themetering points. The verification team checked the

same with the help of submitted Single LineDiagram/SLD/ issued by Chief Engineer, OPTCL,Bhubaneswar. The verification team confirms that theline diagram providing the metering points is in line withthe Single Line Diagram/SLD/and deemed appropriate.

b. OK, the section C of revised monitoring report is nowappropriately mentions that the Plant Manager will beresponsible to carry out the calibrations as perprovisions of the monitoring plan. Furthermore, themonitoring report now clearly states that the frequencyof monitoring electrical readings will be hourly (in placeof daily). In additional the PP has submitted the log ofthe real time meter readings captured by 132 kVsubstation main meter/LOG/ to the verification team inorder to establish the conformance to the monitoring

frequency. Additionally the PP has also submittedElectrical Log Sheet to confirm hourly monitoring ofthe gross power generation. The shift engineer is alsonoting the net electricity exported to the grid on dailybasis and prepares the consolidated Daily/MonthlyGeneration/ Export details work sheet for crossverifying it with the JMR issued by the GRIDCO.

The CAR raised under finding C1 has been CLOSED.ConclusionTick the appropriate checkbox

To be checked during the next periodic verificationAppropriate action was takenProject documentation was corrected correspondingly


26/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: C2


The PP needs to submit the following to the verification team:a. appointment of the Internal auditor

b. audit report on monthly basis

c. hourly monitoring records of 132 kV sub-station meter

Corrective Action #1This section shall be filled bythe PP. It shall address the cor-rective action taken in details. a. Appointment letter of internal auditor is enclosed.

b. Audit reports are enclosed. Furthermore, PP wishes toclarify that, the audit reports are prepared on every month

and also half yearly. The monthly & half yearly reports areenclosed.c. The electronic data of Electricity Supplied to the grid

received from GRIDCO Ltd., is provided to the DOE forverification.

DOE Assessment #1The assessment shall encom-pass all open issues in annex A-2. In case of non-closure,

additional corrective action andDOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.)shall be added.

1. Appointment Letter of Mr. K. Yogeshwar Rao dated2009-10-03 is provided to the Verification Team. Theappointment letter clearly mentions the roles and

responsibilities of the Internal Auditor. The VerificationTeam also studied the monthly reports issued by Mr. K.Yogeshwar Rao to the management. The Verificationteam during the site visit interviews noted that Mr. K.Yogeshwar Rao was involved during the entire cycle ofCDM validation, was responsible for CDM activitiesand thus possess the experience and knowledge of thesubject. Furthermore, external independent agencywas also appointed to support Mr. K. Yogeshwar Raofor the monthly as well as half yearly reporting andinternal audits.

2. Audit reports on monthly basis are submitted to theVerification Team. The half yearly reports are also


27/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: C2

ConclusionTick the appropriate checkbox


Finding: C3


The PPs substantiation under section C of MR regardingTraining for Samal Personnel is insufficient to demonstrateappropriate steps undertaken by PP. Furthermore,

clarification is requested regarding term designated personincharge.


The project proponent has executed O&M Agreement withM/s. Manihamsa Power Projects Ltd., on 2009-02-23 foroperation and maintenance of the plant. As per Clause 2.2.2of the O&M Agreement, the OPCL staff are trained andworking under the functional guidance and control of O&Mcontractor. The O&M contractor has provided training to thefollowing personnel of the project proponent.

Name of the employee Designation

1. Mr.G.P.Mahapatra, PPS2. Mr.S.K.Mishra, DGM (Site)3. Mr.Suryakanta Bisi Asst.Manager Elec.4. Mr.Bharat Relangi Jr.Manager Mech.5. Mr.Rath Babu Asst.Manager Tech


28/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: C3

DOE Assessment #1The assessment shall encom-pass all open issues in annex A-2. In case of non-closure,additional corrective action andDOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.)shall be added.


As per Clause 2.2.2 of the O&M Agreement//APR/, the OPCLstaff are trained and working under the functional guidanceand control of O&M contractor. This was also verified basedon the site visit interviews. The verification team alsoacknowledges that the appropriate corrections are includedunder section C of the monitoring report and hence clarity isincluded by correcting the term designated person inchargeto General Manager.

The CAR raised under finding C3 has been CLOSED.ConclusionTick the appropriate checkbox


Finding: E1


Material mis-statement is observed in the ER sheet for theparameter Electricity Exported to grid for the month ofSeptember 2010, August 2010 and May 2010.

Corrective Action #1

This section shall be filled bythe PP. It shall address the cor-rective action taken in details.

The appropriate corrections made on monthly export readings

for the month of September 2010, August 2010 and May2010.DOE Assessment #1The assessment shall encom-pass all open issues in annex A-2. In case of non-closure,

ddi i l i i d

Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28 andcorresponding emission reduction worksheet:

Th di f


29/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: E1

ConclusionTick the appropriate checkbox


Finding: E2


During site visit and document review the assessment teamfound that the monitoring parameter Electricity supplied tothe grid is recorded on daily basis the monitoring parameters

are archived on paper (log books), which is not in linemonitoring plan under registered PDD. PP needs to clarify.


As per the monitoring plan in the registered PDD, theparameter Electricity supplied to the grid is to be measuredon hourly basis and to record every month. The energymeters (main and check) installed at sub-station are having afacility to measure the said parameter at 15 minute interval

and the data records electronically. The electronic dataobtained from the GRIDCO Limited is furnished to the DOEfor verification. The hourly data maintained by the O&Mcontractor is also furnished to the DOE for verification.



The meter is accessible for taking readings (reference: Sitevisit observation of Assessment Team). The submitted

supportive documents in form of real time log of the 132 kVmain meter readings/LOG/for hourly monitoring is reviewed bythe verification team.

The CAR raised under finding E2 has been CLOSED.ConclusionTi k h i h kb

To be checked during the next periodic verification

1 t P i di V ifi ti R t 20MW S l G id t d


30/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: E3


1. Section E.1 of MR is lacks the baseline emissioncalculations and the stepwise approach adopted tocalculate the baseline emission factor. Furthermore, the

monitoring approach adopted for parameter EF_OMy isinconsistent with monitoring plan.

2. During the site visit verification team found DG installed atthe project site which acts as a backup to power plant,however same is not the part of registered monitoringplan. Clarification is requested why the same is not part of

monitoring plan.


1. Baseline emission calculation and stepwise approachfor baseline emission factor furnished in revised MR.

2. As per the methodology ACM0002 Ver. 06 monitoringof project emissions due to combustion of fossil fuel i.e.,diesel is not required. Further the expected emissions

from operation of DG set during emergency (whileproject plant under shut down and also grid failure atthe same time which is very rare) are very negligibleand much less than 1%. Even if we apply requirementsof VVM footnote 78 of VVM version 01.2, inclusion ofthis parameter is not required though methodology alsodoes not specifically require it. Hence monitoring ofemissions due to operation of DG set is not part of the

registered monitoring plan.The electricity generated by DG set during entiremonitoring period (i.e., from Oct 2009 to Mar 2011) is0.000071 GWh and percentage of emissions from DGset is 0 0001% as compared with actual emission

1st Periodic Verification Report: 20MW Samal Grid connected


31/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: E3



1. The calculation for the baseline emission factor isincorrect as parameter EF_OMy is not monitored in linewith the monitoring plan of registered PDD. The findingis KEPT OPEN.

2. The PP has submitted the summary of the dieselconsumption to the verification team to confirm theHSD consumption, electricity generated by DG andhence confirmation on the emissions due to DG usage.To conform the unit generation from the DG the PP hassubmitted supportive of the Electricity Duty paid

against the generation of power from the DG. Based onthe submitted evidence and review of above calculationthe verification team acknowledges that thecontribution of the emissions due to DG are negligibleand thus need not be part of the monitoring plan.Finding is CLOSED.

The CAR raised under finding E3 has been KEPT OPEN.Corrective Action #2This section shall be filled by

the PP. It shall address the cor-

rective action taken in details.

1. Appropriate corrections are included under the sectionE.1 of monitoring report and emission reductionworksheet.

DOE Assessment #2

The assessment shall encom-

pass all open issues in annex A-

2. In case of non-closure,

additional corrective action andDOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.)

shall be added.


1. The verification team noted that the PP hasappropriately calculated the operating margin in linewith registered PDD and appropriately includedbaseline emission calculation with stepwise approachfor calculating baseline emission factor under sectionE.1. Please refer section 5.6 of the report for detailedassessment on appropriateness of the operating



32/79




P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: E4


The MR lacks information pertaining calibration scheduleobserved by the PP.

Corrective Action #1This section shall be filled by

the PP. It shall address the cor-rective action taken in details.

The information regarding calibration of main and check

meters were provided in detail under section- C of revisedMR.

The PP requests the DOE to refer EB 52 Annex 60Guidelines for assessing compliance with the calibrationfrequency requirements. As per para 8 of the said guideline,in the cases where calibration frequency for measuring

equipments is not specified either in the monitoringmethodology or the monitoring plan, the DOE shall ensurethat the equipments are calibrated either in accordance withthe specifications of the local/national standards, or as per themanufacturer specification. If local/national standards or themanufacturer specification is not available, internationalstandards may be used.

Since neither the monitoring methodology nor the monitoringplan in the registered PDD specified the calibration frequencyfor measuring equipments, the PP has to follow thespecifications of the local / national standards or as per themanufacturer specification for calibration frequency, as perthe above guideline.

As per the National Standard i.e., CEA Notificationdt.17.03.2006, Para 18 - Calibration and Periodical testing ofmeters all interface meters have to be tested at least once in



33/79

1st Periodic Verification Report: 20MW Samal Grid connected



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Finding: E4



In line with the guidance EB52 Annex 60, the approachadopted by PP can be assessed and acceptable due tofollowing conclusions

1. The assessment team verified the technical informationof the meters and the national metering guidelines/ceam/(and hence local/regional practices) as well as the setof PPA/PPA/.

2. The PP at the time of registration of the project did notupdate the PDD with respect to frequency of

calibration schedule as it could control the calibration ofthe electricity meters since it was under the purview ofOPTCL/PPA/ . As per PPA the calibration frequency istwo years.

3. The calibration was performed within the aboveaccepted limit of Once in 2 years /PPA/ for appliedmonitoring period.

4. The error detected during the calibration check was

below the accuracy class of the meters/CAL/ so themeters were concluded to be working in line with thedesigned accuracy limits.

The CAR raised under finding E4 has been CLOSED.ConclusionTick the appropriate checkbox

To be checked during the next periodic verificationAppropriate action was takenProject documentation was corrected correspondingly

Additional action should be takenThe project complies with the requirements



34/79

st e od c e cat o epo t 0 Sa a G d co ected



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

5. SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS

The following paragraphs include the summary of the final verification assessmentsafter all CARs and CRs are closed out. For details of the assessments pl. refer to thediscussion of the verification findings in chapter 4 and the verification protocol (Annex1).

5.1. Implementation of the project

During the current verification, a site visit was carried out on 2011-05-24 and 2011-05-25. The assessment team checked the installed TGs involved in the projectactivity during the site visit and found that the implementation of the project activity is

in line with the registered PDD/PDD//IM01//IM02//TD/(please also refer section 2.1, Table 2-1: Technical data of the plant). None of the equipments involved in the project activityincluding the monitoring equipments i.e. energy meters have been reportedlyexchanged / replaced/CAL/.The equipments are subject to a well defined preventivemaintenance schedule/MMS-1,2/. The assessment team also verified the same bychecking the generation data during the site visit/JMR/. The project is currentlyoperational as per the submitted records/PDD//JMR//IM01//IM02/ and the same was also

verified during the site visit assessment. On the basis of this site visit and thereviewed project documentation it can be confirmed that w.r.t. the realizedtechnology, the project equipments, as well as the monitoring and meteringequipment, the project has been implemented and operated as described in theregistered PDD. The verification team also identified change in the applied tariff ofthe project activity, therefore decided to access the impact of changed tariff onproject additionality. The candidate project was registered on 2007-06-01 based onthe input parameters that were available at that point of time, including tariff.

However, consequent upon a steep increase in project cost, the tariff underwentrevision as shown in the following table:

Year Original Tariff (INR/kWh) Revised tariff (INR/kWh)I 1.97



35/79

p



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

the project activity. Since in this instant case, the upward revision affect additionality,DOE reassessed the additionality of the project keeping in view the guidelines givenvide paragraph 8 of Annex 67, EB 48. Accordingly only the changed parametershave been modified in the original spread sheet calculations. Actual generation5 forthe first two completed years of operation has been taken, as the project could notachieve the projected generation due to lower discharge and since the project

additionality is being reassessed, actual generation is more appropriate. Thereassessment reveals that the financial indicator will go up from 10.31% asenvisaged at the time of registration to 12.47% as against the benchmark of 15.53%considered at the time of registration. Thus, the project will continue to remainadditional.

In this context, it is observed that though the tariff has undergone an upward revision(consequent upon the cost overrun in the project cost), it was not within the control of

the Project Participant6. Moreover, DOE is also convinced that the PP could not havebeen aware of the impending revision in the tariff at the time of validation andregistration as the tariff was revised only vide Orissa Electricity RegulatoryCommission order dated 2011-01-14/ADD/based on the hearing conducted on 2011-01-07/ADD/, i.e., four years after registration of the project.

Considering the facts that the tariff revision was not within the control of PP, PP couldnot have been aware of the impending revision of tariff and that even the applicationof revised tariff does not render the project non-additional, DOE concludes that theproject is additional and no additional measures are necessary as the project isimplemented in line with registered PDD.

5.2. Project history

During the validation the validating DOE DNV Certification, International ClimateChange Services has not raised issues that could not be closed or resolved duringthe validation stage and so no remaining issues are there in the validation report/VAL/.

Furthermore as this is the 1st periodic verification, so no issues from former



36/79



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

No special events with effect on the monitoring of the project have been observedduring the monitoring period. The verification team identified inconsistencies undersection B.1 of the monitoring report and raised CAR under finding B1, bullet 1,2 .

In reply to the finding B1, bullet 1, the PP has appropriately revised section B.1 ofmonitoring report and appropriately separated implementation of project activity andapplicability conditions.

In reply to the finding B1, bullet 2, the PP has appropriately revised section B.1 andadded annex-2 to monitoring report to address details of downtimes of equipments &reasons.

5.4. Compliance with the monitoring plan

The monitoring system and all applied procedures are completely in compliance to

the registered monitoring plan. All necessary monitoring instruments are installed.The measuring devices are well known and state of the art.

The verification team found no inconsistencies in the MR with respect to approvedmonitoring plan/PDD/. During the verification process no significant lack of evidencewas detected.

5.5. Compliance with the monitoring methodologyThe monitoring system is in compliance with the applied monitoring methodologyACM0002, Version 06: Consolidated Baseline Methodology for grid-connectedelectricity generation from renewable sources and thus reflect the requirements ofthe registered monitoring plan/PDD/.

5.6. Monitoring parameters

During the verification all relevant monitoring parameters (as listed in section B.7.1 ofregistered PDD/PDD/) have been verified with regard to the appropriateness of theapplied measurement / determination method, the correctness of the values appliedfor ER calculation, the accuracy, and applied QA/QC measures. The results as well



37/79



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

post. The latest version of the CEA data base available during the monitoringperiod is utilized by the PP for determination of emission factor. Theverification team checked the monitored OM values following the belowmethod as indicated below:

Period 31/05/2009 to 31/03/2010- The available version of CEA was version 5.

Please refer below snapshot from CEA version05

7

.Simple Operating Margin (tCO2/MWh) (incl.Imports)

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09NEWNE 1.02 1.01 1.00 1.01South 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.97India 1.02 1.01 1.00 1.01

Ex post option:If the ex post option is chosen, the emission factor is determined forthe year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the emissionsfactor to be updated annually during monitoring. If the data required to calculate theemission factor for year y is usually only available later than six months after the endof year y, alternatively the emission factor of the previous year y-1 may be used.If the data is usually only available 18 months after the end of year y, the emission

factor of the year proceeding the previous year y-2 may be used.The same data vintage (y, y-1 or y-2) should be used throughout all crediting periods.

The PP has appropriately selected the data vintage y-1 i.e. value expressed for2008-09 i.e. OM = 1.006

Now for the vintage period 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011- the available version of CEA is

Version 68, please refer below snapshot:

Simple Operating Margin (tCO2/MWh) (incl.Imports)

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10



38/79



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

If the data is usually only available 18 months after the end of year y, the emissionfactor of the year proceeding the previous year y-2 may be used.The same data vintage (y, y-1 or y-2) should be used throughout all crediting periods.

The PP has appropriately selected the data vintage y-1 i.e. value expressed for i.e.OM =0.977

The PP has appropriately considered the ex-ante value of the build margin(880.33tCO2/GWh )from the registered PDD.

The combined margin emission factor (baseline emission factor) with thedefault values used for

OMw (0.5) and

BMw (0.5) are appropriately utilized

EFy=EF_OMyx WOM+ EFBM, y x WBMWhere,WOM = Weighting of operating margin emissions factor (%)WBM = Weighting of build margin emissions factor (%)EFBM, y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)EF_OMy= Operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

For vintage: 31/05/2009 to 31/03/2010 (inclusive both days)

EFy= 1.006 0.5 + 0.88033 0.5EFy= 0.943 t CO2/MWh

For vintage: 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011(inclusive both days)

EFy= 0.9777 0.5 + 0.88033 0.5EFy= 0.929 t CO2/MWh

Comparison of the monitored parameter with respect to the value determined attime of validation

Vintage Value (t CO2/MWh) EFy EFy Assessment



39/79



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

The monitoring report provides a list of all parameters that need to be monitoredwhich is in line with the monitoring plan provided in the PDD of the registered projectwhich was evaluated during the validation process.

The reporting /MR2/ /XLS2/ is in line with the requirements of the validated monitoringplan as well as with the applied methodology ACM 0002, version 6/ACM0002/.

The reporting procedures reflect the requirements of the monitoring plan /PDD/. Thenet electricity exported is recorded once every month by GRIDCO Limited. This dataform the basis of emission reduction calculation.

All records needed for monitoring of net electricity exported to grid are available. Allvalues are available for purpose of monitoring reporting. There are no delays in thecalibration schedules undertaken by the PP (please refer closure of finding E4). TheVerification team also acknowledges that the monitoring parameters PlantIdentification for OM, GENj,k,l,y (Electricity imported to Grid.), GEN j,k,m,y (Electricitygeneration of the plant j,k,m.) are not separately monitored as the values of OM isdirectly obtained from the published CEA database.

With appropriate closure of finding E1 and finding E4, it can be confirmed that allmonitoring parameters have been measured / determined without materialmisstatements and in line with monitoring plan.

5.7. Monitoring reportA draft monitoring report was submitted to the verification team by the projectparticipants. The team has made this report publicly available prior to the start of theverification activities. No comments were received.

During the verification, mistakes and needs for clarification were identified. The PPhas carried out the requested corrections so that it can be confirmed that theMonitoring report is complete and transparent and in accordance with the registeredPDD and other relevant requirements please refer section 4 of this report.

5.8. ER Calculation

During the verification mistakes in the draft ER calculation were identified This has


H d l t i P j t i O i I di


40/79



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

registered PDD/PDD/as well as covered in detail in the ER sheet/XLS2/.For the start andend of the crediting period, the approaches as defined under Annex 3 of thePDD/PDD/.The calculation approach was verified to be in line with the requirements.As a result the final emission reductions achieved during the monitoring period areequal to the baseline emissions 60,583tCO2e as the project emissions and leakageemissions are zero.

5.9. Quality Management

Quality Management procedures for measurements, collection and compilation ofdata, data storage and archiving/JMR/, calibration/CAL/, maintenance/IM01/, /IM02/, /MANT/andtraining of personnel in the framework of this CDM project activity have beenpredefined being a multiple party involvement in O & M and monitoring of the projectequipments. The procedures defined can be assessed as appropriate for thepurpose. No significant deviations thereof have been observed during the verification.The assessment team verified the monitoring arrangements referring to theregistered monitoring plan/PDD/as well as the applicable methodology.

a. The assessment team verified the technical information of the meters and thenational metering guidelines/ceam/ (and hence local/regional practices) as well as theset of PPA/PPA/.

b. The calibration frequency was not specified in PDD, thus the local practicesadopted by the regional SEB i.e. OPTCL under its PPA/PPA/ and the CEAguidelines/ceam/ which require the HT meters need to be re-calibrated once in every 5years.

c. The calibration was performed within the above accepted limit of Once in 2 years

d. The error detected during the calibration check was below the accuracy class ofthe meters/CAL/, so the meters were concluded to be working in line with the accuracy

limits defined by the meter manufacturer. The assessment team, verified all thecalibration certificates/CAL/ available for the project activity since the last calibrationfrom the previous verification and observed it to be compliant and within two yearsi.e. calibration frequency.


Hydroelectric Project in Orissa India


41/79



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

5.10. Comparison with ex-ante estimated emission reductions

The MR includes a comparison of the calculated actual emission reductions with theex-post calculated values in the registered PDD.

The calculated value was found to be lower than the ex-post determined value, thusno further justification was required.

5.11. Overall Aspects of the Verification

All necessary and requested documentation was provided by the project participantsso that a complete verification of all relevant issues could be carried out.

Access was granted to all installations of the plant which are relevant for the projectperformance and the monitoring activities.

No issues have been identified indicating that the implementation of the projectactivity and the steps to claim emission reductions are not compliant with theUNFCCC criteria and relevant guidance provided by the COP/CMP and the CDM EB(clarifications and/or guidance).

5.12. Hints for next periodic Verification

No FARs have been raised during the course of First Periodic verification. Theverification team found all systems in place and no specific violation to applicableCDM requirements were observed.




42/79



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

6. VERIFICATION OPINION

Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. has commissioned the TV NORD JI/CDMCertification Program to carry out the 1stperiodic verification of the project: 20MWSamal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India, with regard to the

relevant requirements for CDM project activities. The project reduces GHG emissionsdue to electricity generation by making use of available hydro potential at the site tomeet the regional electricity demand. This verification covers the period from 2009-05-31 to 2011-03-31 (including both days).

In the course of the verification 08 Corrective Action Requests (CAR) and 01Clarification Requests (CL) were raised. The verification is based on the monitoringreport, revised monitoring report, the monitoring plan as set out in the registered

PDD, the validation report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet andsupporting documents made available to the TV NORD JI/CDM CP by the projectparticipant.

As a result of this verification, the verifier confirms that:

all operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned anddescribed in the validated project design document.

the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied approved CDMmethodology, i.e., ACM0002 version 6.

the installed equipment essential for measuring parameters required forcalculating emission reductions are calibrated appropriately.

the monitoring system is in place and functional. The project has generatedGHG emission reductions.

As the result of the 1st periodic verification, the verifier confirms that the GHGemission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservativeand appropriate manner. TV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the projecthas achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period asfollows:




43/79



P-No: 8106772122 10/269

7. REFERENCES

Table 7-1: Documents provided by the project participant(s)

Reference Document

/APR/ Annual performance report from 2009-10-11 to 2011-03-31regarding the monitoring period mentioning the monthlygeneration, generation hours, down time hours and plant loadfactor.

Monthly internal audit report for audit undertaken by PP andsupported by Third Party (Zenith Energy Services)

Six monthly internal audit report for audit undertaken by PP andsupported by Third Party (Zenith Energy Services)

Extract of O & M contract evidencing the provision for training ofPPs personnel

/CAL/ Calibration requirements of all the equipments installed to monitor allthe data and parameter being measured in the project activity:

1. Minutes of meeting for the testing of accuracy of Main Meter(APMO 2439) and check meter (APMO 2685) dated 2010-02-11jointly signed by representative of OPTCL, OPCL and SecuredMeter

2. Installation, commissioning and testing of accuracy of Main Meter(APMO 2439) and check meter (APMO 2685) dated 2009-10-11jointly signed by representative of OPTCL, OPCL and SecuredMeter

/ceam/ National Standard i.e., CEA Notification dated 2006-03-17, Para 18 -Calibration and Periodical testing of meters, all interface meters haveto be tested at least once in five years.




44/79

y j ssa, a


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Reference Document

7. Declaration of Commercial Operation of 20 MW Samal SHEPfrom GRIDCO Limited dated 30-01-2010.

/ED/ Bio Data of Sri Gopal Prasad Mohapatra (B.Sc. Engg Electrical)designation Power Plant Superintendent.

Bio Data of Suryakanta Bisi (Diploma in Electrical Engineering)designation Assistant Manager (Electrical).

Bio Data of Appa Rao (Diploma Mechanical) designationMechanical Supervisor.

Bio Data of Yuva Nagarjuna (B Tech E.E.E) designation ShiftIncharge.

/JMR/ Joint meter reading from GRIDCO LIMITED for monitoringperiod 2009-10-11 to 2011-03-31(inclusive both days).

Invoices raised by PP for period of 2009-10-11 to 2011-03-31

/LOG/ LOG of real-time main meter readings captured by the 132 kVmeter authenticated with covering letter issued by GRIDCO

Limited, dated 2011-07-11 issued by AGM (Electrical), GridCorporation of Orissa Limited as supportive to JMR. Machine LOG Sheet for monitoring turbine performance Log of downtime hours on daily basis in form of worksheet Proof of HSD consumption in form of electricity duty

/MMS/ Maintenance schedule as per the O & M Contract Routine and Daily Check list of Electrical equipments Check list for Mechanical equipment

/MR/ 1. Monitoring Report for project activity 20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India dated 2011-05 04 (Version 01)




45/79

y j


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Reference Document

Orissa Power Consortium Limited dated 2004-10-21.

/SC/ Consent to operate granted under section 25/26 of water(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under section 21

of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 dated 2010-11-29.

/SLD/ Electrical Single Line Diagram of the power plant approved by theChief Engineer, OPTCL Bhubaneshwar

/TD/ Technical details of turbines (S-Type, Kaplan) and generators (750

RPM, 4000 kW at 11 kV, 3 Phase, 50 Hz, 0.8 PF) in line withSupply Contract Facility Performance Data or GuaranteedTechnical Particulars.

/XLS/ 1. Emission reduction calculation sheet corresponding to monitoringreport version 01

2. Emission reduction calculation sheet corresponding to monitoringreport version 02

3. Emission reduction calculation sheet corresponding to monitoringreport version 03

Table 7-2: Background investigation and assessment documents

Reference Document

/ACM0002/ CDM Methodology ACM0002, version 06: Consolidated baselinemethodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewablesources

/CBD/ CO B li D t b f I di P S t U G id




46/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Reference Document

/KP/ Kyoto Protocol (1997)

/MA/ Decision 3/CMP. 1 (Marrakesh Accords)

/PDD/ Registered Project Design Document for CDM project: 20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India, Version 03, dated 2007-01-17(http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/D59XRXL7J9SJ7UPJAA08XUA3U0Q694)

/VAL/ 1. Validation Report for CDM project 20MW Samal Grid-connectedHydroelectric Project in Orissa, India version 02, dated 2007-01-24

(http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/1/U/G/1UGPJQ11EU971CLDSW86IR4NA0TCBB/Samal%20Validation%20report.pdf?t=Q0h8bHZ4ZjV4fDBJs3BCrMzPdMLMGb4nizq1)

2. Validation Report for change in the crediting period of project activity

/VVM/ UNFCCC Validation and Verification Manual (Version 01.2 as per EB 51)(http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Standards/accr_man01.pdf)

/VVS/ Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Standard(Version 02.0, EB-65, Annex-4)(http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Standards/accr_stan02.pdf)

/TA/ Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, Version 02.2.1,EB-63, Annex-19.(http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-07-v2.2.1.pdf)

Table 7-3: Websites used

Reference Link Organisation




47/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Reference Link Organisation

of Power

/GRIDCO/ http://www.gridco.co.in/ GRIDCO Limited

/imd/

http://www.imd.gov.in/section/hydro/dynamic/rfmaps/period/p30092009.jpg

http://www.imd.gov.in/section/hydro/dynamic/rfmaps/period/p04112009.jpg

India Meteorological Department,Government of India

/eia/ http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/iass/notif/eia.htm

Ministry of Environment and Forests

/optcl/ http://www.optcl.co.in/ Orissa Power TransmissionCorporation Limited

/unfccc/ http://cdm.unfccc.int UNFCCC

Table 7-4: List of interviewed persons

Reference MoI Name Organisation / Function

/IM01/ V Mr.Ms K. Yogeshwar Rao GM,Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.

/IM01/ VMr.Ms

G.P. Mohapatra Power Plant Manager,Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.




48/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Reference MoI Name Organisation / Function

Ms K.B.S Ele-cons (For Orissa PowerConsortium Ltd.)

/IM02/ V

Mr.Ms

Bhanja Kishor Samal Helper,

K.B.S Ele-cons (For Orissa PowerConsortium Ltd.)

/IM03/ VMr.Ms

V. Naresh Kumar Trainee Engineer,Zenith Energy Services Pvt. Ltd.

1)Means of Interview: (Telephone, E-Mail, Visit)




49/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

ANNEX

A1: Verification Protocol

A2: Appointment / Authorisation

statements

1st Periodic Verification Report: 20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India


50/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Page 50 of 79

ANNEX 1: VERIFICATION PROTOCOL

Table A-1: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing / detailed audit testing of residual risk areas and random testing

Identification of

potential reporting risk

Identification,assessment and testing

of management controls

Areas of residual risksAdditional verification

testing


Improvement

(including ForwardAction Requests)

Raw data generation

Installation ofmeasuring equipment

Dysfunction ofinstalled equipment

Maloperation byoperational personnel

Downtimes ofequipment

Exchange ofequipment

Change of

measurementequipmentcharacteristic

Insufficient accuracy

Change oftechnology

Installation of modernand state of the artequipment

Process controlautomation

Internal data review

Regular visual inspect-ions of installed equip-ment

Only skilled and trainedpersonnel operates the

relevant equipment Daily raw data checks

Immediate exchange ofdysfunctionalequipment

Stand-by duty is

Inadequate installation /operation of the monitoringequipment

Inadequate exchange ofequipment

Change of personnel

Undetected measurementerrors

Inappropriateness ofManagement systemprocedures w.r.t. monitoring

plan requirements (e.g.substitute value strategies)

Non-application ofmanagement systemprocedures

Insufficient accuracy

Inappropriate QA/QC

Site visit

Check of equipment

Check of technical data

sheetsCheck of suppliers

information / guarantees

Check of calibrationrecords, if applicable

Check of maintenancerecords

Counter-check of rawdata and commercialdata

Check of CDMmanagement system

Check of CDM relatedprocedures

See Table A-2



51/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Page 51 of 79

Identification ofpotential reporting risk

Identification,assessment and testingof management controls


testing


Improvement(including ForwardAction Requests)

Accuracy of valuessupplied by ThirdParties

organized

Training Internal audit

procedures

Internal check ofQA/QC measures ofinvolved Third Parties

measures of Third Parties Application of CDMmanagement systemprocedures

Check of trainings

Check of responsibilities

Check of QA/QCdocumentation / eviden-ces of involved ThirdParties

Raw data collection and data aggregation

Wrong data transferfrom raw data to dailyand monthlyaggregated reportingforms

IT Systems

Spread sheetprogramming

Manual datatransmission

Data protection

Responsibilities

Cross-check of data

Plausibility checks ofvarious parameters.

Appropriate archivingsystem

Clear allocation ofresponsibilities

Application of CDMManagement systemprocedures

Usage of standardsoftware solutions

Unintended usage of olddata that has been revised

Incomplete documentation

Ex-post corrections ofrecords

Ambiguous sources ofinformation

Non-application ofmanagement systemprocedures

Manual data transfermistakes

Check of dataaggregation steps

Counter-calculation

Data integrity checks bymeans of graphical dataanalysis and calculationof specific performancefigures

Check of managementsystem certification

Check of data archivingsystem

See Table A-2



52/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Page 52 of 79




testing



(Spreadsheets)

Limited access to ITsystems

Data protectionprocedures

Unintended change ofspread sheet programming

or data base entriesProblems caused by

updating/upgrading orchange of applied software

Check of application ofManagement system

procedures

Other calculation parameters

Emission factors,oxidation factors,coefficients

The values and datasources applied aredefined in the PDD andmonitoring plan

Unintended or intendedModification of calculationparameters

Wrong application of values

Misinterpretations of theapplied methodology and/or the PDD

Missing update ofapplicable regulatory

framework (e.g. IPCCvalues)

Update-check ofregulatory framework

Countercheck of theapplied MP in the MRagainst the methodologyand the PDD

See Table A-2

Calculation Methods



53/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Page 53 of 79




testing



Applied formulae

Miscalculation Mistakes in spread-

sheet calculation

Advanced calculationand reporting tools

A CDM coordinator is incharge of the CDMrelated calculations

Usage of tested /counterchecked Excelspreadsheets

Involvement of external

consultants

The danger of miscal-culation can only be

minimized.

Countercheck on thebasis of own calculation.

Spread sheet walk-trough.

Plausibility checks

Check of plots

See Table A-2

Monitoring reporting

Data transfer to theauthor of themonitoring report

Data transfer to themonitoring report

Unintended use ofoutdated versions

An experienced CDMconsultant isresponsible formonitoring reporting.

CDM QMS procedures

are defined

The danger of data transfermistakes can only beminimized

Inappropriate application ofQMS procedures

Counter check withevidences provided.

Audit of procedureapplication

See Table A-2


TV NORD JI/CDM C ifi i P


54/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Page 54 of 79

Table A-2: (Project specific) Periodic Verification Checklist

Checklist Item(incl. guidance for the verification team)

Refe-rence

Verification Team Comments(Means and results of assessment)

DraftConcl.

FinalConcl.

A. General Description of the project activity

A.1. Brief description of the project activity(EB 54 Annex 34, A.1)

Check if section A.1 of the MR includes the following:

- Purpose of the PA and the measures taken toreduce GHG emissions

- Brief description of the installed technology andequipments

- Relevant dates for the project activity (e.g.construction, commissioning, continuedoperation periods etc.

- Total emission reductions achieved in thismonitoring period

/MR//PDD/

The verification team has checked section A.1 of the MR and

confirms that the information provided is complete and correctwith regards to the following:

Purpose of the PA and the measures taken to reduceGHG emissions

Brief description of the installed technology andequipments

Relevant dates for the project activity (e.g. construction,

commissioning, continued operation periods etcTotal emission reductions achieved in this monitoringperiod

In this context the following findings have been identified:

The Verification team checked section A.1 of the monitoringreport and confirms that the section included the purpose of theproject activity as renewable power generation and export of

power to NEWNE grid of India. The brief description oftechnology is also appropriately stated under section A.1 ofmonitoring report. The relevant dates of commissioning andsynchronizing with grid are mentioned under section A.1 of themonitoring report. The section A.1 also mentions the emissionreductions achieved by the project activity.

OK OK

A.2. Project Participants /MR/The verification team has checked section A.2 of the MR andconfirms that the information provided is complete and correct

OK OK




55/79


P-No: 8106772122 10/269

Page 55 of 79

Checklist Item(incl. guidance for the verification team)

Refe-rence

Verification Team Comments(Means and results of assessment)

DraftConcl.

FinalConcl.

(EB 54 Annex 34, A.2)

Check if section A.2 of the MR includes the following:

- All PPs as displayed on the UNFCCC website

/MoC/ with regards to