Verification Activity Log - Methane Destruction Projects
Verification Body:
Period Verified:
Project Start Date:
Project Type:
Vintage Year (s):
Project Developer:
Protocol Version:
PREPARING FOR VERIFICATION
Conduct Kick-off Meeting with Project Developer
Date Achieved
Conduct Site Visit (Required Annually)
CORE VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES
STEP 1. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL EMISSION SOURCES
Identify and list all sources in the GHG assessment boundary
Date Achieved
Identify and list all fuel types
Rank all emissions sources and methane destruction activities by magnitude on a carbon
dioxide equivalent basis
For annual re-verifications, assess changes in the GHG assessment boundary
Yes
QUESTIONS
1.
Does the project satisfy the eligibility criteria in the project protocol?
2.
Is the project developer in compliance with applicable local, state and federal air and water
quality regulations?
Does the project report correctly depict the manure management system under the baseline
scenario and project case? (Livestock Only)
Is pre-project landfill gas collection and destruction system flow and methane concentration
monitored as required? (Landfill Only)
Does the project report include all methane and carbon dioxide (direct and indirect) sources
within the GHG assessment boundary for the baseline case and post-project implementation?
Does the project report include the total amount of metered methane captured and
destroyed for comparison with the modeled methane emission reductions? (Livestock Only)
Does the project report include all applicable types of GHGs from each emission source within
the GHG assessment boundary?
Are the baseline scenario calculations reasonably supported by underlying data?
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
No
N/A
Comments on responses to questions 1-8:
STEP 2. REVIEW METHODOLOGIES AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Evaluate procedures and systems for calculating project emissions reductions
Date Achieved
Evaluate personnel and training for calculating project emissions reductions
Review the monitoring plan and evaluate for areas of risk
Yes
QUESTIONS
9.
No
N/A
Has an appropriate, comprehensive monitoring plan been developed and followed?
10. Are appropriate calculation methodologies/procedures used to manage GHG emissions at
the source level, given the uncertainty/risk associated with those emissions?
11. Have the metering and calibration guidelines been followed?
12. Is someone qualified responsible for managing and reporting GHG emissions and emissions
reductions?
13. Is appropriate training provided to qualified personnel or contractors for GHG emissions
reporting duties?
14. Are appropriate documents created to support and/or substantiate activities related to
project reporting activities, and is such documentation retained appropriately?
Comments on responses to questions 9-14:
STEP 3. Asses Risk of Material Misstatement Associated with Management Systems/Procedures
1 Compare spreadsheets used for calculating reported emissions reductions to emissions reductions reported in
the Reserve
2 Develop sampling procedures for emissions sources and methane destruction activities based on risk of
material misstatement
3 Confirm that appropriate default emission factors are used or, if other factors are used, ensure the derivation
and explanation of increased accuracy is properly documented
Date Achieved
Project Verification Activities Log, March 2009
4 Confirm that all material GHG emissions are included (i.e., all omitted emissions are either immaterial or not
required)
5 Determine if there are any discrepancies between sample calculations performed by you and reported
emissions and emissions reductions. Generate a comprehensive List of Findings including all material and
immaterial misstatements.
Step 4. Determine if Discrepancies are Material or Immaterial
15. Are the emissions reduction calculations consistent with activity data and maintenance
records?
Yes
No
16. Have the correct default values and default emissions factors been used?
17. Have they used the appropriate methodologies for determining site-specific emissions factors
and implemented them correctly?
18. Have gas flows been adjusted for standard temperature and pressure if necessary?
19. If the methane destruction efficiency is source tested, is the destruction factor used
appropriate and supported by relevant documentation?
20. Are livestock categories correctly differentiated, and the correct VS and B0 value applied to
each livestock category? (Livestock Only)
21. Is the fraction of manure handled by the different manure management system components
represented in a satisfactory manner-the MS value? (Livestock Only)
22. Did the project developer use ‘MCF’ values differentiated by temperature? (Livestock Only)
23. Are both modeled and metered reductions calculated, and the lesser of the two used to
determine emissions reductions? (Livestock Only)
24. Are all discrepancies between your CRT calculations and the project developer CRT
calculations immaterial?
Comments on responses to questions 16-24:
Step 5. Completing the Verification Process
Prepare a detailed Verification Report, final List of Findings and submit to project developer
Date Achieved
Prepare a Verification Opinion and submit to project developer
Conduct exit meeting with project developer to discuss Verification Report, List of Findings &
Opinion
Provide records to project developer for retention
Project Verification Activities Log, March 2009
N/A