PDD Focsani v3.0

GRUE & HORNSTRUP CONSULTING ENGINEERS A/S
stergade 18 . DK 7500 Holstebro, Denmark . TEL. +45 96 10 13 30 . Fax +45 97 40 45 20 . www.grue-hornstrup.dk

In cooperation with

Houlkjarshojen 9, DK 8800 Viborg, Denmark TEL. +45 86 67 32 10, Fax +45 40 38 71 90, www.lfgconsult.dk

Project Design Document

Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization

in Focsani, Romania

J uly 2005 Version 3.0
Project Design Document Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization in Focsani, Romania
July 2005 Version 3.0

GRUE & HORNSTRUP CONSULTING ENGINEERS A/S in cooperation with LFG Consult Aps
050719_1_PDD Focsani v3.0 .doc
Page 2 of 79

Page 3 of 79

Abstract
This Project Design Document presents the situational, technical, and financial aspects of
implementing a J oint Implementation project in Focsani, Romania based on the reduction of
GHG emissions from the City landfill. This J oint Implementation Project will be established
between the Danish and Romania governments which will enable the two sides to enter into
an Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) and Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) trading
agreement in the year 2005, which is in accordance with J oint Implementation (J I) under the
Kyoto Protocol. This Project Design Document includes the following:
A description of the existing situation in Romania and Focsani in regards to
landfill gas recovery and utilization
A description of the project and landfill gas utilization
A presentation of stakeholder process to date
A discussion of project additionality
A baseline study and methodology including the estimation of project
emissions
A description of the plan for monitoring emissions and reductions
A discussion of environmental impacts
Implementation of the project should start in the last half of 2005 with the full operation of
project equipment expected in 2006. This Project Design Document presents the project
activity which includes the flaring or utilization of landfill gas in existing boilers at City
owned CET facility. Thus the project activity claims emission reductions from the
distruction of CH4 in the landfill gas and the replacement of part of the natural gas with
landfill gas at the CET. Under the confines of a J I project the project activity a decent net
profit for the landfill management company. The crediting period for emission reductions is
expected to at a minimum include the years 2006 through 2012. The total emission
reductions is estimated in this PDD to be 113,000 tons of CO
2
eq. over the crediting period.


Page 4 of 79


Page 5 of 79
Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................. 5
ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................................................... 7
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 9
2. APPROVAL OF THE PARTIES AND PROJECT PARTICIPANTS ............................................................. 11
2.1 J I FOCAL POINTS, PROJ ECT APPROVAL, AND PDD CRITERIA .............................................................................11
2.2 THE PROJ ECT PARTICIPANTS.............................................................................................................................12
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING SITUATION IN ROMANIA................................................................ 13
3.1 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL .................................................................................13
3.2 LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY AND UTILIZATION...................................................................................................14
3.3 CURRENT ELECTRICAL AND THERMAL ENERGY SITUATION..............................................................................14
3.4 INVESTMENT NEEDS FOR LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY AND LFG RECOVERY .........................................................15
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING SITUATION IN FOCSANI.................................................................. 16
4.1 PROJ ECT LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT.........................................................................................16
4.2 EXISTING SITUATION FOR THE LANDFILL AND CET FACILITIES........................................................................17
4.3 DATA FOR THE LANDFILL .................................................................................................................................18
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................................. 21
5.1 RESULTS AND BENEFITS FROM THE PROJ ECT....................................................................................................21
5.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROJ ECT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJ ECT ACTIVITY .........................................................21
5.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGIES TO BE IMPLEMENTED..............................................................22
5.3.1 Extraction system........................................................................................................................................ 22
5.3.2 MPR - Module............................................................................................................................................. 23
5.3.3 Transmission Pipe....................................................................................................................................... 23
5.3.4 Utilization system........................................................................................................................................ 23
5.4 TRAINING AND MAINTENANCE.........................................................................................................................24
5.5 SOCIAL ASPECTS..............................................................................................................................................24
5.6 TIME SCHEDULE...............................................................................................................................................25
6. SUMMARY OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS ......................................................................................... 26
6.1 THE CURRENT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS............................................................................................................26
6.2 PROJ ECT STAKEHOLDERS.................................................................................................................................27
7. ADDITIONALITY ASSESSMENT..................................................................................................................... 28
INVESTMENT BARRIERS................................................................................................................................................30
8. BASELINE STUDY............................................................................................................................................... 33
8.1 BASELINE APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................33
8.2 MODEL SELECTION (STEP 1)...........................................................................................................................33
8.3 BEST AVAILABLE DATA (STEP 2) ....................................................................................................................35
8.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS (STEP 3).....................................................................................................................36
8.5 DEFINED BASELINE SCENARIO (STEP 4)..........................................................................................................37
8.6 BASELINE METHODOLOGY (STEP 5)...............................................................................................................38
8.6.1 Assumptions for the estimation of baseline emissions ................................................................................ 38
8.6.2 Calculation of baseline emissions............................................................................................................... 39
8.7 CALCULATION OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS (STEP 6) ........................................................................................41
9. MONITORING METHODOLOGY AND PLAN............................................................................................... 43

Page 6 of 79
9.1 MONITORING METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................43
9.2 MONITORING PLAN ..........................................................................................................................................43
9.2.1 Monitoring Boundaries (Step 1) ................................................................................................................. 44
9.2.2 Required data and monitoring locations (Step 2) ....................................................................................... 44
9.2.3 Official data registration and ERs calculation (Step 3).............................................................................. 46
9.2.4 QA/QC, Corrective actions and modification of the monitoring plan (Step 4)........................................... 47
9.2.5 Verification of ERs...................................................................................................................................... 49
10. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ............................................... 51
LITERATURE SOURCES............................................................................................................................................ 53
ANNEXES....................................................................................................................................................................... 55
ANNEX A.1: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.......................................................................................................57
ANNEX A.2: LETTER OF INTENT FROM THE CITY HALL ................................................................................................61
ANNEX A.3: CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PROJ ECT PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................63
ANNEX B.1: PLANS OF THE FOCSANI LANDFILL AND PROJECT AREA ......................................................................65
ANNEX C.1: MONITORING FORM ..................................................................................................................................67
ANNEX C.2: MONITORING RECORDS.............................................................................................................................69
ANNEX D.1: DRILLING, LFG ANALYSIS, AND WASTE AMOUNTS .................................................................................71
ANNEX E.1: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TABLES..................................................................................................................73
ANNEX F.1: BASELINE CALCULATIONS.........................................................................................................................77
ANNEX F.2: EMISSIONS REDUCTION CALCULATIONS....................................................................................................79


Page 7 of 79

Abbreviations

AAU Assigned Amount Unit is a tradable unit of one ton of the Assigned Amount of an Annex B
country of the Kyoto Protocol. For J oint Implementation purposes AAUs consists of
reductions that occur before the reduction period of 2008-2012.
Baseline A description of the most likely probable scenario in regards to future GHG emissions
without the implementation of a J I.
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CET Romanian abbreviation of CHP facilities
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CH
4
Methane
CO
2
Carbon Dioxide
COP Conferences of the Parties under the Kyoto Protocol
DEPA Danish Environmental Protection Agency
DR Discount Rate for NPV
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ER Emissions Reduction
ERU Emission Reduction Units are the equivalent GHG emission reduction units for J I projects
under the Kyoto Protocol and valid for 2008-2012.
EURO European Common Currency
GHG Greenhouse Gasses
J I J oint Implementation Project according to Article 6 - Kyoto Protocol
kWh Kilowatt hour (1 kWh =3,600 kJ =860 kcal)
LFG Landfill Gas
MOP Meetings of the Parties under the Kyoto Protocol
MPR Measuring, Pumping and Regulation-module for LFG extraction and utilization
NGO Non Governmental Organization
Nm
3
Normal cubic meter
NGO Non Governmental Organization
NPV Net Present Value of a series of allotments over time and applied with a Discount Rate (DR)
PIN Project Identification Note
PDD Project Design Document
RMEWM Romanian Ministry of Environment and Water Management
ROL Rumanian Lei
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change


Page 8 of 79


Page 9 of 79
1. Introduction

This Project Design Document (PDD) shall enable the Romanian and Danish Governments ,
and the City of Focsani to enter into an Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) and Emission
Reduction Units (ERUs) trading agreement in the year 2005, which is in accordance with
J oint Implementation (J I) under the Kyoto Protocol. This trading agreement is based on the
reduction of Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
) equivalent emissions generated by a landfill gas (LFG)
recovery and utilization project in the City of Focsani, Romania. In this project the
Emissions Reductions (ERs) will be generated by the capture and conversion of methane gas
(CH
4
), which is produced through biological degradation of landfill waste, through
combustion at biogas utilization facilities. The utilization facilities will include an installed
flaring system and LFG use at the existing CET plant for Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
in Focsani. The LFG extraction component and the accompanying utilization facilities will
compose the whole project in terms of this PDD.
This PDD has been developed in accordance with the Project Manual - J oint
Implementation - May 2003 which is published by the Danish Energy Authority. It is also
developed based on guidelines and examples found in the Kyoto Protocol, the Marrakech
Accords, the review of validated PDDs, and experience from the validation of previous
PDDs.
In accordance with these sources, the contents of this PDD include the following:
Approval of the parties and project participants
Description of the existing situation in Romania
Description of the existing situation in Focsani
Description of the project activity
Summary of the stakeholder process
Additionality assessment
Baseline study
Monitoring plan
Analysis of the environmental impact of the project
The Romanian Ministry of Environment and Water Management (RMEWM), who is the
Romanian UNFCCC J I Focal Point, has been contacted to clarify if specific criteria from the
host country should be respected when elaborating this PDD. The Romanian authorities
emphasize that the requirements in the Kyoto Protocol, Marrakech Accords and decisions
from other COPs shall be respected.
In general, this J I landfill gas recovery and utilization project is composed of the already
completed Project Idea Note (PIN), a detailed site investigation, this PDD and the possible
implementation of the physical project. The physical project will include the installation and
operation of a LFG extraction and control system, along with the utilization system for LFG.
The extraction and control system installation will take place at the existing city owned
landfill which started operation in the 1970s. The LFG utilization will take place by flaring
or transporting the gas up to 3.5 km in a pipeline to the city owned CET.
At the time of completion of this PDD a project specific Letter of Approval (LoA) and
Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA) for the project was not signed by the
parties involved, and the consultation of stakeholders and the public in both countries was

Page 10 of 79
not completed. This should of course lead to a corrective action request by the Independent
Entity (DOE). Documentation of the additional consultation of stakeholders and the public
and a copy of the LoA will be handed over to the Independent Entity as soon as they become
available.
The additionality of this JI project is proven by the financial, regulatory, and technological
circumstances which exist in Focsani, as with other cities and municipalities in Romania. In
the case of the City of Focsani additionality is present since the City does not have the
financial means to fund a landfill gas recovery and utilization project for the existing landfill.
Furthermore, the lack of regulatory requirements for LFG extraction and the absence of such
systems in Romania leads to further arguments for additionality.
The baseline study presents the approach and methodology for determining the release of
GHGs from the Focsani landfill without implementation of the project. The methodology is
used to develop a baseline situation describing the most likely future release of GHGs from
the landfill. Then it is used to present a clear picture of the expected emission reductions in
tons of CO
2
equivalents when the project is implemented. The methodology is developed
using historical data, the outcome of financial analysis, consideration of energy policies,
Romanian regulations, and environmental requirements.
The monitoring plan is developed based on the monitoring methodology and the normal
design of landfill gas recovery and utilization systems and practical experience from dozens
of existing LFG projects. The monitoring plan includes a developed methodology and
guidelines for monitoring the release of GHGs and the verification of associated ERs. These
include the definitions and procedures for project boundaries, data collection, utilization of
the data, and calculation of the ERs.
The regulatory requirements for environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the existing
landfill are presented along with other issues related to environmental impact and this JI
project. The issues include a discussion of previous and future EIAs for the existing landfill,
impacts on the surrounding environment, and the continuation of EIA during the operation of
the project activity. Finally, the significance of the environmental impact of the project
activity as a whole is discussed in connection to the surrounding environment.


Page 11 of 79

2. Approval of the Parties and Project Participants

As parties to the Kyoto Protocol and Nations under the Annex B countries, the
governments of the Kingdom of Denmark and Romania have in accordance with Article 6
and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol entered into a mutual agreement for the establishment of J oint
Implementation (J I) projects within the boarders of Romania. This mutual agreement
consists of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was singed on the 28th of
J anuary 2003 by the Danish Minister for Environment, Hans Christian Schmidt, and the
Romanian Ambassador to Denmark, Vlad-Andrei Moga. The MOU is established for a
period of 10 years with 5 year extension periods thereafter upon the approval of the two
parties. A copy of the MOU can be found in Annex A of this PDD.
According to the MOU, the amount of Emissions Reduction (ERs) produced under approved
J I projects will be transferred through emissions trading as outlined under Article 17 of the
Kyoto Protocol. The two parties have agreed that the ERs may consists of Emissions
Reduction Units (ERUs) incurring during the period of 2008-2012 and as Assigned Amount
Units (AAUs) which incur before 2008. All of the AAUs and ERUs will be acquired and
used for the period of 2008-2012.
The MOU indicates that all J I projects shall be formally approved by the two parties, and
that the price and scheme for emissions trading shall be negotiated on a per project bases.
Additionally, all J I projects shall comply with Romanian policies for such projects and the
existing and future guidelines developed by the Meetings of the Parties (MOP) and
Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).

2.1 JI focal points, project approval, and PDD criteria
Under the MOU the parties have designated that the J I focal points for the Romanian
government, who is the host party, shall be the Ministry of Environment and Water
Management (RMEWM). The J I focal point for the Kingdom of Denmark, who is the
investor party, shall be the Danish Ministry of Environment. Which is represented by the
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA). Both the host and investor parties shall
be responsible for issues related to the establishment, approval, and regulation of J I projects
within Romania.
To date, this specific J I project as outlined in this PDD has only tertiary approval of the host
and investor countries. The City of Focsani has issued a Letter of Intent (Annex A2) to
DEPA, where DEPA is supporting development efforts for the project. The parties have
approved the PIN of the project and the development of this PDD by the project developer.
However, final approval of the project and any agreement relating to ERs shall be developed
after the examination of the PDD by all parties, the public, and an Independent Entity.
To date, there are no specific guidelines issued by UNFCCC for the structure and content of
a J I PDD. However, it is assumed that guidelines will follow the criteria as set out by the
Kyoto Protocol and gatherings (COP), and it is assumed that the guidelines will be similar to
those established for Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs) under the Kyoto Protocol.
The DEPA criteria for this project and PDD are outlined in the Project Manual - J oint
Implementation - May 2003 which is published by the Danish Energy Authority. DEPA
also stipulates that any activities with regards to this J I project must cohere to various
regulations and laws associated with the use of Danish government funds for contracted

Page 12 of 79
projects in foreign countries. These regulations are published by the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry of Energy.
The criteria from the RMEWM are that all the rules and regulations set out in the Kyoto
Protocol, the Marrakech Accords, and any additional UNFCCC gatherings (MOP & COP)
shall be respected. Additionally, the requirements and guidelines as set out in Romanian
legislation, executive regulations and climate policy shall also be respected.
Finally, all Romanian regulations related to landfills shall be respected in connection with
this project. Though there are only a few specific regulations related to landfill gas recovery
and utilization in Romania, this project will respect those related to general landfill
management and impact assessment.
2.2 The project participants

The City of Focsani
The City Hall is the responsible local authority for this J I project, where planning, regulation,
and approval are handled by the City Council and the Mayors Office. The landfill is owned
by the municipality as are the local utility management company (CUP) and the local district
heat company Enet S.A. . The City Hall has both approval and financial authority over this
project activity.
Compania de Utilitati Publice R.A. (CUP):
CUP Is the utility management company for the City of Focsani, and is the official Project
Host/Proponent for this J I project. CUP is responsible for all issues in regards to the
operation and management of the landfill, and will own and operate the landfill gas
extraction equipment under this project activity.
Enet S.A.:
Enet is the CET management company for the City of Focsani. It is responsible for all issues
in regards to the operation and management of the combined heat and power facilities plus
the Citys hot water distribution system. Enet owns and operates the existing boiler plant
which will utilize the landfill gas under this project activity.
Grue & Hornstrup A/S
Grue & Hornstrup is the project developer who is contracted by DEPA to investigated the J I
project potential in Romania and to develop the PDD for this project activity. Grue &
Hornstrup has subcontracted the firm LFG Consult Aps as the landfill gas expert for this J I
project.
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA)
DEPA is providing support for the development of this J I project and will purchase the
emission reductions from the project activity.


Page 13 of 79

3. Description of the Existing Situation in Romania

This section of the PDD is written in order to present the existing situation in Romania with
regards to the municipal solid waste and energy sectors, and environmental issues related to
them. The different sections describe current practices within these sectors and various
governmental initiatives which influence the sectors. This section sets up the principals for
which this J I project is developed upon and the local circumstance which may influence the
project. Most of the information presented in this section is discussed in greater detail in the
UN Environmental Performance Review on Romania (2001) and EBRDs review on the
Romanian Economy (2003). Though these documents are not current there is little to no
change in the information provided within it. Furthermore, the general items presented here
and there interaction with regards to this J I project will be discussed in greater detail in
chapters 4 through 10 of this PDD.
3.1 Municipal solid waste management and disposal
Current practice for the management and disposal of municipal solid waste in Romania focus
on the general collection and disposal of approximately 6-7 million tons of waste annually.
Advanced collection, sorting, and disposal facilities are not common in Romania, and only
exist due to projects which have been recently implemented. There are over 1200 landfills
operated by municipalities and cites who have the responsibility of handling municipal and
industrial solid waste and the environmental protection thereof. Almost all landfills are
operated by municipal or city owned companies who are often the primary waste collectors.
Of these the majority of landfills (60%) accept municipal and industrial solid waste, where
30% accept only municipal solid waste. Only a fraction of the landfills actually have permits
and environmental monitoring programs.
Waste sorting is mostly limited to scavenging by gypsies who scavenge for recyclables as
waste arrives at a landfill. This hand sorting removes a small portion of the disposed of
waste. The majority of existing landfills in Romania do not have barriers and leachate
collection systems and are not designed to allow for optimized LFG recovery. Many
landfills are just open areas where mixed waste is dumped and compacted, with little regards
to the surrounding environment.
Alternative methods for waste disposal are not currently in common practice in Romania.
Large scale waste recycling systems are relatively non-existent, incineration of waste is
limited to about 1% of waste, and composting as well as anaerobic digestion are only
entering into the management ideology right now. This being said, there is a strong desire
by many landfill operators to implement more advanced solid waste management and
handling systems. However, the acknowledged situation is that they are unable to fund such
systems without outside development money.
In the past decade the Romanian government has established a number of laws and directives
related to landfills and there environmental impact, where Government Decision no.
349/2005 is the most encompassing law with regards to the land filling of waste. The
development of policies and regulations in respect to this is predominately the responsibility
of RMEWM, where the inspection and enforcement responsibility lies with the county
environmental protection agencies (EPAs). Most of these policies and regulations focus on
hazardous waste, the closure of existing landfills, and the establishment of new landfills. For
the time being existing municipal landfill operations are grandfathered into policies and
regulations as non-permitted landfills. Where the end date of depositing waste at most of
these landfills is by 2010. The major issue for closure is the financial support for

Page 14 of 79
establishing new landfills upon the closure of existing ones, and the associated costs of
closure.
Due to the desire of the Romanian government to enter into the EU, and the EU expected
accession for solid waste requirements deadline of 2017, the various levels of Romanian
governments have begun supporting the redevelopment of the solid waste industry. This
support to date is mostly limited to regulatory and technical assistance actions since local
financial funding is almost non-existent. Most available funding is obtained through
international assistance but is mainly limited to the development of new landfills.
3.2 Landfill gas recovery and utilization
Landfill gas recovery and utilization is an advanced solid waste and energy technology
which is not currently utilized by the waste management sector in Romania. The technology
is relatively unavailable to municipal and city waste management companies due to its lack
of implementation in Romania and its extensive investment costs. National requirements for
the capture and utilization of LFG at existing landfills are ambiguous, but not specificed in
GD 349/2005. There are no known municipal regulations which require landfill gas
recovery and utilization. The fact of nonexistent funding for such facilities is widely
acknowledged at all levels which leads to some of the ambiguity. The only clear influencing
regulations involve those associated with EU accession which ascertain that any new landfill
shall be established with systems for the venting and flaring of LFG. A time table for EU
accession requirements in regards to landfills is still under negations, but it is expected to be
2017.
It is foreseeable that LFG recovery and utilization technology will increasingly become
available to municipalities and cities in the next decades as existing landfills are closed and
new ones started. The majority of funding for implementing the technology will inevitably
come from international developments funds (such as the EUs ISPA and PHARE program).
Therefore, it is expected that the technology will only be implemented on a small scale for
new landfills in the short term, before 2013. Outside of J I agreements there will most likely
be no implementation at exiting landfills.
3.3 Current electrical and thermal energy situation
Due to the liberalization policies of the Romanian government over the past decade the
Romanian government is attempting to commercialize the energy sector. The actual level of
commercialization is limited since the ownership of most energy facilities has only changed
hands from the national government to local governments such as municipalities. The
national government does however retain partial control over the sector through partial
ownerships and the setting of energy policy and pricing at the national level by the
independent authority ANRE (National Electric and Heat Regis Authority). At present
Romania is a net importer of energy despite its vast reserves of fossil fuels. Most energy in
Romania is produced by fossil fuel burning and hydro power installation, as the emergence
of nuclear power continues. The fossil flues used in energy production are natural gas, oil,
and various types of coal, where natural gas is the most widely used. There are very small
amounts of energy produced at renewable (including biomass) energy installations. The
electricity and thermal energy produced in the country is used by the private and industrial
sectors with various pricing arrangements for consumed resources (such as natural gas) and
delivered energy (such as electricity used by industry) as set by ANRE. Thermal energy is
mostly produced through the burning of natural gas and various types of coal, where
production mostly takes place in heat only boiler houses and CHP installations. The prices
paid for electrical and thermal energy are low when compared to Western Europe.
Currently most governmental policies and initiatives focus on the redevelopment of existing
energy facilities and the efficiency thereof. This includes projects that focus on everything

Page 15 of 79
from production plants to distribution networks. Typically such project funding involves
money from the Romanian government, the production or distribution companies, and
international assistance funds. Through the increase in efficiency, less reliance on coal and
lignite, and a hopeful increase in renewable energy, CO
2
emission are expected to remain at
or below the 1991 level until 2020. This expectation is significant since the natural gas
demand in Romania is expected to increase by 2020.
3.4 Investment needs for landfill technology and LFG recovery
In Romania there is an overall lack of financing for the development of landfill technology
and LFG recovery. Romanian government expenditures (national and local) on waste
management are low and only cover the operation of existing facilities and regulatory costs.
This is due to the low taxes and fees on waste disposal that are associated with Romanias
transition economy. Finally, local banking institutions are not interested in financing
improvements for local environmental investments due to low profitability from public
sector activities. This follows the general lack of investment in Romania which is associated
to one of the least favorable business investment climates in Eastern Europe according to
EBRD (2003). This is in part due to high inflation which leads to a Nation Bank Rate of 8%
(J uly 2005).
The Romanian government does have initiative programs for the development and
promotion of renewable energy but the programs suffer from a lack of funding and are
progressing at a slow pace. Only a few demonstration project have been developed under
the programs and involve geothermal and biomass energy (wood or straw). This initiative
has only demonstrated these technologies, however the successful full-scale implementation
of geothermal and biomass energy is being established through the involvement of J I
projects.

Page 16 of 79

4. Description of the Existing Situation in Focsani
4.1 Project location and geographical context
The City of Focsani is located in Vrancea County in the region of Moldova and is
approximately 170 km from the Romanian capital of Bucharest (see Figure 1). The City of
Focsani has a population of approximately 105,000 people, with both commercial enterprises
and industrial manufacturing in and around the city.

Figure 1: Geographical map of Romania
The Focsani landfill is located outside of the city limits in a gorge surrounded by agricultural
land. The closest permanent inhabitable structures are located approximately 2 km away
from the landfill as is the closest industrial park. A large electrical step down station is
located 1 km from the landfill and the Cities CET plant and closest operational substation are
located approximately 3.5 km away from the landfill.
The geographical context of this J I project will be in the area which includes the City of
Focsani, the CET plant. An overall map showing the spatial boundaries of the project can be
found in Annex B.


Page 17 of 79
4.2 Existing situation for the landfill and CET facilities
The Foscani landfill was established in 1970 as the municipal landfill for the City of Foscani.
Since the 1990s the landfill has been operated by the City owned company Compania de
Utilitati Publice R.A. (CUP). The landfill is considered to be unprotected since it is not lined
and has no system for leachate or runoff collection. The landfill sits in a gorge with a small
adjacent stream. The soil characteristics of the area are favorable to water migration, with a
composition of mostly sand and some clay.
The landfill has accepted different waste types since its established, however specific
records of the types and amounts of waste disposed are only available for the period of
private landfill management. Records indicate that the landfill accepted only construction
and municipal waste up until 1999, at which point only municipal waste was accepted. Since
1997 the amount of delivered waste has been recorded by the counting of containers entering
the facility and by average weight of the waste in the containers. There are no facilities for
waste sorting and only minimal recovery of recyclables by gypsies. It is scheduled to stop
waste delivery at the landfill in 2006, however GD 349/2005 allows for waste
delivery/deposit until 2009.
The CET plant and distribution system are operated by the City owned company enet S.A..
The CET plant consists of two primary boiler and turbine units which are utilized for heat
and electricity production year round. Operation is switched between the two units during
times of maintenance. There are three operational secondary heat only boilers which are
utilized according to demand during the colder months of the year. In 2000 more than 98%
of all the energy supplied to the CET was from natural gas. The remaining 2% or less came
from heavy oil whose use is to be phased out. The energy production efficiency of the CET
facilities is not available, but is expected to be similar to like facilities in Romania. The enet
S.A. CET specifications are presented in Table 1.

# Units # Burners
Gas
Utilization
(Nm
3
/hr)
Steam
Production
(tons/hr)
Primary Boilers 2 2 4400 50
Secondary Boilers 3 4 2200 20
# Units Size (MW)
Turbines (Connected to Primary Boilers) 2 4
Distance (Landfill to enet S.A. CET) 3.5 km

Table 1: Primary and secondary boiler characteristics of the CET plant
The power distribution system is operated by the commercial company Electrica S.A.. The
company owns and operates all the power distribution facilities throughout the city and the
region. The primary lines in the system carry 15 kV and the secondary lines carry 6 kV.
There is a general lack of funding for the City utilities and the three companies listed in this
section. Due to low prices for energy and waste disposal there are only funds for the
minimal maintenance and operation of their facilities. There are no funds for investment in
new equipment, so the existing equipment is quite old and in most cases less efficient when
compared to Western European practice.


Page 18 of 79
4.3 Data for the landfill
The landfill is still currently in operation but delivery of waste is planned to stop in 2006.
However, according to Romanian legislation (GD 349/2005) the landfill may still operate
until 2009. Unfortunately, the City has not been able to get financing for establishing the
new landfill. The municipality has asked the RMEWM for money that can be allocated for
the new landfill. If this financing is not possible then the existing landfill will need to be in
operation for a period beyond 2006, and at this point in time the funding of a new landfill in
the short term is seen as unlikely.
The total area of the landfill is approximately 5.5 ha., where at the moment deposited waste
covers an area of 4.7 ha with varying depths of waste. There are no surveys available from
when the landfill was established, therefore the exact depth can not be determined. For this
reason, as well as waste analysis, 3 holes were drilled to the bottom of the landfill during a
time when the landfill was inspected in connection to this PDD in November 2003. The
results from the drillings can be seen in Annex D, with average values in Table 3, where the
depths for the holes were 5, 11 and 15 meters. Additionally, the edge at the top of the landfill
was also surveyed in November 2003. When comparing the elevation at the west edge if the
landfill with the elevation at the foot of the landfill a depth of up to 19 meters can be
estimated (see Annex B).
Since 1997 two types of trucks which deliver waste have been counted, as each delivers 370
kg/m
3
of waste, therefore the tones of waste per year are known. The total delivered waste
from 1997-2003 is approximately 350,000 tones. However, a week point in using this
deposited waste determination is if the trucks are only partly filled up. According to the
operator the total amount of waste in place for all years from 1970 to 2003 is expected to be
1,100,000 tones.
If the volume is calculated from the average depth of 13 meter and the area are 4.7 ha.,
corresponding to 47,000 m
2
, the total volume will only be 610,000 m
3
. As informed by the
landfill operator compaction has been preformed by middle size dozers and the specific
gravity is expected to be approximately 800 kg/m
3
. This gives an approximate total of
490,000 tones of waste-in-place. This calculation results is less than half of the 1,100,000
tones the operator estimated, but since the depth is verified in different points the total
amount of waste in 2003 is expected to be 490,000 tones for this baseline study.
Furthermore, the City of Focsani has approximately 105,000 inhabitants and therefore the
waste generation of approximately 35,000 tones yearly during the last 7 years sounds
reasonable.
For the baseline study the yearly deposited waste shown in Figure 2 is expected, which will
give a total waste amount of 570,000 tones when delivery of waste is planned to stop in
2006.

Page 19 of 79
Waste Deposited (Focsani Landfill)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
2
1
9
7
4
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
8
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
Year
t
o
n
s
/
y
r

Figure 2: Yearly amount of waste disposed of at the Focsani Landfill.
In 1997 a Level I Environmental Impact Assessment (IEA) was carried out for the landfill,
and the waste composition was analyzed. The results were reviewed in year 2000, and from
these the following composition is expected to be present when waste is delivered to the
landfill:

General Data
Inhabitants serviced 105,000
Starting date of landfill operation 1970
Expected date of landfill closure 2006
Actual area of the landfill 5.5 ha
Effective area of waste disposal 4.7 ha
Waste Composition (From 1997)
Municipal Solid Waste (household waste) 80%
Industrail Waste 0%
Demolition Waste 1%
Garden Waste 18%
Hazardous Waste Not allowed
Other 1%

Table 2: Data from consultations and a Level I EIA
The analysis in 1997 also showed a total content of organic matter of 70 % when the waste
was delivered. Analyses of the LFG in each of the three holes drilled in November 2003
were taken with a portable gas analyzer. The temperature was measured in a depth of only
0.5 meters, which does not give the correct temperature deeper in the waste. However, since
the gas stream is upwards the temperature will be somewhat close to that found further down
in the holes. The results are shown in Table 3, which can be seen in detail in Annex D.

Page 20 of 79

Average LFG Content (3 test analyses in November 2003)
Methane, CH
4
% 62
Carbon Dioxide, CO
2
% 21
Oxygen, O
2
% 2
Nitrogen, N
2
% 15
Temperatue,
O
C 13
Average Desopited Waste Analysis
Water Content, % 40
Water Vapour, % 8
Dry Matter, % 60
Volatile solids, % 20
Total Organic Carbon (TOC), % 6

Table 3: Average analysis data for waste-in-place, Focsani 2003
The CH
4
was measured to be 53 % in two of the holes and 79 % in one of the holes. 79 % is
very unusual and will definitely change to a lower percentage if the LFG was sucked from
the hole. But in general the gas percentage is quite good. The temperature of 12 to 15
0
C,
which is low, but will probably be a bit higher deeper in the landfill.
Samples were taken of the waste as the three holes were drilled. Samples were collected for
every 1 meter and analyzed at a Romanian laboratory for the waste analysis items shown in
Table 3. The results can be seen in detail in Annex D. The analysis shows organic matter
(volatile solids) of 8 to 38 % - in average about 20 %. There is a big difference compared
with the analysis of the organic matter from delivered waste in 1997, which was 70 %, which
indicates that a large part of the organics from the waste delivered to the landfill has been
converted or removed. The analysis of the organic carbon shows an average of
approximately 6 %, which correspond to 60 kg of C
org.
per tones of waste in place. There is
some uncertainty with regards to the sampling and analysis methods used, where the actual
values may vary a bit from the obtained results.
There seems to be a low content of organic material in the waste in place at the landfill. One
reason can be that the gypsies at the landfill recycle a portion of the material that contains
organic matter. They collect a portion of the wood and cardboard which contain slowly
degradable organic material which produces gas over a long period of time. Another
important factor that may lead to lower available organic matter is that the gypsies tend to
burn small amounts of the waste to keep warm in the winter months. Small self ignition fires
also occur periodically. These factors and normal degradation are believed to be the cause of
a lower amount of available organic matter than that which was expected. Additionally, the
content of organic carbon (6%) corresponds to analysis of similar landfills in Romania.
Therefore, the organic carbon analysis gives the most accurate estimate of the available
degradable organic matter and is the best obtained data that can be used for the estimation of
gas production.

Page 21 of 79

5. Project Description
This J I project includes the recovery of LFG from the City of Focsani landfill and the
utilization of the gas in the existing primary boilers at the CET. The purpose of the project is
to generate ERs which will be purchased by the Danish Government. At the same time the
project will decrease the environmental impact of the landfill on the surrounding
environment and allow the management company to generate income which can be used to
establish a new landfill with improved environmental protection.
5.1 Results and benefits from the project
The activities of this J I project will result in the general improvement of the local and global
environment through the recovery of LFG and the reduction of GHG emissions. The major
results and benefits of the project are listed below.

Contribute to the overall improvement of solid waste management in
Focsani by introducing new technology and increasing financial resources
of the landfill management company.
Improve the immediate environment adjacent to the landfill by reducing
harmful and odorous gas emissions, and reducing the risk of explosions
and fires caused by gas migration.
Increase the use of renewable energy technology and resources in Romania
and decreasing the need for imported fossil fuels at the same time.
Increase of economic activity in the local area through supply and wroks
contracts for the construction and operation of the landfill gas recovery and
utilization system.
Increase of the knowledge base of landfill gas recovery and utilization
through the training of operation and maintenance personnel, plus the
cataloging of data and analysis thereof.
Income from the project may be used for additional environmental
improvements at the existing landfill, and possibly help fund the new
landfill.
5.2 Purpose of the project and description of the project activity
The purpose of this J I project is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Focsani landfill
by converting the CH
4
gas fraction in LFG to CO
2
through combustion. The project will also
replace the use of fossil fuels by utilizing the LFG for energy purposes, and at the same time
enhance the environment in and around the landfill by minimizing odors and the explosion
risk from the emitted LFG.
This J I project will be developed based on the amount of extracted LFG from the Focsani
landfill. The amount of LFG extraction is estimated in this PDD and the estimate will be
verified at during physical project implementation. A gas extraction system will be installed
at the landfill along with a torch to flare the LFG during emergencies. Furthermore, a gas
transmission pipe may be extended to the City of Focsani, where the gas can be used in
boilers at the existing CET plant.


Page 22 of 79
5.3 General description of the technologies to be implemented
Over the past 25 years the technology for the extraction and utilization of LFG has
developed to the point where there are today roughly 1150 operational plants worldwide.
Approximately 730 of the plants are established in Europe and of these 24 are in Denmark.
The technology utilized in Denmark and in other countries around the world is chosen for the
proposed plant in Focsani. Therefore, technology utilized in Focsani will be similar to this
well proven existing technology.
A LFG plant consists of an extraction and a utilization system, which vary in setup and
operation. The extraction system can consist of vertical perforated pipes, horizontal
perforated pipes, or ditches, and in few cases a gas collecting membrane covering the
landfill. The gas is sucked out from the landfill by means of a gas pump and pressed through
a transmission pipe to the utilization system.
The utilization system can consist of several different options. The most common method is
to utilize the gas as fuel in a gas engine and power generator. In most cases only the
electricity is sold to a power company, as for example in the US where this is done for 255
of the 355 plants. In other cases, especially in some countries in Europe, a Combined Heat
and Power Plant (CHP Plant) is used and the heat from the engine and exhaust cooling
system is utilized for heat energy purposes. Another common method is to utilize the gas in a
gas boiler for production of hot water or steam for heating of process heat. There are also
other possibilities for using the LFG, such as direct use, upgrading to natural gas quality, fuel
for Vehicles, use in fuel cells, leachate evaporation, etc, but these are not all well proven
technologies and in most cases they are not profitable.
5.3.1 Extraction system
At the Focsani landfill the extraction system will be made of approximately 30 vertical wells.
The depth of the individual wells will vary depending on the depth of the landfill waste. The
average depth of the landfill waste is approximately 13 m, where the average depth of the
wells will be approximately 12 meters. The wells will be drilled with a diameter of 600
1,000 mm and perforated vertical plastic pipes will be inserted and surrounded by gravel in
the wells. In this manner gas will be extracted from the surrounding waste.
In some landfills, in which there are problems with leachate water in wells, a pumping
system to remove the leachate will be necessary. In Focsani water was found in one of the
three test drillings at a depth of approximately 13 meters, and therefore this may not to be a
problem at Focsani landfill. However, when the wells are executed it has to be decided if any
leachate removal arrangements will be necessary.
A gas extraction pipe is connected to a horizontal suction pipe, which leads the gas to the
MPR (Measuring, Pump and Regulation) -module. Every gas well has a separate suction
pipe connected to the MPR-module. The LFG has approximately 100% humidity, which will
form condensate in the pipelines, when the gas temperature during the winter time decreases
the horizontal pipes freeze shut if installed at the surface. For this reason the pipelines must
be buried in a depth free of frost and furthermore a water/condensate trap must be
established.
Another possibility for the gas extraction system is to have one or two main pipelines to
which the pipes from the individual wells are connected. In such cases it is necessary to
regulate the flow from each well at the wellhead, which is very difficult when the landfill is
in operation and being filled up continuously over the years. The main pipelines should then
be connected to a pump module.

Page 23 of 79
5.3.2 MPR - Module
MPR-module is an abbreviation for Measuring, Pumping and Regulation-module. The gas
extraction system handles approximately 300 m3/h with 30 pipes entering the MPR
container from the individual wells. The MPR module can be made from a 40 feet steel
container which is placed adjacent to the house at the entrance of the landfill.
In the MPR module the pipes from the 30 individual wells are connected to a manifold. Each
pipe has a regulation valve, a flow meter, and a sampling valve for measurement of the gas
quality with a portable gas analyzer instrument. Furthermore a gas filter is placed in the
module along with a flame arrester and gas pump for the extraction of the gas from the
landfill and pressing the gas to the flare and/or the utilization system.
5.3.3 Transmission Pipe
From the MPR-module the gas flows into the gas transmission pipe under pressure. This pipe
leads the gas to the flare as well as to the utilization system in the City of Focsani, which is
located 3.5 km from the landfill.
5.3.4 Utilization system
The LFG will be utilized as fuel in burners at the existing boilers at the CET plant in the City
of Focsani, or flared on site.
Flaring
The LFG is flared in an on-site torch which is placed approximately 25 m from the MPR-
module. Though the regulation of gas extraction from the individual wells often takes place
at the wellhead when the gas is flared, it would in this case be regulate in the MPR-module.
This is due to the fact that the landfill is still in operation and waste will continue to be
placed on the top for few more years in the future.
Figure 3 shows the extraction system including the MPR Module, which is described in
section 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. The landfill gas is flared in a Torch placed approximately 25 m from
the MPR module. By flaring the gas the CH
4
is converted to CO
2
and water, which means
that there are no CH
4
emission by which the greenhouse effect from the methane is reduced.
Fuel switch at the CET plant at enet S.A.
The LFG is transported via a 3.5 km gas transmission pipeline to the CET plant in the City of
Focsani which is owned by Enet S.A.. The LFG will be mixed with natural gas that is used to
fire the primary boiler burners. In this case the LFG will replace a portion of the natural gas
demand from the boilers. A process scheme for LFG utilization at the CET Plant is shown in
below.

Page 24 of 79

Process scheme for Boiler Plant
Cooling
System
Cooling
System
Existing
Boiler
Existing
Boiler
Filter Filter
Flare
Measuring and
Regulation
System
Measuring and
Regulation
System
MPR Module Exist. Steam Boiler Plant
Landfill
Wells
Steam
Blower Burner
Natural Gas
for power
generation

Figure 3: Process scheme for an LFG Recovery plant with a CET Plant
Figure 3 shows the extraction system and MPR Module as described in sections 5.3.1 and
5.3.2. Utilization will take place in the two existing steam boilers at the CHP plant. The
boilers operate year-round and are fuelled with 2,200 m3/h of natural gas. The approximately
300 m3/h of LFG, which corresponds to 150 m3/h of natural gas, a fraction of the natural gas
demand, will be mixed with the natural gas and used direct in the boilers burners.
5.4 Training and maintenance
Training of the operational staff will be the responsibility of the project developer,
technology supplier and management companies. The training of operational staff shall be
conducted before the commissioning of project facilities, with additional training once the
project facilities are in place and operating. This should secure a full understanding of
equipment function and the monitoring procedures. All training shall be in accordance with
equipment manufactures recommendations and those of the project developer.
The inspection and maintenance of equipment shall occur on a regular bases in accordance
with equipment manufactures recommendations. Maintenance procedures shall be developed
and documented for equipment as recommended by manufactures and the project developer.
These procedures shall place the highest emphases on the safety of personnel and the prompt
repair of equipment.
Concrete measures for training and maintenance can not be developed at this stage since
specific equipment has not been selected and facility design has not been preformed. This
will occur after the final approval of the J I project.
5.5 Social aspects
The extraction of gas from the landfill will lead to a considerable decrease of emissions from
the landfill which will enhance the environment for workers at the landfill including gypsies.
The project activity will require employees for construction plus operation and maintenance.
Both skilled and unskilled labor will be need during the project period. Thus, the project
will create new jobs in the area while improving the local environment.

Page 25 of 79
5.6 Time schedule
Table 4 illustrates the expected time schedule for implementation of this project activity.
In order to determine the exact size of the utilization system it can be decided to divide the
project in two different implementation phases. The first phase will include the installation,
start up and running of the extraction system including the MPR and the flare. The second
phase of installation includes the start up and operation of the utilization system. This will
prolong the total implementation of the project activity by approximately 5 months
depending on the delivery time for supplies and works.
It is anticipated that the actual implementation of the project will begin in the second half of
2005 and the J I component will extend until the end of 2012. Therefore, the AAU and ERU
crediting period will continue from the beginning of 2006 until the end of 2012.
ACTIVITY AND MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Functional description and design
Application and approval by authorities
Negotiations and approval for transmission pipe
Agreements for the delivery of energy
Preparation of tender documents
Evaluation of tenders
Builder and contractor contacts
Detail design by the contractors
Manufacture and delivery of pipes
Manufacture and delivery of transmission pipe
Manufacture and delivery of MPR and Flare
Manufacture and delivery of CHP system
Drilling and installation of extraction system
Installation of MPR and Flare
Installation of transmission pipe
Installation of CHP plant
Commissioning & Training
Startup and operation

Table 4: Suggestion for a time schedule for establishing an LFG Plant in Focsani

Page 26 of 79
6. Summary of the Stakeholder Process

At the present time DEPA and RMEWM have defined a national stakeholder process for J I
projects. The arrangements include project specific consultations with the stakeholders
involved in the project, including officials at RMEWM. The final arrangements for
stakeholder consultations will include the project specific stakeholders and the public. In
this case the final draft of this PDD shall be distributed to the project specific stakeholders
and the Independent Entity (DOE), plus posted for the public. The PDD will be posted for a
period of one month were comments from the parties, stakeholders, UNFCCC accredited
observers, and the public will be gathered and handled in the appropriate manner. During
this period the PDD will be posted in the websites of DEPA, RMEWM, and the Independent
Entity, plus a hard copy will be posted at the Municipal Counsel and Mayors Office in
Focsani.
6.1 The current stakeholder process
In the course of developing this PDD a stakeholder process has been initiated in relation to
the stakeholders involved in the projects development to date. The stakeholders in this
process and their project relations are shown in Figure 4 and are described in the succeeding
paragraphs along with the various types of interaction to date.

Figure 4: Project stakeholders in the current stakeholder process


Page 27 of 79
6.2 Project stakeholders

DEPA: Is the investor party and is the responsible party for J I projects for the Danish
Government.
RMEWM: Is the host party and is the responsible party for J I projects for the Romanian
Government. RMEWM also houses the Wastes and Hazardous Substances Directorate who
is responsible for national landfill activities in Romania.
The Vrancea County Environmental Protection Agency: Is the regional authority
responsible for the support and implementation of regional and national environmental
policies and regulations.
The City of Focsani: Is the responsible local authority for this J I project, where planning,
regulation, and approval are handled by the City Council and the Mayors Office.
Compania de Utilitati Publice R.A. (CUP): Is the utility management company for the
City of Focsani. It is responsible for all issues in regards to the operation and management
of the landfill.
Enet S.A.: Is the CET management company for the City of Focsani. It is responsible for
all issues in regards to the operation and management of the combined heat and power
facilities plus the Citys hot water distribution system.
Electrica S.A.: Is the commercial power distribution company which buys and supplies all
electric power in the local area. Electrica S.A. is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the power distribution network and is partially controlled by oversight from
the Romanian national energy authority, ANRE.
Grue & Hornstrup A/S: Is the project developer who is contracted by DEPA to
investigated the J I project potential in Romania and to develop the PDDs for various LFG
projects in Romania. Grue & Hornstrup A/S has subcontracted the firm LFG Consult Aps as
the landfill gas expert for this J I project.
Stakeholder consultations and meetings have occurred since the start of project development
in April 2003 to the issuance of this PDD. Documentation from these meetings can be
obtained by reasonable authorities through contacts at Grue & Hornstrup A/S.


Page 28 of 79
7. Additionality Assessment

Step 0. Preliminary screening based on the starting date of the project activity
Grue & Hornstrup A/S and LFG Consult Aps, working on behalf of DEPA, started the
investigation of J oint Implementation project potential at the Focsani landfill in August
2003. The project activity is not expected to start until the first quarter of 2006.

Step 1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws
and regulations

Sub-step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity:
There are identified four plausible alternatives to the project activity.
1. Business as usual where there will be no system for the recovery and
flaring or utilization of LFG.
2. Flaring system only - where a system for the recovery of LFG is installed
and the LFG is partially or totally flared.
3. The project activity without J I where a system for the recovery of LFG is
installed and the LFG is utilized in the existing boiler plant (CET).
4. The project activity with electricity generation where a system for the
recovery of LFG is installed and the LFG is utilized to produce electricity
in a gas engine.
Alternative 1 is a very likely scenario under current conditions in Romania, and would
require no new investment from the City Hall. Alternative 2 is very unlikely since no
income will be generated, only costs. Alternatives 3 and 4 are likely since income would be
gained under the activity, but both alternatives are dependent on energy and fuel prices in
Romania and financing.

Sub-step 1b. Enforcement of applicable laws and regulations:
In the past decade the Romanian government has established a number of laws and directives
related to landfills and there environmental impact, where Government Decision no.
349/2005 is the most encompassing law with regards to the land filling of waste. The
development of policies and regulations in respect to this is predominately the responsibility
of RMEWM, where the inspection and enforcement responsibility lies with the county
environmental protection agencies (EPAs). Romanian laws and regulations do not require
landfill gas recovery and its combustion at existing landfills at this time. This includes local
and regional policies or regulations at such existing landfills. This being said, Romanian
Government Decision 349/2005, requires the capture, flaring, or utilization of landfill gases
from new landfills, and the ending of waste delivery/deposit at Focsani by 2009.
Government Decision 349/2005 is based on the Romanian Governments commitment to EU
accession under the Environmental Chapter. It remains to be seen whether the conditions
under Government Decision 349/2005 can be fulfilled due to the financial constraints of
Romanian municipalities and the lower priority of allocating funds for existing landfills over
other infrastructure projects. For the time being existing municipal landfill operations are
grandfathered into policies and regulations as non-permitted landfills. The major issue for

Page 29 of 79
closure is the financial support for establishing new landfills upon the closure of existing
ones, and the associated costs of closure.
Landfill gas recovery and utilization is an advanced solid waste and energy technology that
is not widespread in the waste management sector in Romania. The technology is relatively
unavailable to municipal and city waste management companies due to its lack of
implementation in Romania and its extensive investment costs. There are no known
municipal regulations which require landfill gas recovery and utilization. The only clear
influencing regulations involve those associated with EU accession which ascertains that any
new landfill shall be established with systems for the venting and flaring of LFG.
Outside of J I agreements and new landfills it is expected that there will be no
implementation of such systems at exiting landfills up to 2013, and most likely for a number
of years afterwards depending on the economic situation that develops. Therefore, it is not
expected that the City of Focsani would be able to fund any kind of landfill gas recovery and
combustion project before 2013 without J oint Implementation.

Step 2. Investment analysis
Sub-step 2a. Determine appropriate analysis method
It is determined that the most appropriate investments analysis method is that which uses an
investment comparison analysis.

Sub-step 2b. Apply investment comparison analysis
Under an investment comparison analysis the Net Present Value (NPV) of the alternatives
described in Step 1 will be assessed. A discount rate of 10% will be applied to the NPV.

Sub-step 2c. Calculation and comparison of financial indicators
It is clear through investment analysis that only the project activity under J oint
Implementation is economically viable. All other alternatives will lead to a substantial debt
for the City Hall and waste management compnay (CUP). A summary table of this financial
analysis is provided below with greater detail provided in Annex E.
Alternative
Estimated
Investment Costs
()
NPV 10% ()
1 0 0
2 350,000 -460,786
3 565,000 -245,688
4 1,035,000 -804,605
J I Project 565,000 185,336

Table 5: Investment comparison analysis

Sub-step 2d. Sensitivity analysis
There are three parameters which can have an impact on the investment comparison analysis.
They are the amount of landfill gas recovery, the price of natural gas, and the price of
electricity. Since all of the alternatives to the project activity end in a negative NPV, it is

Page 30 of 79
clear that only and increase in the three mentioned parameters will positively affect the
financial outcome of the alternatives. The uncertainty of landfill gas generation models is
well documented and therefore a sensitivity analysis will take into account a 15% average
increase in the recovery of landfill gas. The prices of electricity and natural gas in Romania
are low compared to Western Europe, but are regulated by Romanian institutions and will
likely rise over the years until 2013. Taking this into account an average increase of 20%
over the project period could be expected, and will be taken into account.
The resulting NPV of the compounded changes in these parameters are listed below. The
change in parameters still indicates that the alternatives are not financially viable and thus
will not be selected by the City of Focsani for implementation.

Alternative
Estimated
Investment Costs
()
NPV 10% ()
1 0 0
2 350,000 -460,786
3 565,000 -56,389
4 1,035,000 -693,004
J I Project 565,000 374,634

Table 6: Sensitivit-investment analysis

Step 3. Barrier analysis
Sub-step 3a. Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of type of the
proposed project activity:
Investment Barriers
In Romania there is an overall lack of financing for the development of landfill technology
and LFG recovery. Romanian government expenditures (national and local) on waste
management are low and only cover the operation of existing facilities and regulatory costs.
This is due to the low taxes and fees on waste disposal that are associated with Romanias
transition economy. Local banking institutions are not interested in financing improvements
for local environmental investments due to low profitability from public sector activities.
This follows the general lack of investment in Romania which is associated to one of the
least favorable business investment climates in Eastern Europe according to EBRDs Review
on the Romanian Economy (2003). This is in part due to inflation which leads to a Nation
Bank Rate of 8% (J uly 2005).
Municipalities are also stretched in their ability to finance infrastructure projects due to
governmental constraints on the amount of credit they can barrow and their priority for other
projects such as water and wastewater treatment and system improvements. At the moment
EU ISPA funds, which cover only a portion of the capital investment of projects, cover
projects where new landfills are to be established along with total solid waste management
systems.
The Romanian government does have initiative programs for the development and
promotion of renewable energy but the programs suffer from a lack of funding and are
progressing at a slow pace (UN Environmental Performance Review on Romania, 2001).
Only a few demonstration projects have been developed under the programs and involve

Page 31 of 79
geothermal and biomass energy (wood or straw). This initiative has only demonstrated these
technologies, however the successful full-scale implementation of geothermal and biomass
energy is being established through the involvement of J I projects. Two such government
backed institutions are the Romanian Agency for Energy Conservation (ARCE) which
provides grants for energy efficiency projects and Romanian Energy Efficiency Fund
(FREE) which provides loans for energy efficiency projects. At the moment ARCE is not
providing grants for new projects and FREE only provides commercial type loans.

Technological Barriers
This project activity will establish one of the first landfill gas extraction and utilization
systems in Romania. Landfill gas recovery and utilization is an advanced solid waste and
energy technology which is not currently utilized by the waste management sector in
Romania. The technology is relatively unavailable to municipal and city waste management
companies due to its lack of implementation in Romania and its extensive investment costs.
It is foreseeable that LFG recovery and utilization technology will increasingly become
available to municipalities and cities in the next decades as existing landfills are closed and
new ones started. The majority of funding for implementing the technology will inevitably
come from international developments funds (such as the EUs ISPA program for new
landfills). Therefore, it is expected that the technology will only be implemented on a small
scale for new landfills in the short term, before 2013. Utilization of landfill gas to produce
energy, outside of J I projects, is highly unlikely due to the low price of gas and electricity.
It should be noted that a few landfill gas related J I projects are planned in Romania in the
coming years. The Dutch ERUPT4 program has signed a contract with developers to
implement J I landfill gas projects in Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Sfantu Gheorghe, and Oradea.
While the DanishCarbon.dk program is looking at projects in Tagru Mures, Galati, Cluj
Napoca, and Suceava.

Sub-step 3 b. Show that the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of at
least one ofthe alternatives (except the proposed project activity):
Due to the high investment cost and lack of financial viability, the only plausible alternative
for the Focsani Landfill beyond the J I project activity is the Buisness as Usual scenario
(alternative 1).

Step 4. Common practice analysis
Sub-step 4a. Analyze other activities similar to the proposed project activity:
Outside of J I, the only activities that are similar to the proposed project activity are the
installation of landfill gas recovery and flaring systems under the EU ISPA program at new
landfills. These projects, which often involve the major Romanian cities, involve whole
waste management systems with investments in the tens of millions euros. These projects
can cover the closing of old landfills, but it remains to be seen how this is actually done in
practice. From start to finish these ISPA projects take a number of years before installations
are actually established and operating. Due to financial constrains Focsani will not
participate in an ISPA project for solid waste management.

Sub-step 4b. Discuss any similar options that are occurring:
See sub-step 3a

Page 32 of 79
Step 5. Impact of CDM registration
The activities of this J I project will result in the general improvement of the local and global
environment through the recovery of LFG and the reduction of GHG emissions. The major
results and benefits of the project are listed below.
Contribute to the overall improvement of solid waste management in Focsani by
introducing new technology and increasing financial resources of the landfill
management company.
Improves the immediate environment adjacent to the landfill by reducing harmful
and odorous gas emissions, and reducing the risk of explosions and fires caused by
gas migration.
Increase the use of renewable energy technology and resources in Romania and
decreasing the need for imported fossil fuels at the same time.
Increase of economic activity in the local area through supply and works contracts
for the construction and operation of the landfill gas recovery and utilization system.
Increase of the knowledge base of landfill gas recovery and utilization through the
training of operation and maintenance personnel, plus the cataloging of data and
analysis thereof.
Increases the foreign investment in the local and national economy of Romania, thus
helping spur desperately needed economic growth.
Income from the project may be used for additional environmental improvements at the
existing landfill, and possibly help fund the new landfill.


Page 33 of 79
8. Baseline study
This baseline study is based on the actual situation at the Focsani landfill as well as the
proposed possibilities for utilizing the LFG for energy purposes. Information contained
within this chapter has been gathered at visits to the City of Focsani and the landfill in
August and November 2003. Meetings were held with City officials, the waste management
company CUP R.A., the combined heat and power company enet S.A., the power company
Electrica S. A., and the Vrancea County EPA.
8.1 Baseline approach and methodology
The baseline approach and methodology used to determine the baseline scenario and
emissions for this J I project takes into account numerous key factors for the determination of
the most likely scenario and emissions thereof in the absence of this J I project. The
approach and methodology are based on CDM methods which are adapted for this project.
The approach and methods specifically focus on general issues such as the most feasible
scenario, the most economically attractive scenario, and an available data supported model
for gas production. The baseline approach involves the use of actual data for the Focsani
Landfill and emissions factors which cohere to the existing and expected situation in
Romania. The analysis of the issues illustrates the most probable baseline emissions for the
Focsani landfill and the possibilities of GHG reduction. After the most likely baseline
scenario is determined, its GHG emissions can be used to estimate the ERs which may be
gained from J I project emissions reduction. The seven steps of the baseline methodology
and the net emissions reduction are presented below.
STEP 1: Determine the best method for the estimation of GHG emissions from the existing
landfill where actual and historical data may be applied (e.g. LFG production model
selection). This estimation method must be conservative, accurate and applicable to the
existing situation.
STEP 2: Determine the best available actual and historical data which may be applied to the
baseline estimation method. This data must be reliable and applicable to the existing
situation.
STEP 3: Setup the baseline conditions which will define the applicability of the project
overtime. This includes the analysis of key factors such as legal permissibility, technical
feasibility, practical application, and financial outcome. Such as the additionality issues
discussed in chapter 7, any shifts in the applicable sector, or any like activities which may
influence GHG emissions. The conditions will rely heavily in practical engineering
experience with sold waste management systems and detailed knowledge of the current and
future situation in Focsani
STEP 4: Define the baseline scenario based on the above steps. Include the applicable
assumptions in the scenario and those which may influence the scenario(s).
STEP 5: Define the Baseline Methodology and estimate baseline emissions. This
estimation shall be both conservative and transparent in both calculations and assumptions.
STEP 6: Calculate the expected ERs from the project actives based on the baseline and
project emissions.
8.2 Model selection (STEP 1)
Several models for the estimation of LFG production from solid waste have been developed
during the last twenty years. Some of them include relatively simple calculations and others
use more sophisticated combined calculations. In general all the models include theoretical

Page 34 of 79
calculations of the gas production over the period in which the anaerobic digestion takes
place in the waste body of the landfill.
The most common models are first-order models or multi-phase models. In the first-order
models the LFG formation in a certain amount of waste is assumed to decay exponentially
over time. This decay is generally based on the amount of available organic carbon in the
waste. The multi-phase models also use first-order kinetics, but take into account the fact
that solid waste contains fractions of waste and the degradation of each fraction in phases is
calculated separately and included in the results. The use of appropriate input parameters for
such models is important and requires a good deal of experience from waste management
and LFG recovery plants for there selection. The total LFG production as well as the
production per year varies from one landfill to another. This variation depends on a number
of physical and temporal parameters among which the most important are the following:
Temperature: The higher the temperature of the waste the more organic carbon will be
decomposed and thus contribute to gas production;
Moisture content: Adequate moisture levels in the waste are required to active the methane
bacteria;
Waste composition: Gas is produced from the organic material in the waste, which means
that a high content of organics will increase the gas production;
Waste age: After a relatively short period of time gas production will reach a maximum rate
for the landfill and the rate will then decrease from then on;
Landfill cover: The cover of the landfill has to allow some penetration of rainwater to
sustain an adequate moisture content, on the other hand the cover has to protect the waste
from large amounts of air (oxygen) penetration, which will change the anaerobic condition to
aerobic condition;
Structure of the waste: Small waste particles have a larger surface area exposed to methane
bacteria, which live in the water film around the particles. The more exposure or contact
there is the greater the waste decomposition.
In this baseline study the LFG production is estimated as total LFG emission from the
landfill to the atmosphere. The LFG extraction, which will take place given the LFG
recovery plant, will be similar to the estimated GHG emissions reduction. For the Focsani
landfill a multi-phase model is used for the estimation of the LFG production. The
development of the model, along with the input parameters and the final estimation has been
developed over many years of practical experience with LFG recovery and utilization
systems. The model and the input parameters are considered proprietary information owned
by LFG Consult Aps and is not available for publication or distribution. Therefore the
model as well as its use is considered confidential. The model has been used on several LFG
projects around the world, and the flowing results from the last three LFG plants where the
model was used are presented in Table 7.

Case Estimated LFG extraction
from the model
Real LFG extraction after
running in of the LFG plant
LFG plant in Denmark: 225 m
3
/hour (in 2002) 200-220 m
3
/hour (in 2002)
LFG plant in Korea: 1,810 m
3
/hour (in 2002) 1,900 m
3
/hour (in 2002)
LFG plant in Portugal 450 m
3
/hour (in 2004) 380 m
3
/hour (in 2004)*
Table 7: Comparison between model estimated gas recovery and actual on-site gas recovery
*the Portugal LFG plant is still in the startup phase and not all of the wells are run at capacity.

Page 35 of 79
For this J I project in Focsani the calculated baseline emission is only used to estimate the
GHG potential of the produced and extracted LFG and the volume thereof. From a design
point of view this information is used to size and determine required equipment. However,
the actual and verified ERs will be measured when the LFG plant is established and is in
operation. Therefore, actual and verified ERs do not depend on the estimated GHG emission
from the model, but only on the monitoring program and equipment.
8.3 Best available data (STEP 2)
The best available data for use in this baseline methodology and determination is that which
specifically applies to the Focsani Landfill. The model selected in STEP 1 for the
determination of LFG production and the GHG emissions from it requires a time series for
the amount of landfill waste deposited at the landfill and general characteristics of that waste.
This information is presented in chapter 4, and includes the estimation of the amount of
waste-in-place based on historical available data, the lab analysis results of the waste-in-
place, and the analysis results from at-site LFG analysis. The model output data for LFG
production and extraction for 2005-2012 is presented in Table 8, including LFG utilization.
Figure 5 shows the estimated model output with LFG production and associated emissions
for the life of the landfill and beyond. Note that extraction efficiency is expected to be 50%
in 2006 and 77% thereafter.
Production - Extraction - Utilization Year
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Model Output (LFG Production)
LFG Production (Nm/h) 0 410 389 355 318 282 250 221
LFG Production (1000 Nm/yr) 0 3,592 3,408 3,110 2,786 2,470 2,190 1,936
Model Output (LFG Extraction)
LFG Extraction (Nm/h) 0 205 300 273 245 217 193 170
LFG Extraction (1000 Nm/yr) 0 1,796 2,624 2,395 2,145 1,902 1,686 1,491
Utilization of LFG (Extracted LFG with 8000 hours of equipment operation)
LFG (1000 Nm/yr) 0 1,640 2,396 2,187 1,959 1,737 1,540 1,361

Table 8: Model output data (LFG Production Extraction Utilization)

Page 36 of 79
Prognoses for LFG Production and CO
2
Reduction
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
3
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
9
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
7
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
5
2
0
4
8
Year
M
3

L
F
G
/
h
o
u
r
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
T
o
n
n
e
s

C
O
2

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
LFG Production Nm/h
Tonne CO2/year

Figure 5: Prognosis for LFG production and emissions from 1970-2050.
8.4 Baseline conditions (STEP 3)
The conditions which may effect the baseline emissions for this project are presented below:
Governmental Policy and Initiatives: As discussed in chapters 3 and 7 there is only one
governmental regulation that may affect the baseline emissions for this J I project. This is the
Romanian Government Decision 349/2005, which stipulates that all existing landfills should
stop waste depositing by a defined date, for Focsani this is 2009. It remains to be seen the
extent of implementation before 2013, due to financial constraints of municipalities.
Economic Conditions: There are no foreseeable economic conditions which will effect the
baseline emissions for this J I project during the 2006-2012 period. As discussed in chapter 7
the economic condition which affects this J I project the most is the fact there are no local or
national financial resources available to establish a landfill gas recovery and utilization
project in Romania without international funding, such as J I projects. Financial analysis in
chapter 7 also indicates that the implementation of a landfill gas recovery and utilization
system is not financially viable without outside funding such as J I.
New Technology: There are no other widely used or economical technologies available
which will reduce the amount of emitted GHGs to an extent that would effect the baseline of
this project.
At-site conditions: There are a number of at-site aspects which may effect the baseline
emissions of this project. These aspects are discussed in section 8.2, and include
temperature, moisture content, waste composition, waste age, and landfill cover. The effect
of these conditions should be limited due the available data and the well calibrated model.
Operation period: The landfill has permission for operation until the end of 2009, but a
new landfill was planned to be in operation in 2006. At the moment Focsani municipality is
trying to get financing for a new landfill, but has not succeeded and therefore it may be
necessary to continue the disposal of waste at this existing landfill. If depositing of waste
stops in 2005 or 2006 there are not many key factors, which can change the baseline
conditions. Otherwise, if the landfill will continue to be in operation after 2006, more waste
will generate more gas production from the landfill during the future.

Page 37 of 79
Waste management: As mentioned before, the development of LFG from the landfill is
dependent on many parameters and some of these depend on the waste management of the
landfill. When assuming that the landfill is closed in 2005 there are not many parameters,
which can be change by waste management, but the final cover for the landfill can influence
on the gas production. To be sure that decomposition takes place it is important to chose a
cover material that will allow penetration of rainwater into the waste body and on the other
hand, when the LFG is extracted it is important to have a relatively tight cover that does not
allow air to penetrate the waste when negative pressure occurs due to gas extraction.
EU legislation: According to the EU legislation the member states have to implement the
Council Directive on the landfill of waste (1999/31/EC). This means that Romania will have
to comply with EU legislation once it enters the EU, but compliance will be determined
based on a accession period which is expected to be in 2017.
8.5 Defined baseline scenario (STEP 4)
It is the production of landfill gas and the associated CH
4
that will be the primary parameter
involved in forming the baseline scenario. The secondary parameters will be the conditions
discussed in the previous section. In the case of landfills there are only direct on-site
emissions due to the fact that GHGs are only produced within the waste. Other emission
sources such as waste production, collection, and transportation will not be effected by the
operation of the landfill or implementation of this J I project. Emissions from gas utilization
are not included in the baseline since they are a part of the project emissions. The
boundaries of the baseline scenario without the project activity are shown in following
figure.

. Figure 6: Basline Boundary

The Baseline scenario presents a baseline determined from the selected model, which uses
the available actual and historical data for the Focsani Landfill. The amount of natural gas
replaced by LFG will depend on the LFG supplied to the CET. The scenario also takes into
account the expected reduction period of 2006-2012.

Page 38 of 79
8.6 Baseline Methodology (STEP 5)
8.6.1 Assumptions for the estimation of baseline emissions
The following assumptions apply for the estimation of baseline emissions:
Only GHG emissions from the landfill site applies to the estimation of
baseline emissions.
Gas production is uninhibited on a yearly bases.
The landfill will cease operation at the end of 2005.
The selected model and its associated parameters (which are proprietary
information) estimate LFG emissions from the Focsani Landfill on a yearly
bases.
The amount of methane (CH
4
) in the LFG is expected to be 50% by
volume, and its density is 0.717 kg/Nm
3
. Other constants and values can
be found in Annex F.
A slight error in calculation may occur due to rounded numbers and the use
of whole values. This error will be kept to less than 0.5% for final values.
Depending on several parameters some oxidation of the emitted CH
4
will take place when
LFG is passed through the top cover of the landfill. In this process between CH
4
and O
2
the
CH
4
will be converted to CO
2
and water. However, during the years of the highest LFG
production this oxidation is not expected to be significant. Since the crediting period is for
these years oxidation is not taken into account in the baseline emissions calculation. The
result of this assumption is that the LFG production is the same as the released/emitted LFG
volume.
The boundary for the project activity is presented below.

Figure 7: Boundary of the project activity

Page 39 of 79
8.6.2 Calculation of baseline emissions
Under the project activity the equipment will be installed to recover a large portion of the
landfill gas which is generated at the Focsani landfill. This landfill gas will either be flared
or utilized in an existing steam boiler installations at enet s.a. .

Net Emission Reductions
The net Emission Reductions (ERs) from the project activity are determined through the
following equation:

ERy = ERy_LFG + ERy_FS - LEy (1)

Where ERy is the net emission reductions in a given year, ERy_LFG is the emission
reductions generated from the recovery and utilization of the landfill gas, ERy_FS is the
emission reductions generated from the substitution of natural gas in the existing stand-alone
steam boilers, and LEy are the leakages incurred under the project activity.

Emission Reductions from the Recovery and Utilization of Landfill Gas
The emission reductions generated from the recovery and utilization of landfill gas is
determined through the primary emission reduction equation found in CDM methodology
ACM0001. The terms of emission reductions for the displacement of thermal and
electricical energy have been removed.

ERy_LFG =(MD_project,y - MD_reg,y) x GWP_CH4 (2)

The greenhouse gas emission reduction achieved by the project activity during a given year
y (ERy_LFG) is the difference between the amount of methane actually
destroyed/combusted during the year (MD_project,y) and the amount of methane that would
have been destroyed/combusted during the year in the absence of the project activity
(MD_reg,y), times the approved Global Warming Potential value for methane (GWP_CH4).
Under the project activity no energy will be displaced or avoided which comes from other
sources.
In cases where regulatory or contractual requirements do not specify MD_reg,y an
Adjustment Factor (AF) shall be used and justified, taking into account the project context.
At this point in time there are no regulation requiring landfill gas recovery and flaring in
Romania so AF is set to zero (0).

MD_reg,y =MD_project,y x AF (3)

Under the project activity the mass of methane which is destroyed/combusted during the year
(MD_project,y) will be accounted for as methane which is flared (MD_flare,y) and that
which is utilised in the existing boiler plant (MD_thermal,y). The related equation is given
below.

Page 40 of 79

MD_project,y =MD_flare,y +MD_thermal,y (4)

The mass of methane which is flared (MD_flare,y) is determined by the quantity of landfill
flared during the year measured in cubic meters (m
3
), the average methane fraction of the
landfill gas (w_CH4,y) as measured during the year and expressed as a fraction (in m CH4 /
m LFG), the density of methane expressed in tonnes of methane per cubic meter of methane
(tCH4/m3CH4), and the flare efficiency (FE - the fraction of the methane destroyed).

MD_flare,y =LFG_flare,y x w_CH4,y x D_CH4 x FE (5)

The mass of methane which is utilised in the existing boiler plant (MD_thermal,y) is
determined by the quantity of landfill gas combusted (LFG_thermal,y) during the year
measured in cubic meters (m
3
), the average methane fraction of the landfill gas (w_CH4,y,
default is 0.5) as measured during the year and expressed as a fraction (in m CH4 / m LFG),
and the density of methane expressed in tonnes of methane per cubic meter of methane
(tCH4/m3CH4).

MD_thermal,y =LFG_thermal,y x w_CH4,y x D_CH4 (6)

For the purpose of this baseline methodology the quantity of landfill gas flared
(LFG_flare,y) and that utilised in the existing boiler plant (LFG_thermal,y) are determined
by the estimated quantity of landfill gas recovered in a given year (LFG_recovered,y)
multiplied the duration of flaring or utilization. The duration of flaring (t_flaring) or
utilization (t_thermal) is indicated as the duration of operating time on an annual bases (e.g.
percentage of a year). The equations for estimating LFG_flare,y and LFG_thermal,y are
given below.

LFG_flare,y = LFG_recovered,y x t_flare (7)

LFG_thermal,y = LFG_recovered,y x t_thermal (8)

Emission Reductions from the Fuel Switch of Natural Gas to Landfill Gas
The emission reductions generated from the fuel switch activity of replacing natural gas with
landfill gas can be determined through the following equation.

ERy_FS = Q_NGy x EF_NG_CO2y (9)

Landfill gas is considered a renewable energy source, so the baseline emissions from the fuel
switch of natural gas to landfill gas to produce energy is considered to be equal to the
emission reductions from the fuel switch (e.g. BE_y = ERy_FS). Q_NGy is the amount of

Page 41 of 79
energy (in J oules) in the natural gas replaced during the given year, and EF_NG_CO2y is the
CO2 equivalent emission factor per unit of energy of natural gas (e.g., tCO2e/J oule). From
a conservative standpoint N
2
O and CH
4
emissions from nartual gas combustion are not
considered.
Q_LFGy is the amount of energy (in Joules) of the landfill gas which is used to replace the
natural gas. Q_LFGy can be calculated by the equation below, where LFG_thermal,y is
given in 1000 m3, EV_NG is the energy value of natural gas (e.g. 99% methane), and default
methane density of landfill gas (w_CH4,y) is 0.5.

Q_NGy = LFG_thermal,y x EV_NG x w_CH4,y (10)
Leakages
As indicated in CDM methodology ACM0001 there are two primary sources of leakages
within the boundary of the project activity. The first are the leakages incurred due the use of
electricity in extracting and pumping the landfill gas. The emissions from these leakages are
considered to be quite small (<1%) when compared to the ERs generated under the project
activity. These leakages (LE_y) are calculated through the following equation, where PE_y
is the amount of electricity used under the project activity in MWh, and CEF_electricity,y is
the CO2e emission factor for electricity produced in Romania. A default value of 0.58
tCO2e/MWh (ERUPT 2004) is used for CEF_electricity,y, and the average annual amount of
electricity used under the project actitity is estimated to be 160 MWh.

LE_y = PE_y x CEF_electricity,y (11)
The second source of leakages may come from leaks in the gas transmission pipeline
between the landfill and the CET (existing boiler plant). These leakages are accounted for in
the LFG_thermal,y term, which represents the actual amount of landfill gas delivered to the
existing boiler plant. The quantity will be measured under the monitoring plan.
8.7 Calculation of emission reductions (STEP 6)
Emissions reductions are calculated by the following equation. The estimated emission
reductions under the project activity are shown in Table 9. Tables detailing the calculation
of emission reductions based on the presented methodology are given in Annex F.

ERy = ERy_LFG + ERy_FS - LEy (12)
Emission Reductions from LFG Use and Fuel Switch (Combined)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL
Equation : ERy = ERy_LFG + ERy_FS - LEy
ER y_LFG (tCO2e) 12,991 18,981 17,322 15,517 13,760 12,199 10,784 101,554
ER y_FS (tCO2e) 1,647 2,406 2,196 1,967 1,744 1,546 1,367 12,874
LE y (tCO2e) 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 650
ER y (tCO2e) 14,545 21,295 19,425 17,391 15,412 13,652 12,058 113,779

Table 9: Table for the calculation of emissions reduction form alternatives

Page 42 of 79


Page 43 of 79

9. Monitoring Methodology and Plan

The developed monitoring methodology and plan for this J I project is based on current
knowledge of landfill gas recovery and utilization systems, experience with the design and
operation such systems, and the established requirements for J I & CDM projects. The
monitoring methodology is selected for its ease of use and accuracy in determining
emissions reduction, and is developed in accordance to local conditions and established
equipment.

9.1 Monitoring methodology
This methodology for monitoring is based on the principals of LFG extraction and the ERs
produced from LFG utilization at CHP facilities. The methodology takes into account the
boundaries of this J I project and the associated sources of GHG reduction and leakages.
Additionality, the methodology allows for continuous improvement and verification for
produced ERs.
There are four steps in the monitoring methodology which are presented below:
STEP 1: Identify who is responsible for the different aspects of the monitoring plan. Then
identify project boundaries and the conditions of those boundaries in relation to J I
requirements and the established landfill gas recovery and utilization system.
STEP 2: First, identify the required data for determining ERs and the locations at which the
data can be gathered. Second, determine the frequency of data collection, the method of
collection and storage thereof. Finally, identify methods for determining data accuracy, and
methods for estimating missing data and replacement of inaccurate data (QA/QC).
STEP 3: Identify the methods for official data registration and the reporting of ERs and
environmental impacts. Identify the analytical and physical methods for determining ERs
and impacts of the project activity.
STEP 4: Identify corrective actions for general operation, emergencies, and modification of
the monitoring plan.

9.2 Monitoring plan
The party responsible for implementing the monitoring plan shall be the landfill operation
company Compania de Utilitati Publice R.A. (CUP). CUP will also be responsible for
developing the Verification Reports with oversight and assistance from RMEWM and
DEPA. The project developer will likely be responsible for over site of the initial
installation of all project equipment including monitoring equipment. The developer will
also be responsible for developing the forms and registration formats for data collection and
cataloging. Finally, the developer and management companies will be responsible for the
training of monitoring and operation personnel with the help of equipment manufactures.
Detailed procedures for training shall be developed during the final design of the facilities
after specific equipment is selected and shall be implemented as indicated in the time
schedule.


Page 44 of 79
9.2.1 Monitoring Boundaries (Step 1)
Figure 8 shows the monitoring boundaries of this J I project; which reflect the same
boundaries as those in the baseline study. The monitoring boundaries take into account the
significant emissions of this J I project and the aspects which are under the control of the
project.

Figure 8: Monitoring boundaries for the two selected alternatives
The actual emission reductions from this project are determined through the amount of LFG
recovered (specifically CH
4
) with the extraction system, the amount which is flared, and the
amount which is converted from energy production. Therefore, the amount of gas which is
not captured and is emitted into the atmosphere is not taken into account in the monitoring
plan, but is estimated as part of the baseline.
9.2.2 Required data and monitoring locations (Step 2)
Table 10 presents the required analytical data that will be needed for the calculation of
emissions reduction and periodic verification of this J I project. Table 10 also shows the
measured data or factors needed to determine the analytical data. Additional measuring and
monitoring may occur at the MPR station to control system efficiency. All monitoring
equipment will have a minimum accuracy of 95% and have proven application in existing
landfills recovery and gas utilization systems. Note that convertible data values can be used,
such as GJ replacing MWh. The locations for monitoring of the system alternatives are
presented in Figure 9.

Page 45 of 79

Table 10: Required data in the monitoring plan

I
D

N
u
m
b
e
r
S
y
m
b
o
l
D
a
t
a

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
D
a
t
a

U
n
i
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

(
m
)
,

C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

(
c
)
,

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

(
e
)
R
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

D
a
t
a

t
o

b
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
H
o
w

w
i
l
l

t
h
e

d
a
t
a

b
e

A
r
c
h
i
v
e
d
F
o
r

h
o
w

l
o
n
g

i
s

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d

d
a
t
a

k
e
p
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
1
L
F
G
_
t
o
t
a
l
,
y
T
o
t
a
l

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l

g
a
s

c
a
p
t
u
r
e
d
m
3
m
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
y

a

f
l
o
w

m
e
t
e
r
.

D
a
t
a

t
o

b
e

g
a
t
h
e
r
e
d

M
o
n
t
h
l
y

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
l
y
.
2
L
F
G
_
f
l
a
r
e
,
y
A
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l

g
a
s

f
l
a
r
e
d
m
3
m
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
y

a

f
l
o
w

m
e
t
e
r
.

D
a
t
a

t
o

b
e

g
a
t
h
e
r
e
d

M
o
n
t
h
l
y

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
l
y
.
3
L
F
G
_
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
,
y
A
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l

g
a
s

c
o
m
b
u
s
t
e
d

i
n

b
o
i
l
e
r
m
3
m
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
y

a

f
l
o
w

m
e
t
e
r
.

D
a
t
a

t
o

b
e

g
a
t
h
e
r
e
d

M
o
n
t
h
l
y

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
l
y
.
4
F
E
F
l
a
r
e
/
C
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

h
o
u
r
s

(
1
)

a
n
d

t
h
e

m
e
t
h
a
n
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

e
x
h
a
u
s
t

g
a
s

(
2
)
%
m

/

c
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
N
/
A
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
(
1
)

P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

m
e
t
h
a
n
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

o
f

f
l
a
r
e

e
x
h
a
u
s
t

g
a
s
.

(
2
)

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

o
f

f
l
a
r
e
s

(
e
.
g
.

w
i
t
h

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
)
.
5
w
_
C
H
4
,
y
M
e
t
h
a
n
e

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l

g
a
s
m
3

C
H
4

/

m
3

L
F
G
m
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

m
y

a

p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e

g
a
s

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

a
n
a
l
y
s
e
r
.
6
T
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l

g
a
s

C
m
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

o
f

m
e
t
h
a
n
e
7
P
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l

g
a
s
P
a
m
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

o
f

m
e
t
h
a
n
e
8
P
E
_
y
T
o
t
a
l

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

a
n
d
/
o
r

o
t
h
e
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s

u
s
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

f
o
r

g
a
s

p
u
m
p
i
n
g

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

(
n
o
t

M
W
h
m
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
U
s
e
d

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

C
O
2

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

u
s
e

o
f

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s

t
o

o
p
e
r
a
t
e

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
9
C
E
F
_
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
,
y
C
O
2

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

a
n
d
/
o
r

o
t
h
e
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s

i
n

I
D

9
t

C
O
2
e
/
M
W
h
N
/
A
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
U
s
e
d

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

C
O
2

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

u
s
e

o
f

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

c
a
r
r
i
e
r
s

t
o

o
p
e
r
a
t
e

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
1
0
A
F
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
l
a
t
i
n
g

t
o

l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
T
e
s
t
n
/
a
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

a
d
j
u
s
t

t
h
e

A
F

f
a
c
t
o
r
1
1
Q
_
N
G

y
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y

o
f

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

g
a
s

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
J
c
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y

o
f

L
F
G

(
e
.
g
.

m
3
)

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d

t
o

b
o
i
l
e
r
s

a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

v
a
l
u
e

r
e
c
o
r
d
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

l
o
c
a
l

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

g
a
s

s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

1
2
E
V
_
N
G
E
n
e
r
g
y

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

i
n

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

g
a
s
J

/

M
3
e
y
e
a
r
l
y
1
0
0
%
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d

a
n
d

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
V
a
l
u
e

w
i
l
l

b
e

o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d

f
r
o
m

e
n
e
r
g
y

v
a
l
u
e

r
e
c
o
r
d
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

l
o
c
a
l

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

g
a
s

s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r


Page 46 of 79

Figure 9: Monitoring locations for the monitoring plan
The volume of gas passing points 1 through 3 shall be monitored for the appropriate
parameters listed in Table 10. Monitoring at these points should give adequate data for the
determination of for ERs and leakages within the system. The electricity usage of the
landfill (point 4) will also be monitored in order to account for the additional production of
CO
2
equivalents from electricity usage, should it become significant. For the fuel switch the
amount of LFG entering the CET (point 3) needs to be monitored since it will be replacing
natural gas in regards to emissions reduction. The system can be equipped with online
monitoring, with a minimum of one value for each parameter recorded per day of operation.
However, it is realized that for effective operation of the system the actual data collection
may be much more frequent. All data will be stored on-site and backed up by media and
management office computers at a minimum of once a week.
Additional data such as burning efficiencies of combustion equipment (for the flare) will also
be determined on a periodic base through gas analysis using a portable meter. All manual
data will be catalogued in both written form and in an online database.
Specific schedules and guidelines for monitoring will be developed once equipment is
selected and installed under the design and implementation phase of the J I project. The
schedules and guidelines will follow the framework as outlined in this methodology and will
be reviewed by the Independent Intently (DOE) responsible for verification of ERs.

9.2.3 Official data registration and ERs calculation (Step 3)
Data will be officially registered through the uses of the example Monitoring Forms found
in Annex C. The Monitoring Forms will include all of the appropriate annual data needed
for ERs determination. The annual data will consist of the accumulative values or
parameters over a verification period, with corrections for errors and missing data. All data
regarding the solid waste placed during the verification period, governmental regulations and
common practice, and will also be included along with an executive summary of the most
recent EIA.

Page 47 of 79
Actual emissions reduction will be calculated in a similar manner as the estimated emissions
reduction as presented in chapter 8. The calculations are based on the directly measured CH
4

mass, which is recovered and combusted, plus the direct measurements of energy use.
Calculations should take into account any changes in emissions values or factors from those
presented in chapter 8, and any changes in assumptions. A check of the actual ERs can be
preformed by the use of the most appropriate baseline estimate for the verification period,
and a detailed estimation of the LFG production and project emissions based on the
monitored data.

9.2.4 QA/QC, Corrective actions and modification of the monitoring plan (Step 4)
Corrective actions for the project will be handled on a case by case base. The landfill
operation company Compania de Utilitati Publice R.A. (CUP) will be responsible for all
corrective actions. Corrective actions for general operation will be handled by operations
and maintenance personal in a prompt and appropriate manner, and any significant corrective
actions will be reported in the Verification Report. Corrective actions for emergencies will
follow developed procedures for safety and emissions. These procedures can not be
developed at this time, but when the landfill gas recovery and utilization system is installed.
At a minimum corrective actions for emergencies shall include the notification of
appropriate authorities and the minimization of dangers to operations personnel and the
public.
Internal audits of the monitored data and performance reviews shall be done on a scheduled
bases. These audits and reviews shall focus on inconsistencies in data and changes from one
period to another. The audits and reviews should pinpoint sources of errors and allow for
improved efficiency.
Data accuracy will be determined by inspection and comparison of average monthly values
and variations of the data, and should take into account operation parameters such as the
number of active wells. Data accuracy will also be determined through periodic manual
reading of on-line monitoring instruments. Since most monitoring equipment will have
constant supervision it is not expected that periods of missing or incorrect data will last for
more than a few days at a time. In the instance were data is determined to be inaccurate or is
missing the average value for the parameter from five days before and after the missing
period will be used to estimate the missing or incorrect data value(s).
The monitoring plan may be modified to fit the installed configuration of the landfill gas
recovery and utilization system. Modification may also be developed if equipment is
replaced by newer technologies or methods. All modification shall be approved by the J I
project parties and be detailed in the Verification Report.
Table 11 presents the monitoring parameters as indicated in Table 10 and the degree of
uncertainty of those parameters along with QA/QC procedures. While Table 12 presents
values used in the monitoring plan for calculating the eventual ERs.


Page 48 of 79
ID
Number
Symbol
Uncertainty level of
data
(High/Medium/Low)
Are QA/QC
procedures
planned for
these data?
Outline explanation how QA/QC procedures are planned
1 - 3 LFG y Low yes
Flow meters should be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime
to ensure accuracy.
4 FE Medium yes
Regular maintenance should ensure optimal operation of flares. Flare
efficiency should be checked quarterly, with monthly checks if the efficiency
shows significant deviations from previous values.
5 w_CH4,y Low yes
The gas analyser should be subject to a regular maintenance and testing
regime to ensure accuracy.
6 T Low yes
Meters should be subject to a regular maintenance and testing regime to
ensure accuracy.
7 P Low yes
ensure accuracy.
8 PE_y Low yes
ensure accuracy.
9 CEF_electricity,y Low no n/a
10 TEST, AF Low yes
Applicable laws regarding solid waste management and their extent of
implementation should be checked annually
11 Q_NG y Low yes Data will be directly used to calculate emission reductions
12 EV_NG Low no n/a

Table 11: Monitoring parameters and QA/QC

Page 49 of 79
Symbol Unit Period Appliocable Value Description / Source
GWP_CH4 tCO2e / tCH4 1996-present 21
Global Warming Potential of methane, Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
CEF_electiricity,y CO2e/MWh
period or year of
generation
0.58
Emissions entensity of electricity generated and supplied to the grid,
DNA
AF year of generation 0
Factor applied based on national laws and emplimentation, national
government
D_CH4 tCH4/m3 CH4 Default 0.0007168
Methane density at standard temperature and presure
EF_NG_CO2y tCO2/TJ Default 56.1
CO2 emissions entensity from the combustion of natural gas, Revised
1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
EV_NG TJ /1000 m3 Default 0.0358
Energy content in natural gas at standard density, source

Table 12: Values used in the monitoring plan

9.2.5 Verification of ERs
A final Verification Report will be prepared at the end of each verification period (12
months) as determined by the final J I project agreement between the J I project parties and/or
the UNFCCC. The Verification Report will at a minimum include the following information
and be in accordance with established UNFCCC requirements.
Appropriate data tables for the given period, including a monthly summary
of the required data listed in Table 10.
The Monitoring Form for the given period
Detailed emissions reduction calculations based on the gathered data &
methodology
All data regarding the solid waste placed during the year
An executive summary of the most recent EIA
An executive summary of the current impact of the project activity
Explanation of any corrective actions and modifications of the monitoring
plan
Changes in applicable laws and regulations


Page 50 of 79

Page 51 of 79
10. Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the Project

A number of meetings with the Varancea County EPA and the landfill management
company (CUP) have been held in order to assess the issue of Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) for the existing landfill and this J I project. At these meetings it was
emphasized that there are no current requirements for an EIA of LFG recovery and
utilization systems for existing landfills at the local level. The only EIA requirements which
are placed on existing landfills involve two levels of EIA investigations to be preformed
upon the closure of the landfill. The EIA results should have no consequence upon this J I
project, but they do give an insight into how a LFG recovery and utilization system will
impact this soon to be closed site.
Both the Level I and Level II EIAs must be completed for the closure of the existing Focsani
landfill. The Level I EIA, completed in 2003, dealt with issues related to general landfill
conditions and acted as a pre-analysis step for the Level II EIA. Data from the Level I
analysis is presented in chapter 4. The Level II EIA should be completed in 2004 and deals
with issues related to transboundary impacts of the existing landfill. The Level II EIA
includes the analysis of the surrounding air, ground, and water.
Despite the fact that a specific EIA is not required for establishing this LFG recovery and
utilization system, there are known to exist both positive and negative impacts on the
surrounding environment of such a system. A summary of these effects are listed below in
Table 13.

Table 13: Impacts of the project on the surrounding environment
Though the risk of a potential natural disaster is considered to be minimal and beyond the
scope of this J I project, it must be noted that the City of Focsani is located in the area of
seismic activity in Romania. Therefore, the installed equipment and built facilities will
cohere to the existing local building codes and standards.
Monitoring of the projects and the landfills environmental impact should be carried out
during the life of the project. The Level I and II EIAs, monitoring, and the verified ERUs
Positive Impacts on the Surrounding Environment

Reduction in GHG emissions
Reduction of the below ground migration of LFG
Reduction of fire hazard from migrating LFG
Reduction of explosion hazard from migrating LFG
Reduction of health hazards associated with inhalation of LFG
Reduction of odorous nuisances
Negative Impacts on the Surrounding Environment

Possibility of gas leakage
The noise level of installed equipment my exceed comfortable conditions in
the vicinity of project facilities.

Page 52 of 79
can be used for determining the overall environmental impact of this J I project during the
projects life. This activity will help the local authorities to assess the impact of the
established situation and help them predict future occurrences for the existing and new
landfill.
It is believed that the potential environmental impact of the project is very low under typical
circumstances, and that the positive environmental benefits of the project far outweigh the
negative consequences. The monitoring system installed with the project should reduce the
projects potential environmental impact. Monitoring of the surrounding environment through
EIAs should be continued in accordance with landfill closure legislation. This information
could be used to ascertain if there are any unexpected environmental impacts of the J I
project.


Page 53 of 79
Literature Sources

Danish Energy Authority. Project Manual: J oint Implementation. Spring 2003

Decision no. 349 of May 2005 on the land filling of waste. The Official J ournal of Romania.

Decision no. 162 of 20 February 2002 on the land filling of waste. The Official J ournal of Romania.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Investment Climate for Climate Investment: J oint
Implementation in Transition Countries. Working Paper no. 77. J anuary 2003.

Grue & Hornstrup A/S: Geothermal Energy in Oradea Area II and Beius. Version 2.2. October 2003.

Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands. Operational Guidelines for Project Design Documents of
J oint Implementation Projects, Volume 1: General Guidelines. Version 2.2. J une 2003

Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands. Operational Guidelines for Project Design Documents of
J oint Implementation Projects, Volume 2: Baseline studies and monitoring plans for specific
project categories. J une 2003.

United Nations. United Nations Environmental Performance Review on Romania. 2001.

Willumsen, H.C., LFG Consult, (2003): Landfill Gas Plants Number and Types Worldwide. Paper from the
Seventh International Landfill Symposium, Sardinia 2003. Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.

Willumsen, H.C., LFG Consult, (2003): Landfill Gas to Energy Project in Poland and Latvia, Case Studies.
Papers given at a World Bank Workshop for Energy from Landfill Gas for the Latin America
and Caribbean. Monterrey, Mexico.

Willumsen, H.C., LFG Consult, (2000): Co-author for International Perspective on Energy Recovery from
Landfill Gas. IEA (International Energy Agency) Bioenergy and CADDET Renewable
Energy Programme.

J ohannenssen, L. M., The World Bank, Co-author: WILLUMSEN, H. C., LFG Consult, (1999): Guidance
Note on Recuperation of Landfill Gas from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Urban and
Local Government Working Paper Series from The World Bank.

Willumsen, H.C., LFG Consult, Co-Author (1999): A Guide to Developing Landfill Gas Facilities in Poland.
Thermie Programme Action No. DIS-1544-97-GB in co-operation with ETP Ltd, UK, EC
BREC, Poland and ETSU, UK for the European Commission, DG17.

Page 54 of 79

Christensen, T. H., Danish Technical University, Co-author: WILLUMSEN, H.C., (1998):
Affaldsteknologi (Waste Technologi). Published by Teknisk Forlag, Copenhagen. ISBN
87-571-2148-6 (Only available in Danish).

Willumsen, H.C., LFG Consult, (1997): Decentralized energy production from landfill Gas Plant. Paper from
the Sixth International Landfill Symposium, Sardinia 97. Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.

Willumsen, H.C., LFG Consult, (1997): Automated control of landfill gas abstraction at small landfills.
Paper from SWANAs 20th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium, Monterey, California, USA.

Christensen, T.H., COSSU, R., STEGMANN, R., Co- author: WILLUMSEN, H.C., (1996): Landfilling of
Waste: Biogas. Published by E & FN Spon. ISBN 0 419 19400 2.

Gendebien, A.; Pauwels, M.; Constant, M.; Ledrut-Damanet, M.- J .; Willumsen, H.C.; Butson, J .; FABRY,
R.; FERRERO, G.- L. AND NYNS, E.- J . (1991). "Landfill Gas. From Environment to
Energy". Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg. 1000
pp. ISBN 92-826-3672-0.

Willumsen, H.C., Crone & Koch Consulting Engineers (1989): Recovery of Landfill Gas. Demonstration
Project. Commission of the European Communities. Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities. ISBN 92-826-0817-4

Page 55 of 79
Annexes

Page 56 of 79

Page 57 of 79
Annex A.1: Memorandum of Understanding

Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the
Government of Romania on co-operation for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change

The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Government of Romania, hereinafter referred to
as Parties
Recalling that the Kingdom of Denmark and Romania are parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC (Rio de J aneiro, 1992) and have already ratified the Kyoto
Protocol (1997) to that Convention,
Bearing in mind Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol which will provide for the transfer from one party to
another party of emission reduction units (ERUs) resulting from J oint Implementation projects aimed
at reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources or enhancing anthropogenic removals by sinks of
greenhouse gases,
Recalling Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol providing for the possibility of participation in Emissions
Trading for the purpose of meeting quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments,
Underlining the importance of the domestic policies and measures to meet obligations under the Kyoto
Protocol and the supplementary role of the activities under its Article 6 and 17,
Taking into account any further Guidelines on Article 6 and Article 17 to be developed by CoP/MoP,
and also taking into account future decisions by CoP/MoP on compliance,
Anticipating on the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol,
Considering that the further co-operation in the field of J oint Implementation under Article 6 and co-
operation in the field of Emissions Trading under Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol will be efficient
contributions to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
Considering the joint priority of the Kingdom of Denmark and Romania to preserve the environment
and to promote sustainable development,
Desirous to express the political will to co-operate within the objective of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, in particular to facilitate J oint Implementation
and explore the possibilities of Emissions Trading,
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1
Objective
This Memorandum of Understanding will detail procedures described in the Kyoto Protocol in relation
to Danish - Romanian co-operation regarding Articles 6 and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol.

Page 58 of 79

Article 2
Scope of application
(1) This Memorandum of Understanding shall apply to procedures that in accordance with Article 6 of
the Kyoto Protocol facilitate the development and implementation of emission reduction projects in
Romania and the transfer to the Danish Party of the agreed part of emission reduction units (ERU)
resulting from those projects.
(2) If the Parties agree, reductions before 2008 from J oint Implementation projects can be transformed
into Assigned Amount Units for the period 2008-2012 and traded to theDanish Party on the basis of
Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol.
(3) Decisions on transfers will be taken for each project by the Romanian Party following a Danish
Party request.

Article 3
Competent Authorities
The responsible authorities for implementing the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding are:
For the Danish Party: The Ministry of Environment For the Romanian Party: The Ministry of Waters and
Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Industry and Resources

Article 4
Contribution of the Romanian Party
(1) The Romanian Party will facilitate the development and implementation of projects by supporting
the potential beneficiaries interested in carrying out emission reduction projects with information and by
formal approval of projects as J oint Implementation projects, in accordance with Article 6.1.a of the
Protocol, which meet all national requirements for such projects. The Romanian Party will ensure that
proceeds from the sale of ERUs will be used to finance those specific projects from which the ERUs
originate.
(2) The Romanian Party will transfer the agreed and prepaid amount of ERUs, within the agreed period
for each project, as long as the J I-projects generating the ERUs keep generating emission reductions,
which can be verified by an independent entity. The approval must contain binding affirmation of the
Romanian Party that will transfer the agreed and procured part of the resulting ERUs to Danish Party in
accordance with Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol. The project agreement will also confirm that the
transfer will be free of any extra charges beyond the agreed payment for ERUs. In case of changes in
national policies (energy, environment) of the host country that result in difficulties of generation and
delivery of ERUs by the project executor, the Romanian Party will do its utmost to have the ERUs
agreed upon in the project agreement transferred in a practical manner to the Danish Party.

Article 5
Contribution of the Danish Party
The Danish Party will contribute to the development and implementation of emission reduction projects
by the procurement of ERUs originating from those projects from the Romanian Party being the
ultimate owner of such units. The definite procurement contract includes the formal Danish approval of
the project in accordance with Article 6.1 in the Kyoto Protocol.


Page 59 of 79

Article 6
Payment schemes
Payment schemes for J oint Implementation projects will be agreed on a case by case basis and formally reflected
in the project agreements.

Article 7
Independent assessment of projects
Until the J I Supervisory Committee accredits specialised firms as possible Independent Entities for determination
and validation of projects the Danish Party will set up a provisional list of such firms and the Romanian Party will
agree on them.

Article 8
Final provisions
(1) The present Memorandum of Understanding enters into force on the date of the last written notification
through which the Parties are informing each other that their internal legal procedures necessary for its entry into
force have been completed.
(2) The present Memorandum of Understanding is concluded for a period of 10 years and shall be automatically
prolonged for new periods of 5 years.
(3) Either Party can denounce this Memorandum of Understanding through a written notification addressed to the
other Party. The denunciation shall take effect after 6 months from the date of the receipt of the notification.

Done at ., on .. in two original copies in the English language.
For the Government of the Kingdom of For the Government of Romania
Denmark
Hans Christian Schmidt Vlad-Andrei Moga
Minister for the Environment Ambassador


Page 60 of 79

Page 61 of 79
Annex A.2: Letter of Intent from the City Hall


Page 62 of 79


Page 63 of 79

Annex A.3: Contact Information for Project Participants

Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA)
Strandgade 29
DK-1401 Kbenhavn K
Denmark

Contact Person: Inge Gerhardt Pedersen; igp@mst.dk
Tele: +45 32 66 01 00

Romanian Ministry of Environment and Water Management (RMEWM)
B-dul Libertatil Nr 12
Sector 5, Bucuresti
Romania

Contact Person: Dr. Ionut Purica, Consular, ipurica@mappm.ro
Vlad Trusca, Climate Change Office, vlad@mappm.ro

Focsani City Council & Mayors Office

Mayors Office of Focsani City
Bvd. D. Cantemir 1A
Focsani, Vrancea
Romania

Contact Persons: Decebal Bacinschi; Mayor
Dan Cazaciuc; Communications Director; cazaciuc.dan@quattro.ro

Compania de Utilitati Publice R.A. (Landfill management company)

N. Titulescu Street 9
5300 Focsani, J ud. Vrancea
Romania

Contact Person: Gheorghe Vasilescu; General Manager; gvasilescu@xnet.ro
Tele: +40 3722 6406

enet S.A. (CET plant and distribution system company)

B-dul Bucuresti 4
Romania

Contact Person: Valter Popescu; General Manager; walter@enetsa.ro
Tele: +40 3721 4110


Page 64 of 79

Electrica S.A. (Power distribution company)

Bd. Independentei, Nr. 2-4
Romania

Contact Person: Dinu Chitic; Technical Manager; dinu.chitic@edf.dtcom.ro
Tele: +40 30237 205701

Inspectoratul de Protectie a Mediului Vrancea (Vrancea County EPA)

Dinicu Golescu 2
Romania

Contact Person: Rodica Bongeag; Engineer; ipmrel@artelecom.net
Tele: +40 0237 217542

Grue & Hornstrup Consulting Engineers A/S

stergade 18
DK-7500 Holstebro
Denmark

Contact Person: Lars Grue; Director; lars.grue@grue-hornstrup.dk
Tele: +45 96 10 13 30

LFG Consult Aps

Houlkjarshojen 9
DK-8800 Viborg
Denmark

Contact Person: Hans Willumsen; Director; hcw@lfgconsult.dk
Tele: +45 86 67 32 10


Page 65 of 79
Annex B.1: Plans of the Focsani Landfill and Project Area


Page 66 of 79


Page 67 of 79
Annex C.1: Monitoring Form

SUMMARY MONITORING FORM PAGE 1
Ident. Description Unit Year/Month Notes
Period:
A LFG Leaving MPR - Monitoring Point 1
AA Gas Volume/Flow Nm3
AB Gas Pressure Bar
AC Gas Temperature C
AD CH4 Content % vol.
AE Operation Time h
B Flare - Monitoring Point 2
BA Gas Volume/Flow Nm3
BB Operation Time h
BC Combustion Efficiency FE, %
C Transmission Pipe (End) - Monitoring Point 3
CA Gas Volume/Flow NM3
D Electricity Used at Landfill - Monitoring Point 6
DA Electricity MWh
E Emission Factors-Electricity (CO2)
EA g/kWh
F Landfill Data
Composition: %
Composition: %
Composition: %
Composition: %
Composition: %
Amount Placed tons/period
Active Area Hac.


Page 68 of 79
SUMMARY MONITORING FORM PAGE 2
G Comments About EIA
H Comments About Corrective Actions
I Comments About Modifications
J Changes in Laws and Regulations


Page 69 of 79
Annex C.2: Monitoring Records

MONTHLY TIME SERIES RECORD FOR MONITORING POINT (GAS)
MONITORING POINT(S)
DESCRIPTION
MEASUREMENTS
Time Gas Volume Gas Pressure Gas Temperature CH4 Content Operation Time
Nm3 C % h
TOTAL

MONTHLY TIME SERIES RECORD FOR MONITORING POINT (FLARE)
MONITORING POINT(S)
DESCRIPTION
MEASUREMENTS
Time Gas Volume Operation Time Latest FE
Nm3 h %
TOTAL


Page 70 of 79
MONTHLY TIME SERIES RECORD FOR MONITORING POINT (ENERGY)
MONITORING POINT(S)
DESCRIPTION
MEASUREMENTS
Time Operation Time Electricity
h kW/h
TOTAL

MONTHLY TIME SERIES RECORD FOR MONITORING POINT (BOILER PLANT)
MONITORING POINT(S)
DESCRIPTION
MEASUREMENTS
Time LFG Volume Operation Time NG Volume
Nm3 h Nm3
TOTAL


Page 71 of 79

Annex D.1: Drilling, LFG Analysis, and Waste Amounts

Deposited Waste Analysis
HOLE 1 Final Depth (13m)
Depth, m pH WC, % DM, % VS, % WV, % TOC, %
1-3 7 32.38 67.62 19.13 1.56 6.07
4-5 8 34.22 65.78 23.55 2.63 6.2
6-7 8.1 39.17 60.83 23.98 7.01 6.41
8-9 8.15 39.84 60.26 8.38 10.27 6.11
10 8.25 35.49 64.51 14.51 11.09 5.14
12-13 8.2 29.72 70.28 11.71 13.87 3.67
1-3 8 63.26 36.74 28.22 7.69 6.22
4-8 8.2 76.71 23.29 37.87 13.26 6.07
9-11 8.25 45.26 54.74 22.44 14.82 6.29
2 7.5 23.67 76.33 13.06 2.11 5.16
3 7.9 30.36 69.64 18.38 3.07 6.26
4 7 35.04 64.96 20.18 4.16 6.37
5 8.1 34.52 65.48 18.57 6.84 6.06
AVERAGE 7.90 39.97 60.04 20.00 7.57 5.85
Gas Analysis
HOLE 1
CH
4
, % CO
2
, % O
2
, % N
2
, %
O
C
79.0 19.0 0.0 2.0 15
HOLE 2
CH
4
, % CO
2
, % O
2
, % N
2
, %
O
C
53.0 21.0 3.3 22.7 12
HOLE 3
CH
4
, % CO
2
, % O
2
, % N
2
, %
O
C
53.0 23.0 2.4 21.6 11
AVERAGE
CH
4
, % CO
2
, % O
2
, % N
2
, %
O
C
61.7 21.0 1.9 15.4 13


Page 72 of 79
Actual Waste Deposited Projected Waste Deposited
Year Tons/yr Year Tons/yr
1997 35000 1970 2000
1998 33000 1971 2100
1999 32500 1972 2200
2000 37500 1973 2300
2001 37500 1974 2400
2002 35500 1975 2500
2003 35500 1976 2600
1977 2700
1978 2800
1979 2900
1980 3100
1981 3300
1982 3500
1983 3700
1984 3900
1985 5000
1986 6000
1987 7000
1988 8000
1989 10000
1990 13000
1991 17000
1992 21000
1993 25000
1994 28000
1995 30000
1996 32000
1997 34800
1998 33100
1999 32700
2000 37500
2001 37400
2002 35600
2003 35600
2004 37000
2005 40000
TOTAL 567700
Waste Deposited (Focsani Landfill)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
2
1
9
7
4
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
8
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
Year
t
o
n
s
/
y
r


Page 73 of 79

Annex E.1: Economic Analysis Tables

Item

Gas Flaring only
Value in Euro

CHP Plant
Value in Euro

Heat production
(Fosani CET)
Value in Euro
Approximately 30 extraction wells 58.000 58.000 58.000
Connection pipes between wells and MPR module 44.000 44.000 44.000
MPR Module incl. gas pump, cooling excl. Alt. I 125.000 135.000 135.000
Flare 35.000 35.000 35.000
Transmission pipe, 20 m, 1,000 m, 3,500 m. D=125 mm 7.000 125.000 125.000
Connection and adjusting LFG to existing Natural Gas
installation - - 60.000
Gas engine/generator unit in a container - 383.000 -
Transformer and power connection - 60.000 -
Project preparation, design, supervision,
commissioning, running in, training, etc. 65.000 150.000 85.000
Contingencies 16.000 45.000 23.000
Total investment costs in Euro: 350.000 1.035.000 565.000

The financial analysis takes into account the NPV of the different alternatives at a discount
rate of 10%. Other assumptions for the investment analysis are take from the current
situation in Romania (e.g. prices and interest rates). The investment analysis does not
include taxes or tariffs, and presents the optimal solutions for financing the alternative under
local conditions. Though it should be note that commercial loans are difficult for Romanian
municipalities to gain due to credit problems and limits.

Page 74 of 79

Assumptions for the Invetment Analysis
Annual operation and maintenance costs 10%of total investment
Selling price for natural gas 110 EURO/1000 m3
Selling price for elec. 0.04 EURO/kWh
Price of ER 5.00 EUR/tonne of CO2e
Potential Up-front payments (DEPA) 50%
Potential Up-front payments (City) 10%
Discount rate 10%
Available Interest Rate 8%
Energy value in landfill gas 4,990 kWh/1000m3
Methane content in LFG 50%
Power production efficency (gas engine) 36% kWhe/kWh

Assumptions for the Sensativity Analysis
Annual operation and maintenance costs 10%of total investment
Selling price for natural gas 132 EURO/1000 m3
Selling price for elec. 0.048 EURO/kWh
Price of ER 5.00 EUR/tonne of CO2e
Potential Up-front payments (DEPA) 50%
Potential Up-front payments (City) 10%
Discount rate 10%
Available Interest Rate 8%
Energy value in landfill gas 4,990 kWh/1000m3
Methane content in LFG 50%
Power production efficency (gas engine) 36% kWhe/kWh
Changes in Parameters for Sensativity Analysis
Increase in LFG recovery 15%
Increase in Natural Gas Price 20%
Increase in Elec. Price 20%

Energy From Alternatives
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
LFG recovery (1000 m3) 1,796 2,624 2,395 2,145 1,902 1,686 1,491
Energy value of LFG utilized (kWh/yr) 8,183,600 11,957,238 10,912,132 9,774,811 8,668,229 7,684,600 6,793,186
Equivalent Natural gas (1000 m3) 898 1,312 1,197 1,072 951 843 745
Power Production from Gas Engine (kWh/yr) 2,946,096 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,120,562 2,766,456 2,445,547


Page 75 of 79
Alternative 2
Investment Cost 350,000
Up-front payment City 35,000
Up-front payment DEPA -
Principle for loan 315,000
Expendatures Total () 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Loan Payment 380,420 95,105 95,105 95,105 95,105
Operation and Maintenance Cost 245,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
Revenue
ERs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Electricity sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Savings in Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cash Flow
-660,420 -35000 -130105 -130105 -130105 -130105 -35000 -35000 -35000
NPV -460,786
Alternative 3
Loan Payment 614,107 153,527 153,527 153,527 153,527
Revenue
ERs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Savings in Natural Gas 772,109 0 98,769 144,314 131,700 117,974 104,618 92,747 81,988
Cash Flow
-293,998 -56500 -111258 -65713 -78327 -92053 48118 36247 25488
NPV -245,688
Alternative 4
Investment Cost 1,035,000
Loan Payment 1,124,957 281,239 281,239 281,239 281,239
Revenue
ERs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Electricity sales 871,146 0 117,844 140,000 140,000 140,000 124,822 110,658 97,822
Cash Flow
-1,081,810 -103500 -266895 -244739 -244739 -244739 21322 7158 -5678
NPV -804,605
JI Project
Up-front payment DEPA 284,447
Loan Payment 270,585 67,646 67,646 67,646 67,646
Revenue
ERs 284,447 0 36,363 53,237 48,564 43,478 38,530 34,131 30,145
Savings in Natural Gas 772,109 0 98,769 144,314 131,700 117,974 104,618 92,747 81,988
Cash Flow
333,971 -56500 10985 73404 56118 37305 86648 70378 55633
NPV 185,336


Page 76 of 79
Alternative 2 (Sensativity Analysis)
Loan Payment 380,420 95,105 95,105 95,105 95,105
Revenue
ERs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cash Flow
-660,420 -35000 -130105 -130105 -130105 -130105 -35000 -35000 -35000
NPV -460,786
Loan Payment 614,107 153,527 153,527 153,527 153,527
Revenue
ERs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Savings in Natural Gas 1,065,510 0 136,301 199,153 181,746 162,803 144,373 127,990 113,143
Cash Flow
-597 -56500 -73726 -10874 -28281 -47223 87873 71490 56643
NPV -56,389
Investment Cost 1,035,000
Loan Payment 1,124,957 281,239 281,239 281,239 281,239
Revenue
ERs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Electricity sales 1,045,376 0 141,413 168,000 168,000 168,000 149,787 132,790 117,386
Cash Flow
-907,581 -103500 -243327 -216739 -216739 -216739 46287 29290 13886
NPV -693,004
JI Project (Sensativity Analysis)
Up-front payment DEPA 284,447
Loan Payment 270,585 67,646 67,646 67,646 67,646
Revenue
ERs 284,447 0 36,363 53,237 48,564 43,478 38,530 34,131 30,145
Savings in Natural Gas 1,065,510 0 136,301 199,153 181,746 162,803 144,373 127,990 113,143
Cash Flow
627,372 -56500 48518 128244 106164 82135 126403 105621 86788
NPV 374,634


Page 77 of 79
Annex F.1: Baseline Calculations

LFG Production and Utilization Assumptions

Production - Extraction - Utilization Year
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Model Output (LFG Production)
LFG Production (Nm/h) 0 410 389 355 318 282 250 221
LFG Production (1000 Nm/yr) 0 3,592 3,408 3,110 2,786 2,470 2,190 1,936
Model Output (LFG Extraction)
LFG Extraction (Nm/h) 0 205 300 273 245 217 193 170
LFG Extraction (1000 Nm/yr) 0 1,796 2,624 2,395 2,145 1,902 1,686 1,491
Utilization of LFG (Extracted LFG with 8000 hours of equipment operation)
LFG (1000 Nm/yr) 0 1,640 2,396 2,187 1,959 1,737 1,540 1,361

Constants and Values for the Methodology
Symbol Unit Value Ref.
GWP_CH4 xCO2 21
1
CEF_electiricity,y tCO2e/MWh 0.58
2
AF 0
w_CH4,y m3 CH4/ m3 LFG 0.5
D_CH4 tCH4/m3 CH4 0.0007168
1
FE % 99%
EF_NG_CO2y tCO2/TJ 56.1
1
EV_NG TJ /1000 m3 0.0358
Annual Operation Times
Hours / yr % of yr
t_flare 424 4.84%
t_thermal 8000 91.32%
t_no-operation 336 3.84%
1. Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual
2. ERPUT5 PDD guidelines - Emisisons for electricity generation


Page 78 of 79
Emission Reductions from direct LFG Combustion
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL
Equation : ERy_LFG = (MD_project,y - MD_reg,y) x GWP_CH4
ERy_LFG (tCO2e) 12,991 18,981 17,322 15,517 13,760 12,199 10,784 101,554
Equation : MD_reg,y = MD_project,y x AF
MD_reg,y (tCH4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equation : MD_project,y = MD_flare,y + MD_thermal,y
MD_project,y (tCH4) 619 904 825 739 655 581 514 4,836
Equation : MD_flare,y = LFG_flare,y x w_CH4,y x D_CH4 x FE
MD_flared,y (tCH4) 31 45 41 37 33 29 26 241
Equation : MD_thermal,y = LFG_thermal,y x w_CH4,y x D_CH4
MD_thermal,y (tCH4) 588 859 784 702 623 552 488 4,595
Equation : LFG_flare,y = LFG_recovered,y x t_flare
LFG_flare,y (m3) 86,920 127,001 115,900 103,821 92,067 81,620 72,152 679,481
Equation : LFG_thermal,y = LFG_recovered,y x t_thermal
LFG_thermal,y (m3) 1,640,000 2,396,240 2,186,800 1,958,880 1,737,120 1,540,000 1,361,360 12,820,400
LFG_recovered,y
LFG_recovered,y 1,795,800 2,623,883 2,394,546 2,144,974 1,902,146 1,686,300 1,490,689 14,038,338

Emission Reductions from Fuel Switch under the Project Activity
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL
Equation : ERy_FS = Q_NGy x EF_NG_CO2y
ER y_FS (tCO2e) 1,647 2,406 2,196 1,967 1,744 1,546 1,367 12,874
Equation : Q_NGy = LFG_thermal,y x EV_NG x w_CH4,y
Q_NGy (TJ ) 29.36 42.89 39.14 35.06 31.09 27.57 24.37 229.49

Leakages 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL
Electricity Used : LE_y = PE_y x CEF_electricity,y
LE_y (tCO2e) 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 650
PE_y (MWh) 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 1120


Page 79 of 79
Annex F.2: Emissions Reduction Calculations

Emission Reductions from LFG Use and Fuel Switch (Combined)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL
Equation : ERy = ERy_LFG + ERy_FS - LEy
ER y_LFG (tCO2e) 12,991 18,981 17,322 15,517 13,760 12,199 10,784 101,554
ER y_FS (tCO2e) 1,647 2,406 2,196 1,967 1,744 1,546 1,367 12,874
LE y (tCO2e) 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 650
ER y (tCO2e) 14,545 21,295 19,425 17,391 15,412 13,652 12,058 113,779

PDD Focsani v3.0

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PDD Focsani v3.0

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

GRUE & HORNSTRUP CONSULTING ENGINEERS A/S

stergade 18 . DK 7500 Holstebro, Denmark . TEL. +45 96 10 13 30 . Fax +45 97 40 45 20 . www.grue-hornstrup.dk

Você também pode gostar