Verification Report for Orica Carseland Works

Transcription

Verification Report for Orica Carseland
Works Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide
(N2O) Abatement From Nitric Acid
Production Offset Project
Prepared for:
Capital Power Corporation
8th floor, 505 2 Street SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 1N8
&
Orica Canada Inc.
P.O. Box 250
Carseland, Alberta T0J 0M0
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
845 Prospect Street
Fredericton, NB E3B 2T7
Project Number: 1232-10331
March 17, 2014
VERIFICATION REPORT FOR ORICA CARSELAND WORKS NITRIC ACID PLANT 2: NITROUS OXIDE
(N2O) ABATEMENT FROM NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION OFFSET PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1
Location ....................................................................................................................... 1
PROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................... 1
BASELINE AND PROJECT CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 2
GHG ASSERTION ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 4
VERIFICATION OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................... 4
LEVEL OF ASSURANCE .................................................................................................................. 4
VERIFICATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................ 4
VERIFICATION SCOPE ................................................................................................................... 4
MATERIALITY ................................................................................................................................... 5
VERIFICATION PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.0
3.1
VERIFICATION TEAM: QUALIFICATIONS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................. 6
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SGER ........................................................................... 6
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................... 7
INHERENT RISK ................................................................................................................................ 7
CONTROL RISK ............................................................................................................................... 7
DETECTION RISK ............................................................................................................................. 7
SITE VISIT .......................................................................................................................................... 9
VERIFICATION PROCEDURES........................................................................................................ 9
CONFIRMATIONS......................................................................................................................... 10
5.0
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS......................................................................................................... 11
6.0
6.1
6.2
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 16
OPINION ....................................................................................................................................... 16
SUBMISSION DOCUMENTS .......................................................................................................... 16
7.0
CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................. 17
March 17, 2014
i
LIST OF TABLES
Table E.1
Table 1.1
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Verification Summary ...............................................................................................E.1
GHG Assertion ............................................................................................................. 3
Verification Team ....................................................................................................... 6
Schedule of Verification Activities ........................................................................... 8
Verification and Sampling Plan .............................................................................. 11
Identified Misstatements and Resolutions ............................................................. 15
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
ii
Final Verification Plan
Submission Documents
March 17, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A summary of the verification of Orica Carseland Works Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Abatement From Nitric Acid Production Offset Project (the Project) is provided in Table E.1.
Table E.1
Verification Summary
Project Name
Orica Carseland Works Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Abatement From
Nitric Acid Production Offset Project
Project Description
Project Start Date
The Project reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with nitric acid
production by using a dedicated catalyst to abate the nitrous oxide formed during
ammonia oxidation in the nitric acid plant.
264077 Township Road 221, Carseland, Alberta T0J 0M0 (50 km southeast of
Calgary); latitude 20033E to 200730E, 23063N to 25296N.
March 29, 2012
Credit Start Date
March 29, 2012
Credit Duration Period
March 29, 2012 to March 29, 2020
Expected Lifetime of the
Project
Project Contact
20 years
Applicable Quantification
Protocol
Other Environmental
Attributes
Project Registration
Quantification Protocol for Nitrous Oxide Abatement from Nitric Acid Production
(version1.0, October 2009)
No other environmental attributes / credits / benefits have been claimed by the
Project as asserted by the Project Developer.
The Project is registered under the Alberta Emissions Offset Registry (AEOR).
Ownership
Orica Canada Inc.
GHG Assertion
The fundamental assertion verified is the quantification of 116,860 t CO2e in GHG
reductions for the period of January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 resulting from
the direct GHG emission reductions from the NAP2 plant due to the abatement of
N2O as a result of the presence of the secondary catalyst in the ammonia burner
under the primary catalyst where the abatement of N2O takes place.
The SGER and ESRD require the verifier to conduct sufficient procedures to deliver a
reasonable level of assurance. The verification was planned and executed
accordingly.
 Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (the Act), SA 2003, c C-16.7;
 Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) Alta Reg. 139/2007;
 Technical Guidance for Offset Project Developers (version 4.0, February 2013);
and
 Quantification Protocol for Nitrous Oxide Abatement from Nitric Acid Production
(October 2009, V1.0)
The objective of the verification was to assess whether the Project Report and the
GHG assertion satisfies the verification criteria above.
The verification was conducted in accordance with ISO 14064:3, ISO 14065, and
guidance contained within the Technical Guidance for Greenhouse Gas
Verification at Reasonable Level Assurance, January 2013, version 1.0.
Project Location
Level of Assurance
Verification Criteria
Verification Objective
Verification Standards
March 17, 2014
Jeff Zubach, Health and Environment Specialist
264077 Township Road 221
Carseland, AB, T0J 0M0, Canada
T: (403) – 936 - 2228
E: jeff.zubach@orica.com
www.orica.com
E.1
Table E.1
Project Activity
The Project Activity is eligible under the SGER to generate offsets as it meets the
following conditions.
 Result from actions taken on or after January 1, 2002 – the Project began
operation after this date.
 Be real, demonstrable, quantifiable – the Project has been verified according to
the Verification Criteria above.
 Not be required by law – the Project is not required by any current or proposed
law.
 Have clearly established ownership – the Project Developer provided sufficient
and appropriate evidence that Orica owns the offset credits generated by the
Project.
 Be counted once for compliance purposes – the Project’s offset credits are
serialized on the Alberta Emission Offset Registry (AEOR).
 Be verified by a qualified third party – Stantec is a qualified third party (see
Section 1.0, 3.1, and Statement of Qualifications).
 Have occurred in Alberta – the Project is physically located in Alberta.
No unresolved material misstatements were identified in the Project Report
(including the Project Offset Plan) as submitted. The GHG assertion for the Project is
deemed to be fairly presented and substantiated by sufficient and appropriate
evidence. A reasonable level assurance verification statement is issued herein
Verification Team
Lead Verifier
Designated Signing
Authority
Project Manager
Christina Flogeras, P.Eng.
Independent Peer
Reviewer
Joe Harriman, Ph.D., P.Chem.
Senior Reviewer
Verification Timeframe
Daniel Hegg, M.Sc., EMIT
November 2013 to February 2014
Site Visit Dates
November 18, 2013
Report Date
March 17, 2014
E.2
March 17, 2014
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was contracted by Capital Power Corporation (CPC) to conduct an
independent third-party verification of the greenhouse gas (GHG) assertion provided in the Orica
Carseland Works (Orica) Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide Abatement From Nitric Acid Production
Project Report (Project Report) dated March 12, 2014.
The Orica plant site operates two Nitric Acid Plants referred to as NAP1 and NAP2. Orica produces low
density prilled ammonium nitrate which is used for mining, construction and logging industries. The NAP2
plant began operation in 1998 to produce ammonia (NH3) using a GPN Mono Pressure Process which
oxidizes ammonia on platinum-rhodium catalyst gauze and absorbs nitrogen oxide gases in water. The
oxidation reaction of ammonia that takes place on the platinum-rhodium catalyst has a side reaction
which produces N2O. The Project consists of the installation of a dedicated secondary catalyst, Johnson
Matthey (Yara 58-Y1) abatement catalyst in Orica’s Nitric Acid Plant 2 (NAP 2) below the precious metal
catalyst gauze to abate the nitrous oxide. The NAP1 Project is being verified as a separate Project.
In this work, Orica was responsible for the collection of data used in the calculations and data
management. Orica was responsible for the completion of the calculations, presentation of the
information within the Project Report, and for the supporting technical documents.
Stantec is a qualified third party verifier, as defined in Section 18 of the SGER. Stantec is accredited with
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a member of the International Accreditation Forum
(IAF), in accordance with ISO 14065 (Accreditation ID #0805 issued to Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Atmospheric Environment Group for greenhouse gas (GHG) verification). Stantec was responsible for
planning and executing the verification in order to deliver an opinion as to whether the Project Report is
presented fairly and in accordance with the verification criteria.
Stantec resubmitted this verification report after addressing comments from the Alberta Emissions Offset
Registry. The revisions include clarifying text, adding increased detail to the Executive Summary, and
adding one immaterial qualitative disclosure.
1.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1.1
Location
The Project is located 50 kilometers southeast of Calgary near Carseland, Alberta. The longitude and
latitude is 20033E to 200730E and 23063N to 25296N respectively.
1.2
PROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES
The Project, as defined in the Project Report, involves the creation of GHG emission offset credits due to
the abatement of N2O as the result of the presence of the secondary catalyst in the ammonia burner
under the primary catalyst, in NAP2, where the abatement of N2O takes place.
The facility includes two nitric acid plants (NAP1 and NAP2) which have the ability to produce
approximately 480,000 metric tonnes of low density prilled ammonium nitrate per year for use in mining,
March 17, 2014
1
construction and logging industries. Ammonium nitrate is obtained from the chemical reaction of nitric
acid and ammonia. The plant also produces nitric acid which is used as a reactant in ammonium
nitrate production. The Project consists of the installation of a dedicated secondary catalyst below the
primary catalyst (precious metal catalyst gauze) to destroy N2O emissions.
The NAP2 plant began operation in 1998 to produce nitric acid (HNO3) using a GPN Mono Pressure
Process which oxidizes ammonia on platinum-rhodium catalyst gauze and absorbs nitrogen oxide gases
in water. The plant has a production rate of 310 tonnes per day. In order to reduce the GHG emissions
from the process, a dedicated catalyst was installed under the platinum rhodium catalyst gauze to
reduce N2O production. Orica installed a N2O monitoring system (known as PROCAL P-200) at NAP2 in
2011 to measure the N2O emissions in order to establish the baseline and project N2O emissions. The
PROCAL P-200 system consists of an ultrasonic flow monitor (measuring gas volumetric flows) and an
infrared unit (measuring N2O concentration). This system is installed within the stack of NAP2. Upon
completion of the baseline (1 catalyst campaign), Orica installed a Heraeus N 2O abatement catalyst
(HR-SC) on March 29, 2012 which was only used until September 2013 as this catalyst did not perform as
expected. On September 17, 2013 a Johnson Matthey catalyst, Yara 58-Y1 was installed in an attempt
to boost abatement.
Nitric acid is produced from the oxidation of liquid ammonia in both NAP1 and NAP2. During the
production process, the oxidation reaction of ammonia takes place on a platinum rhodium catalyst
(primary catalyst) where a side reaction produces N2O. This side reaction of ammonia oxidation is a
source of N2O emissions which is the only GHG emission relevant to this Project. As such, the catalyst
acts to reduce N2O that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere through the stack. The Project
boundary encompasses the physical and geographical site of the plant and the equipment for the
entire production process. This includes all compressors, tail gas expander turbines and any nitrous oxide
(N2O) abatement equipment installed.
Emission reductions are calculated as the difference between the baseline emissions and the project
emissions.
1.3
BASELINE AND PROJECT CONDITIONS
The baseline condition for NAP2 is defined as the amount of N2O that would be released to the
atmosphere through the stack in the absence of the secondary catalyst in the ammonia burner. The
related Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs (SSR) included in the baseline are presented in B1 Nitric Acid Plant
(Burner Inlet to Stack) of the Project Report.
The Project condition is defined as the amount of N2O that would be released to the atmosphere
through the stack with the presence of the secondary catalyst in the ammonia burner under the
primary catalyst where the abatement of N2O takes place. The related SSRs included in the baseline are
presented in P1 Nitric Acid Plant (Burner Inlet to Stack) of the Project Report.
1.4
GHG ASSERTION
The fundamental assertion to be verified is that the Project Report dated March 12, 2014 meets the
criteria of ESRD for the period of January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 (see Section 2.3).
2
March 17, 2014
The claimed emissions reductions as part of the GHG assertion verified by Stantec are presented in
Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1
GHG Assertion
Year
January 1 – December 31, 2013
Baseline Emissions
(t CO2e)
249,906
Project Emissions
(t CO2e)
133,042
Emission Reductions (t
CO2e)
116,860
Notes:
Emission Reductions are rounded down as per Guidance.
March 17, 2014
3
2.0
VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY
2.1
VERIFICATION OBJECTIVES
The objective of the verification was to assess whether the GHG assertion (as presented in Table 1.1) for
the Project Report under the SGER satisfied the ESRD requirements in the verification criteria in
accordance with the verification standards identified in Section 2.3.
2.2
LEVEL OF ASSURANCE
The SGER and ESRD require the verifier to conduct sufficient procedures to deliver a reasonable level of
assurance. The verification was planned and executed accordingly.
2.3
VERIFICATION CRITERIA
Stantec has conducted sufficient and appropriate procedures in order to express a reasonable level of
assurance opinion as to whether the Project (the GHG assertion) satisfies the requirements of the:
Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (the Act), SA 2003, c C-16.7;
Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) Alta Reg. 139/2007;
Technical Guidance for Offset Project Developers (version 4.0, February 2013); and
Quantification Protocol for Nitrous Oxide Abatement from Nitric Acid Production (version1.0, October
2009).
The verification was conducted in accordance with ISO 14064:3, ISO 14065:2013, and the Technical
Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Verification at Reasonable Level Assurance, January 2013, version 1.0
(Verification Guidance).
2.4
VERIFICATION SCOPE
The verification is for the Project period of January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
The verification covers the specified gases under the Act and the SGER. These include carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The total GHG emissions are reported as equivalent tonnes of carbon dioxide
(t CO2e) emissions.
Sources of project GHG emissions include:

Nitric Acid Production (N2O): Abatement of nitric oxide during the production of nitric acid through
the oxidization of ammonia using a secondary catalyst
Sources of baseline GHG emissions at the Project are:

4
Nitric Acid Production (N2O): No abatement of nitric oxide during the production of nitric acid.
March 17, 2014
2.5
MATERIALITY
ESRD has set the quantitative materiality threshold at 5% of the total reported GHG emission reductions
or removals asserted. Qualitative misstatements are at the discretion of the verification body.
2.6
VERIFICATION PLAN
A copy of the final verification plan is provided in Appendix A. The activities described therein were
executed during the course of the verification. The sampling plan, a subset of the verification plan, is
outlined along with the final results in Section 5.0 of this report.
March 17, 2014
5
3.0
VERIFICATION TEAM: QUALIFICATIONS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The verification team is identified in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Verification Team
Name
Role
Responsibilities
Lead Verifier
Lead and delegate verification duties. Designated Signing
Authority on verification documents.
Senior
Reviewer/Project
Manager
Independent
Peer Reviewer
Carry out project management duties. Review verification
deliverables technical soundness and compliance with Stantec’s
internal processes.
Independent review of verification deliverables for consistency
with Stantec templates, adherence to ISO 14064:3, ISO 14065,
and ESRD compliance.
Lead desktop review with supervision from Lead Verifier.
Joe Harriman, Ph.D.,
P.Chem.
Rengarajan Vaiyapuri,
M.Eng.
Junior Verifier
Full details of the qualifications of the project team are included in the final verification plan located in
Appendix A.
3.1
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SGER
Mrs. Christina Flogeras is the signing authority for the report. She is a professional engineer registered by
the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick which satisfies Section 18(a)(ii)(A) of the
SGER.
With respect to the technical knowledge required under Section 18(b)(i-iii), each member of the team
has the required technical knowledge of GHG emission quantification methodologies and all have
experience in completing third party GHG verifications. Please refer to the team profiles included in the
verification plan in Appendix A.
6
March 17, 2014
4.0
VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES
Details of the verification activities undertaken are set out in the final verification plan included in
Appendix A and summarized in Section 5.0 of this report. The verification and sampling plans for this
facility were developed considering our assessment of the verification risk for the engagement. We
assessed the initial verification risk as Medium1. The final verification risk is deemed to be Low based on
the results of the verification procedures undertaken. This final risk assessment is shown based on the
assessment of inherent, control and detection risk as follows.
4.1
INHERENT RISK
Inherent risk is the risk of error that occurs as a result of the lack of capacity by staff; the size/complexity
of the organization or GHG project; the industrial sector; and/or, the technologies or processes being
applied in the organization or GHG project. We regard this risk as Low due to:
This is the second verification completed by Stantec for NAP2. Stantec is familiar with Orica’s processes
and processes and data collection procedures (low risk).
Data used to calculate emission reductions are measured using analyzers meeting the Alberta CEMS
code, which has prescribed quality assurance and control procedures (low risk).
The analyzers are regularly maintained, inspected, and calibrated. Some analyzers undergo Relative
Accuracy Test Audits or Compressed Gas Audits as required by ESRD (low risk).
4.2
CONTROL RISK
Control risk is the risk that the proponent’s control system will not detect and rectify a misstatement. We
regard this risk as Low due to:
Quality assurance and control checks on the data from the site data historian are performed manually,
but are checked by senior management and are used to report to ESRD (low risk).
Based on the previous verification on these Projects by Stantec, the data for the emission reduction
calculations are copied manually from the data historian spreadsheet and thus there is risk of
transcription errors (low risk).
On-site meters automatically sample and record data electronically on the site’s Distributed Control
System (DCS) every 5 to 10 seconds (low risk).
4.3
DETECTION RISK
Detection risk is the risk that Stantec will not identify a material misstatement. We regard this risk as Low
due to:
1
Possible risk ratings are “high”, “medium” and “low”. These are based on inherent, control, and detection risks as evaluated
by the project team prior to engaging in verification activities.
March 17, 2014
7
Our quality management procedures. We are committed to providing exceptional service to our clients
in accordance with our ISO 9001 and ISO 14065 accreditations. We believe that quality is a basic
principle and have made quality management an integral part of our work. We take a systematic
approach to quality management in compliance with ISO requirements and strive to achieve continual
improvement. The cornerstone of our quality management system is an entrenched process of
technical and independent peer review where our deliverables are objectively vetted by senior and
expert people in our firm.
Level of assurance. The reasonable level of assurance applied in this verification (as required by the
SGER) mandates that Stantec perform increased sampling to meet the assurance requirements,
however, the level of assurance still increases the risk to Stantec as the risk-based verification approach
means that not all information can be reviewed. Stantec has designed the sampling plan to target
potentially material items in the GHG information to maintain low detection risk.
This is the second verification completed by Stantec for NAP2. Stantec is familiar with Orica’s processes
and processes and data collection procedures (low risk).
The verification team assessed whether the Project resulted in emission reductions in a manner
consistent with the Project Offset Plan. During the verification, the verification team considered the level
of audit risk noted above and incorporated necessary tasks to mitigate the audit risk. These tasks
included:
assessing conformance with applicable verification criteria, including the principles and requirements of
relevant standards or GHG programs within the scope of verification;
evaluating the establishment, justification and documentation of the Project Report;
assessing the GHG project's quality assurance and controls; and
assessing the information for consistency with our knowledge of Orica’s operations.
The schedule for the verification activities is presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1
Schedule of Verification Activities
Verification Activity
Responsible Party
Date of Completion
Kick-off Call
Stantec / Orica
October 24, 2013
Receive Documentation
Stantec
October 16, 2013
Initial Desktop Review
Stantec
November 8, 2013
Internal Conference Call – Desktop Assessment
Review
Stantec
November 12, 2013
Provide Verification Plan to CPC (including
additional data requests)
Site Visit
Stantec
November 13, 2013
Stantec / Orica
November 18, 2013
Internal Site Visit Follow-up Conference Call
Stantec
November 19, 2013
Receive Additional Documentation
Orica
January 28 – February 23, 2014
Review additional information
Stantec
Draft Verification Report
Stantec
February 26, 2014
8
March 17, 2014
Responsible Party
Date of Completion
Address Follow-up Items
Stantec / Orica
February 27, 2014
Finalize Verification Report, SOV, SOQ, COI form
Stantec
February 27, 2014
Revise Verification Report, SOV, SOQ, COI form
Stantec
March 17, 2014
4.4
SITE VISIT
Stantec Senior Reviewer, Daniel Hegg, conducted an office and site visit on November 18th, 2013. The
following personnel were interviewed:
•
Aaron Li, Orica Canada Inc. – Production Engineer;
•
Chelsea Thomson, Capital Power Corporation - Environmental Markets Specialist;
•
David Hind, Orica Canada Inc. – Technical Manager – Nitrate Process;
•
Jeff Zubach, Orica Canada Inc. – Health and Environment Specialist;
•
Ken Nguyen, Orica Canada Inc. – Process Engineer; and
•
Tyler Pilgrim, Orica Canada Inc. – Instrumentation/Electrical.
A tour of the facility was led by Orica representatives with in-depth knowledge of the facility and the
project. During the tours, Stantec performed procedures to identify Project boundaries, confirmed GHG
sources, looked for additional sources, visually confirmed the presence of meters and N2O abatement
technologies, as well as inquired about Project operations and the GHG data management systems.
4.5
VERIFICATION PROCEDURES
The process of developing the sampling plan included a review of Orica’s records and comparisons of
raw data to calculation spreadsheets provided by Orica for the verification program. Interviews with the
staff members listed above were conducted to assess various aspects of Project operations, data
management, data storage, and transfer. Activities associated with operations, record keeping, meter
data management, and emissions sources were reviewed to better understand the calculations, data
treatment, and data management for the Project.
The site boundaries were evaluated to confirm that no additional GHG sources, sinks, or reservoirs were
present. During the site visit, Stantec observed the data collection and processing systems, and visually
confirmed the presence of meters and N2O abatement technologies. Activities associated with
ammonia production, measurements and emissions sources and reductions were reviewed to confirm
consistency with the Project Report.
Stantec’s final sampling plan included sampling raw data for stack flow rates, stack temperatures,
operating hours, nitric acid production, andN2O concentration, as well as recalculating baseline and
project emission factors and emissions and assessing consistency with the Protocol and ESRD guidance.
The final verification procedures are provided in the final verification plan (Appendix A) and
summarized in Table 5.1. Stantec’s detailed internal working papers can be provided to ESRD upon
request and signing of a confidentiality agreement.
March 17, 2014
9
4.6
CONFIRMATIONS
For this Project, Stantec confirmed that:

offset project information was consistent across the offset project documentation;

offset project location is as indicated in the Project Offset Report;

the Offset Project Plan contains the monitoring and quantification procedures applied to this
Project;

the Project contact, report date, emission reduction numbers and other related information is
accurate; and

the Project GHG Information System is consistent with the data flow diagram shown in the Offset
Project Plan.
Stantec detected that the emission reductions shown in the Project Report and the Assertion Statement
(116,860 t CO2e) are not accurately presented. Using the baseline and project emissions asserted, the
calculated emission reductions are 116,864 t CO2e. This occurred due to rounding of the baseline and
project emissions in the Report and Assertion. The emission reductions of 116,863 t CO2e, which account
for rounding down the emission reductions as per Guidance, are supported by the Project
documentation. Stantec considers this to be an immaterial qualitative disclosure.
10
March 17, 2014
5.0
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A summary of the key findings from this verification is provided in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Parameter
GHG Assertion
Ownership
Verification and Sampling Plan
Procedures
Sampling Plan
Result
Reviewed the Project
Report for the following
information:
 location of the
Project;
 Project start date
and period;
 registration of Offset
Credits;
 Project Plan;
 Notice of Creation;
 Protocol followed;
and
 eligibility of GHGs
reduction.
All required information.
Satisfactory
 The Project takes place in Alberta.
 The Project took place after January
1, 2002 and the emission reductions
are claimed within the allowable 8year crediting period.
 The credits have been registered on
the Alberta registry.
 The Project Offset Plan is available on
the Registry.
 Orica has appropriately completed
the Notice of Creation.
 The Project is using an appropriate
Protocol and the correct version of
the Protocol.
 The GHGs reduced are eligible.
Conducted a site tour
to compare emissions
inventory to on-site
sources.
All on-site GHG sources.
Reports for a statement
regarding credit
ownership.
Sufficient and appropriate
evidence to support that
Orica is authorized to
serialize the offset credits.
Satisfactory
Stantec conducted a site visit and onsite
interviews to assess procedures for
various aspects of project operations,
data management, production
accounting, QA/QC and data storage
and transfer. Activities measuring stack
flow rates, stack temperatures,
operating hours, nitric acid production,
andN2O concentration, as well as
recalculating baseline and project
emission factors, measurements and
emissions sources and reductions were
reviewed to confirm consistency with
the project report. The site boundaries
were also evaluated by the verifiers to
confirm that there have been no
physical changes that would affect the
boundary for the project plan. Stantec
confirmed the emission reductions
included in the report and looked for
additional sources that were not
included in the Project Plan.
Satisfactory
The Project Report indicates that Orica
owns the Project. Catalyst suppliers give
up ownership over the environmental
attributes of the abated N2O.
Reviewed ownership
evidence.
March 17, 2014
11
Table 5.1
Parameter
Project
Additionality
Consistency
with Project
Offset Plan
Consistency
with ISO 14064-2
12
Procedures
Sampling Plan
Result
Report and supporting
documentation to
assess whether the
Project Developer is
meeting the
additionality criteria in
the Protocol and the
Project continues to be
additional to
regulations.
Report against the
Project Plan for the
following criteria:
 deviation of the
Project from the
Project Plan;
 same baseline and
project boundaries
for the Project and
the Project Plan; and
 similar emission
reductions claimed.
Not applicable.
Satisfactory
The Protocol does not have specific
criteria related to Project additionality.
The N2O emissions are considered
industrial process emissions of which
there is currently no regulated reduction
target under the Specified Gas Emitters
Reporting Regulation (SGER).
Not applicable.
Satisfactory
The Project Report discloses that the
secondary catalyst has changed from
the Heraeus product to a Johnson
Matthey product. The contact
information for the Project was also
updated. The monitoring and
quantification of emission reductions
remain identical to the Project Plan. The
baseline and project boundaries are
identical. The Project Report has similar
emission reductions as the Project Plan.
Assessed the Project
Report for
transparency.
Not applicable.
Satisfactory
The Project Report is adequately
transparent when presenting the GHG
emissions, emission reductions, and
related information
Report for accuracy.
Not applicable.
Report for relevance
and completeness.
Not applicable.
Report for consistency.
Not applicable.
Satisfactory (Immaterial Misstatement,
Resolved)
The GHG assertion within the Project
Report was found to agree with the
emissions quantified by Orica. During the
review of the Project Report, it was
noted that the assertion contained text
referring to the 2012 reporting period.
Resolved)
The information presented in the Project
Report is relevant. The Project Report
was found to contain all information
required to be reported according to
the Guidance. During the review, it was
noted that the Project Report was
missing two pieces of information as
compared to the template (expected
lifetime of the project and Orica website
address).
Satisfactory
The Project Report is consistent with the
Project Plan. Consistent formulas were
used for emissions quantification.
March 17, 2014
Table 5.1
Parameter
Quantification
and Monitoring
Procedures
Assessed the Project for
inaccurate
measurement of
stack flow rate, stack
temperature,
operating hours, nitric
acid production, and
N2O concentration.
Trace values to the
quantification
spreadsheet.
Project data not
removed if outside of
permitted range.
Inconsistent baseline
emission factor.
Anomaly in parameter
trends.
inconsistent
quantification
methodologies.
Inspected calibration
and verification
records.
March 17, 2014
Sampling Plan
Result
Sampled monthly daily
averages and traced to
reports and to GHG
emission quantification
spreadsheet.
Satisfactory
Orica provided monthly NAP2 records.
The data provided covered the entire
2013 reporting period and no records
were outside the 2013 reporting period.
Entire crediting period
(January through
December 2013), NAP2
monthly reports and raw
data
Assess baseline campaign
run as well the
calculations that result in
the generation of the
baseline emission factor.
Satisfactory
The baseline campaign used in line with
the requirements of the protocol.
Trended each variable for
entire crediting to identify
anomalies and data
outside of the reporting
period.
All methodologies
(including baseline
emissions, project
emissions, and emission
reductions).
Sample the maintenance
log book and also records
showing weekly
inspections are carried
out on regular basis.
Sample records showing
the RATA test are done to
verify the flow meter and
temperature probe.
Review Cylinder Gas
Audits (CGA) and Fourier
Transform Infrared (FTIR)
audits completed during
the reporting year to look
for anomalies and match
Satisfactory (Material and Immaterial
Misstatements, Resolved)
During the review, Stantec noted that
the wrong period for the permitting
operating condition was used. This item
was resolved.
Stantec noted that Orica rounded up
their emission factor to 0.0052 tN2O / t
Acid which results in an under-reporting
of 717.38 tCO2e or 0.61%.This item was
resolved.
Satisfactory
The sampled records agree with internal
records and quantification spreadsheet.
No discrepancies noted.
Satisfactory
Stantec found that the quantification
methodologies used were consistent
with the Offset Plan and the Protocol.
Satisfactory
Stantec reviewed the RATA tests, CGA
logs, FTIR reports, and maintenance logs
and determined they are valid for the
reporting period.
13
Table 5.1
Parameter
Procedures
Sampling Plan
to trend analysis.
Recalculated baseline
emissions.
Not applicable.
Recalculated project
emissions.
Not applicable.
GHG Data
Management
and Quality
Control
Assessed whether
Orica’s GHG data
management system,
including quality
control, is adequate.
Entire system for
completeness, accuracy,
validity, and restricted
access, through
interviews, Project
documentation, and site
visit.
GHG Data
Retention
Assessed whether there
is sufficient document
storage and retention.
Not applicable.
14
Result
Resolved)
Stantec successfully recalculated the
baseline emissions. Stantec noted that
Orica rounded up their baseline emission
factor to 0.0052 tN2O / t Acid which
results in an under-reporting of 717.38
tCO2e or 0.61%.This item was resolved.
Satisfactory
Stantec successfully recalculated the
project emissions.
Satisfactory
Stantec reviewed Orica’s data
management system through a review
of on-site monitoring systems, personnel
interviews, and inspecting the
quantification spreadsheet, Offset Plan,
Project Report, and supporting
information. Stantec found that Orica’s
data management system adequately
collects and aggregates Project data
and performs checks on the quantified
emissions.
Not Resolved)
Retention period - Orica asserts that
Project records are retained in a
retrievable manner for a total of 10
years. Stantec finds that this is consistent
with the Protocol’s requirements;
however, this retention period is not
consistent with the Technical Guidance
for Offset Project Developers. The
requirement is to retain documentation
for at least 7 years past the end of the
crediting period. Stantec considers the
issue to be an immaterial discrepancy
due to the following:
 Orica has previously submitted the
Offset Plan with this retention period
noted;
 Orica’s retention period is consistent
with the Protocol; and
 Orica‘s retention period is consistent
with the SGER Section 15(1).
March 17, 2014
Misstatements identified during the verification are provided in Table 5.2. The quantitative materiality
threshold (5%) was not exceeded. One unresolved immaterial discrepancy remains.
Table 5.2
Identified Misstatements and Resolutions
Identified Misstatement
Consistency with Guidance
The Project Report rounds up the emission reductions.
This item is considered material.
Material/Immaterial
Material and immaterial
qualitative misstatement
Resolution
Resolved.
Immaterial quantitative
misstatement
Resolved.
Material quantitative
misstatement
Resolved.
Immaterial qualitative
misstatement
Not Resolved.
The assertion contained text referring to the 2012
reporting period. This item is considered material.
The Project Report was missing two pieces of
information as compared to the template (expected
lifetime of the project and Orica website address). The
missing pieces are not considered material.
GHG Assertion - Accuracy
Stantec noted that Orica rounded up their baseline
emission factor to 0.0052 tN2O / t Acid which results in an
under-reporting of 717.38 tCO2e or 0.61%.
Baseline Permitted Operating Condition – Cut-off
During the review, Stantec noted that the wrong period
for the permitting operating condition was applied.
The error consisted of using data that included the
baseline campaign (June15, 2009 to March 27, 2012)
instead of the period prior to the baseline campaign
(i.e. June 15, 2009 to Oct 11, 2011). This item was
resolved.
Data Retention
The Project’s retention period is consistent with the
Protocol but not the guidance. This is immaterial
because Orica’s offset plan has been accepted by the
Registry with this misstatement present.
March 17, 2014
15
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
OPINION
Based on the procedures undertaken and described in this report, the Project Report for the Orica
Carseland Works Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Abatement From Nitric Acid Production Offset
Project satisfies the requirements of the:
Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, SA 2003, c C-16.7;
Specified Gas Emitters Regulation; Alta Reg. 139/2007;
Quantification Protocol for Nitrous Oxide Abatement from Nitric Acid Production (version1.0, October
2009).
6.2
SUBMISSION DOCUMENTS
The verification documents for submission are in Appendix B and include: Statement of Qualifications, a
Statement of Verification, and a Conflict of Interest Checklist.
16
March 17, 2014
7.0
CLOSURE
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was contracted by Capital Power Corporation (CPC) to conduct an
independent third-party verification of the greenhouse gas (GHG) assertion provided in the Orica
Carseland Works (Orica) Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide Abatement From Nitric Acid Production
Project Report (Project Report) dated March 12, 2014. In this work, Orica was responsible for the
collection of data used in the calculations and data management. Orica was responsible for the
completion of the calculations, presentation of the information within the Project Report, and for the
supporting technical documents.
Stantec has undertaken all assignments in its role as an environmental engineering consulting firm using
professional effort consistent with the Technical Guidance for Offset Project Developers, February 2013,
version 4.0, and the Technical Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Verification at Reasonable Level
Assurance, January 2013, version 1.0. Stantec has assessed the Project Report submitted by Orica for the
Orica Carseland Works Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Abatement From Nitric Acid Production
Offset Project using reasonably ascertainable information, as defined by ISO 14064-3, obtained from a
review of operational records and available literature and documents. The assessment represents the
conditions in the subject area at the time of the assessment. Stantec did not conduct direct GHG
emissions monitoring or other environmental sampling and analysis in conjunction with this verification
report. Stantec disclaims liability for use by any other party and for any other purpose. A copy of our
internal working papers can be confidentially provided to ESRD on request.
Stantec will retain all project documents for a minimum of seven (7) years. A copy of our internal
working papers can be confidentially provided to ESRD on request.
This report entitled, “Verification Report for the Orica Carseland Works Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide
(N2O) Abatement From Nitric Acid Production Offset Project” was produced by Christina Flogeras,
P.Eng.
This report was peer reviewed by Joe Harriman, Ph.D., P.Chem. and senior reviewed by Daniel Hegg,
M.Sc, EMIT.
Respectfully Submitted,
STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
Lead Verifier
Environmental Services
Tel: (506) 452-7000
Joe Harriman, Ph.D., P.Chem.,
Independent Peer Reviewer
Tel: (506) 634-2185
\\cd1208-f04\shared_projects\1232\active\123210331\GHG Folder\3_val_ver_statement (report)\rpt_final\post_submission
March 17, 2014
17
Appendix A
Final Verification Plan
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
845 Prospect Street
Fredericton NB E3B 2T7
Tel: (506) 452-7000
Fax: (506) 452-0112
VIA EMAIL <jeff.zubach@orica.com>
March 17, 2014
File: 123210331
Attention: Jeff Zubach
Health and Environment Specialist
Orica Canada Inc.
PO Box 250
Carseland, AB T0J 0M0
Dear Mr. Zubach,
RE:
FINAL VERIFICATION PLAN - SPECIFIED GAS EMITTERS REGULATION PROJECT REPORT FOR
ORICA NITRIC ACID PLANT 1 AND 2 NITROUS OXIDE ABATEMENT FROM NITRIC ACID
PRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) has completed the initial verification desktop review for the
Orica Canada Inc. (Orica) Nitric Acid Plant 1 and Nitric Acid Plant 2 Nitrous Oxide Abatement
from Nitric Acid Production Projects (referred to as the Projects) under the Alberta Environment
and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER). This
verification plan is provided to outline the terms of the engagement and the planned verification
procedures. The verification plan also provides a list of data and documentation required to
complete the planned procedures.
Although each Plant has its own Project Report, this verification plan covers both Projects.
Furthermore, Stantec will assess each plant individually and will issue separate verification reports
for each Project. For simplicity, the Nitric Acid Plant 1 and Nitric Acid Plant 2 will be referred to as
NAP1 and NAP2 in this verification plan.
VERIFICATION OBJECTIVES
The objective of the verification is to ensure that the NAP1 and NAP2 Project Reports:

Satisfies in material aspects the following ESRD requirements:
●
●
●
Quantification Protocol for Nitrous Oxide Abatement from Nitric Acid Production (October
2009, version 1); and
●
Technical Guidance for Offset Project Developers (February 2013, version 4.0).
Template version 1.0 November 2013
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 2 of 16
RE:
FINAL VERIFICATION PLAN - SPECIFIED GAS EMITTERS REGULATION PROJECT REPORT FOR ORICA NITRIC
ACID PLANT 1 AND 2 NITROUS OXIDE ABATEMENT FROM NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION
The verification was conducted with the following criteria:

Climate Change and Emissions Management Act;

Specified Gas Emitters Regulation;

Quantification Protocol for Nitrous
(October 2009, version 1.0); and

Technical Guidance for Offset Project Developers (February 2013, version 4.0).
Oxide
Abatement
from
Nitric
Acid
Production
VERIFICATION STANDARD
The verification was conducted in accordance with:

ISO 14064 Part 3 – Greenhouse Gases: Specification with guidance for the validation and
verification of greenhouse gas assertions;

ISO 14065 – Greenhouse Gases: Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and verification
bodies for use in accreditation and other forms of recognition; and

Technical Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Verification at Reasonable Level Assurance
(January 2013, version 1.0).
VERIFICATION SCOPE
The verification is for the period of January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 for both Projects.
Stantec understands the Projects to be defined in the manner described
The reasonableness of these project descriptions will be subject to verification by Stantec.
below.
The Orica plant site operates two Nitric Acid Plants referred to as NAP1 and NAP2. Orica produces
low density prilled ammonium nitrate which is used for mining, construction and logging industries.
For both Projects, the Project and process can be described as follows:
NAP1:
In 1978, the NAP1 plant was designed to produce nitric acid (HNO 3) by using an Uhde Dual
Pressure Process. Initially, the plant had a production rate of 545 tonnes per day and later it was
increased to 890 tonnes per day by adding three air compressors. In order to reduce the GHG
emissions from the process, a dedicated catalyst was installed under the platinum rhodium
catalyst gauze to reduce N2O production. Orica installed a N2O monitoring system (known as
PROCAL P-200) at NAP1 in 2007 to measure the N2O emissions in order to establish the baseline
and project N2O emissions. The PROCAL P-200 system consists of an ultrasonic flow monitor
(measuring gas volumetric flows) and an infrared unit (measuring N 2O concentration). Upon
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 3 of 16
RE:
completion of the baseline (1 catalyst campaign), Orica installed a Heraeus N 2O abatement
catalyst (HR-SC) in the stack of NAP1 on May 12, 2008.
NAP2:
The NAP2 plant began operation in 1998 to produce nitric acid (HNO3) using a GPN Mono Pressure
Process which oxidizes ammonia on platinum-rhodium catalyst gauze and absorbs nitrogen oxide
gases in water. The plant has a production rate of 310 tonnes per day. In order to reduce the GHG
emissions from the process, a dedicated catalyst was installed under the platinum rhodium
catalyst gauze to reduce N2O production. Orica installed a N2O monitoring system (known as
PROCAL P-200) at NAP2 in 2011 to measure the N2O emissions in order to establish the baseline
and project N2O emissions. The PROCAL P-200 system consists of an ultrasonic flow monitor
(measuring gas volumetric flows) and an infrared unit (measuring N 2O concentration). This system
is installed within the stack of NAP2. Upon completion of the baseline (1 catalyst campaign), Orica
installed a Heraeus N2O abatement catalyst (HR-SC) on March 29, 2012 which was only used until
September 2013 as this catalyst did not perform as expected. On September 17, 2013 a Johnson
Matthey catalyst, Yara 58-Y1 was installed in an attempt to boost abatement.
The GHG emission reductions are achieved as follows. Nitric acid is produced from the oxidation
of liquid ammonia in both NAP1 and NAP2. During the production process, the oxidation reaction
of ammonia takes place on a platinum rhodium catalyst (primary catalyst) where a side reaction
produces N2O. This side reaction of ammonia oxidation is a source of N2O emissions which is the
only GHG emission relevant to this Project. The greenhouse gas (GHG) Project boundary
encompasses the physical and geographical site of the plant and the equipment for the entire
production process. This includes all compressors, tail gas expander turbines and any nitrous oxide
(N2O) abatement equipment installed.
The baseline scenario is the continued operation of the NAP1 and NAP2 without the secondary
catalyst. The baseline emission factor and operating conditions were established over the course
of one catalyst campaign (i.e., from installation to catalyst change out).
The following GHGs are included within the scope of the verification as required by SGER:

carbon dioxide (CO2);

methane (CH4);

nitrous oxide (N2O);

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);

perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and

sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).
The total equivalent GHG emissions are reported as tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (t CO2e).
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 4 of 16
RE:
Sources of Project GHG emissions for both Projects include:

Nitric Acid Production (N2O): Abatement of nitric oxide during the production of nitric acid
through the oxidization of ammonia using a secondary catalyst
Sources of baseline GHG emissions for both Projects are:

Nitric Acid Production (N2O): No abatement of nitric oxide during the production of nitric acid.
ASSERTION
The fundamental assertion to be verified for the Orica NAP1 Nitrous Oxide Abatement from Nitric
Acid Production Project is that it meets the criteria above for the period of January 1, 2013 to
December 31, 2013. The claimed emissions reductions for NAP1 as part of the GHG assertion
verified by Stantec are presented in Table 1.1 below.
Table1.1
GHG Assertion
Year
Baseline Emissions
(t CO2e)
438,324
Project Emissions
(t CO2e)
82,329
CO2e)
355,991
Notes:
The fundamental assertion to be verified for the Orica NAP2 Nitrous Oxide Abatement from Nitric
Acid Production Project is that it meets the criteria above for the period of January 1, 2013 to
December 31, 2013. The claimed emissions reductions for NAP2 as part of the GHG assertion
verified by Stantec are presented in Table 1.2 below.
Table 1.2
GHG Assertion
Year
Baseline Emissions
(t CO2e)
249,906
Project Emissions
(t CO2e)
133,042
CO2e)
116,860
Notes:
LEVEL OF ASSURANCE
Sufficient procedures were conducted in order to express a reasonable level of assurance opinion
as required by ESRD.
MATERIALITY
ESRD has set the quantitative materiality threshold to 5% of the asserted emission reductions and
removals for offset projects. The materiality is assessed on the net and absolute values of
discrepancies. The identification of material qualitative discrepancies was at the discretion of the
verification body.
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 5 of 16
RE:
The historical GHG assertions and verification outcomes for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012
are presented in Table 2 for informational purposes only.
Table 2
Historical Assertions and Outcomes
Parameter
Units
2012
2011
2010
Project Start Date
388,637
459,782
374,222
May 15, 2008
Claimed Emission Reductions
NAP1
t CO2e
NAP2
Verification Outcome
-
101,078
--
--
March 29, 2012
Positive
Positive
Positive
NA
VERIFICATION SCHEDULE
Table 3 presents the verification schedule.
Table 3
Planned Verification Schedule
Responsible Party
Date of Completion
Kick-off Call
Stantec / Orica
October 24, 2013
Receive Documentation
Stantec
October 16, 2013
Initial Desktop Review
Stantec
November 8, 2013
Internal Conference Call – Desktop Assessment
Review
Stantec
November 12, 2013
Provide Verification Plan to CPC (including
additional data requests)
Stantec
November 13, 2013
Site Visit
Stantec / Orica
November 18, 2013
Internal Site Visit Follow-up Conference Call
Stantec
November 19, 2013
Receive Additional Documentation
Orica
Review additional information
Stantec
Draft Verification Report
Stantec
February 26, 2014
Address Follow-up Items
Stantec / Orica
February 27, 2014
Finalize Verification Report, SOQ, SOV, COI form
Stantec
February 27, 2014
Revise Verification Report, SOQ, SOV, COI form
Stantec
March 17, 2014
VERIFICATION TEAM: QUALIFICATIONS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Table 4 presents the verification team.
Table 4
Verification Team
Name
Role
Christina Varner, P.Eng.
Lead Verifier
Daniel Hegg, M.Sc.,
EMIT
Senior
Reviewer/Project
Manager
Independent Peer
Joe Harriman, Ph.D.,
Responsibilities
Lead and delegate verification duties. Designated Signing
Authority on verification documents.
Carry out project management duties. Review verification
deliverables technical soundness and compliance with
Stantec’s internal processes.
Independent review of verification deliverables for
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 6 of 16
RE:
Table 4
Verification Team
Name
P.Chem.
Role
Reviewer
Rengarajan Vaiyapuri,
M.Eng.
Junior Verifier
Responsibilities
consistency with Stantec templates, adherence to ISO
14064:3, ISO 14065, and ESRD compliance.
Lead desktop review with supervision from Lead Verifier.
TEAM PROFILE
Lead Verifier – Christina Flogeras, P.Eng.
Ms. Flogeras obtained a Bachelor of Science in Engineering (Chemical) from the University of New
Brunswick. She has recently been identified as a lead verifier at Stantec. Ms. Flogeras has
completed desktop reviews, reporting, and conducted site visits for facility and project GHG
inventories under Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER), the British Columbia Emissions
Offset Regulation and Reporting Regulation, The Climate Registry, Verified Carbon Standard
(VCS), the Ontario Environmental Protection Act 452/09, and the Massachusetts Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulation. Ms. Flogeras has completed the ISO 14064-3 GHG
verification training course. She has also been involved in air quality studies including dispersion
modelling, noise monitoring, source emissions testing, and ambient air quality monitoring. These
projects have been across a number of industrial sectors, including pulp and paper, petroleum
refinement, electricity generation, and asphalt production. Ms. Flogeras has created various
emissions inventories to address regulatory requirements and permitting including National
Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) and Environment Canada Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting.
Christina oversaw the completion of the site visit, Verification and Sampling Plans, draft and final
Verification Report and Statement of Verification. She was the designated signing authority on all
verification deliverables.
Senior Review / Project Manager – Daniel Hegg, M.Sc., EMIT, ENV-SP
Daniel Hegg is a Senior Sustainability Specialist and Western Canada/US Discipline Lead for
Stantec Consulting Ltd. Climate Change Service Line.
To assist public and private sector clients successfully address their toughest sustainability
challenges, Daniel has invested over decade of time and effort in developing a knowledge base
that offers unique perspectives and insights on integrated carbon, energy and water
management and strategy, triple bottom line business case development and climate change
risk assessment and planning. Daniel‘s approach is multi-faceted and dynamic; it is predicated on
an ownership transition model in which the sense of responsibility and understanding evolves from
his team to the client. This allows for the development of strategic sustainability plans that are
focused, workable, and address all aspects of sustainability associated with business operations as
well as product portfolios.
Daniel has developed and verified over 50 organizational and facility GHG inventories and offset
projects for clients in a wide range of sectors. Daniel has also consulted across a wide variety of
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 7 of 16
RE:
sectors directing pioneering projects in community and corporate visioning, policy and strategic
planning for sustainability. He has provided strategy, policy advice, and has prepared a number
of strategic guidance documents and plans on a number of climate change related topics to
public and private sector organizations including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
(FCM), the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), the British Columbia Climate Action Secretariat, the
Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT), Bell Alliant, TransAlta, Capital Power Corporation, Total E&P Canada,
Teck, Connacher Oil and Gas, BC Transit, Phillips 66, amongst others.
As an internal quality management practice, all Stantec deliverables are reviewed by a Senior
Expert in the firm. Daniel provided the senior review for this project.
Independent Peer Reviewer – Joe Harriman, Ph.D., P.Chem.
Dr. Harriman is the Team Leader of Stantec’s Atmospheric Environment team based in Saint John,
NB. He is responsible for managing air quality, acoustics and climate components environmental
baseline assessments, environmental assessments and environmental planning and permitting. In
addition, Dr. Harriman is a Project Manager with substantial experience and background
knowledge in the energy sector with respect to air quality and GHG emissions. He has been the
project manager and technical lead on the development of numerous greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission inventories for industrial, corporate, municipal and government clients.
Dr. Harriman is experienced in working under the Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and
Massachusetts mandatory reporting regulations, as well as voluntary programs such as The
Climate Registry, having participated in over 80 verifications since the inception of the these
regulations and/or programs.
Dr. Harriman, on behalf of Stantec, is an instructor for the CSA to deliver the ISO 14064 GHG series
of courses including Inventories (ISO 14064-1), Projects (ISO 14064-2) and Validations/Verifications
(14064-3). Dr. Harriman is a registered Professional Chemist in the Province of Alberta and has the
responsibility at Stantec for ensuring the quality of the verification and acting as peer reviewer in
accordance with ISO14065. This designation is reserved for select individuals with the appropriate
experience in GHG inventories and projects.
Dr. Harriman is currently the Regional Discipline Leader for Climate Services at Stantec in Canada
East (Ontario to Atlantic regions). He has substantial knowledge in developing technologies for
renewable energy production and has been involved in considerable green energy assessments
including wind, solar and tidal projects. In addition, Dr. Harriman has a strong background in the
chemical, mining, oil and gas and energy sectors.
Joe had responsibility for ensuring the quality of the verification and acting as the independent
peer reviewer in accordance with ISO14065.
Junior Verifier – Rengarajan Vaiyapuri, M.Eng.
Rengarajan Vaiyapuri is currently working with Stantec Environmental Service team in Edmonton
as an Environmental Scientist. He has completed his Masters of Engineering from University of
Alberta in Environmental Engineering and has a Bachelor of Technology degree in Biotechnology
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 8 of 16
RE:
from SRM University, India. Rengarajan worked at Stantec during summer as an intern and assisted
the Air Quality team with various projects. The experience at Stantec includes odour monitoring,
preparing odour monthly report, setting up air dispersion model, preparing concentration contour,
and setting up air and noise monitoring station.
Rengarajan led the desktop review activities, including development of the Verification Plan and
Sampling Plan, under the Lead Verifier’s supervision.
RISK ASSESSMENT
Stantec performed a preliminary assessment of the potential risk associated with this verification
assignment and presented the results in the draft verification plan. The risk assessment is an internal
procedure used to assess inherent, control, and detection risk. Based on the risk assessment in
each of these categories, the Stantec team assigns an overall risk to the verification. The final
overall risk for this verification has been assessed as Low. A summary of the risk assessment is
provided in Table 5.
Table 5
Risk Summary
Risk Area
Inherent Risk
Preliminary Assessment
Low
Final Assessment
Low
Control Risk
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Detection Risk
Overall Risk
We consider the final inherent risk to be Low based on the following:

Data used to calculate emission reductions are measured using analyzers meeting the Alberta
CEMS code, which has prescribed quality assurance and control procedures (low risk).

The analyzers are regularly maintained, inspected, and calibrated. Some analyzers undergo
Relative Accuracy Test Audits or Compressed Gas Audits as required by ESRD (low risk).
We consider the final control risk to be Low based on the following:

Quality assurance and control checks on the data from the site data historian are performed
manually, but are checked by senior management and are used to report to ESRD (low risk).

Based on the previous verification on these Projects by Stantec, the data for the emission
reduction calculations are copied manually from the data historian spreadsheet and thus
there is risk of transcription errors (low risk).

On-site meters automatically sample and record data electronically on the site’s Distributed
Control System (DCS) every 5 to 10 seconds (low risk).
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 9 of 16
RE:
Detection risk is the risk that Stantec will not identify a material discrepancy. We regard this risk as
Low due to:

Our Quality Management Procedures. We are committed to providing exceptional service to
our clients in accordance with our ISO 9001 and ISO 14065 accreditations. We believe that
quality is a basic principle and that quality management is an integral part of all our work. We
take systematic approach to quality management to ensure compliance with requirements
and to achieve continual improvement. The cornerstone of our quality management system is
an entrenched process of Senior Review which ensures all our deliverables have been vetted
by senior and expert people in our firm (low risk).

Level of Assurance. The reasonable level of assurance applied in this verification (as required
by the SGER) mandates that Stantec perform increased sampling to meet the assurance
requirements, however, the level of assurance still increases the risk to Stantec as the risk-based
verification approach means that not all information can be reviewed. Stantec has designed
the sampling plan to target potentially material items in the GHG information to maintain low
detection risk.

This is the second verification completed by Stantec for NAP2. Stantec is familiar with Orica’s
processes and processes and data collection procedures (low risk).

Stantec has verified NAP1 project from a partial year in 2008 to 2012, thereby totaling 4.5
verification years. The 2013 verification would result in 5.5 verification years and as such, CPC
and Orica have received approval from ESRD allowing Stantec to complete the 2013
verification as there is no deemed conflict of interest (COI). Stantec is familiar with Orica’s
processes and processes and data collection procedures (low risk).
VERIFICATION PLAN
The objective of the verification plan is to facilitate the assessment of the completeness,
conservativeness, consistency, accuracy, and transparency of the Project’s GHG information and
GHG Assertion.
With regards to the magnitude of potential errors, omissions and misrepresentations, there are five
parameters that directly affect the emission reductions. These include:

stack flow rate,

operating hours,

stack temperature,

nitric acid production, and

N2O concentration.
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 10 of 16
RE:
The greatest risk of material error relates to errors in these data. Stantec will perform procedures to
check the accuracy, completeness, and validity of these data as well as the calculations.
Table 6 shows the final verification procedures. NAP1 and NAP2 were assessed separately.
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 11 of 16
RE:
FINAL VERIFICATION PLAN - SPECIFIED GAS EMITTERS REGULATION PROJECT REPORT FOR ORICA NITRIC ACID PLANT 1
AND 2 NITROUS OXIDE ABATEMENT FROM NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION
Table 6
Final Verification Procedures
Line Item
Verification
Objective
Risk Identified
Type of Procedure
Description of Procedure
Greenhouse Gas
Assertion
Completeness
Incompleteness of inventory.
Test of detail –
inspection.
Conduct a site tour to determine sources and
compare with inventory.
Greenhouse Gas
Assertion
Accuracy
Information not appropriately
disclosed.
Test of detail –
inspection.
Inspect Project Report for correct reporting of
emissions and related information.
Greenhouse Gas
Assertion
Completeness
Incompleteness of Project
Report.
Test of detail –
inspection.
Inspect Project Report for missing information.
Greenhouse Gas
Assertion
Occurrence
Document storage and
retention practices may not
be sufficient.
Test of detail –
inquiry.
Inquire of operators the location and retention
period of data used for GHG Assertion.
Project emission
factor
Completeness
Missing records for stack
flowrate, stack temperature,
operating hours, nitric acid
production, and N2O
concentration.
Test of detail –
tracing
Trace records for each parameter from the site
data historian to the calculation of the emission
factor.
Project emission
factor
Consistency
Inconsistent quantification
methodology.
Test of detail –
inspection.
Assess whether the quantification methodology is
consistent with previous periods and with the
protocol.
Project emission
factor
Accuracy
Anomaly in parameter trends.
Test of detail –
inquiry.
Inquire of operators as to any production
anomalies or changes to the monitoring
equipment.
Analytical test –
profile.
Run profile tests for hourly and/or monthly data.
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 12 of 16
RE:
VERIFICATION PLAN - SPECIFIED GAS EMITTERS REGULATION PROJECT REPORT FOR ORICA NITRIC ACID PLANT 1 AND 2
NITROUS OXIDE ABATEMENT FROM NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION
Table 6
Line Item
Verification
Objective
Project emission
factor
Project emission
factor
Accuracy
Accuracy
Risk Identified
Type of Procedure
Inaccurate measurement of
stack flowrate, stack
temperature, operating hours,
N2O concentration.
Test of control –
Inspect all calibration records for the monitoring
inspection, inquiry. equipment.
Inaccurate calculation of
emissions.
Test of detail –
recalculation,
inspection.
Recalculate annual project emission factor.
Inquire on data aggregation and quality assurance
and control procedures.
Inspect any data backfilling events and assess
consistency with the protocol.
Project emission
factor
Cut-off
Improper dates of recording
stack flowrate, stack
temperature, operating hours,
N2O concentration.
Test of detail –
inspection.
Inspect the dates of parameter records.
Project emission
factor
Accuracy
Project data not removed if
outside of permitted range.
Test of detail –
inspection.
Inspect demonstration of compliance with
permitted operating conditions.
Vouch project parameters from demonstration of
compliance to data historian.
Recalculate the project permitted operating
conditions.
Baseline emissions
Consistency
Inconsistent baseline emission
factor.
Test of detail –
inspection.
Inspect and compare the baseline emission factor
from the previous reporting period to the factor
used to estimate emission reductions.
Baseline emissions
Accuracy
Anomaly in parameter trends.
Analytical test –
profile.
Run profile tests for hourly and/or monthly data.
Test of detail –
Inspect baseline data where any anomalies are
detected.
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 13 of 16
RE:
VERIFICATION PLAN - SPECIFIED GAS EMITTERS REGULATION PROJECT REPORT FOR ORICA NITRIC ACID PLANT 1 AND 2
NITROUS OXIDE ABATEMENT FROM NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION
Table 6
Line Item
Verification
Objective
Risk Identified
Type of Procedure
inspection.
Calculated emission
reductions
Accuracy
Errors in the calculation of the
emission reduction.
Test of detail –
inspection.
Inspect the calculation spreadsheet for accurate
calculation of emission reductions.
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 14 of 16
RE:
SITE VERIFICATION PROCEDURES
Stantec Senior Reviewer, Daniel Hegg, conducted an office and site visit on November 18, 2013.
The following personnel were interviewed:
•
Aaron Li, Orica Canada Inc. – Production Engineer;
•
Chelsea Thomson, Capital Power Corporation - Environmental Markets Specialist;
•
David Hind, Orica Canada Inc. – Technical Manager – Nitrate Process;
•
Jeff Zubach, Orica Canada Inc. – Health and Environment Specialist;
•
Ken Nguyen, Orica Canada Inc. – Process Engineer; and
•
Tyler Pilgrim, Orica Canada Inc. – Instrumentation/Electrical.
A tour of the facility was led by Orica representatives with in-depth knowledge of the facility and
the project. During the tours, Stantec performed procedures to identify Project boundaries,
confirmed GHG sources, looked for additional sources, visually confirmed the presence of meters
and N2O abatement technologies, as well as inquired about Project operations and the GHG
data management systems.
INFORMATION REQUEST
Table 7 contains a preliminary list of documentation and data required by Stantec to complete
the proposed procedures and the outcome of the requests. This table was updated as needed
throughout the verification process to track requests. If we need to request additional information,
Stantec will update Table 8 and will provide Orica with a copy via email.
Request
Date
Obtained
On
November 13, 2013
February 24, 2014
November 13, 2013
February 27, 2014
Offset Calculations spreadsheet with final assertion.
November 13, 2013
February 24, 2014
Calibration and/or maintenance records for:

HNO3 production meter;

stack flow meter;

stack temperature meter;

N2O concentration meter;

oxidation pressure meter;

ammonia gas flow rate;

oxidation temperature meter;

cylinder gas audit and third party audit reports;
November 13, 2013
November 18, 2013
Information Requested
Completed Project Report with final assertion, signed
by Orica.
Completed Statutory Declaration form, with final
GHG assertion, signed by Orica.
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 15 of 16
RE:
VERIFICATION PLAN - SPECIFIED GAS EMITTERS REGULATION PROJECT REPORT FOR ORICA NITRIC ACID PLANT
1 AND 2 NITROUS OXIDE ABATEMENT FROM NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION
Information Requested

Request
Date
Obtained
On
November 13, 2013
November 18, 2013
November 13, 2013
January 22, 2014
November 13, 2013
January 22, 2014
November 13, 2013
January 22, 2014
November 13, 2013
January 22, 2014
November 13, 2013
January 22, 2014
November 13, 2013
January 22, 2014
November 13, 2013
January 22, 2014
November 13, 2013
January 22, 2014
February 21, 2014
February 24, 2014
and
maintenance log book and weekly inspection
records.
Details of the quality management systems or
processes for the projects (e.g., quality assurance
and control procedures, frequency of checks,
documentation of checks).
Spreadsheets that contain the data used to
calculate the baseline and project emissions.
2013 secondary catalyst installation report or
maintenance records for each project
Evidence that Orica has full legal ownership of 2013
emission reductions for each project
Provide stack flow rate from the data historian for the
months of February, May, and June.
Provide operating hours for January through
December.
Provide January, June, July and September raw
production data from historian.
Provide January, June, July and September raw N2O
concentration data from historian.
Provide oxidation temperature, oxidation pressure,
ammonia gas flow rate, and ammonia to air ratio
from the data historian for the months of February,
May, and June.
The Project Reports for NAP1 and NAP2 were missing
two pieces of information as compared to the
template (expected lifetime of the project and
Orica website address).
March 17, 2014
Orica Canada Inc.
Page 16 of 16
RE:
VERIFICATION PLAN - SPECIFIED GAS EMITTERS REGULATION PROJECT REPORT FOR ORICA NITRIC ACID PLANT
1 AND 2 NITROUS OXIDE ABATEMENT FROM NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Lead Verifier
Tel: (506) 452-7000
Fax: (506) 452-0112
christina.flogeras@stantec.com
This report was reviewed and approved for transmittal by:
Joe Harriman, Ph.D.
Independent Peer Reviewer
Environmental Management
Tel: (506) 634-2185
Fax: (506) 634-8104
joe.harriman@stantec.com
\\cd1208-f04\shared_projects\1232\active\123210331\ghg folder\3_val_ver_statement
(report)\rpt_final\post_submission\appendices\ltr_cmf_20140317_fnl_vplan_orica_nap1_2.docx
Appendix B
Submission Documents
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECKLIST
Question
1. Can the verifying organization or the verification team members directly benefit from a financial interest in
the Project Developer or the Project Developer’s Project?
For example:
• owning shares of the Project Developer;
• having a close business relationship with the Project Developer;
• contingent fees relating to the results of the engagement;
• potential employment with the Project Developer; or
• undue concern about the possibility of losing the verification or other fees from the Project Developer.
2. Can the verifying organization or verification team members be in a position of assessing their own work?
For example:
• provided greenhouse gas consultation services to the project;
• provided validation for the project;
• if providing non-greenhouse gas work for the company, consideration needs to be given as to how potential
and perceived conflict of interests can be managed; or
• a member of the verification team was previously employed with the company.
3.
Does the verifying organization or a member of the verification team, or a person in the chain of
command for the verification, promote or be perceived to promote, a project developer's position or
opinion to the point that objectivity may, or may be perceived to be, compromised?
For example:
• dealing in, or being a promoter of, greenhouse gas credits on behalf of a project developer; or
• acting as an advocate on behalf of the project developer in litigation or in resolving disputes with third
parties.
4. Is one or more of the verification team too sympathetic to the project developer's interests by virtue of a
close relationship with a project developer, its directors, officer or employees?
For example:
• a person on the verification team has a close personal relationship with a person who is in a senior
greenhouse gas compilation role at the project developer; or
• the verification team or a person of influence on the verification team has accepted significant gifts or
hospitality from the project developer.
5.
Is a member of the verification team or a person in the chain of command is deterred from acting
objectively and exercising professional skepticism by threats, actual or perceived, from the directors,
officers or employees of the Project Developer.
For example:
• the threat of being replaced as a third party verifier due to a disagreement with the application of an
greenhouse gas quantification protocol;
• fees from the project developer represent a large percentage of the overall revenues of the verifying
organization;
• the application of pressure to inappropriately reduce the extent of work performed in order to reduce or limit
fees; or
• threats of litigation from the project developer.
Christina Flogeras, P. Eng.
Lead Verifier
Phone: (506) 452-7000
Cell: (506) 440-4086
christina.flogeras@stantec.com
March 17, 2014
Issued in Fredericton, New Brunswick
Yes
No
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Christina Flogeras is a professional engineer registered by the Association of Professional
Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick. Christina Flogeras is the Designated Signing
Authority for the report and this satisfies Section 18(1)(ii)(A) of the SGER. With respect to the
technical knowledge required under Section 18(b)(i-iii), each member of the team has the
required technical knowledge of GHG emission quantification methodologies and all have
experience in completing third party GHG verifications. Please refer to the team cameos below
for details.
TEAM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Lead Verifier – Christina Flogeras, P.Eng.
Ms. Flogeras obtained a Bachelor of Science in Engineering (Chemical) from the University of
New Brunswick. She has recently been identified as a lead verifier at Stantec. Ms. Flogeras has
completed desktop reviews, reporting, and conducted site visits for facility and project GHG
inventories under Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER), the British Columbia
Emissions Offset Regulation and Reporting Regulation, The Climate Registry, Verified Carbon
Standard (VCS), the Ontario Environmental Protection Act 452/09, and the Massachusetts
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulation. Ms. Flogeras has completed the ISO 14064-3
GHG verification training course. She has also been involved in air quality studies including
dispersion modelling, noise monitoring, source emissions testing, and ambient air quality
monitoring. These projects have been across a number of industrial sectors, including pulp and
paper, petroleum refinement, electricity generation, and asphalt production. Ms. Flogeras has
created various emissions inventories to address regulatory requirements and permitting
including National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) and Environment Canada Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) reporting.
Senior Review – Daniel Hegg, M.Sc., EMIT
Daniel Hegg is a Senior Sustainability Specialist and Western Canada/US Discipline Lead for
Stantec Consulting Ltd. Climate Change Service Line.
To assist public and private sector clients successfully address their toughest sustainability
challenges, Daniel has invested over decade of time and effort in developing a knowledge
base that offers unique perspectives and insights on integrated carbon, energy and water
management and strategy, triple bottom line business case development and climate change
risk assessment and planning. Daniel‘s approach is multi-faceted and dynamic; it is predicated
on an ownership transition model in which the sense of responsibility and understanding evolves
from his team to the client. This allows for the development of strategic sustainability plans that
are focused, workable, and address all aspects of sustainability associated with business
operations as well as product portfolios.
Daniel has developed and verified over 50 organizational and facility GHG inventories and
offset projects for clients in a wide range of sectors. Daniel has also consulted across a wide
variety of sectors directing pioneering projects in community and corporate visioning, policy and
strategic planning for sustainability. He has provided strategy, policy advice, and has prepared
a number of strategic guidance documents and plans on a number of climate change related
topics to public and private sector organizations including the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities (FCM), the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), the British Columbia Climate Action
Secretariat, the Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT), Bell Alliant, TransAlta, Capital Power Corporation,
Total E&P Canada, Teck, Connacher Oil and Gas, BC Transit, Phillips 66, amongst others.
Independent Peer Reviewer – Joe Harriman, Ph.D., P.Chem.
Joe is responsible for managing air quality, acoustics, climate components environmental
baseline assessments, environmental assessments and environmental planning and permitting.
In addition, Dr. Harriman is a Project Manager with substantial experience and background
knowledge in the energy sector with respect to air quality and GHG emissions. He has been the
project manager and technical lead on the development of numerous greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission inventories for industrial, corporate, municipal and government clients.
Dr. Harriman is experienced in working under the Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and
Massachusetts mandatory reporting regulations, as well as voluntary programs such as The
Climate Registry, having participated in over 80 verifications since the inception of the these
regulations and/or programs.
Dr. Harriman, on behalf of Stantec, is an instructor for the CSA to deliver the ISO 14064 GHG series
of courses including Inventories (ISO 14064-1), Projects (ISO 14064-2) and Validations/Verifications
(ISO 14064-3). Dr. Harriman is a registered Professional Chemist in the Province of Alberta and has
the responsibility at Stantec for ensuring the quality of the verification and acting as peer
reviewer in accordance with ISO 14065. This designation is reserved for select individuals with the
appropriate experience in GHG inventories and projects.
Dr. Harriman is currently the Regional Discipline Leader for Climate Services at Stantec in
Canada East (Ontario to Atlantic regions). He has substantial knowledge in developing
technologies for renewable energy production and has been involved in considerable green
energy assessments including wind, solar and tidal projects. In addition, Dr. Harriman has a
strong background in the chemical, mining, oil and gas and energy sectors.
Junior Verifier – Rengarajan Vaiyapuri, M.Eng.
Rengarajan Vaiyapuri is currently working with Stantec Environmental Service team in Edmonton
as an Environmental Scientist. He has completed his Masters of Engineering from University of
Alberta in Environmental Engineering and has a Bachelor of Technology degree in
Biotechnology from SRM University, India. Rengarajan worked at Stantec during summer as an
intern and assisted the Air Quality team with various projects. The experience at Stantec includes
odour monitoring, preparing odour monthly report, setting up air dispersion model, preparing
concentration contour, and setting up air and noise monitoring station.
Lead Verifier, Environmental Services
Tel: (506) 452-7000
March 17, 2014
1.0
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was contracted by Capital Power Corporation (CPC) to
conduct an independent third-party verification of the greenhouse gas (GHG) assertion
provided in the Orica Carseland Works (Orica) Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide Abatement From
Nitric Acid Production Project Report (Project Report) dated March 12, 2014.
In this work, Orica was responsible for the collection of data used in the calculations and data
management. Orica was responsible for the completion of the calculations, presentation of the
information within the Project Report, and for the supporting technical documents.
Stantec is a qualified third party verifier, as defined in Section 18 of the SGER. Stantec is
accredited with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a member of the International
Accreditation Forum (IAF), in accordance with ISO 14065 (Accreditation ID #0805 issued to
Stantec Consulting Ltd. Atmospheric Environment Group for greenhouse gas (GHG) verification).
Stantec was responsible for planning and executing the verification in order to deliver an
opinion as to whether the Project Report is presented fairly and in accordance with the
verification criteria.
1.1
INTENDED USER
This report has been prepared for Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
(ESRD) for the express purpose of facilitating the creation of Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs)
under the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act and the Specified Gas Emitters
Regulation (SGER).
1.2
VERIFICATION OBJECTIVE
The objective of the verification was to assess whether the GHG assertion (as presented in Table
1.1) for the Project Report under the SGER satisfied the ESRD requirements in the verification
criteria in accordance with the verification standards identified in Section 1.5.
1.3
PROJECT DETAILS
1.3.1
Location
The Project is located 50 kilometers southeast of Calgary near Carseland, Alberta. The longitude
and latitude is 20033E to 200730E and 23063N to 25296N respectively.
1.3.2
Description
The Project, as defined in the Project Report, involves the creation of offset credits due to the
abatement of N2O as the result of the presence of the secondary catalyst in the ammonia
burner under the primary catalyst, in NAP2, where the abatement of N2O takes place.
The facility includes two nitric acid plants (NAP1 and NAP2) which have the ability to produce
approximately 480,000 metric tonnes of low density prilled ammonium nitrate per year for use in
mining, construction and logging industries. Ammonium nitrate is obtained from the chemical
reaction of nitric acid and ammonia. The plant also produces nitric acid which is used as a
reactant in ammonium nitrate production. The Project consists of the installation of a dedicated
secondary catalyst below the primary catalyst (precious metal catalyst gauze) to destroy N2O
emissions.
The NAP2 plant began operation in 1998 to produce nitric acid (HNO3) using a GPN Mono
Pressure Process which oxidizes ammonia on platinum-rhodium catalyst gauze and absorbs
nitrogen oxide gases in water. The plant has a production rate of 310 tonnes per day. In order to
reduce the GHG emissions from the process, a dedicated catalyst was installed under the
platinum rhodium catalyst gauze to reduce N2O production. Orica installed a N2O monitoring
system (known as PROCAL P-200) at NAP2 in 2011 to measure the N2O emissions in order to
establish the baseline and project N2O emissions. The PROCAL P-200 system consists of an
ultrasonic flow monitor (measuring gas volumetric flows) and an infrared unit (measuring N2O
concentration). This system is installed within the stack of NAP2. Upon completion of the baseline
(1 catalyst campaign), Orica installed a Heraeus N2O abatement catalyst (HR-SC) on March 29,
2012 which was only used until September 2013 as this catalyst did not perform as expected. On
September 17, 2013 a Johnson Matthey catalyst, Yara 58-Y1 was installed in an attempt to boost
abatement.
The GHG emission reductions are achieved as follows. Nitric acid is produced from the oxidation
of liquid ammonia in both NAP1 and NAP2. During the production process, the oxidation
reaction of ammonia takes place on a platinum rhodium catalyst (primary catalyst) where a
side reaction produces N2O. This side reaction of ammonia oxidation is a source of N2O emissions
which is the only GHG emission relevant to this Project. The Project boundary encompasses the
physical and geographical site of the plant and the equipment for the entire production
process. This includes all compressors, tail gas expander turbines and any nitrous oxide (N2O)
abatement equipment installed.
Emission reductions are calculated as the difference between the baseline emissions and
project emissions.
1.3.3
Baseline and Project Conditions
The baseline condition for NAP2 is defined as the amount of N2O that would be released to the
atmosphere through the stack in the absence of the secondary catalyst in the ammonia burner.
The related Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs (SSR) included in the baseline are presented in B1 Nitric
Acid Plant (Burner Inlet to Stack) of the Project Report.
The Project condition is defined as the amount of N2O that would be released to the
atmosphere through the stack with the presence of the secondary catalyst in the ammonia
burner under the primary catalyst where the abatement of N2O takes place. The related SSRs
included in the baseline are presented in P1 Nitric Acid Plant (Burner Inlet to Stack) of the Project
Report.
1.3.4
Emission Reduction Credit Period
Emission reductions have been calculated and verified for the period of January 1, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
1.4
GHG ASSERTION
The fundamental assertion to be verified is that the Project Report dated March 12, 2014 meets
the criteria of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) for the period
of January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
The essential information contained within the GHG assertion verified by Stantec is presented in
Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1
GHG Assertion
Year
Baseline Emissions
(t CO2e)
Project Emissions (t CO2e)
Emission Reductions
(t CO2e)
249,906
133,042
116,860
January 1 – December 31,
2013
Notes:
1.5
Stantec has conducted sufficient and appropriate procedures in order to express a reasonable
level of assurance opinion as to whether the Project (the GHG assertion) satisfies the
requirements of the:
1.6




(version1.0, October 2009).
VERIFICATION STANDARDS
The verification was conducted in accordance with ISO14064:3, ISO 14065, and the verification
guidance contained within the Technical Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Verification at
Reasonable Level Assurance, January 2013, version 1.0 (the Verification Guidance).
1.7
UNRESOLVED MISTATEMENTS
The ESRD has set the materiality threshold for offset projects to 5% of the total reported GHG
emission reductions or removals asserted. Qualitative misstatements are at the discretion of the
verification body. The following is a high level summary of the unresolved discrepancies. For
more information, see the verification report.

Orica asserts that Project records are retained in a retrievable manner for a minimum of
10 years. The Projects’ retention period is consistent with the Protocol’s requirements;
however, this retention period is not consistent with the Technical Guidance for Offset
Project Developers. The requirement is to retain documentation for at least 7 years past
the end of the crediting period.

Stantec detected that the emission reductions shown in the Project Report and the
Assertion Statement (116,860 t CO2e) are not accurately presented. Using the baseline
and project emissions asserted, the calculated emission reductions are 116,864 t CO2e.
This occurred due to rounding of the baseline and project emissions in the Report and
Assertion. The emission reductions of 116,863 t CO2e, which account for rounding down
the emission reductions as per Guidance, are supported by the Project documentation.
Stantec considers this to be an immaterial qualitative disclosure.
1.8
OPINION
Based on the procedures undertaken and described in this report, the Project Report for the
Orica Carseland Works Nitric Acid Plant 2: Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Abatement From Nitric Acid
Production Offset Project satisfies the requirements of the:
1.9

Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, SA 2003, c C-16.7;

Specified Gas Emitters Regulation; Alta Reg. 139/2007;


(version1.0, October 2009).
VERIFICATION CLOSURE
The findings presented herein were used to make a reasonable level of assurance opinion as
required by ESRD.
Stantec did not conduct direct GHG emissions monitoring or other environmental sampling and
analysis in conjunction with this verification.
Because of the inherent limitations in any internal control structure it is possible that fraud, error or
non-compliance with other laws and regulations may occur and not be detected. Further, the
verification was not designed to detect all weaknesses or errors in internal controls as the
verification has not been performed continuously throughout the period and the procedures
performed on the relevant internal controls were on a test basis. Any projection of the
evaluation of control procedures to future periods is subject to the risk that the procedures may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with
them may deteriorate.
Lead Verifier, Environmental Services
Tel: (506) 452-7000
March 17, 2014
Joe Harriman, Ph.D., P.Chem.,
Peer Reviewer, Environmental Services
Tel: (506) 634-2185

Verification Report for Orica Carseland Works

Transcription

Similar documents

Julie Lovesay Chief Directorate: National Geo

a PDF of this presentation

Project Description

available here. - Pasadena Unified School District

1. - FOIS - Indian Railways

Strategic Management

NITROUS OXIDE

Social Security Name Verification Window