MDL - Birla

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02
CDM – Executive Board page 1
CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)
Version 02 - in effect as of: 1 July 2004)
CONTENTS
A. General description of project activity
B. Application of a baseline methodology
C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period
D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan
E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources
F. Environmental impacts
G. Stakeholders’ comments
Annexes
Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: Baseline information
Annex 4: Monitoring plan
This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo,
format or font.
SECTION A. General description of project activity
A.1 Title of the project activity:
Birla Corporation Limited: CDM project for “Optimal Utilization of Clinker ”
A.2. Description of the project activity:
As an enlightened corporate citizen, Birla Corporation Limited (BCL) is keenly aware of its
social responsibilities and besides providing education and health care facilities for its
employees, their families and the community at large, the company holds itself responsible for
contributing towards sustainable development. The Birla Corporation Limited’s project on
“Optimal Utilization of Clinker” initiative is one of such step towards this sustainable
development.
The project activity entails a reduction of the clinker content of the Portland Pozzolanic Cement
(PPC) produced by increasing the flyash additivepercent (%) thereby replacing an equivalent
amount of clinker at BCL’s cement manufacturing units at Chittorgarh, Rajesthan.
Clinker is one of the most important raw materials for cement production. Clinker
manufacturing which includes pre-processing (grinding) and pyro-processing of the raw meal,
is a highly energy intensive process. The project activity aims to optimally utilize the clinker in
cement manufacturing. This reduction of clinker percent in the cement would conserve natural
resources like limestone and coal fuel used to meet the thermal and electrical energy
requirements of pre-processing and pyro-processing of cement manufacture). The project
activity would therefore reduce direct onsite emissions from clinkerisation and direct off-site
emissions due to power generation at the thermal power plants per unit of cement produced.
The project activity increased the flyash additive % in the PCC produced from 22.83% in the
2000-2001 to 24.18% in the 1st year (2001-2002) of the credit period. However in the 2nd year
(2002-2003) of the credit period due to fly-ash availability constraints in the region, market
resistance and other barriers to project activity implementation BCL reduced their additive% to
21.77%. BCL proposes to further increase the additive % in PPC to 25% over the next 10
years crediting period
The implementation of the project activity required BCL to developed the infrastructure to
further increase the additive% in PPC and overcome the barriers related to availability of
additives required, technical aspects related use of PPC product and market resistance.
The project activity contributes to sustainable development at the local, regional and global
levels in the following ways:
Ø Direct and indirect reduction of GHG emissions

Clinkerisation is the main source of CO2 emission in cement production. Reduction of clinker
percent in cement production by use of additives – (alternative waste materials) such as fly ash
results in direct and indirect GHG emission reductions.
Ø Industrial waste utilization
format or font.
Fly ash disposal is one of the major environmental concerns of the coal based thermal power
plants in India. The project activity facilitates fly ash utilization and reduces the cost of waste
handling and disposal on the part of coal fired thermal power plants. It also reduces
· land pollution due to the burden of the ever-increasing volume of waste in landfills
· air pollution caused due to fugitive emissions from flyash dumped in the vicinity of the
thermal power plants
· water contamination problems arising from landfill leaching
Further, the project indirectly encourages development of waste management infrastructure and
associated value chain between two different types of industries mutually benefiting each
other’s operation. Thus, the external activities of the project links two sectors of industries and
expedites similar proactive action from industries to find avenues and opportunities for
economical exchange of waste products and decrease cost of waste management.
Ø Thermal and electrical energy conservation

The project activity reduces specific thermal and electrical energy consumption for cement
production and conserves the energy. Indian economy is highly dependent on “Coal – a finite
natural resource” as fuel to generate power and heat for production processes. Since, this
project activity reduces its thermal and electrical energy demand it has positively contributed
towards conservation of coal, a non-renewable natural resource and making coal available for
other important applications. The savings in electrical energy demand would also means
savings in electricity lost during transmission and distribution.
Ø Resource Conservation
The project activity reduces the quantum of limestone required per unit of cement produced.
Reduction in limestone consumption/ demand further reduces quarry mining; raw material
extraction and its associated fugitive dust emissions, loss of biodiversity because of land
destruction and erosions arising from such activities. Quarry mining of limestone also
experiences landslides and destruction in the history of mining. Thus, by less consumption of
limestone with reduced clinker production the project activity would indirectly reduce chances
of landslides and landscape destruction at mining sites. The adverse heath impacts caused from
quarrying of materials on the mining persons, nearby habitats and ecosystem, would therefore
be avoided. More over, the local economy will be benefited during the construction phase due
to employment generation.
Therefore, the project activity has excellent environmental benefits in terms of reduction of
carbon emissions, limestone resource conservation, coal conservation, decreased environmental
destruction and enhanced restoration, economical and social prosperity by opening avenues for
investment in waste management.
A.3. Project participants:
· Birla Corporation Limited is the project proponent.

· The BCL, itself is the project sponsor.
· Ministry of Environment & Forestry has provided the Host Country Approval
format or font.
A.4. Technical description of the project activity:
A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

>>
A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):
India
A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:
Rajasthan
A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:
Chittorgarh
A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information

allowing the unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):
Project activity is implemented at the manufacturing units at Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, India. The
cement manufacturing units of BCL are located in the district of Chittorgarh, a southern part of
Rajasthan, India.
format or font.
format or font.
A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:
The project activity is a cement sector specific project activity. The project activity may
principally be categorized in Category 4 : Manufacturing Industries as per the scope of the
project activities enlisted in the ‘List of Sectoral Scopes’ (Version 01/ 30 September 2002) for
accreditation of operational entities.
A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:
The project activity includes Portland Puzzolonic Cement (PPC) flyash feeding system of 40
Tones Per Hour (TPH) capacity at Cement Mill No.1 of Chittor Cement Works. The system
consists of a steel silo of 483 m3 capacity installed on columns. Flyash is brought through road
by closed covered tankers from thermal power plant and stored in the silo. An aeration system
is provided at bottom of the silo for extraction of flyash. The flyash is conveyed through air
slide and flow control gate to a 15 Tones (T) capacity feed bin which is provided with a
‘Multicor’ system for accurately weighing and feeding of flyash to the mill. The accuracy of
weighing and feeding system is +/- 0.5%. Bag dust collector is provided at top of the flyash silo
to vent out transport air during unloading of flyash from tankers and also aeration air, which is
provided at bottom of the silo. (Reference # 23: Drawing No. CCW-B-C-3306; Rev.2).
The technology adopted is simple and environmentally safe. Bag dust collector are provided at
top of the fly-ash silo to vent out transport air during unloading of fly-ash from tankers and
also aeration air, which is provided at bottom of the silo.
A.4.4. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of anthropogenic

greenhouse gas (GHGs) by sources are to be reduced by the proposed CDM project
activity, including why the emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the
proposed project activity, taking into account national and/or sectoral policies and
circumstances:
The project activity would reduce the clinker percent in the cement produced. The project
activity would thereby bring about a reduction in direct on-site emissions from calcination and
reduced thermal energy consumption and direct off-site emissions at the thermal power plants
due to reduce electrical energy consumption.
Though the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Ministry of Power (MoP) and
Ministry of Non conventional Energy Sources (MNES) in India encourage energy
conservation, they do not require cement industries to reduce their specific energy consumption
to a prescribed standard. Nor do the Department of Industries/ the Bureau of Indian Standards/
Cement Manufacturers Association/ National Council for Building Materials have imposed any
directives towards reduction in clinker content in cement manufacturing. The project proponent
has implemented the project activity over and above the national or sectoral requirements. The
GHG reductions achieved by the project activity are additional to those directed by the
governmental policies and regulations. The other “additionality” criteria of the project activity
are dealt with in section B3 and B.4.
BCL has developed the infrastructure for use of higher additive % taking into consideration the
financial assistance, which would be made available under CDM. The financial assistance
format or font.
would help BCL overcome the associated barriers like flyash availability constraints and
market related barriers like ‘poor market acceptability’ to project activity implementation.
However, in absence of the approval and registration of the project activity as a CDM project
activity the associated barriers would prevail and BCL would have continued to manufacture
PPC with additive of 22.83%1, which is the highest additive % in the system boundary. In fact,
there is a very high probability of the additive% being further reduced due to the barriers to
project activity implementation. The barriers to project activity implementation are detailed in
section B3 and B4.
Therefore, the GHG performance of BCL in absence of the CDM project activity would be in
line with or lower that the ‘cement baseline’ of 22.83% as additive in PPC production and the
GHG performance of the cement manufacturing plant, (BCL itself) which manufactured PPC
with the highest additive% in the year 2000-2001. The baseline carbon emission factor of the
Chanderia cluster as per the proposed baseline methodology was estimated as 0.5679 CO2/t
PPC and the baseline emissions for the same production plan would be 88,68,830 tonnes of
CO2 emissions over a crediting period of 10 years (details have been provided in Section B and
E).
However, BCL decided to produce PPC cement (with higher additive percent) and market it by
making efforts in the direction of overcoming stiff resistance by the consumers and government
bodies. Central Public Works Department (CPWD) has imposed a ban on using PPC cement
for all government constructional activities (Reference#2) These perceptions have a consequent
effect on creating an adverse mindset of common people in using PPC cement. With CDM
project activity implementation the GHG performance of BCL over 10 years of crediting period
would be of the order of 86,40,689 tonnes of CO2 emissions and the CO2 emission reductions
would amount to 2,39,043 tonnes.
A.4.4.1. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the

chosen crediting period:
Sl. No. Operating CO2 Emission Reductions

Years (tones of CO2)
1. 2001-2002 4426
2. 2002-2003 0
3. 2003-2004 0
4. 2004-2005 10103
5. 2005-2006 26728
6. 2006-2007 31182
7. 2007-2008 35637
8. 2008-2009 40091
9. 2009-2010 45437
10. 2010-2011 45437
Total 239043
1
The highest fly ash additive% of 22.83% for the 3 years prior to start of the project activity is chosen
as cement baseline of the system boundary was that of BCL itself, the production quantum being low.
format or font.
A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:
No public funding from parties included in Annex – I is available to the project.
SECTION B. Application of a baseline methodology
B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline methodology applied to the project
activity:
Title: BCL Methodology for GHG emission reduction in cement industry

Reference: CDM_NBM of this project design document
[to be approved by the CDM Executive Board ]
Approach: Existing actual or historical emissions, as applicable; [as per 48 (a) of CP 7/17]
B.1.1. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to

the project activity:
The proposed baseline methodology for ‘GHG emission reduction in cement industry’ as
provided in CDM_NBM is applicable only to CDM project activity hosting plants that have
the potential to increase the use of additives to clinker in the production of cement types and
improve their GHG performance in all the three distinct stages of cement production over and
above the GHG performance due to cement baseline defined as the highest percentage of
additive in the cement type produced. BCL’s project activity is implemented to enable the
project proponent to increase the proportion of additive – flyash in its PPC composition over
the crediting period, resulting in an equivalent reduction of clinker consumed per ton of total
PPC produced.
In India the PPC produced has to meet the country specific standards in order to ensure quality
and equivalence of service. The key parameters (for e.g. strength, setting time etc) required to
be verified, would depend on the country specific standards. In India all Portland-Pozzolana
Cement produced will be required to meet the standard requirements of – Specification IS:
1489 (Part 1). The project activity ensures all the physical requirements (like Fineness;
Soundness; Setting Time; Compressing Strength; and Drying Shrinkage;) and chemical
requirements of the PCC product (like Loss on ignition, percent by mass, Max; Magnesia
percent by mass, Max; Sulphuric anhydride percent by mass, Max; and Insoluble material
percent by mass, Max;) are met in order to ensure equivalent service to consumers.
This new baseline methodology is therefore appropriate for the referred CDM project activity.
We may therefore adopt the proposed methodology in order to establish baseline, assess the
additionality of the project activity and quantify the emission reductions that would be achieved
over the entire crediting period.
format or font.
B.2. Description of how the methodology is applied in the context of the project
activity:
The methodology is based on a systematic, step-wise approach that is applied as under for
establishing additionality of the project activity and for baseline carbon emission factor
estimation.
Step – I: Selection of System Boundary
Step – II: Establishing additionality of the project activity
Step – III: Determining the Baseline Carbon Emission Factor and Baseline emissions for the
project activity.
Step – I: Selection of the system boundary
The proposed baseline methodology for GHG emission reduction in cement industry (reference:
CDM_NBM attached herein) requires the project proponent to define an appropriate system
project boundary covering cement manufacturing units with ‘similar project activities’ and
‘similar social market, economic and technological circumstances’ to arrive at the project
additionality and the baseline emissions. The following points [I] and [II] have been considered
and discussed while defining and selecting an appropriate system project boundary for the
CDM project activity at Chittorgarh and the conclusions have been summarized in Table B-3:
[I] Similar project activities defined using the following key parameters
Parameter (i) Cement plants producing the similar ‘Type of cement’2
Parameter (ii) Cement production process such as wet, semi-wet or dry process and
Parameter (iii) Cement plants are categorized as per their scale of production capacity as per
the Table given below:
Production Capacity Scale of Economics

Cement plants =< 0.5 million tons per annum Small Scale Category
1.0 million tons per annum > =Cement plants => 0.5 Medium Scale Category
million tons per annum
Cement plants >=1.0 million tons per annum Large Scale Category
BCL’s cement manufacturing plants at Chittorgarh manufacture ‘PPC’ type of cement through
the ‘dry production process’. The total production capacity of BCL plants is of the order of 2
million tonnes per annum. Therefore the BCL plants fall under the Large Scale Category. The
system project boundary would therefore include large-scale cement-manufacturing plants,
which manufacture similar type of product through dry production process.
[II] similar
economic circumstances
The proposed methodology requires the project proponent to establish the similarity in
‘economic circumstances’ amongst cement plants based on the cost of raw material (lime),
energy (fuel and electricity) and flyash (which would include transportation/ purchase/ handling
costs) and the price of product (per tonne of cement) in the market.
The availability and cost of the limestone is one of the most important factors among all the
other factors, which influence the economical considerations. This factor has played a major
2
For example Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), Portland Pozzolanic Cement (PPC), Portland Slag
Cement (PSC) or Filler Cements
format or font.
role in the cement plant locations and has resulted in geographical aggregation or clusterisation
of the cement plants in and around the limestone reserves of India. The cement industries have
been classified into seven clusters taking into consideration this geographical aggregation of the
cement plants India.
Figure B-1: Map of India illustrates the geographic location of the seven cement clusters3
1
2
4
1. Chanderia
5 2. Satna
6 3. Bilaspur
4. Chandrapur
7 5. Gulbarga
6. Nalgonda
7. Yerraguntla
The project activity has been undertaken at the manufacturing unit of BCL at Chittorgarh,
which falls in Chanderia cluster.
The cement plants in the same cluster will have similar economic circumstances due to similar
proximities to the required quality limestone, coal reserves, gypsum and flyash and similar
locational advantages. The cement plants, which are scattered over a large area and do not fall
under the defined ‘Clusters’,(also referred to as Non-cluster cement plants) will have varied
economic circumstances. These cement plants have been excluded from the system boundary
since they cannot be categorized under similar project activities in similar social market,
economic and technological circumstances.
Therefore cement plants in the Chanderia cluster will have similar economic circumstances.
Further some key economic parameters of the Chanderia cluster were compared with that of
other clusters in order to arrive at the economic similarities. It was found that the operating
costs of producing clinker on ‘Average Cost’ Basis vary largely for each of the clusters (as
given in Table: B-1).
3
From Cement Manufacturing Association of India
format or font.
Table B-1: Operating Costs of producing clinker on ‘Average Cost’ Basis
(Rs./bag)
Sr. Cluster/Non Cluster Lime Coal Power Stores & Salarie Factory Total
No. stone Spares s & Overhea Clinker
Wages ds Cost
Cluster
1 Satna 6.7 11.7 14.3 2.5 2.6 2.6 40.2
2 Bilaspur 3.8 9.8 14.6 2.6 1.6 3.4 35.8
3 Gulbarga 3.6 15.3 17.2 2.4 2.8 0.5 41.7
4 Chandrapur 3.9 10.4 14.9 2.5 1.8 3.3 36.9
5 Chanderia 5.0 11.5 12.4 1.9 1.5 3.3 35.5
6 Nalgonda 4.5 16.2 14.2 2.0 1.4 3.2 41.5
7 Yerraguntla 4.7 14.5 14.7 2.6 1.3 4.1 42.0
Data Source : Reference #11
As per the operating costs of producing clinker on ‘average cost’ basis provided in Table B-1:
the economic circumstances in the Chanderia, Chandrapur and Bilaspur clusters would be
similar.
Variance in the ‘fly ash additive cost’ incurred would depend mainly on distance of the plants
from the cement-manufacturing units. The distance of thermal power plants from the
Chanderia, Chandrapur and Bilaspur cluster do not vary largely. The Flyash costs range
between Rs.350/- Rs.450/- per ton for these three clusters.
We may therefore conclude that the cement plants in the Chanderia, Chandrapur and Bilaspur
clusters have similar economic circumstances.
social market circumstances

The proposed methodology has defined ‘social market circumstances’ as circumstances created
and driven by the markets or consumption centres which would have an influence on all the
cement-manufacturing units catering to them. Therefore the cement manufacturing plants
catering to the same consumption centers would have similar social market circumstances, as
these cement plants would be governed by similar market related circumstances.
The project activity has been undertaken at manufacturing unit of BCL at Chittorgarh. The
major proportion of the supply of the project activity caters to the Delhi, Jaipur and Amritsar
markets. The cement plants serving similar consumption centres would therefore have similar
social market circumstances.
In India cement is a low cost and high volume product and transportation is one of the major
economic parameters, which govern the market developments. Cement transportation over very
long distances is an uneconomical proposition for cement-manufacturing units. This has lead to
fragmented markets, served by cement plants clusters in the vicinity. The cement-
manufacturing units therefore define their target markets based on the market demands and the
distance between the plants and consumption centres4. The major proportion of the cement
supply to the consumption centres are catered by cement plants clusters in and around the
4
Consumption centres are the market to which a plant can economically cater taking into account the
transportation cost. In India a cement plant using road transport caters a distance of approximately
400 kms. This also therefore defines the similar social market circumstances that limit a cement
plant’s system boundary.
format or font.
consumption centres. There is some amount of inter-regional cement transport of which the
market share of it is found to be limited.
The following matrix identifies all clusters supplying to the market. Clusters, which account for
a major proportion of supply have been marked ‘M’. Other clusters that also supply to the
market have been marked ‘O’
Table B-2: Cluster to Market Matrix
Sr. Satna Bilaspu Gulbarg Chand Chand Nalgo Yerrag

No. Cluster r a rapur eria nda untla
Market
1. Ahmedabad
2. Mumbai M O
3. Pune M O O
4. Surat
5. Nagpur M M
6. Hyderabad O O M
7. Bangalore M O O M
8. Chennai O M
9. Cochin M O
10. Vizag O M
11. Trivandrum O
12. Raipur M
13. Patna M O
14. Calcutta M
15. Guwahati M M
16. Bhubaneshwar O
17. Jamshedpur M
18. Bhopal M O
19. Lucknow M
20. Delhi O M
21. Jaipur M
22. Amritsar M
All the cement-manufacturing units in the Chanderia and Satna Clusters cater to the Delhi,
Jaipur and Amritsar Markets (Reference: provided in the Table B-2: Cluster to Market Matrix
presented above). We may therefore conclude that cement plants in the Chanderia and Satna
clusters will have similar social market circumstances.
By analysing the economic and social market circumstances of the cement plants in the seven
clusters in India we may draw the following conclusion:
Though the cement plants operating in the Chanderia, Chandrapur and Bilaspur clusters will
have similar economic circumstances they cater to different markets and therefore do not have
similar social market circumstances. The cement plants in the Chanderia and Satna clusters
will have similar social market circumstances but their economic circumstances would differ.
format or font.
The operating cost of production of clinker in the Satna Cluster is 13.24% higher than the
Chanderia cluster. (Refer to Table: B-1: Operating Costs of producing clinker on ‘Average
Cost’ Basis).
Therefore all cement plants in the Chanderia cluster will have similar economic and social
market circumstances.
technological circumstances
The proposed methodology has defined ‘technological circumstances’ as regards the
availability and use of the basic technology for the three distinct phases of the cement
manufacturing process.
Most of the cement plants in the India manufacture cement through dry process. The basic
technology used adopted by Indian cement industries in the dry process is similar.
Table B-3: Summary of the various circumstances of cement plants in the seven clusters
Sr. Similar social market Economic Technological

No Circumstance Circumstance Circumstances
Cluster s s
1 Chanderia
Birla Cmt & 4 4 4
Chittor
Vikram Cement 4 4 4
Aditya Cement 4 4 4
Nimbahera & 4 4 4
Mangrol
2 Satna
Kymore 4 4
Birla Vikas & Satna 4 4
Maihar Cement 4 4
Diamond Cmt-I & II 4 4
Jaypee Rewa 4 4
Jaypee Bela 4 4
Prism Cement 4 4
3 Bilaspur
Arasmeta(Raymond) 4 4
4 Gulbarga
Wadi 4
Vasvadatta Cement 4
Rajashree-Malkhed 4
Visaka Cement 4
Wadi-New 4
5 Chandrapur
Chanda 4 4
Kesoram Cement 4 4
format or font.
Sr. Similar social market Economic Technological

No Circumstance Circumstance Circumstances
Cluster s s
Manikgarh Cement 4 4
Orient Cement 4 4
L&T – ACW 4 4
Maratha Cement 4 4
6 Nalgonda
Nadikude Durga Cmt 4
Raasi Cement 4
Sri Vishnu Cement 4
K.C.P. Ltd 4
7 Yerraguntla
Zuari Cement 4
Chilamkur Works 4
It can be inferred from the above-mentioned discussions and Table B-3: Summary of the
various circumstances of cement plants in the seven clusters, that the cement plants in the
Chanderia cluster would have ‘similar social market, economic and technological
circumstances’ and would be the most appropriate system boundary for the project activity.
Step II of the baseline methodology deals with how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by
sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered
CDM project activity. Please refer to Section B3 for details.5
Step – III: Determining the Baseline Emission Factor and Baseline emissions of the
selected system boundary for the project activity.
The project activity will reduce the clinker consumed per ton of PPC produced. As per the
proposed baseline methodology the project activity will have an effect on both the direct on-site
emissions due reduced raw material calcination along with fuel combustion and the direct off-
site emissions due to reduced energy consumption. The baseline carbon emission factor
(CEFBaseline ) in tonnes of CO2 per ton of PPC produced would depend on
- the cement baseline (defined as the highest percentage of flyash in the PPC produced)
in the system boundary and
- the carbon emission factors for process emissions from calcinations, emissions related
to thermal energy consumption and emissions related to electrical energy consumption
in the BCL plant.
Cement Baseline (A Baseline%)

Cement Baseline is defined as the highest percentage of additives-fly ash in the Cement Type-
PPC in the 3 years prior to the start of the crediting period in the proposed project activity’s
System Boundary which includes all the cement manufacturing plants in Chanderia cluster. The
3 years annual average data (1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001) on fly-ash % in PPC
produced was analysed for all the cement manufacturing plants of the Chanderia cluster.
Amongst them the highest percentage of flyash used was chosen as the cement baseline. The
5
Table B-4 to B-6 are a part of Step II in Section B.3
format or font.
cement baseline for the proposed project activity was found to be 22.83% of fly ash additive in
the PPC produced.
Table B-7 – Fly-ash Additive% of Cement plants in the System Boundary
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01

Fly ash Fly ash Fly ash
Additive % Additive % Additive %
1 Cement Plant I 16.03% 18.72% 22.83%

2 Cement Plant II 7.70% 16.91% 18.18%
3 Cement Plant III 0 0 0

4 Cement Plant IV 0 16.66% 0
Cement Baseline 22.83%
Source: Government Sources
Cement Baseline (A Baseline%) = 22.83%
The gypsum is another ingredient of PPC apart from clinker & fly ash .The 3 year (1998-1999,
1999-2000 and 2000-2001) data of Gypsum % in PPC produced was analysed for all the
cement manufacturing plants of the Chanderia cluster. Amongst them the highest percentage of
gypsum used was chosen as the gypsum baseline to arrive at the most conservative Cement
Baseline for Clinker used per ton of PPC produced(Cbaseline%). The Gypsum baseline for the
project activity was found to be 7.88 % of Gypsum in the PPC produced.
Gypsum baseline % =7.88 %

Cement baseline for Clinker (C Baseline%) = 69.29%
Clinker production (pyro-processing) is the most energy-intensive stage in cement production,

accounting for over 90% of total industry energy use. Clinker is produced, by pyro-processing
in a four/five/six-stage cyclone pre-heater with inline calciner. The pre-heater cum kiln system
evaporate the free water in the raw meal, calcine the carbonate constituents (which is
calcination), and form portland cement minerals (which is clinkerization). Clinker production
has a significant implication on GHG emissions, as its production involves ‘Calcination’ and
‘Fuel Combustion’.
Carbon emission factor related to process emissions (CEF Process)

The methodology requires the project proponent to estimate the CEFProcess in tCO2/tclinker for
the project activity hosting plant with the plant specific data for 3 years (1998-1999, 1999-
2000 and 2000-2001) prior to the crediting period as per Equation 3 of CDM_NBM. The
lowest CEF (Process) in the 3 years prior to the crediting period determines the data value to be
used to calculate the CEFBaseline in tCO2/tcement (as per EQN 2-A), CEFProject in tCO2/tcement
(as per EQN 2-B), baseline emissions (as per EQN 1-A), emissions after project
implementation (as per EQN 1-B) and the emission reductions calculated as the differential of
baseline emissions and emissions after project implementation. The formulae and calculations
are presented in Section D.
format or font.
The CEFProcess will comprise of emissions due to calcination of CaCO3 present in the raw meal.
There is no partially calcined Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) or fully calcined bypass dust discarded
in the plants therefore the CEFProcess estimations have not taken into consideration the default
correction factor on Cement Kiln Dust as required by the IPCC Guidelines. Carbon emission
factor per ton of clinker from the calcium carbonates are calculated based on the CaO contents
of clinker produced. CaO percent in the clinker produced depends on the quality of the raw
meal (kiln feed) which is a mix of limestone along with the required percentage of laterite. The
limestone source is the present ‘C’ block (Jai Surjana-Nagari mines) having reserve of 132
million tons.
Table B-8 – Plant Specific Data used to calculate CEFProcess
Parameter 2: Carbon Emission Factor for emissions related to Process of the project hosting plant
Data Type Unit 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Baseline

CaO content in clinker % 65 65 65
Clinker Emission Factor due to tCO2/tCaO 0.785 0.785 0.785

CaCO3 in Limestone
Carbon Emission Factor (Process) tCO2/tclinker 0.509151 0.509151 0.509151 0.509151
Carbon emission factor- process emissions (CEF Process) = 0.509 tCO2/tclinker
The project proponent is also required to calculate the CEF (Process) annually with actual
plant data value for each year of the credit period as per EQN 3 through ex-post monitoring.
The methodology requires the project proponent to use the CEF (process) calculated based on
the actual specific data value determined through ex-post monitoring in the crediting period
annually.
Carbon emission factor related to thermal energy consumption (CEF Thermal)

The methodology requires the project proponent to estimate the CEFThermal in tCO2/tclinker for
the project activity hosting plant with the plant specific data for 3 years (1998-1999, 1999-
2000 and 2000-2001) prior to the crediting period as per Equation 4 of CDM_NBM. The
lowest CEF (Thermal) in the 3 years prior to the crediting period determines the data value to
be used to calculate the CEFBaseline in tCO2/tcement (as per EQN 2-A), CEFProject in
tCO2/tcement (as per EQN 2-B), baseline emissions (as per EQN 1-A), emissions after project
implementation (as per EQN 1-B) and the emission reductions calculated as the differential of
format or font.
baseline emissions and emissions after project implementation. The formulae and calculations
are presented in Section D.
Carbon emission factor calculations for the thermal energy consumed per ton of clinker
production is based on the plant specific thermal energy consumption data per ton of clinker
produced and the emission factor of fuel used.
Parameter 3: Carbon Emission Factor for emissions related to Thermal Energy Consumption of the project hosting plant
Specific thermal energy kcal/tclinker 740.54 768.18 785.72

consumption
Share of Fuel (Coal) % 100 100 100
Net calorific value of Fuel used kcal/kg 5125 5787 6012
(Coal)
Carbon Content of Fuel used % 0.45 0.50 0.52
(Coal)
Emission Factor of Fuel tCO2/kcal 0.000325207 0.000318956 0.000318211
Carbon Emission Factor (Thermal) tCO2/tclinker 0.240828425 0.245015836 0.25002459 0.240828425
Carbon emission factor- Thermal energy consumption (CEF Thermal) = 0.2408 tCO2/tclinker
The BCL is also required to calculate the CEF (thermal) annually with actual plant data value
for each year of the credit period as per EQN 4 through ex-post monitoring. The methodology
further requires the project proponent to use the more conservative value amongst the following
to calculate the Baseline Emissions over the credit period as per EQN 2
- the CEF (thermal) calculated based on the actual specific data value determined
through ex-post monitoring in the crediting period annually OR
- the CEF (thermal) calculated based on 3 years prior to the start of the crediting period
at the Validation stage
Carbon emission factor related to electrical energy consumption for clinker production
(CEF Electrical-clinker) and Carbon emission factor related to electrical energy consumption
for flyash additive preparation (CEF Electrical-additive)
The carbon emission factor for electrical energy consumed for clinker production till clinker
ground and the carbon emission factor for electrical energy consumed for fly ash additive
preparation is the product of the specific electrical energy supplied by the grid for clinker
production and fly ash additive preparation with the emission factor of the grid and/or the
specific electrical energy supplied by the captive power generating unit for clinker production
and fly ash additive preparation with the emission factor of the fuel used in captive power
plant.
The cement plants in the Chanderia cluster meet their electricity requirements either from the
state grid mix and/or from the diesel or coal based captive power plants.
The carbon emission factor for electrical energy would therefore be estimated based on the
following
- actual share % of electricity supplied by the grid, diesel based captive power plant and
coal based captive power plant
format or font.
- Specific Electrical Energy Consumption (SEEC) for clinker production and for
additive preparation
- Emission Factor of the Grid calculated as per Combined Margin
- Emission Factor of Coal and Diesel based Captive Power Plants
The methodology suggests use of guidance provided in “Appendix B1 of the simplified
modalities and procedures for small scale” for calculating the Emission Factor of the grid and
the captive power generation. (Refer to point 27 and 28 of “Indicative Simplified Baseline and
Monitoring Methodologies for selected small scale CDM Project Activity Categories). The
formulae and calculations are provided in Section D.
Carbon emission factor of grid (EFgrid)
Rajasthan’s Power Generation, Present generation mix, sector wise installed capacities,
emission co-efficient and generation efficiencies are used to arrive at the net carbon
intensity/baseline factor of the chosen grid. As per the provisions of the proposed methodology
the emission coefficient for the electricity displaced would be calculated in accordance with
provisions of paragraph 29 of Appendix B of Draft Simplified Modalities and Procedures for
Small Scale CDM Project Activities [Reference: FCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.3, English, Page 21]
for grid systems.
The provisions of paragraphs 29 of Appendix B requires the emission coefficient (measured in
kg CO2equ/kWh) to be calculated in a transparent and conservative manner as:
(a) The average of the “approximate operating margin” and the “build margin” (or
combined margin)
OR
(b) The weighted average emissions (in kg CO2equ/kWh) of the current generation mix.
Complete analysis of the system boundary’s electricity generation has been carried out for the
calculation of the emission coefficient as per point 29 (a) given below with baseline emission
factor calculations.
Combined Margin
The baseline methodology suggests that the project activity will have an effect on both the
operating margin (i.e. the present power generation sources of the grid, weighted according to
the actual participation in the state grid mix) and the build margin (i.e. weighted average
emissions of recent capacity additions) of the selected Rajasthan grid and the baseline emission
factor would therefore incorporate an average of both these elements.
Operating Margin
As mentioned above the project activity will have some effect on the Operating Margin (OM)
of the Rajasthan State Grid. The carbon emission factor as per the Operating Margin (OM)
takes into consideration the power generation mix of 2000-2001 excluding hydro, geothermal,
wind, low-cost biomass, nuclear and solar generation of the selected grid, efficiency of thermal
power plants and the default value of emission factors of the fuel used for power generation.
The carbon emission factor as per the OM is updated based on ex post monitoring.
The consumer of a state of Rajasthan gets a mix of power from the different sources. The
figures of installed power capacity, share of the state in the central pool, and actual plant
availability decides the content of power. The real mix of power in a particular year is however
based on actual units generated from various sources of power. The power system in Rajasthan
comprises of Rajsthan Rajya Vidyut Nigam Ltd. – generating company, Rajasthan Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd – transmission company and three regional distribution companies namely
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Jodhpur Vitran Nigam
Ltd. RVPNL is operating major thermal and hydel power stations in Rajasthan. The state also
gets share from the central sector generation plants and interstate power projects. The actual
format or font.
generation data of the entire Rajasthan for the year 2000-2001 ie the base year for the project
activity is available in the form of documents, which includes own generation, purchase from
central sector power plants and interstate power projects. The data collected and used are
presented in Annexure D - Grid data for calculation of carbon emission factor of grid.
The most important parameter in estimating the emissions is the thermal efficiency of the power
plant. The net energy consumption norms were based on best efficiency for each of the
technologies considered. As per the CEA report, it is assumed that all the coal & lignite based
plants coming up in tenth & eleventh & plan will use pulverized coal sub-critical / super
critical pressure technology with the thermal efficiency of around 34%. The percentage of
carbon that is not burnt is very low and, hence, complete combustion was assumed. The
thermal efficiency of existing old power plants is less than 30% and for new modern power
plants it is expected to be around 34%. On conservative basis average efficiency for base line
calculations is considered as 32%. Average efficiency of gas based thermal plants in Rajasthan
as against the standard norms works out to be around 40-45% On conservative basis average
efficiency for base line calculations is considered as 50%. Standard emission factors given in
IPCC for coal and gas (thermal generation) are applied over the expected generation mix and
net emission factors are determined for each year.
The formulae are presented in Section-E and the calculations are presented in an excel sheet
Annexure-C. Carbon Emission Factor of grid as per OM is 1.00 kg CO2/kWh electricity
generation.
Emission factor for grid mix as per OM (EF Grid) = 1.00 kgCO2/kwh
Build Margin
The project activity will have some effect on the Build Margin (BM) of the Rajasthan State
Grid. The baseline factor as per the Build Margin takes into consideration the delay effect on
the future projects and assumes that the past trend will continue in the future. As per the
proposed baseline methodology, the baseline factor for Build Margin is calculated as 2000-
2001. The Build Margin emission factor will be updated annually ex post for the year in which
actual project generation and associated emissions reductions occur.
It is calculated as the weighted average emissions of recent capacity additions to the system,
defined as the top of most recent 20% of plants built or the 5 most recent plants which ever is
greater. Since some major thermal plants have started operation in the year 2003 we have
considered them during built margin calculations. In case of Rajasthan grid 20% of the most
recent plants sum up to 5 power plants. For our built margin calculation we would therefore
take into consideration 5 most recent plants built in Rajasthan given is the baseline data tables
in Annexure D - Grid data for calculation of carbon emission factor of grid. The formulae are
presented in Section-D and the calculations are presented in an excel sheet Annexure-C.
Carbon Emission Factor of grid as per BM is 1.09 kg CO2/kWh electricity generation.
Emission factor for grid mix as per BM (EF Grid) = 1.09 kgCO2/kwh
Net Carbon Emission Factor for 2000-2001 as per CM = (OM + BM)/2 = 1.05 kg of CO2 / kwh
generation respectively.
format or font.
Carbon emission factor of captive power (EFcoal/EFDiesel)

As per the provisions of the proposed methodology the emission coefficient for the electricity
displaced would be calculated in accordance with provisions of paragraph 28 of Appendix B of
Draft Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small Scale CDM Project Activities
[FCCC/CP/2002/7/Add.3, English, Page 21] for diesel generating systems.
The provisions of paragraphs 28 of Appendix B provides the emission coefficient for a modern
diesel generating unit of the relevant capacity operating at optimal load as given in Table I.D.1
of the Appendix B. Carbon Emission FactorCoall-Based-Captive-Generation = “plant specific value”tCO2 /
kwh generation (Refer to Annexure A: GHG Performance Calculations of Baseline Scenario).
Emission factor for CPP (Diesel) (EF Diesel) = 0.8 kgCO2/kwh
Table B-10 – Plant Specific Data used to calculate CEFElectrical-clinker
Parameter 4: Carbon Emission Factor for emissions related to electrical energy consumption for clinker production of the project hosting plant
Specific Electrical Energy kwh/tclinker 69.56 68.82 68.17

Consumption used for clinker
production
SEEC-Grid Contribution kwh/tclinker 50.681416 44.28567 47.841706
SEEC-Captive Power Plant kwh/tclinker 12.075616 11.857686 6.087581
(Diesel) Contribution
SEEC-Captive Power Plant (Coal) kwh/tclinker 6.802968 12.676644 14.240713
Contribution
Carbon Emission Factor of grid kg CO2/t of 53.2154868 46.4999535 50.2337913
clinker
Carbon Emission Factor of CPP kg CO2/t of 9.6604928 9.4861488 4.8700648
(Diesel) clinker
Carbon Emission Factor of CPP kg CO2/t of 7.34720544 13.69077552 15.37997004
(Coal) clinker
Carbon Emission Factor(Electrical- t CO2/tclinker 0.070223185 0.069676878 0.070483826 0.069676878
clinker)
Carbon emission factor- Electrical energy consumption for clinker production (CEF Electrical-clinker) = 0.0696 tCO2/tclinker
format or font.
Table B-11 – Plant Specific Data used to calculate CEFElectrical-additives

Specific Electrical Energy kwh/tadditive 0 0 0
Consumption used for additive
preparation
SEEC-Grid Contribution kwh/tadditive 0 0 0
SEEC-Captive Power Plant (Diesel) kwh/tadditive 0 0 0
Contribution
SEEC-Captive Power Plant (Coal) kwh/tadditive 0 0 0
Contribution
Carbon Emission Factor of grid kg CO2/t of 0 0 0
additive
Carbon Emission Factor of CPP kg CO2/t of 0 0 0
(Diesel) additive
Carbon Emission Factor of CPP kg CO2/t of 0 0 0
(Coal) additive
Carbon Emission Factor(Electrical- t CO2/tadditive 0 0 0 0
clinker)
Carbon emission factor- Electrical energy consumption for clinker production (CEF
Electrical-additive) = 0 tCO2/tclinker
The BCL is also required to calculate the CEF (electrical-clinker) and CEF (electrical-additive)
annually with actual plant data value for each year of the credit period as per EQN 5 and 6
through ex-post monitoring. The methodology further requires the project proponent to use the
more conservative value amongst the following to calculate the Baseline Emissions over the
credit period as per EQN 2-A and 2-B
- the CEF (electrical-clinker) and CEF (electrical-additive) is calculated based on the
actual specific data value determined through ex-post monitoring in the crediting
period annually OR
- the CEF (electrical-clinker) and CEF (electrical-additive) is calculated based on 3
years prior to the start of the crediting period at the Validation stage
Since, the project activity is not a baseline scenario, without project activity there will be
emissions as per the baseline carbon emission factor calculated based on the cement baseline
and the carbon emission factors of the project activity hosting plant as mentioned above. The
project activity implementation reduces the process related emissions and partial thermal and
electrical energy requirements of the BCL plant operating in the baseline scenario along with its
associated emission reductions. The project activity will therefore reduce 2,39,043 tonnes of
CO2 in 10 year of credit period from reduction of clinker per ton of cement produced.
format or font.
B.3. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced
below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project
activity:

As per the decision 17/cp.7 para 43, a CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in
the absence of the registered CDM project activity.
The methodology requires the project activity to determine its additionality based on the two
additionality tests given below. If the two tests meet the defined requirements; the proposed
CDM project activity can be considered as additional. The two tests are
Test I: Additionality test for Regulatory/Legal requirements that shows that the project activity
is not required by a party’s legislation/regulations.
Test II: Additionality test for prevailing/common practices that shows that the project is not a
common practice in the proposed area of implementation
Test II: Additionality test for barriers by assessment (qualitative or quantitative) of one or more
barriers facing the project activity. The barriers are defined as per the simplified project design
document for small-scale CDM project activities (SSC-PDD).
The flowchart presented in next page provides a step-by-step approach to establishing
additionality of the project activity.
format or font.
Step-II: Establishing Additionality
P
Test I: R
No O
Additionality Test
for Regulatory / Legal J
requirements E
C
Yes T
I
S
N
Test II: O
Additionality Test: barrier (s) N
No –
A
D
D
I
PROJECT IS ADDITIONAL T
I
O
N
Step –III: Determining the BEF and BE for project activity A
L
format or font.
Test I: Additionality Test for Regulatory/Legal requirements
The new baseline methodology requires the project proponent to answer the following direct
question(s) and show that the project activity is not required by a party’s
legislation/regulations. The project proponent would thereby establish that the CDM project
activity is not Non-additional as per the requirements of Test I.
1. Is project activity implementation a regulatory requirement? Would the project

proponent have initiated/ would initiate the project activity in absence of the CDM in
order to achieve compliance with existing mandatory regulation and/or national and
sectoral policies?
No. There is no legal binding on BCL to implement the project activity. In India it is
not mandatory for to use higher additives in cement manufacturing. .
2. Would the project proponent have initiated/ would initiate the project activity in
absence of the CDM in order to achieve compliance with planned regulation that will
become mandatory within the crediting period?
No. There are no planned regulations for cement manufacturing industries that will
enforce them to implement project activity in India.
3. Demonstrate what would happen to these additives in the baseline scenario, taking into
account waste sector policies and markets for relevant wastes such as fly-ash or blast
furnace slag. Would the national and sectoral policies (if any) to promote the project
activity be adequate to stimulate implementation of the project activity in absence of
CDM?
The quantum of flyash generated in thermal power plants is huge and flyash disposal
has the always been a matter of environmental concern. In the baseline scenario, the
flyash would have been dumped in landfill or low land.
There is a National Flyash Policy of 1996 with the objective as follows
- To take up massive propaganda campaign for highlighting the technical
supremacies of flyash based brick and cement over conventional competitives.
- To enact necessary legislations from time to time to strengthen and streamline the
generation and utilization aspects of flyash inducing the necessary synergy to minimize
, if not phase out, the consumption of clay brick and OPC by supporting the production
system of flyash based brick and cement in the direction of mineral conservation
towards ecological welfare
The government has promoted use of lower percentage of additives in cement manufacturing
which is considered the baseline scenario. There is no policy which promotes use of higher
percentage of additives and would be adequate to stimulate implementation of the project
activity in absence of CDM. The most important reason for the same being the ‘Market
Acceptability’ barrier the project activity faces. (Details of the market acceptability barrier
are dealt with in Test II given below)
We may therefore conclude that the implementation of the project activity is a voluntary step
undertaken by BCL with no direct or indirect mandate by law or promotional policies to
foster development of widespread CDM projects like optimal utilization of clinker. BCL
implemented the project activity to reduce clinker usage considering its positive contribution
towards energy conservation and reducing the green house gas emissions. The project
activity is not Non-additional as per the requirements of Test I.
format or font.
Test II: Additionality Test for prevailing/common practices
In Test II: Additionality Test for prevailing/common practices, the new baseline methodology
requires the project proponent to collect the PPC production shares and the additive % data for
all the cement manufacturing plants in the system boundary for 3 years prior to the start of the
crediting period.
Since, the most appropriate system boundary for the CDM project activity encompasses all the
cement manufacturing plants in the Chanderia cluster, the cement sector data of the Chanderia
cluster was studied in order analyze the production shares of PPC and the flyash additive%
used for PPC production.
The PPC production shares of the Chanderia cluster for the 3 years (1998-1999, 1999-2000
and 2000-2001) prior to the start of the credit period were analysed. Table B-4 provides
production data and additives% data for the four cement plants in the system boundary.
Table B-4: PPC Production Shares and Additive % for the 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and
2000-2001
1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001

PPC Fly ash PPC Fly ash PPC Fly ash
Production Additive Production Additive Production Additive
(MT) % (MT) % (MT) %
1 Cement Plant I 90000 16.03% 14427 177000 18.72% 33134.4 276000 22.83% 63010.8
2 Cement Plant II 13000 7.70% 1001 136000 16.91% 22997.6 198000 18.18% 35996.4
3 Cement Plant III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Cement Plant IV 0 0 0 0.06 16.66% 0.01 0 0 0
Totals 103000 15428 313000 56132 474000 99007.2
Additive% (common
practice)-y 14.9786 17.9335 20.8876
Additive% (common
practice) 20.88759494
Source: Government Sources
Further the “Additive% (common practice-y6)” is determined as the weighted average

additive% of all the cement manufacturing plants in the system boundary for each of the 3
years prior to the start of the crediting period.
The most conservative value amongst the 3-year values is selected as the “Additive% (common
practice)” which denotes the standard common practice in the system boundary.
The Additive % (common practice-(1998-1999), (1999-2000) and (2000-2001)) in the

Chanderia cluster were calculated and were of the order of 14.978%, 17.933% and 20.887%
respectively. The most conservative value 20.887% was selected as Additive % (common
practice) for the Chanderia cluster.
6
y symbolizes the vintage year of the data used
format or font.
If the project activity’s AProject (Additive % in the proposed project activity) is higher than the
“Additive% (common practice)” the project activity is not non-additional the project proponent
is further required to conduct the Test III: Additionality test for barriers by assessment
(qualitative or quantitative) of one or more barriers facing the project activity.
The project activity entails an increase of fly-ash additive% in the range of 24.29% - 25%,
which is higher than the “Additive% (common practice) for Chanderia cluster – 20.887%.
Therefore the project activity is not non-additional as per Test II and BCL further establishes
project additionality by presenting the different barriers to project activity as suggested above
in Test III: Additionality Test for Barrier(s).
format or font.
Test II: Additionality Test for Barrier(s)
Further, the methodology suggests a barrier analysis be conducted to further strengthen the additionality
argument.
The new methodology requires the project proponent to answer the direct question(s) given below in order
to present one or more barriers facing the proposed project activity, preventing its implementation and
show how the project activity as a CDM project would enable the project proponent to overcome the
identified barrier and thus be undertaken.
The project proponent would thereby establish that the CDM project activity is additional as per the
requirements of Test II.
The fact that the current prevailing practice in the Chanderia Cluster is that of OPC production (91.43 %
share) and that the share of PPC production is found to be very low indicates that there are barriers
associated to PPC production. With further increase in the fly ash additive % the project activity faces
technical barriers associated to use of PPC and the barriers related market acceptance of PPC product with
higher flyash additive %. BCL decided to set up the required infrastructure and took a few initiatives
towards overcoming the various risks and barriers associated to the implementation of the project activity
by taking into consideration the financial assistance that would be made available under CDM over the
credit period. In the first credit period (2001-2002) BCL manufactured PPC with flyash additive% of
24.18% (which was higher than the cement baseline of 22.83% for the year 2000-2001. However in the 2nd
and 3rd credit period due to technical and market related barriers BCL reduced the additive percentage to
21.77% and 22.11% respectively. These barriers to project activity implementation are dealt with below as
per the guidance provided in the proposed baseline methodology.
The direct question(s) to present barriers to project activity implementation are as follows:
1. Are there any regulatory/institutional barriers, which would affect the project activity
implementation and would therefore discourage the project proponent to pursue/initiate project
activity implementation?
No, there are no regulatory/institutional barriers, which would affect the project activity
implementation.
2. Is there any investment barrier(s) to project activity implementation?
Yes. The project activity had an high initial investment cost associated to in-house ‘Research &
Development Cost’, ‘Equipment Cost on site’, ‘Special Purpose Vehicle Cost associated to
transportation’ and ‘Market Promotional Cost’ associated to increasing market acceptability of the
product’ with no high capital investment for the baseline option. BCL has invested in the
infrastructure of project activity implementation. However in absence of financial assistance under
CDM BCL would decide to reduce the additive% in the PPC produced due to the costs associated
to overcoming the market related barriers and the technical barriers associated to use of PPC. With
the goal of obtaining carbon revenues from the reduction of clinker usage and its associated
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, BCL management took the decision of taking the investment
risks and to invest in the CDM project activity after computing the proposed carbon financing in
their board meeting for the financial year 2001-2002. Besides the direct financing risk, BCL is also
shouldering the additional transaction costs such as preparing documents, supporting CDM
initiatives and developing and maintaining M&V protocol to fulfill CDM requirements. BCL, is
shouldering a significant market or financial risk and taking a pro-active approach by showing
confidence in the Kyoto Protocol/CDM system.
This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
3. Is there any technological barrier(s) to project activity implementation?

No. There was no technological barrier associated to project activity implementation. However
there are technical barriers related to use of PPC with higher additive%. An increase in the additive
% in the PPC produced results in a change in the product mix. The masons and builders require
special training and guidance in order to use PPC as building material. The training and guidance
include measures to be adopted to ensure equal durability and workability of OPC and PPC. Due
to poor awareness levels on use and preparation of PPC for building and other benefits, the product
acceptability levels of PPC with higher additive % are also very low7. These technical barriers
related to use of PPC with higher additive % further heightens the poor market acceptability of the
product. It may however be noted that the PPC with a higher additive% would be providing an
equivalent service to that of PPC with lower additive % as per the BIS standards, BCL had taken
some initiatives in this direction to conduct awareness and training programmes as measures under
the project activity implementation. We may conclude that this is one of the major prohibitive
barriers to project activity implementation, which yet exist and would be overcome with the
financial aid under CDM.
4. Is there any barrier due to market uncertainties or customer’s resistance?

Yes. The barrier due to market uncertainties or customer’s resistance is the major prohibitive
barrier to project activity implementation.
As mentioned above the Indian market is dominated by OPC production. One of the prime reasons
for the high OPC market share is attributed to the fact that Indian consumers have been mainly
exposed to OPC only over the last two decades. PPC production with low additive percent was
introduced in India in the year 1998-1999. The ‘market’s acceptability’ of PPC with a higher
additive percent is one of the major barriers due to prevailing practice as stated above. The
acceptance levels in the primary market were found to be low and the reception in secondary
market was very poor due to OPC dominated market. The low market demand is attributed to the
consumers’ quality apprehensions regarding use of blended cement with higher additive percent.
The customer resistance was found to be very high due to their low awareness levels.
Consumer perception of PPC

The various consumer perceptions were as follows:
a) “ PPC is ash mixed cement” propagated by the competitors and perceived by general public.
b) Serious doubts about strength and durability in the mind of technocrats, builders and entire
hierarchy of consumers.
c) Non-acceptance of PPC in Government Departments and Projects - The CPWD imposed a ban
on use of blended cement for bridges and other prestigious concrete works/constructions.
d) Dissatisfaction due to blackish material leaching and floating on the surface of concrete /
mortar.
As per the regulatory norms cement cannot be manufactured, stored or sold in India without it
being tested and certified by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) carrying the BIS certification mark.
PPC too had to be manufactured under strict quality control and meet international standards. This
quality assurance of product alone could not overcome the market acceptability barrier.
These ‘market acceptability’ and ‘customer resistance’ barriers due to current prevailing practice
in the Chanderia cluster would have led to implementation of a project activity with PPC
manufacture with lower additive percent (baseline) resulting in higher emissions;
7
Feedback reports from consumers may be made available to Validator during Validation
As mentioned earlier BCL took up several marketing and promotional activities in order to
promote PPC with higher fly ash additive% in the consumer market. Some of the promotional
activities are
1) Conducting regular training / educational programmes for engineers, architects, contractors,
builders, masons, retailers, dealers and end users to discuss merits of PPC to boost their confidence
level for this product.
- Mason meets: BCL conducts mason meets (Rajmistry Sammelan) in different cities and
villages. In this programme BCL invites more than 100 masons of the near by area and
conducts training on the benefits of PPC with higher additive percentage as well as other good
construction practices. In the end a dinner and a small gift is distributed to all the participants.
- Kerb Meets – About 20 –25 masons are invited on the shop of the dealer and briefed about
PPC. It ends with some refreshment and a gift to the participants.
- Architects / Engineers meets – BCL invites architects/ engineers of the town at the venue
commensurating to their status and brief about the use of PPC by experienced engineers.
- Plant Visit – BCL also organize visits for the consumers, architects, engineers, contractors,
builders and dealers to the cement plant to show them the process of manufacturing of PPC
testing of the cement and its results in our equipped laboratory to enhance the confidence in
PPC.
2) Video van campaigning in rural / suburban market. Van Show - BCL has a mobile van equipped
with audio-visual to make regular visits to the rural areas in order to exhibit the quality and
benefits of PPC.
3) Mass distribution of handbills / leaflets / brochures amongst different segment of consumers.
Awareness through advertisement/ media / literatures - creating awareness through advertisements
in different news papers, magazines, souvenir, T.V. signboards, hoarding, literatures, leaflets,
brochures, gift articles, calendars, dairies etc.
4) Durability features of PPC and its compatibility with Indian climatic conditions and availability of
infrastructure in construction Industry highlighted / discussed with competent project authorities
for its Mass consumption.
5) Special incentives offered to dealers / retailers to promote PPC.
Table B-5 given below summarizes the total number of promotional activities conducted between
2000-2003 along with the total costs incurred (Table B-6) in order to increase the market acceptability
of the PPC product with higher additive percent. These promotional activities are a part of the project
activity implementation and operation and would be conducted throughout the 10 year crediting period.
Table B-5: Promotion of PPC product with higher additives percent
Activities 2000-01 2001-02 2002 - 03

Meets Partic. Meets Partic. Meets Partic.
Mason Meet 123 12300 147 14700 133 10910

Kerb meet 107 2675 43 1075 100 2628
Engnr./ Arch. Meet 2 100 9 450 3 120
Dealers/Retailer 2 100 7 350 2 60
Meet
Plant Visit 7 245 8 280 11 356
Total Participant 15420 16855 14074
Table B-6: Expenses Incurred for the promotion of PPC with higher additive percent
Promotion Activities 2000-01 2001-02 2002 – 03

Educational activities 24.5 30.24 28.68
Advertisements /Media 170.57 156.83 224.42
Excursion for dealers 54.06 42.9 41.87
Total 249.13 229.97 294.97
NB: all values are in Rs. lacs . (1 lac=100,000)
From the assessment of the current prevailing practices and the feedbacks received from the consumers
PPC with 22.83% fly ash additives it is evident that a strong market resistance to the product exists. This
market acceptability barrier is further increased with further increase in the additive percent due to
technical aspects related to use of PPC with higher additive%. Under these circumstances BCL reduced its
additive% below the cement baseline in the 2nd and 3rd credit period. However as per project under
discussion and the cement production plan of BCL, they will increase the fly ash additive% to 25% and the
costs incurred to over come this major barrier to the project activity implementation would be borne by the
financial assistance to be made available under the CDM.
5. Are there any barriers due to lack of awareness about available technologies, products, financial
support; limited dissemination of information on operation know how; limited managerial resources;
organizational capacity?
Yes. Some other barriers to project activity implementation include availability of limited information on
product mix and use and preparation of PPC with higher fly ash additive%.
BCL conducted ‘Test Trials’ in order to further increase the use of higher fly ash additive percent.
Generally all PPC manufacturers use between 10 to 20% of flyash in the manufacturing of PPC. Any
higher addition of flyash would cause fall in strength properties on 1 day, 3 day and 28 day basis. BCL
conducted numerous laboratory trials test and analysis with varying percentage of flyash addition and with
varying clinker qualities to examine and ascertain their impact on each other as well as their combined final
impact on the strength properties of PPC manufactured. BCL also carried out numerous trials with varying
fineness of PPC cement with numerous permutation- combination of different flyash percentage additions
and different clinker qualities. Similar trials were also conducted with flyash from different sources and
from different Electro Static Precipitators (ESP) fields of each collection point to determine their relative
impact on the strength and properties of PPC manufactured with them. By conducting such intensive tests,
BCL has finally developed its own product mix based on the quality of raw material used for the
manufacture of flyash based PPC upto 25% addition of flyash sourced from thermal power plants in the
near vicinity.
Before implementation of the project activity BCL considered all the barriers mentioned above. Each of
them especially barriers associated to market uncertainties and customer resistance has resulted in project
failure in the 2nd and 3rd year of the credit period. However, with goal of obtaining the proposed carbon
financing for the project BCL’s management took a corporate decision to invest
- in overcoming the barriers facing project implementation
- in the CDM project activity through equity
- in additional transaction costs such as preparing documents, supporting CDM initiatives
and developing and maintaining M&V protocol to fulfil CDM requirements.
It is ascertained that the project activity would not have occurred in the absence of the CDM simply
because no sufficient financial, policy, or other incentives exist locally to foster its development in India
and without the proposed carbon financing for the project the BCL would not have taken the investment
risks in order to implement the project activity. In such an event the BAU baseline option of use of lower
fly ash additive percentage will continued with release of carbon dioxide emissions. As mentioned earlier,
BCL initiated the project activity under CDM and increased the additive% in the 1st year . However in
subsequent 2nd and 3rd year due to high market resistance BCL has reduced their additive % and the
emission reductions for the 2nd and 3rd are zero. We may therefore conclude that with the financial benefit
of revenue obtained by selling the CO2 equivalent emission reductions will be essential for BCL to
implement the project activity.
Therefore the project activity is established as additional as per the requirements of Test II.
B.4. Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology
selected is applied to the project activity:
>>
The project activity would affect the GHG emissions at all the three distinct stages of cement
manufacturing. The project boundary is from the point of raw material supply to the point of product
packaging where the project proponent has a full control. The project boundary would therefore include
indirect emissions related to raw material preparation (grinding or pre-processing), direct emissions related
to clinkerisation (pyro-processing) and indirect emissions related to cement and additive grinding. The
diagrammatic representation of the cement process and the project boundary is illustrated below and
includes all anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHG under control of the project proponent which are
significant and reasonably attributable to the project activity.
RAW MATERIAL FUELS Additive

Electricity from
SUPPLY: PREPARATION preparation:
Rajasthan Grid
Quarrying, mining, Crushing, Mix
crushing grinding, drying Crushing, drying
RAW MATERIALS PYRO- CEMENT

PREPARATION: PROCESSING: GRINDING:
Grinding, Pre-heating, Grinding, Bagging &
homogenizing, drying calcinations, Blending Transport
and slurrying clinkering, cooling
Project Boundary
Electricity from Cement Plants
Clinker Production Rajasthan Grid Mix
CHANDERIA CLUSTER
For calculations of the baseline emissions, the individual cement plants in the Chanderia Cluster are taken
as the system project boundary. For calculations of the carbon emission factor of the grid, the individual
power plants in the Rajasthan state are taken as the system project boundary for electricity. The project
activity would be reducing the power load from the Rajasthan grid. Therefore Rajasthan Grid is the most
representative system boundary for the project activity.
B.5. Details of baseline information, including the date of completion of the baseline study and
the name of person (s)/entity (ies) determining the baseline:
>>
Please refer to Section B2 in conjugation with Annexure A for details. The final draft of this baseline
section was prepared by Birla Corporation limited and their associated consultants on 16th March,05.
SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period
C.1 Duration of the project activity:
C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:

>> 2000-2001
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:

>> 20y
C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information:
C.2.1. Renewable crediting period
C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period:

>> Not Applicable
C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:

>> Not Applicable
C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:
C.2.2.1. Starting date:

>> July 2001
C.2.2.2. Length:
>> 10y
SECTION D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan
D.1. Name and reference of approved monitoring methodology applied to the project activity:
>>
Reference: CDM_NMM of this project design document
The monitoring methodology adopted herein is based on the CDM_NMM of this project design document.
It is a new monitoring methodology to be approved by the CDM Executive Board.
D.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity:
>>
The proposed monitoring methodology as in CDM_NMM has been developed for monitoring the
performance of the fly ash % of PPC produced in order to estimate the quantum GHG reductions from
reduced process emissions, thermal energy related emissions and electrical energy related emissions
resulting from a reduction in clinker usage. The project activity improves its GHG performance through
net clinker content reduction in PPC production and has selected the proposed monitoring methodology to
calculate the Emission Reduction Units.
Description of the Monitoring Plan

The project activity entails a net clinker content reduction in PPC production by the manufacturing units of
BCL. The monitoring and verification system mainly comprise of ‘PPC production’ along with ‘flyash’ and
‘clinker’ used for the purpose.
Key parameters related to quality of PPC are also monitored to ensure ‘equivalence of service’. Since these
key parameters related to quality of the product delivered are governed by country’s specifications and
standards, the methodology requires the project proponent to develop and put in place a monitoring plan for
the same. BCL too has a monitoring plan to ensure the product meets the ‘Indian Standard – Portland-
Pozzolana Cement – Specification (IS 1489(Part 1):1991; Further, the project activity has employed the
state of art monitoring and control equipment that will measure, record, report, monitor and control various
key parameters like total PPC produced, material flow rate, operating conditions and parameters of the
material movement and conversion processes.
The instrumentation and control system for the project is designed with adequate instruments to control and
monitor the various operating parameters for safe and efficient operation of the raw material processing
unit, kiln and grinding blending unit.
The instrumentation system comprises of microprocessor-based instruments of reputed make with the best
accuracy available. All instruments are calibrated and marked at regular intervals so that the accuracy of
measurement can be ensured all the time. The calibration frequency too is a part of the monitoring and
verification parameters.
Project boundary and GHG sources
A Process Flow Diagram (PFD) is presented below to clarify the characteristics of the BCL cement
manufacturing project. The project system comprises of the raw material transportation system, pre-
calcinator, kiln, grinding unit, ESP, and the ash disposal system.
FIGURE D-2: BCL PROCESS
The project boundary covers the point of supply of raw material to the point of finished goods dispatch
where the project proponent has a full control. Hence, project boundary is considered within these terminal
points.
Further, upstream emissions should be placed within the project boundary when the project developer can
significantly influence these emissions. In principle this could mean that the emission due to transportation
of limestone, coal and fly ash from thermal power plants to the project facility site.
The methodology too requires the project proponent to monitor the net distance increase or decrease. To be
on the conservative side, the methodology does not take into consideration the emission reductions due to
reduced transportation. If there is an increase in the net distance travelled the methodology requires the
project proponent to deduct the quantum as leakage.
The project activity will reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from limestone quarries and the coal-
mines, however there would be some project emissions due to flyash transport from the thermal power
plants. The emissions related to transportation have been computed in Chapter E.
GHG emissions sources of the project

Direct on-site emissions
The project activity is to replace clinker by fly ash and therefore emits no direct GHG.
Indirect on-site emissions
The indirect on site GHG source is the consumption of energy and the emission of GHGs involved in the
construction of the cement blending equipment. Considering the life cycle assessment of the total power
generated and the emissions to be avoided in the life span of 25 years, emissions from the above-mentioned
source is too small and hence neglected.
Direct off-site emissions
Direct off site emission is due to the fly ash transportation from thermal power plants to the facility site and
have been considered in the leakage due to transportation.
In-Direct off-site emissions
This includes emissions during the manufacturing process of parts, supplies and machinery required for
building the project (i.e. electromechanical equipment, etc.). But these emissions are outside the control of
the project and excluded;
Project parameters affecting emission reduction claims

The CDM mechanism stands on the quantification of emission reduction and keeping the track of the
emissions reduced. The project activity reduces the carbon dioxide whereas an appropriate monitoring
system ensures this reduction is quantified and helps maintaining the required level. Also a monitoring
system brings about the flaws in the system if any are identified and opens up the opportunities for
improvement.
Monitoring Approach
The general monitoring principles are based on:
Ø Frequency
Ø Reliability
Ø Registration and reporting
Frequency of monitoring
The emission reduction units from the project activity are determined by the amount of clinker that is
replaced by the flyash. It becomes important for the project activity to monitor the PPC produced along
with the clinker and flyash consumed. Over view of kiln monitoring system is shown below. In a similar
way the other operational areas are also monitored.
Reliability
The amount of emission reduction units is proportional to the net clinker replaced (above baseline) in the
project. Thus, the final PPC production and its associated flyash and clinker used are the key variable for
the project. These figures are audited by the statutory regulations laid by Government of India. These are
also reflected in the audited annual balance sheet.
Registration and reporting

Registration of data is on-line in the control cabin through a microprocessor. However, hourly data is
logged in addition to software memory. Daily, weekly and monthly reports are prepared stating the
generation.
D.2. 1. Option 1: Monitoring of the emissions in the project scenario and the baseline scenario
D.2.1.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived:
ID number Data variable Source of Data unit Measured Recording Proportion of How will the data be Comment
(Please use data (m), frequency data to be archived? (electronic/
numbers to ease calculated (c) monitored paper)
cross- or estimated
referencing to (e)
D.3)
Production
1.1 Cement type Industria Ton Measured Daily Total Electronic and Paper
produced l Facility
1.2 Amount of Industria Ton Measured Daily Total Electronic and Paper
clinker used for l Facility
cement type
produced
1.3 Amount of Industria Ton Measured Daily Total Electronic and Paper
additives used l Facility
for cement type
produced
1.4 Average Industria t additive / t Calculated Annual Total Electronic and Paper The frequency of
Additive % for l Facility cement type aggregation of the
cement type additive% used to calculate
the CEFProject is based on an
annual average data, which
encapsulates the seasonal
variations
Parameter 2: CEF (Process) in t CO2/t clinker
1.5 CaO% in Industria % or tCaO /t Measured and Daily Total Electronic and Paper
Clinker l Facility Clinker Calculated
1.6 Carbon Industria t CO2/t Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper
Emission l Facility Clinker
Factor
(process)
numbers to ease calculated (c) monitored paper)
cross- or estimated
referencing to (e)
D.3)
Parameter 3: CEF (Thermal) in tCO2/t clinker
1.7 Specific Industrial kcal/ton of Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper
Thermal Facility clinker
Energy
Consumption
1.8 Carbon Industrial t CO2/kcal Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper This parameter will be
Emission Facility calculated based on the
Factor (a),(b) and (c).
CEF (Thermal) in t CO2/kcal
(a) Quantity of Industrial t Measured Daily Total Electronic and Paper
each of the Facility
Fuel Type used
(b) Net Calorific Industrial Kcal/kg Measured Monthly Total Electronic and Paper
Value of each Facility
of the Fuel
Type used
(c) Carbon Industrial % Measured Monthly Total Electronic and Paper
Content of the Facility
Fuel Type
Parameter 4: CEF (Electrical-clinker) in t CO2/t clinker
1.9 Specific Industrial kwh/ton of Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper
Electrical Facility clinker
Energy
Consumption
for clinker
production
1.10 Carbon Industrial t CO2/kwh Calculated Monthly Total Electronic and Paper This parameter will be
Emission Facility calculated based on the
Factor (a),(b), (c),(d),(e) (f) and
(g).
numbers to ease calculated monitored paper)
cross- (c) or
referencing to estimated
D.3) (e)
CEF (Electrical) in t CO2/kwh
(a) Electricity Industrial % Measured Monthly Total Paper/Electronic
consumed from Facility
the grid per
total electricity
(b) Electricity Industrial % Measured Monthly Total Paper/Electronic
Coal based
CPP per total
electricity
(c) Electricity Industrial % Measured Monthly Total Paper/Electronic
the Diesel
Based CPP
(d) Carbon Governm t CO2/kwh Calculated Fixed for Total Paper/Electronic
Emission ent the credit
Factor (grid) sources period
(e) Carbon Industrial t CO2/kwh Calculated Annual Total Paper/Electronic
Emission Facility
Factor (coal
based CPP)
(f) Carbon IPCC t CO2/kwh Calculated Annual Total Paper/Electronic
Emission
Factor (diesel
based CPP)
(g) Net Carbon Industrial t CO2/kwh Calculated Annual Total Paper/Electronic
Emission Facility
Factor
ID number Data Source of Data unit Measured Recording Proportion of How will the data be Comment
(Please use variable data (m), frequency data to be archived? (electronic/
numbers to ease calculated monitored paper)
cross- (c) or
referencing to estimated
D.3) (e)
Parameter 5: CEF (Electrical-additive) in t CO2/t additive
1.11 Specific Industrial kcal/ton of Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper
Electrical Facility additive
Energy
Consumptio
n for
additive
preparation
1.10 Carbon Industrial t CO2/kwh Calculated Monthly Total Electronic and Paper This parameter will be
Emission Facility calculated based on the (a),(b),
Factor (c),(d),(e) (f) and (g).
D.2.1.2. Description of formulae used to estimate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2
equ.)
>>
The Carbon Emission Factor of the project activity is estimated based on each of the following:
- Annual average Fly ash and Clinker % used for PPC production
- Carbon Emission Factor for process related emissions, in tCO2/tclinker
- Carbon Emission Factor for emissions due to thermal energy consumption in t CO2/tclinker
- Carbon Emission Factor for emissions due to electrical energy consumption for clinker production in t CO2/tclinker and
- Carbon Emission Factor for emissions due to electrical energy consumption for flyash preparation in t CO2/t flyash
Formulae used for estimation of the anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the project activity are as under in Equation 1(B).
PE = CEFProject 5 PPPC
· PE= Project Emissions
· CEFProject= Carbon Emission Factor for project activity in tCO2/t PPC
· PPPC= Annual PPC Production
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFProject for the project activity hosting plant. The formula for CEFProject calculations are given
below in Equation 2 (B).
[ ] [
CEFPr oject = (CEFprocess + CEFThermalEnergy + CEFElectrical- Clinker ) Ä CPr oject + CEFElectrical- Additive Ä APr oject ]
· CEFProject= Carbon Emission Factor in tCO2/tPPC for the project activity

· CEFProcess= Carbon Emission Factor related to the process emissions in the project boundary in tCO2/tclinker
· CEFThermal= Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to thermal energy consumption in the project boundary in tCO2/t clinker
· CEFElectrical-Clinker= Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to electrical energy consumption for clinker production till clinker
ground in the project boundary in tCO2/t clinker
· CEFElectrical-Fly ash= Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to electrical energy consumption for Fly ash preparation in the
project boundary in tCO2/t clinker
· CProject= the amount of clinker used per unit of PPC production in t clinker/ t PPC in the project activity for the year y
· AProject= the amount of flyash used per unit of PPC production in t flyash/ t PPC in the project activity for the year y
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFProcess for the project activity hosting plant. The formula for CEFProcess calculations are given
below in Equation 3.
CEFProcess = EF1 5 CaO% in Clinker

= 0.785 5 Plant specific data
· CEFProcess= Carbon Emission Factor related to the process emissions in tCO2/tclinker
· EF1 - Clinker Emission Factor due to CaO in tCO2/tclinker as per the stoichiometric default value (EF1 is the multiplication factor (0.785)
that is the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to CaO in the raw material mineral calcite (CaCO3), from which most or all the CaO in clinker is
derived)
· CaO% in Clinker is Calcium Oxide % in clinker produced from project activity plant specific data.
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFThermal for the project activity hosting plant. The formulae for CEFThermal calculations are given
CEFThermal = STEC 5 EFThermal

= Plant Specific Data 5 Plant Specific Data
(Refer to Annexure A) (in tCO2 / kCal)
· CEFThermal= Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to Thermal Energy Consumption in tCO2/t clinker
· STEC = Specific Thermal Energy Consumption in kcal/t clinker
· EFThermal - Emission Factor of Fuel (Coal) used – Calculated based on Plant Specific Data
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFElectrical-clinker for the project activity hosting plant. The formulae for CEFElectrical-clinker calculations
are given below in Equation 5.
CEFElectrical-Clinker = SEEC Clinker 5
Plant Specific Data (kWh/tclinker)

[ P Grid 5 EF Grid
Plant Specific Data (%) 1.05
+ P Coal-based-captive-power EF Coal
+ P Diesel-based-captive-power 5 EF Diesel
Plant Specific Data (%) .8]
· CEF Electrical-clinker=Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to specific electrical energy consumption in tCO2/tclinker
· SEEC Clinker- = Specific Electrical Energy Consumption for clinker production till clinker ground in kwh/tclinker
· P grid% is the share of electricity consumed from the grid (expressed in percentage)
· EFGrid - Emission Factor of Grid Mix - (Detailed calculations are based on the point 29 of “Indicative Simplified Baseline and Monitoring
Methodologies for selected small scale CDM Project Activity Categories”. Refer to Annexure C for calculations.)
· P coal-based-captive-power% is the share of electricity consumed from the coal based captive power (expressed in percentage)
· EF Coal - Emission Factor of Coal used
· P diesel-based-captive-power% is the share of electricity consumed from the diesel based captive power (expressed in percentage)
· EFDiesel - Emission Factor of Diesel - (Refer to point 28 Table I.D.1 of “Indicative Simplified Baseline and Monitoring Methodologies for selected
small scale CDM Project Activity Categories”.
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFElectrical-Fly ash for the project activity hosting plant. The formulae for CEFElectrical-Fly ash calculations
are given below in Equation 6.
CEFElectrical-Fly ash = SEEC Fly ash-Grid 5
Plant Specific Data (kWh/t Fly ash)

[ P Grid 5 EF Grid
· CEF Electrical-Fly ash=Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to specific electrical energy consumption for fly ash preparation in tCO2/t
flyash
· SEEC Fly ash = Specific Electrical Energy Consumption for fly ash preparation in kwh/t flyash
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of EFGrid for the project activity hosting plant. The formulae for EFGrid calculations are
given below as in Equation 7 (i-v),
Emission FactorGrid
Ø Baseline Power generation as in Equation 7(i)
Pgr = Ptot - Plrc
· Pgr - Power generation by all sources, without low running cost plants.
· Ptot - Power generation by all sources of grid mix.
· Plrc - Power generation by low running cost projects.
(Refer Annexure-B & C)
Ø Sectorwise baseline Power generation as in Equation 7(ii)

Pn % = Pn / Pgr
5 100
· Pn% - Share (in %) of power generation by each fuel used (coal and gas in present scenario), out of total power generation excluding, power from
low running cost plants.
· Pn - Power generation by fuel used. (in Million kWh units)
Ø Calculation of Operating Margin emission factor as in Equation 7(iii)
OM gr =
å Pn % 5 En
(Refer to Annexure – B and C)
· OMgr - OM Emission factor of baseline calculated for 2000-2001 (tCO2/kWh)

· En - Emission factor (actual) for each fuel type considered (e.g. coal, gas).
Ø Calculation of Build Margin emission factor for each source of baseline generation mix as in Equation 7(iv)
BM YR = å (C * EF ) / CTOT
· BMyr - Build Margin (kg/kWh) - weighted average of emissions by recent 20% capacity additions
· C - Capacity (MW) of 5 most recent capacity additions
· EF - CO2 Emission factor (kg /kWh) of 5 most recent capacity additions
· CTOT - Summation of the Capacity (MW) of 5 most recent capacity additions
Ø Calculation of Combined Margin emission factor as in Equation 7(v)

CM NET = (OM bef + BM YR ) / 2
· CMNET - Combine Margin Factor for 2000-2001
· OMbef - OM Emission factor of baseline calculated for 2000-2001 (kg/kWh)
· BMyr - Build Margin.(kg/kWh) - weighted average of emissions by recent 20% capacity additions
D.2.1.3. Relevant data necessary for determining the baseline of anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs within the project
boundary and how such data will be collected and archived :
ID number Data Source of data Data unit Measured (m), Recording Proportion of How will the data be Comment
(Please use variable calculated (c), frequency data to be archived? (electronic/
numbers to estimated (e), monitored paper)
ease cross-
referencing
to table
D.3)
2.1 Cement type Cement Ton Measured Once prior to Total Electronic and Paper
produced Association/Othe PDD
r Published data submission
2.2 Amount of Cement Ton Measured/Calculate Once prior to Total Electronic and Paper
clinker used Association/Othe d PDD
for cement r Published data submission
type
produced
2.3 Amount of Cement Ton Measured Once prior to Total Electronic and Paper
additives Association/Othe PDD
used for r Published data submission
cement type
produced
Parameter 1: Cement Baseline
2.4 Average Cement t additive Calculated Once prior to Total Electronic and Paper Data would be
Additive % Association/Othe / t cement PDD collected for all the
for cement r Published data type submission cement plants in
type Fixed for the the system
crediting boundary. The
period. frequency of
aggregation of the
additive% used to
calculate the
CEFBaselinet is based
on an annual
average data,
which encapsulates
the seasonal
variations.
ID number Data variable Source of Data unit Measured (m), Recording Proportion of How will the data be Comment
(Please use data calculated (c), frequency data to be archived? (electronic/
ease cross-
referencing
to table
D.3)
Parameter 2: CEF (Process) in t CO2/t clinker
2.5 CaO% in Industrial % or tCaO Measured and Daily Total Electronic and Paper Ex-post monitoring
Clinker Facility /t Clinker Calculated
2.6 Carbon Industrial t CO2/t Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper Ex-post monitoring
Emission Factor Facility Clinker
(process)
Parameter 3: CEF (Thermal) in tCO2/t clinker
2.7 Specific Industrial kcal/ton of Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper Ex-post monitoring
Thermal Energy Facility clinker
Consumption
2.8 Carbon Industrial t CO2/kcal Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper This parameter will be
Emission Factor Facility calculated based on the
(a),(b) and (c).
CEF (Thermal) in t CO2/kcal
(a) Quantity of each Industrial t Measured Daily Total Electronic and Paper Ex-post monitoring
of the Fuel Type Facility
used
(b) Net Calorific Industrial kcal Measured Monthly Total Electronic and Paper Ex-post monitoring
Value of each of Facility
the Fuel Type
used
(c) Carbon Content Industrial % Measured Monthly Total Electronic and Paper Ex-post monitoring
of the Fuel Type Facility
ease cross-
referencing
to table
D.3)
Parameter 4: CEF (Electrical-clinker) in t CO2/t clinker
2.9 Specific Electrical Industrial kwh/ton of Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper Ex-post monitoring
Energy Facility clinker
Consumption for
clinker production
2.10 Carbon Emission Industrial t CO2/kwh Calculated Annual Total Electronic and Paper This parameter will
Factor Facility be calculated based
on the (a),(b),
(c),(d),(e) (f) and (g).
CEF (Electrical) in t CO2/kwh
(a) Electricity Industrial % Measured Monthly Total Paper/Electronic Ex-post monitoring
consumed from the Facility
grid per total
electricity
(b) Electricity Industrial % Measured Monthly Total Paper/Electronic Ex-post monitoring
Coal based CPP
per total electricity
(c) Electricity Industrial % Measured Monthly Total Paper/Electronic Ex-post monitoring
consumed from the Facility
Diesel Based CPP
(d) Carbon Emission Government t CO2/kwh Calculated Fixed for the Total Paper/Electronic -
Factor (grid) sources credit period
(e) Carbon Emission Industrial t CO2/kwh Calculated Annual Total Paper/Electronic Ex-post monitoring
Factor (coal based Facility
CPP)
(f) Carbon Emission IPCC t CO2/kwh Calculated Annual Total Paper/Electronic -
Factor (diesel
based CPP)
(g) Net Carbon Industrial t CO2/kwh Calculated Annual Total Paper/Electronic Ex-post monitoring
Emission Factor Facility
ease cross-
referencing
to table
D.3)
Parameter 5:CEF (Electrical-additive) in t CO2/t additive
2.11 Specific Electrical Industrial kcal/ton of Calculated Daily Total Electronic and Paper Ex-post monitoring
Energy Facility additive
Consumption for
additive
preparation
2.10 Carbon Emission Industrial t CO2/kwh Calculated Annual Total Electronic and Paper This parameter will
Factor Facility be calculated based
on the (a),(b),
(c),(d),(e) (f) and (g).
Production
2.12 Cement type Industrial Ton Measured Daily Total Electronic and Paper Ex-post monitoring
produced Facility
D.2.1.4. Description of formulae used to estimate baseline emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2
equ.)
>>
As per the proposed methodology the Carbon Emission Factor of the baseline is estimated based on each of the following:
- Cement Baseline defined as the highest Fly ash % used for the PPC production amongst the cement manufacturing plants in the system boundary and
the associated Clinker % used for PPC production in the baseline scenario
- Carbon Emission Factor for process related emissions, in t CO2/tclinker
- Carbon Emission Factor for emissions due to thermal energy consumption in t CO2/tclinker
- Carbon Emission Factor for emissions due to electrical energy consumption for clinker production in t CO2/tclinker and
- Carbon Emission Factor for emissions due to electrical energy consumption for flyash preparation in t CO2/t flyash
As per the methodology the carbon emission factor for the baseline is a standard baseline for the system boundary and is frozen since it is based on the cement
baseline which the highest flyash % used in the system boundary.
The formulae used for estimation of the anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the baseline scenario are as under as in Equation 1 (A)
BE = CEFBaseline 5 PPPC
· BE = Baseline Emissions
· CEFBaseline= Carbon Emission Factor for baseline in tCO2/t PPC
· PPPC= Annual PPC Production
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFBaseline for the project activity hosting plant. The formula for CEFBaseline calculations are given
below as in Equation 2(A)
[ ]
CEFBaseline == (CEFprocess + CEFThermalEnergy + CEFElectrical-Clinker ) Ä CBaseline % +
[CEFElectrical- Additive Ä ABaselinet %]
· CEFBaseline= Carbon Emission Factor in tCO2/tPPC for the baseline scenario
· CEFProcess= Carbon Emission Factor related to the process emissions in the project boundary in tCO2/tclinker
· CEFThermal= Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to thermal energy consumption in the project boundary in tCO2/t clinker
· CEFElectrical-Clinker= Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to electrical energy consumption for clinker production till clinker ground in the
project boundary in tCO2/t clinker
· CEFElectrical-Fly ash= Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to electrical energy consumption for Fly ash preparation in the project boundary
in tCO2/t clinker
· CBaseline= the amount of clinker used per unit of PPC production in t clinker/ t PPC in the baseline scenario
· ABaseline= the amount of flyash used per unit of PPC production in t flyash/ t PPC in the baseline scenario
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFProcess for the project activity hosting plant. The formula for CEFProcess calculations are given
CEFProcess = EF1 5 CaO% in Clinker

= 0.785 5 Plant specific data
· CEFProcess= Carbon Emission Factor related to the process emissions in tCO2/tclinker
· EF1 - Clinker Emission Factor due to CaO in tCO2/tclinker as per the stoichiometric default value (EF1 is the multiplication factor (0.785) that is the
molecular weight ratio of CO2 to CaO in the raw material mineral calcite (CaCO3), from which most or all the CaO in clinker is derived)
· CaO% in Clinker is Calcium Oxide % in clinker produced from project activity plant specific data. In absence of accurate plant specific data IPCC
default value (Source: IPCC Good Practice guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories) may be used.
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFThermal for the project activity hosting plant. The formulae for CEFThermal calculations are given
below as in Equation 4.
CEFThermal = STEC 5 EFThermal

= Plant Specific Data 5 Plant Specific Data
(Refer to Annexure A)
· CEFThermal= Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to Thermal Energy Consumption in tCO2/t clinker
· STEC = Specific Thermal Energy Consumption in kcal/t clinker
· EFThermal - Emission Factor of Fuel (Coal) used – Calculated based on Plant Specific Data
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFElectrical-clinker for the project activity hosting plant. The formulae for CEFElectrical-clinker calculations
are given below as in Equation 5.
CEFElectrical-Clinker = SEEC Clinker 5
Plant Specific Data (kWh/tclinker)

[ P Grid 5 EF Grid
· CEF Electrical-clinker=Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to specific electrical energy consumption in tCO2/tclinker
· SEEC Clinker- = Specific Electrical Energy Consumption for clinker production till clinker ground in kwh/tclinker
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of CEFElectrical-Fly ash for the project activity hosting plant. The formulae for CEFElectrical-Fly ash calculations
are given below as in Equation 6.
CEFElectrical-Fly ash = SEEC Fly ash-Grid 5
Plant Specific Data (kWh/t Fly ash)

[ P Grid 5 EF Grid
· CEF Electrical-Fly ash=Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to specific electrical energy consumption for fly ash preparation in tCO2/t
flyash
· SEEC Fly ash = Specific Electrical Energy Consumption for fly ash preparation in kwh/t flyash
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of EFGrid for the project activity hosting plant. The formulae for EFGrid calculations are given below as in
Equation 7 (i-v),
Emission FactorGrid
Ø Baseline Power generation as in Equation 7(i)
Pgr = Ptot - Plrc
· Ptot - Power generation by all sources of grid mix.
· Plrc - Power generation by low running cost projects.
(Refer Annexure-B & C)
Ø Sectorwise baseline Power generation as in Equation 7(ii)

Pn % = Pn / Pgr
5 100
· Pn - Power generation by fuel used. (in Million kWh units)
Ø Calculation of Operating Margin emission factor as in Equation 7(iii)
OM gr =
å Pn % 5 En
· OMgr - OM Emission factor of baseline calculated for 2000-2001 the base year (tCO2/kWh)
· En - Emission factor (actual) for each fuel type considered (e.g. coal, gas).
Ø Calculation of Build Margin emission factor for each source of baseline generation mix as in Equation 7(iv)
BM YR =
å (C * EF ) / CTOT
· BMyr - Build Margin for the latest year data available at the time of PDD submission.(kg/kWh) - weighted average of emissions by recent 20%
capacity additions
· C - Capacity (MW) of 5 most recent capacity additions
· EF - CO2 Emission factor (kg /kWh) of 5 most recent capacity additions
· CTOT - Summation of the Capacity (MW) of 5 most recent capacity additions
Ø Calculation of Combined Margin emission factor as in Equation 7(v)

CM NET = (OM bef + BM YR ) / 2
· CMNET - Combine Margin Factor for 2000-2001
· OMbef - OM Emission factor of baseline calculated for 2000-2001base year (kg/kWh)
· BMyr - Build Margin.(kg/kWh) - weighted average of emissions by recent 20% capacity additions
D. 2.2. Option 2: Direct monitoring of emission reductions from the project activity (values should be consistent with those in section E).
Not Applicable
D.2.2.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived:
ID number Data Source of Data Measured (m), Recording Proportion How will the data Comment
(Please use variable data unit calculated (c), frequency of data to be archived?
numbers to estimated (e), be (electronic/
ease cross- monitored paper)
referencing
to table
D.3)
D.2.2.2. Description of formulae used to calculate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2
equ.):
>>
D.2.3. Treatment of leakage in the monitoring plan
D.2.3.1. If applicable, please describe the data and information that will be collected in order to monitor leakage effects of the project
activity
ID number Data variable Source of Data unit Measured (m), Recording Proportion How will the Comment
(Please use data calculated (c) frequency of data to data be archived?
numbers to or estimated be (electronic/
ease cross- (e) monitored paper)
referencing
to table
D.3)
3.1 Emissions per annum Industrial t calculated (c) Yearly Total Paper/Electronic The distance traversed and fuel
related to transport of Facility CO2/cement efficiency of trucks are
additives type monitored to calculate 4.1
3.2 Emissions per annum Industrial t CO2/t of calculated (c) Yearly Total Paper/Electronic The distance traversed and fuel
related to transport of Facility cement type efficiency of trucks are
equivalent coal monitored to calculate 4.2
3.3 Emissions per annum Industrial t CO2/t of Calculated Yearly Total Paper/Electronic The distance traversed and fuel
related to transport of Facility cement type efficiency of trucks are
equivalent limestone monitored to calculate 4.3
D.2.3.2. Description of formulae used to estimate leakage (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.)
>>
The project activity would lead to emissions resulting from transport of flyash from thermal power plants and at the same time the project would reduce
emissions due to transportation of limestone from quarries to plants.
The project proponent is required to estimate the values of leakage due to transportation (LTransportation) in tCO2/tPPC for the project activity hosting plant. If
LTransportation related emissions are found to be positive the same are to be deducted as project emissions.
However if LTransportation related emissions are found to be neligible and has been ignored.
The formulae for LTransportation calculations are given below in Equation 8 and 8.1-8.12
Estimation of the Leakage as in Equation 8

LTransportation = TEbaseline-limestone + TEbaseline-coal
+ TEbaseline-additive - TEproject-limestone
- TEproject-coal - TEproject-additive
· TEbaseline-limestone = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of limestone in the baseline scenario
· TEbaseline-coal = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of coal
· TEbaseline-additive = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of additives
· TEProject-limestone = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of limestone
· TEProject-coal = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of coal
· TEProject-additive = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of additives
If LTransportation = +ve; The emissions/annum are deducted as project emissions. If LTransportation = -ve; The emissions/annum are ignored.
Estimation of the emissions due to transportation of limestone by diesel vehicles in tCO2/t PPC in the baseline scenario as in Equation 8.1 and Equation 8.2
TEbaseline- = QBaseline-limestone 5 EFDiesel-oil
limestone
= in lit/tPPC 5 0.0020978 tCO2/lit
· TEbaseline-limestone = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of limestone
· QBaseline- limestone = Specific consumption of Diesel oil required for transportation of limestone required per ton of PPC in lit
· EFDiesel-oil - Emission Factor of Diesel Oil used - IPCC default value (Source: IPCC Good Practice guidance and Uncertainty Management in
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories)
QBaseline- = |L x CBaseline/Caplimestone| 5 2D limestone
limestone
/ Mlimestone
· L = Limestone used per ton of clinker production in the baseline scenario in t/tclinker
· CBaseline= Clinker used per ton of PPC production in the baseline scenario in t/tPPC
· Cap limestone = Capacity of the vehicle used for the transportation of limestone in tonnes
· 2D limestone = Distance to be traversed both ways for limestone procurement in km
· M limestone = Mileage of fuel vehicle used for the transportation of limestone in km/lit
8
IPCC default value of EF(diesel) = 74.1tCO2/TJ;Calorific Value of Diesel= 0.0000283TJ/lit
Estimation of the emissions due to transportation of Coal by diesel vehicles in tCO2/t PPC in the baseline scenario as in Equation 8.3 and Equation 8.4
TEBaseline-coal = QBaseline-coal 5 EFDiesel-oil
· TEbaseline-coal = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of coal
· QBaseline-coal = Specific consumption of Diesel oil required for transportation of coal required per ton of PPC in lit
QBaseline-coal = |C x CBaseline/Capcoal| 5 2Dcoal

/ Mcoal
· C = Coal used per ton of clinker production in the baseline scenario in t/tclinker
· CBaseline= Clinker used per ton of PPC production in the baseline scenario in t/tPPC
· Cap coal = Capacity of the vehicle used for the transportation of coal in tonnes
· 2D coal = Distance to be traversed both ways for coal procurement in km
· M coal = Mileage of fuel vehicle used for the transportation of coal in km/lit
9
Estimation of the emissions due to transportation of Fly ash additives by diesel vehicles in tCO2/t PPC in the baseline scenario as in Equation 8.5 and
Equation 8.6
TEbaseline- = QBaseline-additive 5 EFDiesel-oil
additive
· TEbaseline-additive = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of additives
· QBaseline-additive = Specific consumption of Diesel oil required for transportation of fly ash additive required per ton of PPC in lit
QBaseline- = |ABaseline/Capflyash| 5 2Dflyash
additive
/ Mflyash
· ABaselinet= Flyash used per ton of PPC production in the baseline scenario in tonnes
· Capflyash = Capacity of the vehicle used for the transportation of flyash in tonnes
· 2Dflyash = Distance to be traversed both ways for flyash procurement in km
· Mflyash = Mileage of fuel vehicle used for the transportation of flyash in km/lit
10
Estimation of the emissions due to transportation of limestone by diesel vehicles in tCO2/t PPC in the project scenario as in Equation 8.7 and Equation 8.8
TEProject- = QProject-limestone 5 EFDiesel-oil
limestone
· TEProject-limestone = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of limestone
· QProject- limestone = Specific consumption of Diesel oil required for transportation of limestone required per ton of PPC in lit
QProject- = |L x CProject/Caplimestone| 5 2D limestone
limestone
/ Mlimestone
· L = Limestone used per ton of clinker production in the baseline scenario in t/tclinker
· CProject= Clinker used per ton of PPC production in the baseline scenario in t/tPPC
· Cap limestone = Capacity of the vehicle used for the transportation of limestone in tonnes
· 2D limestone = Distance to be traversed both ways for limestone procurement in km
· M limestone = Mileage of fuel vehicle used for the transportation of limestone in km/lit
11
Estimation of the emissions due to transportation of Coal by diesel vehicles in tCO2/t PPC in the project scenario as in Equation 8.9 and Equation 8.10
TEProject-coal = QProject-coal 5 EFDiesel-oil
· TEProject-coal = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of coal
· QProject-coal = Specific consumption of Diesel oil required for transportation of coal required per ton of PPC in lit
QProject-coal = |C x C Project/Capcoal| 5 2Dcoal

/ Mcoal
· C = Coal used per ton of clinker production in the baseline scenario in t/tclinker
· CProject= Clinker used per ton of PPC production in the baseline scenario in t/tPPC
· Cap coal = Capacity of the vehicle used for the transportation of coal in tonnes
· 2D coal = Distance to be traversed both ways for coal procurement in km
· M coal = Mileage of fuel vehicle used for the transportation of coal in km/lit
12
Estimation of the emissions due to transportation of Fly ash additives by diesel vehicles in tCO2/t PPC in the project scenario as in Equation 8.11 and
Equation 8.12
TEProject- = Q Project-additive 5 EFDiesel-oil
additive
· TEProject-additive = Emissions in tCO2/tPPC related to transportation of additives
· QProject-additive = Specific consumption of Diesel oil required for transportation of fly ash additive required per ton of PPC in lit
QProject-additive = |AProject/Capflyash| 5 2Dflyash
/ Mflyash
· AProject= Flyash used per ton of PPC production in the project scenario in tonnes
· Capflyash = Capacity of the vehicle used for the transportation of flyash in tonnes
· 2Dflyash = Distance to be traversed both ways for flyash procurement in km
· Mflyash = Mileage of fuel vehicle used for the transportation of flyash in km/lit
13
D.2.4. Description of formulae used to estimate emission reductions for the project activity (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions
units of CO2 equ.)
>>
ER = BE - PE - L Transportation………………………EQN (1-C) where
BE is the baseline emissions in t CO2
PE is the project emissions in t CO2

LTransportation is the emissions due to transportation related leakage
D.3. Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for data monitored
Data Uncertainty level of data Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such procedures are not necessary.
(Indicate table and (High/Medium/Low)
ID number e.g. 3.-1.;
3.2.)
1.1 Low The parameter is critical and would affect the GHG reduction claims if found to be higher. Moreover,
being a financial data, it is to be monitored for financial audit also.
1.2 Low -Do-
1.3 Low -Do-
1.4 Low -Do-
1.5 Low -Do-
1.6 Low -Do-
1.7 Low -Do-
1.8 Low -Do-
1.9 Low -Do-
1.10 Low -Do-
1.11 Low -Do-
2.5- 2.12 Low The parameter is critical and would affect the baseline emissions and therefore the GHG reduction claims
if found to be higher.
3.1 Low The parameter is monitored to calculate the leakages and would affect the GHG reduction claims if found
to be higher.
3.2 Low -Do-
3.3 Low -Do-
D.4 Please describe the operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to monitor emission reductions and
any leakage effects, generated by the project activity
>>
BCL has implemented an operational and management structure in order to monitor emission reductions and any leakage effects, generated by the project
activity.
BCL has formed a CDM team/committee comprising of persons from relevant departments, which will be responsible for monitoring of all the parameters
mentioned in this section. The CDM team also comprises of a special group of operators who are assigned the responsibility of monitoring of different
parameters and record keeping. On a weekly basis, the monitoring reports are checked and discussed by the seniors CDM team members/managers. In case of
any irregularity observed by any of the CDM team member, it is informed to the concerned person for necessary actions. On monthly basis, these reports are
forwarded at the management level.
D.5 Name of person/entity determining the monitoring methodology:

>>
BCL along with guidance from their consultants
SECTION E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources
E.1. Estimate of GHG emissions by sources:

>>
Sl. No. Operating Project Emission Factor Project Emission
Years (tones of CO2 / tPPC) (tones of CO2)
1. 2001-2002 0.55595 204684
2. 2002-2003 0.576276 378473
3. 2003-2004 0.573768 53933
4. 2004-2005 0.55835 586267
5. 2005-2006 0.550153 825230
6. 2006-2007 0.550153 962768
7. 2007-2008 0.550153 1100307
8. 2008-2009 0.550153 1237845
9. 2009-2010 0.550153 1402891
10. 2010-2011 0.550153 1402891
Total 8640689
E.2. Estimated leakage:

>>
The LTransportation in the project activity case was found to be negligible and may therefore be ignored during
computation of the total Emission Reductions. (Refer to Annexure D for details)
The methodology requires the project proponent to address the leakages associated to displacement of other
uses of fly ash if any. The project proponent is required to study the usage of the fly ash in the baseline
scenario in absence of project activity and account for emission leakages via such routes. However in India
and many other countries flyash disposal is one of the most important environmental issues, which has not
been resolved satisfactorily. Therefore the cement-manufacturing units will use excess flyash and will not
displace any other activity utilizing flyash. We may therefore neglect the same.
E.3. The sum of E.1 and E.2 representing the project activity emissions:
>>
Net emissions by project activity (E1+E2) is 86,40,689 tonnes CO2 over the 10-year crediting period.
E.4. Estimated anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the baseline:

>>
Sl. No. Operating Baseline Emission Factor Baseline
Years (tones of CO2 / tPPC) Emissions
(tones of CO2)
1. 2001-2002 0.567972 209110
2. 2002-2003 0.567972 373019
3. 2003-2004 0.567972 533883
4. 2004-2005 0.567972 596370
5. 2005-2006 0.567972 851957
6. 2006-2007 0.567972 993950
7. 2007-2008 0.567972 1135944
8. 2008-2009 0.567972 1277937
9. 2009-2010 0.567972 1448328
10. 2010-2011 0.567972 1448328
Total 8868830
E.5. Difference between E.4 and E.3 representing the emission reductions of the project activity:
>>
Sl. No. Operating CO2 Emission Reductions
Years (tones of CO2)
1. 2001-2002 4426
2. 2002-2003 0
3. 2003-2004 0
4. 2004-2005 10103
5. 2005-2006 26728
6. 2006-2007 31182
7. 2007-2008 35637
8. 2008-2009 40091
9. 2009-2010 45437
10. 2010-2011 45437
Total 239043
E.6. Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above:
Please refer to Enclosure –I: Annexure A, Enclosure –II: Annexure B, Enclosure –III: Annexure C and
Enclosure –IV: Annexure D for details.
SECTION F. Environmental impacts
Not Applicable for proposed new methodology submission
F.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary

impacts:
>>
F.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host
Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental
impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party:
>>
SECTION G. Stakeholders’ comments

>>
Not Applicable for proposed new methodology submission
G.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:
>>
G.2. Summary of the comments received:

>>
G.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:
>>
Annex 1
CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY
Organization: Birla Corporation Ltd, Unit- Chittor and Birla Cement Works
Street/P.O.Box: 9/1 R.N.Mukherjee Road
Building: Birla Buiilding
City: Kolkata
State/Region: West Bengal
Postfix/ZIP: Pin – 700 001
Country: India
Telephone: +91 – (033) 2213 1680 / 1688 / 1689
FAX: +91 – (033) 2248 3239
E-Mail: tcs@birlacorp.com
URL: www.birlacorporation.com/cementframe.html
Represented by:
Title: Vice President – Projects
Salutation: Mr.
Last Name: Panwar
Middle Name: S.
First Name: V.
Department: Projects – Birla Corporation Ltd
Mobile:
Direct FAX: +91 – (033) 2248 3239
Direct tel: +91 – (033) 2213 1680 / 1688 / 1689
Personal E-Mail: vspanwar@birlacorp.com
Annex 2
INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING
Annex 3
BASELINE INFORMATION
Please refer to Section B-1 and

Ø Enclosure III - “Annexure A: Cement Baseline” for baseline data on Cement Baseline
Ø Enclosure IV - “Annexure B: Emission Reduction Calculations” for baseline data on CEF Baseline
Ø Enclosure V - “Annexure C: Calculation of Emission Factor of the Rajasthan Grid – using
combined margin approach” for grid data (Details of grid data enclosed in Annexure D. )
Annex 4
MONITORING PLAN
Please refer to Section D-2 for details.
- ----
ENCLOSURE – I: LIST OF REFERENCES
Sr.No Particulars of the references

Kyoto Protocol / UNFCCC Related
1. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
2. Website of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
http://unfccc.int
3. UNFCCC Decision 17/CP.7 : Modalities and procedures for a clean development
mechanism as defined in article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol.
4. UNFCCC document, Clean Development Mechanism-Project Design Document (CDM-
PDD) version 01(in effect as of: August 29, 2002)
5. UNFCCC document: Annex B to attachment 3 Indicative simplified baseline and
monitoring methodologies for selected small scale CDM project activity categories ver
01, January 21, 2003.
6. Further Clarification on Methodological Issues, EB 10 Report, Annex 1,
http://unfccc.int
7. Annex 2 : Amendment to Appendix B of the Simplified Modalities and Procedures for
Small-Scale CDM Project Activities, EB 12 Report. http://unfccc.int
Baseline Related
8. Report of the working group on cement industry, X-Five year Plan (2002-2007),
Government of India, Planning Comission, February,2000.
9. India Cement Sector - The Untold Story Part II ; by India Infoline
- Overview of the industry; 15th July,2003
- Annexure 9 – Types of cement; 12th August,2003
10. - Executive Summary Cement Industry, March,2002 by Cement Manufacturers’
Association,
- Executive Summary Cement Industry, March,2003 by Cement Manufacturers’
Association,
11. Module – 1:Estimation of Fair Prices of Cement, May 2001; by The credit rating
information services of India Limited.
12. Module – 2:Current Demand Supply Scenario, May 2001; by The credit rating
information services of India Limited
13. Module – 3:Trends in Cement Prices, May 2001; by The credit rating information
services of India Limited
14. Composite Cements, S.C. Ahluwalia, OCL India Limited, New Delhi, Seventh NCB
International Seminar on Cement and Building Materials
15. An initial view on methodologies for Emission Baselines: Cement Case Study; June
2000, OECD and IEA Information Paper; by Jane Ellis, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, Paris.
16. ‘India’s cement Industry: Productivity, Energy Efficiency and Carbon Emissions, July
1999 by Katja Schumacher and Jayant Sathaye, Environmental Energy Technologies
Division, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
17. IPCC-Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories (There is no year for this document)
- CO2 Emissions From Industry; Cement production; Figure 3.1:Decision Tree
for Estimation of CO2emissions from cement production
- CO2 Emissions From Stationary Combustion of Fossil Fuels
18. Website of Department of Energy, Government of Rajasthan -
Sr.No Particulars of the references

http://www.rajenergy.com
19. Contract Demand between BCL and RVPN
20. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff Order dated 24th March, 2001 -
http://www.rajenergy.com/ticap_1.htm
21. ‘Anthropogenic Emissions from Energy Activities in India: Generation and Source
Characterization’ by Moti L. Mittal and C. Sharma
22. Cement Production, Conversion Factor Data, Energy Consumption Data of cement
plants in Chanderia Cluster, 2000-2001, NCCBM
Project Related
23. Project Drawing No. CCW-B-C-3306; Revision 2,
24. Various project related information / documents / data received from BCL’s cement
manufacturing units, Chittorgarh
25. Various project related information / documents / data on Environmental Impacts
received from BCL’s cement manufacturing units, Chittorgarh
26. Various project related information / documents on Stakeholders comments received
from BCL’s cement manufacturing units, Chittorgarh
Enclosure - II: List of Abbreviations
% Percentage
ABaseline% Cement Baseline
BAU Business As Usual
BCL Birla Corporation Ltd
BCW Birla Cement Works
BE Baseline Emissions
BFS Blast Furnace Slag
BM Build Margin
CaCO3 Calcium Carbonate
CaO Calcium Oxide
CAS Country Assistance Strategy
CCW Chittor Cement Works
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CEA Central Electricity Authority
CEFFuel Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to Thermal Energy
Consumption in tCO2/tcement
CEFThermal Carbon Emission Factor for emissions related to the thermal energy
consumption
CEFProcess. Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to Cement
Manufacturing Process
CEFElectricity-clinker Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions related to Electrical Energy
Consumption used for Clinker Production (till clinker ground)
CEFElectricity-additive Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions related to Electrical Energy
Consumption used for Additive Preparation
CEFBaseline Carbon Emission Factor related to the emissions due to Baseline Scenario
CEFProject Carbon Emission Factor estimated based on the increase in the Additive %
CF Conversion Factor or Cement: Clinker Ratio
CKD Cement Clinker Dust
CM Combined Margin
CMA Cement Manufacturer Association of India
CO2 Carbon di-oxide
CPWD Central Public Works Department
CRISIL The Credit Rating Information Services of India Limited
EB Executive Board
EF1 Clinker Emission Factor
EFCoal Emission Factor of Coal
EFDiesel Emission Factor of Diesel
EFFuel Emission Factor of Fuel
EFGrid Emission Factor for Grid Mix
equ Equivalent
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HFC Hydro Fluro Carbon
HP Himachal Pradesh
IPCC Intra-governmental Panel for Climate Change
kg Kilo Gram
km Kilo meter
kWh Kilo Watt Hour
M Major Proportion of Supply in Clusters
M3 Cubic Meter
MgCO3 Magnesium Carbonate
MgO Magnesium Oxide
MoEF Ministry of Environment & Forest
MoP Ministry of Power
MP Madhya Pradesh
O Other Clusters supplying to the Market
OM Operating Margin
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
PGrid% Share of Electricity consumed from the grid
PFuel% Share of Electricity consumed from the captive power for each fuel consumed
Pcaptive-power% Share in % of Electrical Energy from Captive Power Plants
PCement Total Cement Type Production in that period
PE Project Emissions
PFC Per Fluro Carbon
PPC Portland Pozzolonic Cement
PSC Portland Slag Cement
RCC Reinforced Concrete Column
Rs. Indian Rupee
SEEC Specific Electrical Energy Consumption
STEC Specific Thermal Energy Consumption
SEECClinker Specific Electrical Energy Consumption for clinker manufacturing
SEECadditive Specific Electrical Energy Consumption for Additive Preparation
SF6 Sulphur Hexa Fluoride
SPM Suspended Particulate Matter
SSC-PDD Small Scale Project Design Document
T Tones
t Tones
tCO2 Tones of Carbon Di Oxide
TJ Trillion Joules
TN Tamil Nadu
TPH Tones Per Hour
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VRM Vertical Roller Mill
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development

MDL - Birla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

MDL - Birla

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MDL - Birla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

A. General description of project activity

B. Application of a baseline methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period

D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan

E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan

CDM – Executive Board page 2

SECTION A. General description of project activity

A.1 Title of the project activity:

Birla Corporation Limited: CDM project for “Optimal Utilization of Clinker ”

A.2. Description of the project activity:

Ø Direct and indirect reduction of GHG emissions

Ø Industrial waste utilization

CDM – Executive Board page 3

Ø Thermal and electrical energy conservation

A.3. Project participants:

· Birla Corporation Limited is the project proponent.

CDM – Executive Board page 4

A.4. Technical description of the project activity:

A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information

CDM – Executive Board page 5

CDM – Executive Board page 6

A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:

A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:

A.4.4. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of anthropogenic

CDM – Executive Board page 7

A.4.4.1. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the

Sl. No. Operating CO2 Emission Reductions

CDM – Executive Board page 8

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

No public funding from parties included in Annex – I is available to the project.

SECTION B. Application of a baseline methodology

Title: BCL Methodology for GHG emission reduction in cement industry

B.1.1. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to

CDM – Executive Board page 9

Production Capacity Scale of Economics

CDM – Executive Board page 10

CDM – Executive Board page 11

Table B-1: Operating Costs of producing clinker on ‘Average Cost’ Basis

social market circumstances

CDM – Executive Board page 12

Table B-2: Cluster to Market Matrix

Sr. Satna Bilaspu Gulbarg Chand Chand Nalgo Yerrag

CDM – Executive Board page 13

Sr. Similar social market Economic Technological

CDM – Executive Board page 14

Sr. Similar social market Economic Technological

Cement Baseline (A Baseline%)