How to monitor
Sampling and analysis, and the quality assurance of CEMs, are subject to CEN standards. The major standards of interest are EN 14181 (the
quality assurance of Automated Measuring Systems) and
EN 15259 (defining measurement locations by the use of duct surveys). The IED also requires annual checking of CEMs using manual reference methods (the Annual Surveillance Test, or AST, defined in EN 14181).
The availability of the CEM systems is expected to be high. Any day with more than three hours of lost data, due to malfunction or mainte- nance of the CEMs is invalidated. For more than ten invalidated days in a calendar year, the competent authority shall require the operator to take adequate measures to improve the reliability of the CEMs.
Implications for the Quality Assurance of CEMs The implications of the IED for the Quality Assurance of CEMs are considered in relation to the Quality Assurance Levels (QALs) specified in EN14181.
QAL1 (fitness for purpose) The substantial reduction in ELVs for existing power plant may require replacement of CEMs if they are unsuitable for measuring at lower concentrations. The certified range of the instruments must be less than 2.5*Daily ELV for combustion plant. For the above example of large gas turbines, the required certification ranges are shown in Table 3. The ‘ELV’ for O2
is given as 10%, even though the process reference condition is 15%. The required span value is then close to 21% (air). The importance of the oxygen reading for gas turbines (operating at high excess air levels) needs to be recognised. The ‘ELV’ for H2
O is set
at a typical process level of 6%, although emissions from gas turbines are often measured on a dry basis If the certified ranges are unacceptable, then new instruments may need to be purchased if the remainder of the QA checks cannot be satisfied. CO limits are specified for gas fired systems under the IED. A new CEM for CO measurement may therefore be required if one is not already fitted or if an existing instrument is unsuitable and has not previously been subject to QA requirements.
QAL2 and the AST (in- situ calibration) A QAL2 is normally required every five years for combustion plant or following a significant change to the process or CEMs. Installation of abatement equipment is an example of a significant process change since the flue gas matrix is altered. However, improved NOx control by combustion modification can normally be regarded as a minor process change, although it may be prudent to perform an AST to verify the CEMs performance. If the CEMs do not meet the revised QAL1 certification requirements,
a QAL2 may be required if this is considered to be a major change to the CEMs (or at least an AST by agreement with the competent authority). Various functional checks are required prior to conducting the QAL2 or AST, including a span check and a linearity test. For combustion plant, the span value used for calibration of the CEMs is usually set at 2*ELV and the points used in the linearity test are set at 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% of span. The reduction in ELVs therefore requires a change in gas cylinder concentrations. Since CO concentrations are very low, during normal operation, it is often not possible to produce an adequate QAL2 calibration using reference methods and it is often necessary to instead use the linearity data to verify the instrument calibration.
Figure 2 Shewhart control chart In the analysis of QAL2 data, the test results are plotted against the CEM
results and a straight line is fitted to the data. The QAL2 variability test com- pares the standard deviation of the differences, between the test points and the calibration line, with a theoretical standard deviation which is calculated from the ELV. A reduced ELV therefore makes it more difficult to pass the variability test. Similar tests are specified for the AST with similar implications.
QAL3 (zero and span drift check) QAL3 is intended to provide an audited check of ongoing performance by conducting regular zero and span checks of the monitors and comparing the measured drift against pre-defined warning and action limits using a control chart approach, e.g., a Shewhart chart (Figure 2). One simple approach is to set control limits based on the ELV so these control limits may become tighter as the ELV is reduced. However, periodic review of these control limits is recommended, in any case, in order to check that they are suitable for the actual instrument drift performance and in order to maintain the accuracy of the reported data. There is therefore a limited impact on QAL3 requirements.
Concluding remarks The Industrial Emissions Directive specifies reduced emission limit values for large combustion plant and these represent a minimum standard for emission control. CEMs must be capable of accurately measuring these lower pollutant concentrations and they may have to be replaced if their certification is inadequate. The CEMs must, in any case, pass the other requirements of the Quality Assurance standard EN 14181, noting that the associated statistical tests are more stringent at reduced limit values. Monitoring provisions are generally similar to the current require- ments although the European Commission has a mandate to update the monitoring requirements from time to time to reflect technology changes. The competent authority also has an increased responsibility with regards to the approval of sample port locations. Whilst the general compliance approach for NOx, SO2
and Dust has
been harmonised for both new and existing large combustion plant, continuous CO monitoring is a new, formal requirement for gas fired plant. Mercury emissions must also be measured, at least annually, for coal and lignite fired plant.
Source Testing Association Annual Guide 2012 9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40