WG Implementatie EN14181 in Vlaanderen

1
Practicability of the standard EN 14181 put into
question results of the LABORELEC study
WG Implementatie EN14181 in Vlaanderen April 07
2
Outline

• LABORELEC tests on QAL2
• Protocol
• Some examples
• Findings summary
• QAL2
• QAL3
• AST
• Conclusions.

3
QAL2 assessment protocol

• Two in-situ analysers in conventional Belgian
  power plants
• PROCAL PULSI 240RL
• SICK GM31 and GM35
• Parameters
• NO 0-500 ppm and 0-1000 ppm
• SO2 0-600 ppm
• CO 0-200 ppm and 0-1000 ppm
• Continuous recording of the AMSs and SRM outputs
• Hourly averages distributed on three days.
• No peripheral measurements taken into account.

4
PROCAL PULSI (1)

• IR spectroscopy (IR wavelengths obtained by
  means of interference filters and gas filled
  cells (GCF))
• Auto zero checks.
• Span checks should be possible with test gas.

5
PROCAL Pulsi (2)
6
SICK GM 31 (1)

• Possible to measure simultaneously SO2, NO and
  optionally NO2 or NH3
• UV spectroscopy
• Zero point measurement
• Reference point measurement

7
SICK GM 31 (2)
Sampling
8
SICK GM 35

• IR spectroscopy
• CO
• CO2
• H2O

9
Example 1a cal. funct. obtained during
different recording periods.
10
Example 1b cal. funct. obtained during different
recording periods
11
Example 2 cal. funct. obtained during the same
recording period
D 52 ppm
12
Example 3 data selection
13
Example 3 data selection
14
Example 3 data selection
15
Example 4 2 methods to calculate the calibration
function
16
Findings summary 1/5
QAL 2

• Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration
  (as requested in 6.3).
• Irrelevant calibration function when
• measurements close to zero
• Measurements not scattered enough
• Markedly different calibration functions obtained
  on the same AMS (even during the same recording
  period).
• Validation test not always relevant.

17
Findings summary 1/5
QAL 2

• Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration
  (as requested in 6.3).
• Irrelevant calibration function when
• Measurements close to zero
• Measurements not scattered enough
• Markedly different calibration functions obtained
  on the same AMS (even during the same recording
  period).
• Validation test not always relevant.

18
Findings summary 1/5
QAL 2

• Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration
  (as requested in 6.3).
• Irrelevant calibration function when
• measurements close to zero
• Measurements not scattered enough
• Markedly different calibration functions obtained
  on the same AMS (even during the same recording
  period).
• Validation test not always relevant.

19
Findings summary 1/5
QAL 2

• Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration
  (as requested in 6.3).
• Irrelevant calibration function when
• measurements close to zero
• Measurements not scattered enough
• Markedly different calibration functions obtained
  on the same AMS (even during the same recording
  period).
• Validation test not always relevant.

20
Findings summary 2/5
QAL 2

• Validated range to narrow.
• Too costly for
• Plants operating for short durations
• With emissions much lower than the ELV.
• Difficult to pass the variability test with high
  plant emission.
• Why does the methodology proposed by the standard
  not include the uncertainty on the SRM
  measurements?

21
Findings summary 2/5
QAL 2

• Validated range to narrow.
• Too costly for
• Plants operating for short durations
• With emissions much lower than the ELV.
• Difficult to pass the variability test with high
  plant emission.
• Why does the methodology proposed by the standard
  not include the uncertainty on the SRM
  measurements?

22
Findings summary 2/5
QAL 2

• Validated range to narrow.
• Too costly for
• Plants operating for short durations
• With emissions much lower than the ELV.
• Difficult to pass the variability test with high
  plant emission.
• Why does the methodology proposed by the standard
  not include the uncertainty on the SRM
  measurements?

23
Findings summary 2/5
QAL 2

• Validated range to narrow.
• Too costly for
• Plants operating for short durations
• With emissions much lower than the ELV.
• Difficult to pass the variability test with high
  plant emission.
• Why does the methodology proposed by the standard
  not include the uncertainty on the SRM
  measurements?

24
Findings summary 3/5
QAL 2

• ? QAL2 with low emissions?
• ? Extension of the calibration range based on
  linearity functional tests.

25
Findings summary 4/5
QAL 3

• QAL1 data not available for existing AMS
• Site data very difficult to obtain? use of
  default values
• Cusum chart is complicated and no example of
  Shewart chart provided
• QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL

26
Findings summary 4/5
QAL 3

• QAL1 data not available for existing AMS
• Site data very difficult to obtain? use of
  default values
• Cusum chart is complicated and no example of
  Shewart chart provided
• QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL

27
Findings summary 4/5
QAL 3

• QAL1 data not available for existing AMS
• Site data very difficult to obtain? use of
  default values
• Cusum chart is complicated and no example of
  Shewart chart provided
• QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL

28
Findings summary 4/5
QAL 3

• QAL1 data not available for existing AMS
• Site data very difficult to obtain? use of
  default values
• Cusum chart is complicated and no example of
  Shewart chart provided
• QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL
• ? Use of fixed warning limits
• ? What about auto zero and span checks?

29
Findings summary 5/5
AST

• Same findings as for QAL2
• Linearity and cross interference tests already
  checked during QAL1

30
Findings summary 5/5
AST

• Same findings as for QAL2
• Linearity and cross interference tests already
  checked during QAL1

• ? Supress linearity and cross interference tests
  

31
Conclusions

• Be careful
• Some features have to be revised/ clarified
• QAL2 with low emissions?
• Extension of the calibration range based on
  linearity functional tests.
• Use of fixed warning limits
• QAL3 utility
• What about auto zero and span checks?

We ask for a standard revision !
32
Current situation
CEN committee will publish a guidance note to
support the application of the EN14181.
(mainly based on the Technical guidance Note M20
published by the British Environment agency,
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business)
33
(No Transcript)
34
Procal NO and SO2
35
Procal CO
36
SICK NO and SO2
37
SICK CO
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)