cen workshop en 14181, 22-23 may 2006, paris 1 inquiry of implementation and experiences with en...

CEN workshop EN 14181, 22-23 May 2006, Paris 1

Inquiry of implementation and experiences with EN 14181 in Belgium

Raf De Fré, Ive Vanderreydt - VITO, Mol

François Idczak - ISSeP, Liège


Objectives

• Obtain overview of implementation in concerned sectors• Stimulate awareness of EN 14181 among potential users • Prepare further implementation by different actors• Collect remarks & integrate in Belgian implementation


Organization of Inquiry

• Addresses obtained from authorities• Contact by phone responsible person• Inquiry forms sent by (e-)mail• Short introduction to EN 14181 in annex• Reminder by phone and mail• Collect and close after 1 month


Respondents

• those who did respond:

Plants Lines

Municipal waste incinerators 14 30

Toxic waste incinerators 7 10

Electric power plants 13 32

Power plants industry 4 10

Petrochemical - Chemical 10 22

Food (sugar, brewery) 3 3

Cement 2 6

Total

53 113


Those who did not respond

• Sectors– Municipal waste incinerators (2)– Refineries (2), Chemical industry (5)– Metallurgy (4), Sugar (3), Paper (2)– Food (2)

• Some plants have no CEMs – not under directives (e.g. sugar < 100 d/y), non-compliant or in

discussion

• Plants not under WI or LCP directives– some will not use EN 14181 for CEMs


Belgian Environmental law

• Regions have authority over environment– Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia– EN 14181 not explicitly mentioned in regulations

• Legislation different in each region but EU Directives must be implemented

• CEMs: Flanders has legal obligation for approval of CEMs by expert– "Code of Good Practice" since 1997


Which standards CEM operators know (%)

• others mentioned: EN13284-2, Code of good practice (Fl)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ISO 7935 ISO 12039 EN 14956 ISO 10849 VDI 3950 EN 14181 other

known

no reply

no answer

unknown


How well - wherefrom do you know EN 14181 ?

• % of 52 positive respondents

41%

30%

22%

7%

not at all

from internal source

from external source

own experience


Need for a technical guidance for EN 14181 ?

useful for labs19%

recommended for labs35%

recommended for plant operators

10%

useful for plant operators

36%

• % of 78 positive answers


How many CEMS has your plant ?

• (3 answers for multiple sites = up to 7 plants more)

42

72

115

3744 42

1928

44

16 1713

817

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

flow dust gases TOC HCl other noCEM s

noreply

CEM S

Plants


Was there any QA/QC on CEMS in 2005 ?

(3 answers for multiple sites = up to 7 plants more)

10 41 12

13 38 12

39 11 13

34 17 12

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

QAL1

QAL2

QAL3

AST

yes

no

no answer


Which QAL1 tests were done on CEMS ?

• other = supplier (7), ISO 9000 (2), own QA system (1)

suitability21%

none45%

no idea2%

other28%

ISO 149564%


Frequency of calibration (QAL2) on CEMS ?

after delivery19%

yearly10%

3 years36%

5 years1%

other freq6%

not periodically

28%

• other frequencies: 6 months (2), not specified, …”depends” (2)


Frequency of surveillance test (AST) on CEMS ?

• other = 6 m, 2 y, with QAL1 (2), not specified (2)

none29%

monthly5%

every 3 months5%

yearly51%

other10%


Frequency of QAL3 on CEMS ?

• Cusum charts: 0

• Shewart charts: 0

• Other control charts: 3

• Zero & span checks: other =• 3 h (1), 12 h (2)• automatic (8)• 6 months (1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

daily weekly monthly yearly other

zero

span


Who did perform quality control on CEMs ?

(3 answers for multiple sites = up to 7 plants more)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

QAL1 QAL2 QAL3 AST

owner

external lab

supplier

• 50 positive answers

• no other parties


What do you expect from EN 14181 ?

3533

6 7

1 2

2730

1 1 1 0

4 5 64

0

10

20

30

40

Costs Administration Legal Security Quality

more

equal

less

no opinion


General remarks on standard

• Increasing effort for measurement is disproportionate to lower emission levels and reduced environmental impact of waste incineration sector

• Standard made by emission monitoring labs • Frequent interventions on CEMs reduce availability

– Double CEMs installed to meet WID 97% availability requirement

• Alternatives for CEMs preferred where allowed- e.g. monthly measurements, EN 14181 makes CEMs less attractive


Remarks concerning legal aspects

• Our plant is not in scope of WI or LCP Directives and will therefore not apply EN 14181

– Process industries with legal obligation of CEM

• Existing quality system for CEMs is adequate / equivalent to EN 14181

– (ISO 9000 & other TS)

• EN 14181 is not specified in national legislation• Measurement frequencies are imposed by law, not by standards or

codes of good practice– (therefore no AST by external lab)


Remarks concerning QAL 1

• No QAL 1 obtainable for older instruments– transition period needed to complete economic life– who does calculate AMS uncertainty ?

• Choice of range of instruments ?– continuous low levels, but range must be 3 x ELV– special case CO : still higher range to measure highest peaks ?


Remarks on QAL 2 Calibration• No added value in parallel measurements over 3 days in case of

extremely low or constant levels reduce to 1 day, specially manual methods : dust, HCl, HF, H2O, TOC

• Quality of reference measurements by external labs ?– corrections proposed sometimes questionable

– measurement uncertainty of labs not taken into consideration


Remarks on QAL 3 and AST

• Intervention from external labs is required for AST - should not be imposed

• Concept of control charts not known by operators - equivalent systems should be allowed

• Instruments with internal verification of zero and span need no calibration gases


Some other remarks

• Standard EN 14181 too complex for people in the field• Rigorous application of standard is relatively expensive• Interpretation of results from standard application is

always difficult• No understanding of statistic principles

– meaning of Chi square based test for decision pass/fail ?– operators not familiar with Cusum or Shewart control charts


Remarks from Inquiry – small plants

• Small operators need cost effective solutions in relation to size of plant

– EN 14181 "light" version ?

• Economic viability of small plants at risk by EN 14181 monitoring cost

– Bio-mass and wood combustion not economic if classified under WID– A chemical plant considers closing chlorinated waste incinerator if excessive

CEM cost– Small chemical incinerator will try to obtain CEM derogations


Conclusions• Knowledge of EN 14181 is very limited

- for many this was the first contact with standard - thorough knowledge of standard by very few

• Inquiry showed need of increased involvement by industry (scepticism)

• Power generation and Municipal waste incineration sectors best prepared for implementation of standard

• Small plants more sensitive to cost increase• Refineries and petrochemical sector are slower in adaptation

to standard


Implementation in Belgium• Smaller countries/regions have limited means

– rely on models & experience from larger countries (UK, D, NL, TGN…)

• Flanders: transition from existing Code (2001)– 2006 : Working group 5 parties, prepare transit – 2007 : Implementation of EN 14181 in Code– need to continue on 2 tracks (WI-LCP & others ?)

• Wallonia – Brussels : (cold start EN 14181 in ….??).


Field Tests

• 2 examples of field tests:1. LCP

• 6 days parallel measurements

• NOx, CO, SO2 : ½ hour measurements

• dust : 1 measurement per day (stack diameter = 3m)

2. Sulfuric acid plant• 25 parallel ½ hour measurements

• SO2


Plot SRM/AMS for NOx

y = 0,95x - 0,86

R2 = 0,59

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250AMS (mg/m³ )

SRM

(m

g/m

³)

Data Calibration f unction Uncertainty

Variability testStandard deviation 6,82Uncertainty 30,61kv 0,9893Test Pass

Calibration functionymax- ymin 61.6 mg/m315 % ELV 45 mg/m3slope (b) 0,9528intercept (a) -0,8569Calibration function -0.8569 + 0.9528 xCalibration range (0 - 225.4) mg/m3

LCP


Variability testStandard deviation 52,98Uncertainty 30,61kv 0,9905Test Fail

Calibration functionymax- ymin 400.1 mg/m315 % ELV 45 mg/m3slope (b) 1,0353intercept (a) 3,7065Calibration function 3.7065 + 1.0353 xCalibration range (0 - 367.6) mg/m3

LCP

Plot SRM/AMS for CO

y = 1,04x + 3,71

R2 = 0,71

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400AMS (mg/m³ )

SRM

(m

g/m

³)



Plot SRM/AMS for SO2

y = 20,4x + 5,1

R2 = 0,98

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20AMS (mg/m³ )

SRM

(m

g/m

³)



Calibration functionymax- ymin 212.4 mg/m315 % ELV 75 mg/m3slope (b) 20,4324intercept (a) 5,0656Calibration function 5.0656 + 20.4324 xCalibration range (0 - 264) mg/m3

LCP


Dust : calibration function determination

y = 1,61x - 11,1

R2 = 0,16

0

5

10

15

20

25

5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19AMS (mA)

SRM

(m

g/m

³)

Data Calibration function Linear (Data)

Calibration functionys,max- ys,min 8.07 mg/m315 % ELV 4.5 mg/m3slope (b) 1,6138intercept (a) -11,0867Calibration function -11.0867 + 1.6138 xCalibration range (0 - 27.1) mg/m3

LCP


Dust : uncertainty interval

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35AMS (mg/Nm³ )

SRM

(m

g/N

m³)

Data Trend line Uncertainty


LCP


Sulfuric acid plant with extractive SO2 analyser

(approval according to Flemish code )

SO2

y = 1,04x

R2 = 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 100 200 300 400

AMS (ppm)

SR

M (

pp

m)

Measurements Calibration function y=x


• More measurements give limited extension of validated range, but not to ELV (1700) • Little added value in continued measurements over 3 days• Adequate QAL3 : gas cell - daily, cal. gases (3) - weekly, fixed limits control chart….

Sulfuric acid plant with extractive analyser

• Approval according to Flemish Code : calibration function + 4% = “pass”• EN 14181 calibration : reduced selection of data results in same conclusions :

Selection measurements Slope sD σ0kv max min max - min# (mg/Nm³) (mg/Nm³) (mg/Nm³) (mg/Nm³) (mg/Nm³)

all 25 1,040 2,07 171,1 1042 849 193

sel 1 5 1,036 1,82 159,5 970 938 32sel 2 5 1,036 1,13 159,5 972 883 89sel 3 5 1,041 1,33 159,5 974 869 105sel 4 5 1,047 1,31 159,5 935 849 87sel 5 5 1,047 3,77 159,5 1042 860 182


Field Tests Conclusions• Difficulties to obtain experimental values covering a large

range of concentration even with many samples (impossible to oblige the plant to pollute more … or less)

• Limitation of EN 14181 to the control of the analysis chain (treatment of data)

• Existing quality control system for CEMs before EN 14181 standard can be adequate

cen workshop en 14181, 22-23 may 2006, paris 1 inquiry of implementation and experiences with en...

Documents