| 英文摘要 |
The project was implemented on 22th January, 2020 with scope of works including monitoring facility replacement counseling and review assignments, monitoring facilities set up and connection of checking compliance with regulations, zero/span supervision, opacity rate supervision, Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) testing, NO2/NO converter efficiency verification operations, CEMS original signal online, simulated signal testing, emission verification, counseling and handling legal briefing.
In the part of the inspection of compliance with flue regulations, the inspection opinions were submitted to the factory for improvement and add the tracking table to control the situation. Among them, Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 2 and Naphtha Cracking Plant of Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 1 are due to the inspection results involving the DAHS replacement, the replacement and correction must been completed before 1st October, 2021. The monthly report from the Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 1 upload errors in the contents of the record, and the basic information in the confirmation report did not match the current situation from the ARO-3 of Formosa Chemicals ＆ Fibre Corporation. Both of them had submitted the modify applications to Environmental Protection Bureau.
In the part of the inspection of Zero/Span, the SO2 full-scale deviation rate in P101 and P201 of Mai-Liao Power Co., Ltd. was too high, so were the CO zero deviation rate of P401, the FLOW full-scale deviation rate of P601 in Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 2 and the NOX full-scale deviation rate of P01A in Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 1. They were all close to the specifications of the performance specification sheet. It was recommended that be included in the audit object in the future to ensure the validity of the monitoring data.
For the Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) test and supervision, in the part of supervision, the NO2/NO and O2 measurement items of the P101 emission pipeline of the Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 1 must be corrected by the Bias Adjustment Factor (BAF). Mai-Liao Power Co., Ltd. P101 pipeline SO2 measurement item was 10.07% (performance specification: ≦15%), and the Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 1 P801 pipeline CO measurement item was 5.45% (performance specification: ≦7.5%), the discharged pipes of Formosa Mai-Liao Plant3 PC01 SO2 was 10.41% (performance specification: ≦15%), and the P05A pipeline discharge flow rate measurement item of the Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 1 was 8.55% (performance specification: ≦15%); In the part of the relative accuracy test results, the P04A pipeline CO measurement item of the public plant of the Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 1 was 4.72% (performance specification: ≦5%), and the P401 pipeline emission flow rate measurement item of the Mai-Liao Power Co., Ltd. was 8.85% (performance specification: ≦10%), the CO measurement item of the P001 pipeline of the Nan Ya Plastics in Mai-Liao was 7.04% (performance specification: ≦7.5%) and the emission flow rate measurement item was 9.85% (performance specification: ≦10%) and the P701 pipeline nitrogen oxide measurement item of the Formosa Mai-Liao Plant 1 was 10.24% (performance specification: ≦15%). Although the results did not exceed the performance specification, but still too high. Furthermore, reminding the factories to be aware of the condition of the equipment, and the relative accuracy changes of the factories should be tracked during the follow-up supervision and inspection.
In addition, for the part of original signal extraction and comparison, there was a significant difference between the Nan Ya Plastics in Mai-Liao (P001), and the average O2 error percentage of the Formosa Mai-Liao Plant3 (PD01) had reached 0.99%. (Required ≦1%), showing that the equipments of both two factories must been improved.
|