The international standards are written, end users have adopted them and valve manufacturers are qualifying their valves. So surely fugitive emissions must be reducing on plants?
In our everyday lives the reduction of our carbon footprint and various eco-drives challenge the way think, live and react to the world about us. We see certain changes that do have an impact on the environment whilst others appear to be rather hollow and are no more than a play with words.
So in the intense competitive valve industry how certain are we that the fugitive emission activity is indeed having an impact and is not just seen as play on words? Data is required. For example how does an ISO 15848 class A, B or C perform in the field?
A series of articles will be presented in the coming issues of Valve World, which will review, challenge and praise success where the environment has been improved. Know doubt a few eyebrows will be raised as the articles go back to basics to see if the international standards are really reducing and maintaining low emissions at site.
Background
Fugitive emissions have generated over the years much interest with a wide variety of activities in research, product development, test protocols and Company / International standards. Today for those who dare enter the fugitive emission arena for the first time often become bewildered by the “contradicting” options and vast number of solutions. Yet those of us who have been part of the developing process over the last decade know to well the division and diversity of opinion within the community. It has been one of the few topics that has mobilised the sealing industry, valve manufacturers, distributors, research establishments, end users and standard organisations. With so many involved it can be easily understood why it was not a smooth ride! Political, commercial, and personal agenda’s cluttered the way, which hindered and prevented reaching a truly unanimous position acceptable to all.
Valve World web forum on fugitive emissions
If you really want a lively active conference subject then fugitive emissions is always well attended and vibrant with colourful characters. Valve World is currently in the process of developing a “web forum on fugitive emissions”. I hope the developers put the “hit score” for visitors to the web site, as I am sure that it will be very popular.
Simplified overview of Fugitive Emission activity
So let’s get started. Figure 1 illustrates the generic players involved linking the qualification process to leak detection and repair for valves (LDAR). The complexity increases as end users such as Shell, BP, Chevron Texaco etc write their own Company specifications by varying the codes and leakage rates. The valve and sealing industries respond to the end users with their own interpretation of test protocols. So very quickly the fugitive emission arena becomes diverse.
End users role
It is the end users who are responsible and able to monitor the valve qualification process through to leak detection and repair. Providing this process produces zero site emissions then the front end testing etc is proven. However in reality testing at site is limited and is not correlated to the qualification measurements.
Observation;
• There has been little or no published site data by end users in recent years to demonstrate the latest Company specifications and international standards are successful in
reducing fugitive emissions. It is too silent? Why?
• With the lack of this data re-evaluating the testing protocol and specifications has not been done. SUCH RE-EVALUATION IS WELL OVER DUE.
• There does not appear to be a turn down of LDAR activity with the new codes.
• LDAR continues with increase in the number of providers for this service.
So what is really happening at the plants?????
I hope that some end users will provide some positive data in the near future or alternatively please respond to this article. The Valve World My pen is waiting to write your story…..
barriekirkman@ntlworld.comFebruary 2008 Valve World article
