Fugitive Emmission Test 1

[bmoorthy]

Hello

Can some one provide the standard/Spec which specifies Fugitive Emmission Test Requirement and Test Method?

Also i would like to know under what circumstances the above test is called for.

Is this test a recent development. Some how in the last 13 years of my inspection experience i have not come accross and now suddenly many people are talking about this.

 

[unclesyd]

You have asked a question that is too broad to answer here.
This is not some new requirements, though depending on your location they may just be coming into play.

We had fugitive emission test that were require by the Federal, State and Local Authorities.
If you could come back with some more specific areas of interest I'm sure someone will steer you in the right direction.
A case in point at my plant is we use cyclohexane and for several years there were no measurements of emissions so we counted flanges and valves using an assigned value for each. This went on until they raised emissions per flange or valve and lowered the allowables. There was a concerted effort to actually measure the emissions to argue for a reduced penalty. Though not directly involved I know there was considerable discussion as to whether any method was acceptable to all parties.

If you could come back with some more specific, piping, tanks, etc., areas of interest I'm sure someone will steer you in the right direction.

 

[bmoorthy]

Thank you for the feed back.

I was looking for this requirement in relation to valves. Under what circumstances Valves (During Procurement) are required to be tested at manufacturer's works for Fugitive emmision test. Is this a type test like Fire safe test or is this test required as a QC test requirement like body and seat leakage test?

 

[Burdy]

Basic/simple Emmission tests on Valves are usually tested after all other tests have been carried out i.e. Body, seat etc
The test media is usually helium and a sniffer (mass spectrometer) is used to detect any leaking helium.
This is generally treated as a QC function as you imply.

TUV have an emmission test namely LUFT which can be witnessed and certified against.
There are other more stringent commercial standards and specifications, especially within the petrochemical industry 'Shell' have a very difficult test as it involves cycling the valve and temperature cycling as well.
I won't go into further detail as it is probably unnecessary to do so.
Br
B

 

[NGiLuzzu]

Bmoorthy,
the documents you may want to refer to, about the issue in object, are the following:
* ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code (2001), Sect. V, Art. 10, Appendix IV, Para. IV;
* Shell MESC SPE 77/312 Specification (Revision: 25-11-2003);
* ISO 15848, Parts 1 and 2 (still in the state of "Committee Drafts");
* German Law called Technische Anleitung zur Reinhaltung der Luft, better known as "TA Luft", which for valves refers to German Engineers' VDI 2440 Standard;
* U.S. Clean Air Act and Federal Regulations of EPA, with reference to "Method 21".

Many other threads have been written, within this Forum, about Fugitive Emissions:
Thread408-90905 ;
Thread408-48808 (with particular reference to Scalleke's and Craneckiran's posts);
Thread408-64093 ;
Thread124-48813 ;
Thread408-83628 .
Please read them, and then write back here your questions (if you have).

Hope this helps, 'NGL

 

[bmoorthy]

Thanks a lot.

Under what circumstances a designer decides to ask for this test. Further is this requirement of He test limited to Body or does it extend to Seat as well (For soft seat Ball Valve)?

 

[NGiLuzzu]

Bmoorthy,
as far as I know, fugitive emissions tests are applicable to valve external tightness only, i.e. towards atmosphere (through body flanged joints and stem packing), and not through the seat.
May be the same detection methods, or some of them, can be applied to the seat leakage measurements (e.g.: vacuum hood technique), but in that case you usually don't talk about "fugitive emissions", but just call it with another name.

About the reasons to ask for this type of testing, I believe that first of all there are the environmental Laws constraints (as you can see) and the toxicity of the service fluid itself... but I think someone else can give better answers to this question ;-)

Bye, 'NGL

 

[Burdy]

Bmoorthy, as implied by mr Anegri if you read both the 'Shell spec 77/312' and 'TA LUFT' both require testing for extrenal leakage only. Seat leakage is covered by so many other specifications - API 598,BS6755 Pt1 etc.
The legislation based around emmissions of certian medias, the risk assessment of health and safety issues and the companies location may all be a deciding factor. i.e. leakage of phosphoric acid, chlorine etc would constitute a health and safety issue, the location the company is in may deem this as unacceptable. Leakage of hydrocarbons and other medias is monitored by various government agencies and if set levels are breached then the company can either be fined or shut down until they can prove that changes have been applied. I believe that most engineers play it safe. don't forget your equipment may be around for sometime and future compliance may also play a part.
c u
Berni

 

[bmoorthy]

Thanks a lot.

Where would one get hold of Shell DEP specification. And what does DEP mean any way. Is the shell DEP in public domain (Freely available for reference)

 

[NGiLuzzu]

Bmoorthy,
try to contact Shell Global Solutions (

http://www.shellglobalsolutions.com)

which is responsible of issuing the mentioned documents.

I think "DEP" means something like "Design & Engineering Practice"... and is a different thing from "MESC SPE" (additional specifications...?) documents.

Hope this helps, 'NGL

 

[bmoorthy]

If this Fugitive emmision test is to detect leak from the flange connections and from gland area of the valve, is it prudent to carry out this test at the manufacturer's place.

Would it not be a dangerous assumption to think that once it is tested at the manufacturer's works it would not leak (give Emmissions) during service. While installing if the person does not tighten the flanges to Helium teight instead, if he tightens upto hydro leak tightness, then do we not defeat the whole purpose.

From what i have gathered here, while procuring the flanges we need not insist for this test as a specification requirement, but should check for (some thing like type test) proof that the design of the vlave and the manufacturing facility/method and also get a compliance/guarantee from the manufacturer that the valves will pass the emmisision requirement or specify the flange face flatness requirement along with strict face finish requirement instead of asking for He leak test.

 

[TingaTangaBob]

From what i understand, the valve manufacturer does not need to perform fugitive emission tests. However, the valve manufacturer must use stem packings that is tested and qualified for fugitive emission standards. This is a development of ANSI/FCI 91-1-1994 "Standard for Qualification of Control Valve stems to meet EPA emission guidelines for VOCs" (Volatile Organic Compounds). It is required to be tested to Class B1, 25,000 full stroke cycles, 3 thermal cycles, no packing adjustments, fugitive emission (methane) at <100 ppm. Some packing vendors have already qualified their packing such as Garlock and Dow Kalrez, to name a few.

 

[yarmouthmatt]

There will be a Valve World show in November with an emphasis on fugitive emissions and the numerous standards that are currently published and being developed. Yarmouth Research and ChevronTexaco will be presenting information about a test program that has been recently conducted on gate valves.

 

[NGiLuzzu]

YarmouthMatt,
do you think that the test program you mention is applicable to quarter-turn valves too?
Which could be the differences?

[In theory, quarter-turn valves should have less packing problems... but sometimes it happens that quarter-turn valves Manufacturers (and Customers too) are more interested in emission issues than the rising-stem ones].

Many thanks, 'NGL

 

[yarmouthmatt]

I asked ChevronTexaco about quarter turn valves and they seemed less concerned about them for 2 reasons. - 1. They have far fewer in service and 2. they do tend to not leak as much. I would think however that ball and butterfly valves will need to be tested in the near future. Are you a ball valve manufacturer?

 

[NGiLuzzu]

YarmouthMatt,
I know about a triple-offset metal seated valve Manufacturer that successfully conducted a test program quite similar to the one you mention 10 years ago. They have a mass spectrometer with sniffer probe with which they usually perform helium tests according to Shell MESC SPE 77/312 on their own; they're also TA-Luft certified.

On the other side, the gate (and globe) valve Manufacturers of the same Group seem to be behind the times, with both equipment and knowledge.
I think this is due to the "oddities of the market" and the inequality of the Customers' requirements.

What's your opinion?

Bye, 'NGL

 

[scalleke]

Anegri,

77/312 is also applicable to ball valves. There is no single difference between testing a ball or another valve for SPE 77/312.

There is a practical difference though.

Soft seated ball valves must only be heated up to the maximum design temperature of the seat material.

Best regards.

By the way, Hi Matt, nice to see that you are here also.

Scalleke

 

[Burdy]

Just to make sure we all have not misled you.
Shell 77/312 has a title of 'INDUSTRIAL VALVES:FUGITIVE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT,CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM,QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PROTOTYPE AND PRODUCTION TESTS OF VALVES'.
This specification involves not only emmission testing but temperature and valve cycling. The spec exists for 'proto-type approval' and 'production acceptance' testing. Therfore no one part can be taken on its own i.e. leakage rate. As the specification is far more involved and compliance is with the specification as a whole not any of part thereof.
All the best
B

 

[NGiLuzzu]

Burdy,
you brought up a sore point!

Just last week I was talking with an Inspector from Shell Global Solutions International (The Hague, NL) about the problems they have in getting this SPE applied "as a whole" by Projects where Shell itself is involved... you can imagine about other Projects and Engineering Companies!!

In addition, Prototype Testing is sometimes required for standard PO's, just as if it was a sort of "improved" (more severe) Production Testing; then the high number of revisions (about a dozen in the last 4 years) increases confusion, as each Project applies its one and nobody wantso to stay up-to-date.

I remember once I wrote a procedure, to test two identical valves according to two different editions of SPE 77/312, one following the "production", the other the "prototype" test requirements.

Nonsense... but "the Customer is King" or "the Customer is always right" (even if, in Italy, we also say: "Tie the Donkey where the Master says"... or vice-versa, that many times can be the same!)... ;-)

Bye to all, 'NGL

 

[JGPeck]

anegri

the latest developement in the application of 77/312 seem to point toward a limited number of prototype tests with a validity of few years (2 is the common guess now) to avoid the less stringent but time consuming production tests.
We have experienced as well the confusion at Engineering and Procurement stage, but again what can we do about it?

I would like to add to TingaTangaBob post: no matter the quality of the gasket/packing, if the valve machining is poor the best seal will leak. Do not trust seal "brand" to guarantee the valve FE results.