Fugitive Emissions (FE) certified valves enhance process plants safety

Over the past two decades, oil and gas processing facilities have been challenged with increasingly stringent regulatory and legislative requirements impacting environmental health and safety. his is particularly true of the rules governing allowable Fugitive Emissions (FE) from process valves. These have grown enormously over the past two decades. Sources of regulation The very first broadly defined air pollution laws were enacted in the United Kingdom in the 19th century, due to concerns stemming from that countrys rapid industriali ation. The same happened in the United States and !ermany during the19"#s. $s industriali ation has progressed further, limitations have become more specific, a trend which has brought a narrower focus on fugitive emission sources, e.g. industrial valves. %umerous studies show that valves are a ma&or source of fugitive emissionsfrom an industrial plant. Today there are several different valve'related fugitive emission standards issued by a variety of sources( ) ) ) ) %ormative standards *e.g. $+,"-., /0,'91'11 ,nternational standards *e.g. ,S2 134.41 5nd user specifications *e.g. Shell S+5 66781-1 %ational legislative and regulatory agency standards *e.g. 5+$ .# +arts "#7"8, T$'9uft1

$ll of these standards have the same general purpose( to encourage and enforce compliance to the applicable local fugitive emission laws, and reduce fugitive emissions from the valves to prevent damage to health and the environment !nderstanding FE standards ,t re:uires considerable e;pertise to understand the different fugitive emission standards and to use that understanding to develop valve pac<ages that are appropriate to the processes for which they are intended, while conforming to the applicable regulatory standards. $mong the most commonly used global fugitive emission standards are(

) ) ) )

5+$ .# +arts "#7"8 *9imiting emissions to 1##73## ppmv1 T$'luft ,S2134.4'1, which has been a favored standard during the recent years Shell 2il 0ompanys end user specifications

Neles T5 top-entry ball valve with ND9000 intelligent valve controller.

=irect comparison of different fugitive emission standards is not straightforward due to the fact that they each rely on their own test procedures. The most important variables within these procedures are the test fluid, detection methods for lea<age and limits. The test fluid may be either helium of methane. >elium is a very permeable gas and safe to use, whereas methane does not have similar permeability or safety. =ue to the difference in permeability of these gases and the precautions that must be ta<en when using methane, lea< test results are not strictly comparable. There are two methods for detecting emissions. $ local method *e.g. sniffing1 measures concentration which is typically associated with methane based tests *e.g. 1##ppm1. Sniffing can only be used as an estimate of the actual lea<age. $ correlation is applied to the lea<age measured by sniffing to estimate actual lea<age from the valves stem. !lobal methods *e.g. under vacuum1 capture and accurately measure the actual lea<age *e.g. mbar?l7s1 into the atmosphere surrounding the valve. @ecause the local and global methods are so different, their results are not directly comparable.

Figure 1: Leakage value co parison o! "i!!erent valve !ugitive e ission stan"ar"s# The leakage values $ bar%l&s' coul" be characteri(e" better in real li!e leakage values in"icating the leakage in liters per year !or )5 ste (

These are not the only procedural differences among the standards. 2thers include different testing temperatures, temperature cycles, and number of operational cycles before test data

is collected. Aoreover, there is fle;ibility in some standards to interpret test results more or less strictly. /inally, the /5 limits set out by the different standards are also different. So, how do we arrive at meaningful comparisons that will allow us to ma<e the best choiceB /irst, we need to ta<e a more detailed loo< into the different standards to better understand the intent of their /5 limitation re:uirements for the valve and the actual benefit of using a particular standard to evaluate fugitive emission performance. "hich FE standard is the most useful# E$% &' $arts (')(* sets only 1##73##ppm lea<age level criteria which must be met during the actual usage conditions and throughout the usage life of the valves. The lea<age detection flow medium is a hydrocarbon from the pipeline, and the detection method is sniffing. The approach is very simple and clever because of the use of a process plant as the origin for fugitive emissions. $nother advantage is that /5 level is measured throughout the valves life cycle. >owever, hydrocarbons have different lea<age behavior depending on the nature of the flow medium *gas7li:uid1. So it ma<es difficult to compare fugitive emission performance of different valves in cases of different flow mediums. $lso these lea<age limits are not very strict, so they are easier to fulfill. T$'9uft is a standard that re:uires a valve manufacturers designs to comply with certain re:uirements. %+,uft sets the lea<age criteria to be at bellows seal lea<age level or the e:uivalent. The lea<age detection flow medium is helium, which is a very permeable gas. 2nly global lea<age detection methods are allowed. There are two different /5 lea<age level limits based on the applications temperature level. The lea<age limit for under -3#C0 can be regarded strict, where above -3#C0 limit can be regarded as less demanding. The T$'9uft standard does not define the e;act number of operating cycles, so it leaves room for different interpretations. /or e;ample, should the operational life of a control valve be established at 3## or "#,### operational cyclesB ,n addition to that, T$'9uft does not contain a defined temperature cycle procedure, which is a slight disadvantage when evaluating a valves /5 performance under actual usage conditions. -.O/01&1+/ does not regulate the valves design but rather the type of approval tests with which valve manufacturers design must comply. The lea<age detection flow medium is typically helium. Aethane can be used, but such testing is uncommon due to safety concerns. ,S2134.4'1 has three different lea<age limits which range from an e;tremely stringent *0lass $1 to a non'strict *0lass 01 measured with the global lea<age detection methods. ,S2 0lass $ is the most demanding lea<age level that e;ists at the moment. ,t is meant for valves e:uipped with bellows type seal pac<ings. Duarter turn valves can reach ,S2 0lass $ lea<age level in a short term, lower temperature tests with current graphite pac<ings at the moment. This means that emission performance of current graphite pac<ing rings greatly e;ceed +T/5 based chevron pac<ing rings that have been used as a fugitive emission solver in the past.

$dditional benefits of current graphite pac<ings compared to +T/5 chevron pac<ings are their fire safe properties and greatly elevated temperature range. ,S2 0lass @ lea<age level can be regarded as a :uarter turn valves performance level which can be reached with current graphite pac<ing rings in long duration tests at a high temperature *.##C01. ,S2 134.4 also establishes separate /5 limits for a valves body &oints *li<e bonnets or covers1 measured by the sniffing method. There are three endurance classes for both, on'off and control valve types. *a esbury so!t seate" ball valve+ series ,000# Testing temperature classes ranging from '19"C0 up to .##C0 may be used to define the testing temperature and compulsory temperature cycle procedure. /igure 1 summari es allowed lea<age values of different /5 standards relating allowable annual lea<age to the volume of everyday ob&ects. /rom it we can see that ,S2 134.4 offers the most comprehensive lea<age level classification. ,t does so with testing procedures that can be varied to simulate actual operating conditions. This allows the easy, :uantifiable comparison of valves fugitive emission performance in order to select the most appropriate product for specific applications. ) ) ) ) ) ,S2 0lass $ E #,#1.9 per year *volume of dE8cm ball, 83F of a golf ball1 T$'9uft G-3#0 E #,89 per year *a soda can1 ,S2 0lass @ E 1,.9 per year *H two wine bottles1 T$'9uft EI-3#0 E 8#9 per year ,S2 0lass 0 E 1.#9 per year *H barrel1

%ccelerating the pace of -.O /01&1 certification =uring the past five years, many process industry end users have clearly begun favoring ,S2 134.4 emission standard as the most unified tool for measuring and reali ing their /5 performance ob&ectives. This has provided a strong incentive for valve suppliers li<e Aetso to actively pursue a wide range of theoretical and technical <nowledge as well as laboratory facilities, along with the testing and reporting capabilities needed to fulfill current ,S2 134.4 standards 0lass $7@ lea<age re:uirements *see sidebar1. The re:uirements of the ,S2 134.4 /5 standard are very demanding for the valves. >ere are some of the measures Aetso has adopted to support them(

) .imulating actual thermal cycling conditions2 $ mandatory heat cycling program simulates potential processs heat cycling which sets high demands for the valves design. /or e;ample, a wea< valve design may lose its /5 performance after a heat cycle. The severe heat cycling program combined with e;tremely low *0lass $1 and low lea<age *0lass @1 limit criteria measured with accurate methods is a strong indication of low /5 lea<age at the harshest conditions that a valve may see during its life cycle. ) hird $arty 3ertifications2 >ighly regarded 8rd party certifications are fre:uently obtained to verify testing conditions and actual /5 performance of valves. ,n this way, end users can be sure that they receive high fugitive emission performance valves. ) E4panding the number of valve models tested2 ,n -#1-, a corporate initiative to increase the number of valves certified to the most stringent environmental standards was e;panded to certify numerous soft' and metal'seated valves to the ,S2 134.4'1 standard and to translate the test results into evidence of compliance with other strict regional standards. Aetsos corporate initiative to e;pand and intensify /5 certification coverage will continue in the future as it is the only way to provide proven, added value for the end users. 5any benefits of FE reduction Jalves with low fugitive emission levels benefit end users in many ways. /irst, valves which have very low fugitive emissions help end users to fulfill current environmental rules and regulations which must be adhered to if the plant is to continue its operations and avoid heavy fines *which can be far more costly than /5'certified valves.1 Secondly, minimi ation of fugitive emissions can also avoid other costs that occur when product is lost via lea<ing valves. The lost flow medium results in both lost raw material and smaller endproduct yields. The more comple; and processed the flow media is, the higher price it has per mass unit. The loss of flow medium is also lost energy, as the pumps or compressors must do e;tra wor< to compensate for the lea<age. $ considerable amount of money can be saved by minimi ing fugitive emissions. /5'certified valves improve safety. $ lea<ing pac<ing can represent an enormous safety issue in a process plant. /or e;ample, a hydrogen lea< can autoignite and cause hardly detectable flames. Such a flame will burn surroundings and compromise personnel and plant safety. 2f course, health issues will also be minimi ed by reducing fugitive emissions. $ healthier environment protects people and it also ma<es them more productive. /or e;ample, reducing >-S content in air allows wor<ers to wor< a longer time period in high >-S content areas. @y as<ing their valve suppliers to re:uire /5 testing to the most comprehensive standard available *currently ,S2134.4'11 end users can introduce significant health, safety and environmental benefits at their process plant, even as they improve their operating cost factors.

5etsos Flow ,ab

,S2134.4'1 emission standard test is being prepared. Aetsos fugitive emission <nowledge is based on strong in'house capabilities where fugitive emission theory and testing are combined by s<illed wor<ing personnel. Aetso has a new and large valve testing laboratory where the fugitive emission development and type approval tests are done. 5etso valves reduce emissions and improve safety at processing plants -#1- was a banner year at the Aetso /low 9aboratory, where a corporate initiative to increase the numbers of valves certified to the most stringent environmental emissions standards continues. ,n -#1-, numerous %elesK metal'seated and LamesburyK soft'seated valve products were certified to meet the re:uirements of the global ,S2134.4'1 standard, complying with many standards mandated in specific regions, including T$'9uft *!ermany1 and 5+$ .# 0/M parts "#7"8 *US$1. ,S2134.4'1 certified valves are regarded as fulfilling the most stringent emission standards, and meeting this :ualification signifies compliance with many other emission standards. ,t is also a mandatory re:uirement of the ma&ority of current pro&ects in the oil and gas industries worldwide. Aetsos control and on'off valve product series include ball, butterfly and eccentric rotary plug valves in pressure classes $SA5 N13#'"##. ,n -#1-, representative products from these series were shown to meet ,S2134.4'1 re:uirements for( ) >ighest temperature class *O.## P0 with graphite pac<ing1 for metal seated valves and *O-## P0 with +T/5 pac<ing1 for soft seated valves ) 9ow lea<age class *@1 ) 0lass $ *bellows seal tightness1 of the %eles =1/ series cryogenic valves with graphite pac<ing Aetso valve products minimi e fugitive emissions even at high operating temperatures, meeting demands of even the harshest hydrocarbon processing plant environments. @y minimi ing fugitive emissions, these products help improve health and safety for wor<ers, allowing plants to meet regulatory standards, and reduce product losses.

Ar. Tarmo 9aitinen is Technical product manager of %eles ball valves in %eles Q Aapag product line. Tarmo has been wor<ing over eight years in various tas<s including MQ=, engineering and mar<eting at Aetso $utomation ,nc.. >e holds a degree *A.Sc.1 in +roduct =evelopment from $alto University of Technology and almost two minors from $alto University of 5conomics. >e can be reached at tarmo.laitinenRmetso.com +ublished in Jalve Sorld maga ine, Luly -#18 issue.

%bout the %uthor