Methods for quantification of mass emissions from leaking process equipment when using optical imaging for leak detection

Environmental Progress

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 49-55

  Lev On, Miriam ^a   Taback, Hal ^b   Epperson, David ^c   Siegell, Jeffrey ^d   Gilmer, Lee ^e   Ritter, Karin ^f  

^a LEVON Group LLC   (United States)

^b Hal Taback Company   (United States)

^c Consulting Statistician ^*  (United States)

^d EXXONMOBIL UPSTREAM RESEARCH COMPANY   (United States)

^e SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B V   (United States)

^f AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Emission reduction; Fugitive emissions; Leak detection and repair; Optical imaging; Smart LDAR; VOC emissions

Indexed keywords

FUGITIVE EMISSIONS; LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR; SMART LDAR; VOC EMISSIONS;

COMPRESSORS; CONTROL SYSTEMS; COST EFFECTIVENESS; FLANGES; OPTICAL IMAGE STORAGE; VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS;

LEAK DETECTION;

EID: 33646497713     PISSN: 02784491     EISSN: 10982280     Source Type: Trade Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ep.10102     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. American Petroleum Institute (API). (1997). Analysis of refinery screening data, API Publication 310, Washington, DC: API.
2. Editorial Staff. (1999). Smart control methods may reduce facility-monitoring expenses, HP in control, Hydrocarbon Processing, p. 19.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (1995). 1995 Protocol for equipment leak emission estimates, EPA-453/R-95-017. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
4. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (1992). Air toxics "hot spots " program risk assessment guidelines, Sacramento, CA: CAPCOA, January.
5. South Coast Air Quality Management District. (1999). Guidelines for fugitive emissions calculations-Petroleum industry, Diamond Bar, CA: Office of Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources, May.
6. Taback, H.J., Siegell, J.H., & Ritter, K. (1997). Los Angeles refinery fugitive emissions: Have they changed after six years of LDAR?, AWMA/EPA Specialty Conference, The emissions inventory: Planning for the future, Research Triangle Park, NC, October.
7. U.S. EPA. (1990). Standards of performance for equipment leaks of VOC in petroleum refineries, New source performance standard, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40CFR 60 section GGG.
8. U.S. EPA. (1999). Monte Carlo simulation approach for evaluating alternative work practices for equipment leak, Final Report, Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
9. American Petroleum Institute (API). (2004). Smart leak detection and repair (LDAR) for control of fugitive emissions, Washington DC: API, June.
10. Siegell, J.H., Taback, H.J., McRae, T., & Kulp, T.J. (2000). Development of smart LDAR for fugitive emissions control, Paper 10056, Valve World 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands, November.
11. Smylie, M., Ronke, L.-B., Robinson, D., Harris, G., Koonce, M., Stone, P., & McRae, T. (2003). The use of a gas-imaging device for detecting fugitive emissions in ethylene facilities. Proceedings of the 96th Annual Air & Waste Management Association Conference and Exhibition, San Diego, CA.
12. Kulp, T.J. (2002). Evaluation of a portable gas imaging instrument for smart LDAR, Paper P2043, Valve World 2002, Maastricht, The Netherlands, November.
13. McRae, T., & Kulp, T.J. (1993). Backscatter absorption gas imaging: A new technique for gas visualization, Applied Optics, 32, 4037-4050.
14. Hinnrichs, M., & Piatek, R. (2003). Handheld hyper spectral imager for environmental applications, SPIE Photonics East on Environmental Monitoring, October.
15. Proceedings of 5th Annual ISA Fugitive Emissions LDAR Symposium, League City, TX, May 17-19, 2005.