API PUBL 332-1995 Comparison of Screening Values from Selected Hydrocarbon Screening Instruments《选择烃类筛选仪器筛选值的对比》.pdf

《API PUBL 332-1995 Comparison of Screening Values from Selected Hydrocarbon Screening Instruments《选择烃类筛选仪器筛选值的对比》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《API PUBL 332-1995 Comparison of Screening Values from Selected Hydrocarbon Screening Instruments《选择烃类筛选仪器筛选值的对比》.pdf（121页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、 - API PUBL*332 95 0732290 054b385 LT7 = HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT API PUBLICATION NUMBER 332 AUGUST 1995 Comparison of Screening Values from Selected Hydrocarbon Screening Instruments American Pet rol eum 11 Institute API PURL*332 95 0732270 0546386 033 9 One of the most significa

2、nt long-term trends affecting the future vitality of the petroleum industry is the publics concerns about the environment. Recognizing this trend, API member companies have developed a positive, forward-looking strategy called STEP: Strategies for Todays Environmental Partnership. This program aims

3、to address public concerns by improving our industrys environmental, health and safety performance; documenting performance improvements; and communicating them to the public. The foundation of STEP is the API Environmental Mission and Guiding Environmental Principles. API ENVIRONMENTAL MISSION AND

4、GUIDING ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES The members of the American Petroleum Institute are dedicated to continuous efforts to improve the compatibility of our operations with the environment while economically developing energy resources and supplying high quality products and services to consumers. The m

5、embers recognize the importance of efficiently meeting societys needs and our responsibility to work with the public, the government, and others to develop and to use natural resources in an environmentally sound manner while protecting the health and safety of our employees and the public. To meet

6、these responsibilities, API members pledge to manage our businesses according to these principles: 9 To recognize and to respond to community concerns about our raw materiais, products and operations. 9 To operate our plants and facilities, and to handle our raw materials and products in a manner th

7、at protects the environment, and the safety and health of our employees and the public. 9 To make safety, health and environmental considerations a priority in our planning, and our development of new products and processes. e To advise promptly, appropriate officials, employees, customers and the p

8、ublic of information on significant industty-related safety, health and environmental hazards, and to recommend protective measures. 9 To counsel customers, transporters and others in the safe use, transportation and disposal of our raw materials, products and waste materials. C. To economically dev

9、elop and produce natural resources and to conserve those resources by using energy eff iciently. 9 To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the safety, health and environmental effects of our raw materials, products, processes and waste materials. 9 To commit to reduce overall emi

10、ssion and waste generation. + To work with others to resolve problems created by handling and disposal of hazardous substances from our operations. a To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environmen

11、t. 0:. To promote these principles and practices by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of similar raw materials, petroleum products and wastes. API PUBLU332 95 H 0732270 054b387 T7T Comparison of Screening Values from Selected Hydroca

12、rbon Screening Instruments Health and Environmental Affairs Department API PUBLICATION NUMBER 332 PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT BY: RADIAN CORPORATION 10389 OLD PLACERVILLE ROAD SACRAMENTO, CA 95827 JULY 1995 American Petroleum Ins titu te API PUBLX332 95 W 0732290 0546388 906 H FOREWORD API PUBLICATIONS

13、NECESSARILY ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF A GENERAL NATURE. WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. API IS NOT UNDERTAKING TO MEET THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS, MANUFAC- TURERS, OR SUPPLIERS To WARN AND PROPERLY TRAIN AND EQUIP THEIR EMPLOYEES, A

14、ND OTHERS EXPOSED, CONCERNING HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS AND PRECAUTIONS, NOR UNDERTAKiNG THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS. NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY API PUBLICATION IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS GRANTING ANY RIGHT, BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE MANU- FACTURE, SALE, OR USE OF ANY MET

15、HOD, APPARATUS, OR PRODUCT COV- ERED BY LETTERS PATENT. NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ITY FOR I“GEMENT OF LETTERS PATENT. THE PUBLICATION BE CONSTRUED AS INSURING ANYONE AGAINST LIABIL- Copyright Q 1995 American Petroleum Institute i API PUBLX332 95 = 0732290 0546389 842 = ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE

16、 FOLLOWING PEOPLE ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS OF TIME AND EXPERTISE DURING THIS STUDY AND IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT Karin Ritter, Health and Environmental Affairs Department ME AR W UP: Julian Blomley, UNOCAL Miriam Lev-On, ARCO Products Company Hal Taback, API Consultant Daniel V

17、anDerZanden, Chevron Research and Technology Company This study was Co-funded by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). The following members of the WSPA Fugitive Emissions Project Steering Committee are recognized for their contributions of time and expertise: Frank Giles, ultramar Matt M

18、arusich, Tosco Refining Company Julian Blomley, UNOCAL Miriam Lev-On, ARCO products Company Daniel Van Der Zanden, Chevron Research and Technology Company iii API PUBL1332 95 W 0732290 0546390 5b4 W ABSTRACT Fugitive emissions from leaking equipment are being monitored by refineries, chemical plants

19、, petroleum marketing terminals and oil and gas production operations. Different instruments, each capable of measuring the fugitive hydrocarbon emissions, or screening values, are being utilized by different studies. The measurement distance to hold the screening instrument from the point of maximu

20、m leak also differs for different facilities. This study evaluated the differences in screening values for the following four different screening instruments.: Foxboro Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) 108; Bacharach Threshold Limit Value Sniffer (TLV Sniffer); “UaP PI-101; and Foxboro Total Vapor Analyz

21、er (TVA) 1000, both flame ionization detector (FID) and photo ionization detector (PID). This study showed that there were differences in screening values for a particular component based on using the different screening instruments. Adjustment factors, or correlation equations, were developed to al

22、low screening values from the TLV Sniffer, and the TVA FID to be converted to comparable OVA screening values. Adjustment factors were not developed relating “UaP or TVA PID screening values to OVA screening values because inadequate correlations were found between these screening values. This study

23、 also evaluated the differences in screening values for these screening instruments based on screening as close as possible to the surface of a component at the point of maximum leak versus screening 1 cm away from the component at the point of maximum leak. This study showed that there are differen

24、ces in screening values if the screening instrument is held at 1 cm away compared to holding the instrument as close as possible to the surface. An adjustment factor, or correlation equation, was developed to convert screening values from the OVA screening instrument using a 1 cm spacer basis to an

25、“at the surface“ basis. Please note that other screening instruments, not studied in this report, may be available. API PUBLX332 95 0732290 054b39L 4TO A 1979 study on screening distance effects and screening instrument effects was compared to the results of this study. Both studies show comparable

26、differences between the OVA and TLV Sniffe? screening values; however, the screening distance differences were more pronounced in the 1979 study than in this study. The reason for the differences in screening distance results is unknown. These differences could be due to screening techniques, in amb

27、ient conditions, or in differences in instrument sensitivities. An analysis was performed to determine other factors that may affect the relationship between screening values. Insignificant, or minimally significant effects were observed for windspeed, component type and service type. API PUBb*332 9

28、5 0732290 0546392 337 W TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paae EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . e5-1 RESULTS FROM DIFFERENT SCREENING INSTRUMENTS . e5-2 RESULTS FROM DIFFERENT SCREENING DISTANCES . e5-3 COMPARISON OF STUDY RESULTS TO EARLIER STUDY e5-5 COMPARISON OF OTHER FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT THE CORRELATION EQUATION

29、S e5-5 1 . INTRODUCTION 1-1 STUDY OBJECTIVES . 1-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-2 REPORT ORGANIZATION . 1-3 2 . TESTPROCEDURES 2-1 EQUIPMENT . 2-1 OVA108 . 2-1 TLV Sniffe? . 2-2 HN . 2-2 TVA1000 . 2-2 QUALITY ASSURANCWQUALITY CONTROL (QNQC) . 2-3 SAMPLING PROCEDURES . 2-4 3 . DATAANALYSIS 3-1 COMPARISON OF

30、 SCREENING INSTRUMENT SCREENING VALUES AT MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE RATE AND PEAK RATE 3-4 COMPARISON OF SCREENING DISTANCES AT MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE RATE AND PEAK SUSTAINABLE RATE 3-13 COMPARISON OF CURRENT STUDY DATA TO 1979 SCREENING STUDYDATA 3-21 ANALYSIS OF OTHER FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT THE CORRELATIO

31、N EQUATIONS 3-26 4 . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 4-1 RESULTS FROM DIFFERENT SCREENING INSTRUMENTS 4-1 RESULTS FROM DIFFERENT SCREENING DISTANCES 4-2 COMPARISON OF STUDY RESULTS TO EARLIER STUDY . 4-3 Section API PUBLr332 95 = 0732290 O546393 273 m TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 4. CONCLUSI

32、ONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) COMPARISON OF OTHER FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT THE CORRELATION EQUATIONS . 4-3 5. REFERENCES . 5-1 Appendix A Screening Value Data A-1 Appendix B Statistical Analysis Details . B-1 API PUBL*332 95 W 0732290 0.546394 10T LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1 Screening Value

33、 Data Collection Sheet 2-7 3-1 OVA vs . TLV Sniffe? Screening Instrument . 3-8 3-2 OVA vs . HNU Screening Instrument . 3-9 3-3 OVA vs . TVA FID Screening Instrument 3-10 3-4 OVA vs . TVA PID Screening Instrument 3-11 3-5 TVA PID vs . HNU“ Screening Instrument . 3-12 3-6 Equations Relating Screening

34、Values from Different Instruments 3-14 3-7 OVA at Surface vs . OVA at 1 cm . 3-15 3-8 TLV Sniffe? at Surface vs . TLV Sniffer at 1 cm 3-16 3-9 HNU at Surface vs . “UQD at 1 cm i . 3-17 3-10 TVA FID at Surface vs . TVA FID at 1 cm . 3-18 3-11 TVA PID at Surface vs . TVA PID at 1 cm . 3-19 3-1 2 Equat

35、ions Relating Screening Values at the Surface to Screening Values at 1 cm 3-22 3-1 3 Comparison of 1979 Study Data to 1994 Study Data . 3-25 3-14 Plots Illustrating Effects of Component Type . 3-30 3-15 Plots Illustrating Service Type Effects 3-32 API PUBL*332 95 0732290 0546395 046 LIST OF TABLES T

36、able Pane ES-1 Equations Relating Screening Values from Different Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3 2-1 Summary of EPA Method 21 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2-2 Summary of Screening Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37、 . . . . . . . . . 2-5 3-1 Equations Relating Screening Values from Different Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 3-2 Equations Relating Screening Values at the Surface to Screening Values at 1 cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 3-3 Results

38、of Multivariate Analysis for Correlations between Screening Distances . . 3-28 3-4 Results of Multivariate Analysis for Correlations between Instrument Types . . . . . 3-29 4-1 Equations Relating Screening Values from Different Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fugitive e

39、missions from leaking equipment are being monitored by refineries, chemical companies, and petroleum marketing terminals. Several different instruments, each capable of measuring the fugitive hydrocarbon emissions, or screening values, are being utilized by these facilities. Furthermore, the distanc

40、e that the screening instrument is held from the surface of the component at the point where the primary leak is measured can vary depending on local practices, the potential for probe-tip contamination, andor the prescence of rotating parts. To investigate these differences, the Western States Petr

41、oleum Association (WSPA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) commissioned this study. Specifically, this studys objectives were to: Develop a correlation equation for converting screening instrument measurements from other analyzers to the Foxboro Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) 108 measurements

42、 by collecting side by side screening measurements from four different screening instruments: - Foxboro OVA 108, - Bacharach Threshold Limit Value Sniffer (TLV SniffeP), - HNP Pi-101, and - Foxboro Total Vapor Analyzer (TVA) 1000, both flame ionization detector (FID) and photo ionization detector (P

43、ID). Develop a correlation equation converting screening measurements made at a distance of 1 cm to screening done as close as possible to the surface. These correlation equations enable facilities that collect data with different instruments and different screening distances to convert their data t

44、o screening values that can be applied to mass emission correlation equations (Le., that relate the mass in Ibhr to a particular screening value). However, other comparisons between instruments and screening distances may also prove beneficial to facilities monitoring fugitive emissions. Some of the

45、se additional comparisons were also evaluated in this study. Please note that other screening instruments, not studied in this report, may be available. ES-1 API PUBL*332 95 m 0732290 0546397 919 For this study, equipment leaks screening data were collected from two refineries, one located in southe

46、rn California and one in northern California. The testing at one refinery occurred in December, 1993. The testing at the second refinery took place in January, 1994. Of the approximately 400,000 valves and connectors available in both refineries, less than 300 components were selected for this inter

47、comparison. The statistical sampling used was designed to provide information on the sensitivity of various portable instruments throughout the range of potential screening values. Therefore, the hydrocarbon concentrations measured when screening these components are not representative of routine da

48、ta collected during leak detection and repair programs at petroleum refineries. Although not every component selected for this study was screened with each of the four portable instruments, all com- ponents were screened at least with the OVA 108. Fewer measurements were made with the other instrume

49、nts because of instrument difficulties. Screening took place over a one week period at each of the two refineries. Of the 271 components tested, 227 were valves and 44 were connectors. The majority of the components to screen were identified by refinery inspection and maintenance (I/M) teams as part of their routine I/M program. The remainder were found by Radian field staff. Because of the deliberate focus on higher leaking components identified by the I/M teams, the screening value distribution of the data is certainly biased toward higher percentages of high screening v