ENVIRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONTHE USE OF A GAS-IMAGING DEVICE FOR DETECTINGFUGITIVE EMISSIONS IN ETHYLENE FACILITIESPresented at the Texas Technology ShowcaseMarch 2003METHOD 21 CAN BE COSTLY AND INEFFICIENTMethod 21 requirement to monitor every component individually is verylabor intensive.METHOD 21 CAN BE COSTLY AND INEFFICIENTMethod 21 requirement to monitor every component individually is verylabor intensive.In a typical large U.S. refinery, the number of fugitive emissioncomponents is over 200,000 with annual LDAR operating costsexceeding $1,000,000.METHOD 21 CAN BE COSTLY AND INEFFICIENTAnalyses by the American Petroleum Institute have shown that over 83%of controllable fugitive emissions come from only about 0.24% of thepiping components.METHOD 21 CAN BE COSTLY AND INEFFICIENTAnalyses by the American Petroleum Institute have shown that over 83%of controllable fugitive emissions come from only about 0.24% of thepiping components.01020304050607080901000 - 99 100 - 499 500 - 999 1,000 - 9,999 10,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 >100,000% total count% total emissionsSource: American Petroleum Institute, “Analysis of Refinery Screening Data,” API Publication 310, 1997.METHOD 21 CAN BE COSTLY AND INEFFICIENTAPI analysis conclusions...Leaks occur randomlyFew significant repeat leakersNeed improved method to more cost-effectively find and repair highleakersOPTICAL GAS IMAGINGBecause of concerns about cost and effectiveness of Method 21, effortsare underway in both public and private sectors to develop newmethods for detecting fugitive emissionsOPTICAL GAS IMAGINGBecause of concerns about cost and effectiveness of Method 21, effortsare underway in both public and private sectors to develop newmethods for detecting fugitive emissionsOptical gas imaging devices offers an operator the ability monitorcomponents from a distance and identify - in some casesinstantaneously - leaking components(of a sufficient mass) within theline of sight of the optical imagerOPTICAL GAS IMAGINGLaser ImagingSystemsSandiaNationalLaboratoryPacificAdvancedTechnologyIon OpticsArgonneNationalLaboratoryBlockEngineeringPrincipal ofoperationIR IR IR IR mm-wave FT-IRActive orpassiveactive active passive passive (?) active and/orpassivepassiveReal-timeimagingyes yes beingimplementedpossible possible yesStatus commerciallyavailableportableprototypetuneable laserdevelopedmethane leakdetectordevelopedmethane leakdetectorproposedR&D done, DOEfield testperformed;prototype designnot startedcommerciallyavailable forSF6; lookingto expand toVOCsExpectedavailability6 to 12months6 months 12 to 24months12 to 24 months 6 to 12monthsExpectedcost/unit$125,000 $150,000 $50,000 to$75,000$50,000 to$60,000$50,000 ?VOCs tested ethylene aliphatichydrocarbonsmethane,propane,butane, acetonemethylchloride,butanolOBJECTIVES OF STUDYConduct a demonstration of a portable gas imaging device to evaluatethe capability of the device in detecting fugitive emissions under normalplant operating conditionsOBJECTIVES OF STUDYConduct a demonstration of a portable gas imaging device to evaluatethe capability of the device in detecting fugitive emissions under normalplant operating conditionsIdentify, if possible, leaking equipment detected with the portable opticalgas imaging device but listed as non-leaking when monitored underMethod 21 proceduresOBJECTIVES OF STUDYConduct a demonstration of a portable gas imaging device to evaluatethe capability of the device in detecting fugitive emissions under normalplant operating conditionsIdentify, if possible, leaking equipment detected with the portable opticalgas imaging device but listed as non-leaking when monitored underMethod 21 proceduresGather data that could be used to establish the mass emissiondetection capability of the portable gas imaging deviceOBJECTIVES OF STUDYConduct a demonstration of a portable gas imaging device to evaluatethe capability of the device in detecting fugitive emissions under normalplant operating conditionsIdentify, if possible, leaking equipment detected with the portable opticalgas imaging device but listed as non-leaking when monitored underMethod 21 proceduresGather data that could be used to establish the mass emissiondetection capability of the portable gas imaging deviceGather data that could begin to establish the sensitivity of the portableoptical gas imaging device to various factors that might be encounteredduring routine use at a chemical plantFIELD STUDIESTwo field studies conducted as part of this project...Field study conducted at Site “A” during late May 2002FIELD STUDIESTwo field studies conducted as part of this project...Field study conducted at Site “A” during late May 2002Field study conducted at Site“B” during early August 2002FIELD STUDIESTwo field studies conducted as part of this project...Field study conducted at Site “A” during late May 2002Field study conducted at Site“B” during early August 2002Both sites located in the Houston-Galveston areaCO2LASER PERFORMANCEThree critical parameters for CO2laser performance...Range - For the technologyto visualize a leak, theremust be a reflective or“backscattering” surface behind the leak.SCHEMATIC DESCRIPTION OFBACKSCATTER/ABSORPTION GAS IMAGING PROCESSSource: McRae, Tom, GasVue®:A Rapid Leak Location Technology for Large VOC fugitive Emissions(Presentation at the CSI PetroleumRefining Sector Equipment Leaks Group, Washington, DC, Sep. 9, 1997)CO2LASER PERFORMANCEThree critical parameters for CO2laser performance...Range - for the technologyto visualize a leak, theremust be a reflective or“backscattering” surface behind the leak.Detection Sensitivity - detection sensitivity depends most strongly on thematch between the laser wavelengthand the wavelength of strongestabsorption by thegas of interest.detection sensitivity alsoaffected by wind speed, optical resolution, gas plumemotion, and viewing angleLASER WAVELENGTHCO2LASER PERFORMANCEThree critical parameters for CO2laser performance...Range - for the technologyto visualize a leak, theremust be a reflective or“backscattering” surface behind the leak.Detection Sensitivity - detection sensitivity depends most strongly on thematch between the laser wavelengthand the wavelength of strongestabsorption by thegas of interest.detection sensitivity alsoaffected by wind speed, optical resolution, gas plumemotion, and viewing angleAtmospheric Window - an “atmospheric window” is defined as a region of thespectrum where there is minimal orno light absorption by oxygen, nitrogen,carbon dioxide, and water vapor that are normally found in air.major atmospheric windows inthe infrared region are found in the 3 to4.2 micronand 8 to 13 micronwavelength regionsVISUAL VERSUS INFRARED IMAGEVisual image of Open-ended DrainVISUAL VERSUS INFRARED IMAGEVisual image of Open-ended Drain Infrared image fromgas imagingdevice of open-ended drainFIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSThe field studies demonstrated that the CO2laser was able to identifyleaking components while monitoring both traditional and nontraditionalcomponents under normal chemicalplant operating conditions.FIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSThe field studies demonstrated that the CO2laser was able to identifyleaking components while monitoring both traditional and nontraditionalcomponents under normal chemicalplant operating conditions.At Site A:7,187 components were monitored in four days95 leaking components were found (70 traditional and 25 nontraditional)The mass emission rate from leaking components (as determined by bagging)ranged from 0.000563 g/hr to 23.2 g/hr.Six of the ten bagged leaks detected by the CO2laser had a mass emission rate inexcess of 0.1 g/hr. Four of these six components were above 1 g/hr.FIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSThe field studies demonstrated that the CO2laser was able to identifyleaking components while monitoring both traditional and nontraditionalcomponents under normal chemicalplant operating conditions.At Site A:7,187 components were monitored in four days95 leaking components were found (70 traditional and 25 nontraditional)The mass emission rate from leaking components (as determined by bagging)ranged from 0.000563 g/hr to 23.2 g/hr.Six of the ten bagged leaks detected by the CO2laser had a mass emission rate inexcess of 0.1 g/hr. Four of these six components were above 1 g/hr.At Site B:1,178 components were monitored in four days52 leaking components were found (49traditional and3 nontraditional)The mass emission rate from leaking components (as determined by bagging)ranged from 0.013 g/hr to 23.4 g/hr.18 of the 19 bagged leaks detected by the CO2laser had a mass emission rate inexcess of 0.1 g/hr. 15of the 18 components were above 1 g/hr.EMISSION RATE OF BAGGED COMPONENTS

0. 0001 0. 0010 0 . 01 0 0 0. 1000 1. 0000 10.0000 10 0 . .. .Em issionsRate(g/hr)SiteA-notseenSiteA-seenSiteB-notseenSiteB-seen0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000Em issionRate(g/hr)FIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSThe majority of components (traditional and nontraditional) detected asleaking had screening values above 1,000 ppmv.FIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSThe majority of components (traditional and nontraditional) detected asleaking had screening values above 1,000 ppmv.At Site A:96.7% of detected leaking components had screeningvalues over 1,000 ppmv63.3% of detected leaking components had screeningvalues over 10,000 ppmvFIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSThe majority of components (traditional and nontraditional) detected asleaking had screening values above 1,000 ppmv.At Site A:96.7% of detected leaking components had screeningvalues over 1,000 ppmv63.3% of detected leaking components had screeningvalues over 10,000 ppmvAt Site B:83.0% of detected leaking components had screeningvalues over 1,000 ppmv56.0% of detected leaking components had screeningvalues over 10,000 ppmvFIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSAdditional testing of the CO2laser is warranted to more fully establish thesensitivity of the instruments to factors such as distance, reflectivebackground, wind speed, sight lines, angle-of-view, and hydrocarbonspecies.FIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSAdditional testing of the CO2laser is warranted to more fully establish thesensitivity of the instruments to factors such as distance, reflectivebackground, wind speed, sight lines, angle-of-view, and hydrocarbonspecies.In the field studies, leaks from as closeas 4 feet to as far as 20 feet weredetected.component with the lowest mass rate was detected from a distance greater than 10feet.component with the highest mass rate was detected froma distance of 8 feet, 1inchFIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSAdditional testing of the CO2laser is warranted to more fully establish thesensitivity of the instruments to factors such as distance, reflectivebackground, wind speed, sight lines, angle-of-view, and hydrocarbonspecies.In the field studies, leaks from as closeas 4 feet to as far as 20 feet weredetected.The CO2laser successfully detected leaksagainst a variety of typicalreflective backgrounds found atpetrochemical facilities.FIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSAdditional testing of the CO2laser is warranted to more fully establish thesensitivity of the instruments to factors such as distance, reflectivebackground, wind speed, sight lines, angle-of-view, and hydrocarbonspecies.In the field studies, leaks from as closeas 4 feet to as far as 20 feet weredetected.The CO2laser successfully detected leaksagainst a variety of typicalreflective backgrounds found atpetrochemical facilities.Leaking components were detected ateye-level, beneath equipment, and atelevations above normal Method 21 reach.FIELD STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSAdditional testing of the CO2laser is warranted to more fully establish thesensitivity of the instruments to factors such as distance, reflectivebackground, wind speed, sight lines, angle-of-view, and hydrocarbonspecies.In the field studies, leaks from as closeas 4 feet to as far as 20 feet weredetected.The CO2laser successfully detected leaksagainst a variety of typicalreflective backgrounds found atpetrochemical facilities.Leaking components were detected ateye-level, beneath equipment, and atelevations above normal Method 21 reach.The CO2laser successfully detected leakswith wind speeds ranging from 0meters/second to 3.9 meters/second.NEXT STEPSDetermine the ability of gas-imaging technology to detect leaks of otherchemicalspropyleneformaldehydeacetaldehydeisopreneall butenes (butylenes)1, 3, butadienetolueneall pentenesall trimethylbenzenesall xylenesall ethyletoluenesall hexenesall butanesall pentanesNEXT STEPSDetermine the ability of gas-imaging technology to detect leaks of otherchemicalsDetermine ability of gas-imaging device to estimate fugitive emissionsNEXT STEPSDetermine the ability of gas-imaging technology to detect leaks of otherchemicalsDetermine ability of gas-imaging device to estimate fugitive emissionsDevelop an EPA protocol for the use of a gas-imaging device as analternative to current leakdetection and evaluation methods