Lessons Learned 

from Natural Gas STAR Partners 

Options For Reducing Methane Emissions 

From Pneumatic Devices In The Natural 

Gas Industry 

Executive Summary 

Pneumatic devices powered by pressurized natural gas are 

used widely in the natural gas industry as liquid level

controllers, pressure regulators, and valve controllers. 

Methane emissions from pneumatic devices, which have

been estimated at 51 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per year in the 

production sector, 14 Bcf per year in the transmission

sector and <1 Bcf per year in the processing sector, are one 

of the largest sources of vented methane emissions from

the natural gas industry. Reducing these emissions by 

replacing high-bleed devices with low-bleed devices, 

retrofitting high-bleed devices, and improving

maintenance practices can be profitable. 

Natural Gas STAR Partners have achieved significant 

savings and methane emission reductions through 

replacement, retrofit, and maintenance of high-bleed 

pneumatics. Partners have found that most retrofit 

investments pay for themselves in little over a year, and 

replacements in as little as 6 months. To date, Natural 

Gas STAR Partners have saved 36.4 Bcf by retrofitting or

replacing high-bleed with low-bleed pneumatic devices, 

representing a savings of $254.8 million worth of gas.

Individual savings will vary depending on the design, 

condition and specific operating conditions of the 

controller. 

Technology Background 

The natural gas industry uses a variety of control devices 

to automatically operate valves and control pressure, flow, 

temperature or liquid levels. Control devices can be 

powered by electricity or compressed air, when available

and economic. In the vast majority of applications,

however, the gas industry uses pneumatic devices that 

employ energy from pressurized natural gas. 

Natural gas powered pneumatic devices perform a variety 

of functions in all three sectors of the natural gas industry.

In the production sector, an estimated 400,000 pneumatic

devices are used to control and monitor gas and liquid

flows and levels in dehydrators and separators, 

temperature in dehydrator regenerators, and pressure in 

flash tanks. In the processing sector, about 13,000 gas

pneumatic devices are used for compressor and glycol 

dehydration control in gas gathering/booster stations and

isolation valves in processing plants (process control in gas 

processing plants is predominantly instrument air). 

Economic and Environmental Benefits 

Method for 

Reducing Natural 

Gas Losses 

Volume of 

Natural Gas 

Savings 

(Mcf/year) 

Value of Natural Gas Savings ($/year) Implementation 

Cost ($) 

Payback (Months) 

$3 per Mcf $5 per Mcf $7 per Mcf $3 per 

Mcf 

$5 per 

Mcf 

$7 per 

Mcf 

Change to lowbleed device at 

end of life. 

50 to 200 $150 to $600 $250 to $1,000 $350 to $1,400 $210 to $340a 4 to 27 3 to 17 2 to 12 

Earlyreplacement of 

high-bleed unit. 

260 $780 $1,300 $1,820 $1,850 29 17 13 

Retrofit 230 $690 $1,150 $1,610 per year $675 12 7 5 

Maintenance 45 to 260 $135 to $780 $225 to $1,300 $315 to $1,820 Negligible to $500 Immediate 

to 8 

Immediate 

to 5 

Immediate 

to 4 

General Assumptions: 

a Incremental cost of low-bleed over high-bleed equipment. 

Replacement 

1 
 

 

 

Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

In the transmission sector, an 

Definition of High-Bleed estimated 85,000 pneumatic Pneumatic devices actuate isolation 

Any pneumatic device that valves and regulate gas flow

bleeds in excess of 6 scfh (over and pressure at compressor

50 Mcf per year) is considered a stations, pipelines, and high-bleed device by the Natural storage facilities. Non-bleed Gas STAR Program. 

pneumatic devices are also 

found on meter runs at 

distribution company gate stations for regulating flow,

pressure, and temperature. 

As part of normal operation, pneumatic devices release or

bleed natural gas to the atmosphere and, consequently, are

a major source of methane emissions from the natural gas 

industry. The actual bleed rate or emissions level largely 

depends on the design of the device. 

Exhibit 1 shows a schematic of a gas pneumatic control 

system. Clean, dry, pressurized natural gas is regulated to

a constant pressure, usually around 20 psig. This gas

supply is used both as a signal and a power supply. A 

small stream is sent to a device that measures a process 

condition (liquid level, gas pressure, flow, temperature). 

This device regulates the pressure of this small gas stream 

(from 3 to 15 psig) in proportion to the process condition.

The stream flows to the pneumatic valve controller, where

its variable pressure is used to regulate a valve actuator. 

To close the valve pictured in Exhibit 1, 20-psig pneumatic 

gas is directed to the actuator, pushing the diaphragm 

down against the spring, which, through the valve stem, 

pushes the valve plug closed. When gas is vented off the 

actuator, the spring pushes the valve back open. The weak 

signal continuously vents (bleeds) to the atmosphere. 

Electro-pneumatic devices use weak electric current 

instead of the weak gas stream to signal pneumatic valve 

actuation. 

In general, controllers of similar design usually have

similar steady-state bleed rates regardless of brand name. 

Pneumatic devices come in three basic designs: 

Continuous bleed devices are used to modulate flow, 

liquid level, or pressure and will generally vent gas 

at a steady rate; 

Actuating or intermittent bleed devices perform 

snap-acting control and release gas only when they

stroke a valve open or closed or as they throttle gas 

flows; and 

Exhibit 1: Pneumatic Device Schematic 

Self-contained devices release gas into the 

downstream pipeline, not to the atmosphere. 

To reduce emissions from pneumatic devices the following 

options can be pursued, either alone or in combination: 

1.	 Replacement of high-bleed devices with low-bleed 

devices having similar performance capabilities. 

2.	 Installation of low-bleed retrofit kits on operating 

devices. 

3. Enhanced maintenance, cleaning and tuning,

repairing/replacing leaking gaskets, tubing fittings, 

and seals. 

Field experience shows that up to 80 percent of all highbleed devices can be replaced with low-bleed equipment or 

retrofitted. Exhibit 2 lists the generic options applicable

for different controller requirements. 

In general, the bleed rate will also vary with the 

pneumatic gas supply pressure, actuation frequency, and

age or condition of the equipment. Due to the need for 

precision, controllers that must operate quickly will bleed

more gas than slower operating devices. The condition of a 

pneumatic device is a stronger indicator of emission 

potential than age; well-maintained pneumatic devices 

operate efficiently for many years. 

2 
 

 

Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

Exhibit 2: Options for Reducing Gas-Bleed 

Emissions by Controller Type 

Action 

Pneumatic Types 

Level 

Controllers 

Pressure 

Controllers 

Positioners/ 

Transducers 

Replacements 

High-bleed with 

low-bleed 

Retrofits 

Install retrofit kits 

Maintenance 

Lower gas supply 

pressure/replace 

springs/re-bench 

Repair leaks, clean 

and tune 

Change gain setting 

Remove unnecessary 

positioners 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(electropneumatic) 

Economic and Environmental Benefits 

Reducing methane emissions from high-bleed pneumatic

devices through the options presented above will yield

significant benefits, including: 

Financial return from reducing gas-bleed 

losses. Using a natural gas price of $7.00 per 

thousand cubic feet (Mcf), savings from reduced 

emissions can range from $315 to $1,820 or more per 

year per device. In many cases, the cost of 

implementation is recovered in less than a year. 

Increased operational efficiency. The retrofit or 

complete replacement of worn units can provide 

better system-wide performance and reliability and 

improve monitoring of parameters such as gas flow, 

pressure, or liquid level. 

Lower methane emissions. Reductions in 

methane emissions can range from 45 to 260 Mcf per

device per year, depending on the device and the 

specific application. 

Decision Process 

Operators can determine the gas-bleed reduction option

that is best suited to their situation, by following the 

decision process laid out below. Depending on the types of 

devices that are being considered, one or more options for 

reducing pneumatic gas bleed may be appropriate. 

Step 1: Locate and describe the high-bleed devices. 

Partners should first identify the high-bleed devices that

are candidates for replacement, retrofit, or repair. The 

identification and description process can occur during

normal maintenance or during a system-wide or facilityspecific pneumatics survey. For each pneumatic device, 

record the location, function, make and model, condition, 

age, estimated remaining useful life, and bleed rate 

characteristics (volume and whether intermittent or 

continuous). 

The pneumatic device’s bleed rate can be determined 

through direct measurement or from data provided by the 

manufacturer. Direct measurement might include bagging 

studies at selected instruments, high-volume sampler

measurements (see “Directed Inspection and Maintenance 

at Compressor Stations” Lessons Learned) or the 

operator's standard leak measurement approach.

Operators will find it unnecessary to measure bleed rates 

at each device. In most cases, sample measurements of a 

few devices are sufficient. Experience suggests that

manufacturers' bleed rates are understated, so 

measurement data should be used when it can be acquired. 

Appendix A lists brand, model, and gas bleed 

information—as provided by manufacturers—for various 

pneumatic devices. This is not an exhaustive list, but it 

covers the most commonly used devices. Where available, 

actual field data on bleed rates are included. 

Step 2: Establish the technical feasibility and costs of 

alternatives. 

Nearly all high-bleed pneumatic devices can be replaced or

retrofitted with lower-bleed equipment. Consult your

pneumatic device vendor or an instrumentation specialist

for availability, specifications and costs of suitable devices.

Low-bleed devices can be requested by specifying bleed 

rates less than 6 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh). It is 

important to note that not all manufacturers report bleed 

rates in the same manner, and companies should exercise 

Five Steps for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic 

Devices: 

1. Locate and describe the high-bleed devices; 

2. Establish the technical feasibility and costs of alternatives; 

3. Estimate the savings; 

4. Evaluate the economics; and 

5. Develop an implementation plan. 

3 
 

 

 

Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

caution when making purchases of low-bleed devices. 

Appendix B lists cost data for many low-bleed pneumatic

devices and summarizes the compatibility of retrofit kits 

with various controllers. This is not an exhaustive list, but 

it covers the most commonly used devices. 

Maintenance of pneumatics is a cost-effective method for 

reducing emissions. All companies should consider 

maintenance as an important part of their implementation

plan. Cleaning and tuning, in addition to repairing 

leaking gaskets, tubing fittings, and seals, can save 5 to 10

scfh per device. Tuning to operate over a broader range of

proportional band often reduces bleed rates by as much as

10 scfh. Eliminating unnecessary valve positioners can 

save up to 18 scfh per device. 

Some high-bleed devices, however, should not be replaced 

with low-bleed devices. Control of very large valves that

require fast and/or precise response to process changes

often require high-bleed controllers. These are found most 

frequently on large compressor discharge and bypass

pressure controllers. EPA recommends contacting vendors 

for new fast-acting devices with lower bleed rates. 

Step 3: Estimate the savings. 

Determine the quantity of gas that can be saved with a low

-bleed controller, using field measurement of the highbleed controller and a similar low-bleed device in service. 

If these actual bleed rates are not available, use bleed 

specifications provided by manufacturers. 

Gas savings can be monetized to annual savings using 

$7.00 per Mcf and multiplying bleed reduction, typically 

specified in scfh, by 8,670 hours per year. 

Gas Savings = (High-bleed, scfh) — (Low-bleed, scfh) 

Annual Gas Savings = Gas Savings (scfh) * 8,760 hrs/yr * 1 

Mcf/1000scf * $7.00/Mcf 

Step 4: Evaluate the economics. 

The cost-effectiveness of replacement, retrofit, or 

maintenance of high-bleed pneumatic devices can be 

evaluated using straightforward economic analysis. A cost 

-benefit analysis for replacement or retrofit is appropriate 

unless high-bleed characteristics are required for 

operational reasons. 

Exhibit 3 illustrates a cost-benefit analysis for 

replacement of a high-bleed liquid level controller. Cash 

flow over a five-year period is analyzed by showing the

magnitude and timing of costs (shown in parenthesis) and

benefits. In this example, a $513 initial investment buys a

level controller that saves 19 scfh of gas. At $7.00 per Mcf, 

the low-bleed device saves $1,165 per year. Annual 

maintenance costs for the new and old controllers are 

shown. The maintenance cost for the older high-bleed 

controller is shown as a benefit because it is an avoided 

cost. Net present value (NPV) is equal to the benefits

minus the costs accrued over five years and discounted by 

10 percent each year. Internal rate of return (IRR) is the 

discount rate at which the NPV generated by the

investment equals zero. 

Exhibit 3: Cost-Effectiveness 

Calculation for Replacement 

Type of Costs Year 

0 

Year 

1 

Year 

2 

Year 

3 

Year 

4 

Year 

5 

Implementation 

Costs, $ 

(Capital Costs)a 

(513) 

Annual Savings, $ 

(New vs. Old)b 

Maintenance 

1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 1,165 

Costs, $ 

(New Controller)c 

Avoided 

(34) (34) (34) (34) (34) 

Maintenance, $ 

(Replaced 

Controller)c 

70 70 70 70 70 

Net Benefit (513) 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 

NPVd

 = $4,042 

IRR = 234% 

Notes: 

a Quoted cost of a Fisher 2680 device. Adjusted to 2006 equipment costs. See Appendix B. 

b Annual savings per device calculated as the change in bleed rate of 19 scfh x 8,760 hrs/hr = 167 Mcf/ 

yr at $7/Mcf. 

c Maintenance costs are estimated. 

d Net Present Value (NPV) based on 10% discount rate for 5 years. 

Exhibit 4 illustrates the range of savings offered by proven

methods for reducing gas bleed emissions. For simplicity, 

it is assumed that the cost of maintenance of the 

pneumatic device will be the same before and after the 

replacement, retrofit, or enhanced maintenance activity. 

As seen in Exhibit 4, sometimes more than one option to

reduce gas bleed may be appropriate and cost-effective for 

a given application. For the listed options, please note 

that the payback period with respect to implementation 

cost can range from less than one month to two years. 

4 
 

 

Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

Exhibit 4: Economic Benefits of Reducing Pneumatic Device Emissions 

Action Costa ($) 

Bleed Rate 

Reductionsb

 (Mcf/ 

yr/device) 

Annual Savingsc 

($/year) 

Payback Period 

(months) IRRd

 (%) 

Replacement 

Level Controllers 

High-bleed to low-bleed 513 166 1,165 6 226 

Pressure Controllers 

High-bleed to low-bleed 

Airset metal to soft-seal 

1,809 

104 

228 

219 

1,596 

1,533 

14 

<1 

84 

>1,400 

Retrofit 

Level Controllers 

Mizer 

Large orifice to small 

Large nozzle to small 

675 

41 

189 

219 

184 

131 

1,533 

1,288 

917 

6 

<1 

3 

226 

>3,100 

>450 

Pressure Controllers 

Large orifice to small 41 184 1,288 <1 >3,100 

Maintenance 

All types 

Reduce supply pressure 

Repair leaks, retune 

207 

31 

175 

44 

1,225 

308 

3 

2 

>500 

>900 

Level Controllers 

Change gain setting 0 88 616 Immediate —-

Positioners 

Remove unnecessary 0 158 1,106 Immediate —-

a Implementation costs represent average costs for Fisher brand pneumatic instruments installed. b Bleed rate reduction = change in bleed rate scf/hr x 8,760 hr/yr. 

c Savings based on $7.00/Mcf cost of gas. 

d Internal rate of return (IRR) calculated over 5 years. 

The case studies in Exhibit 5 on the next page present

analyses performed and savings achieved by two Natural 

Gas STAR Partners who installed retrofit kits at gas 

production facilities. 

Step 5: Develop an implementation plan. 

After identifying the pneumatic devices that can be 

profitably replaced, retrofitted or maintained, devise a 

systematic plan for implementing the required changes.

This can include modifying the current inspection and 

maintenance schedule and prioritizing replacement or 

retrofits. It may be most cost-effective to replace all those

devices that meet the technical and economic criteria of 

your analysis at one time to minimize labor costs and 

disruption of operation. 

Where a pneumatic device is at the end of its useful life

and is scheduled for replacement, it should be replaced

with a low-bleed model instead of a new high-bleed device

whenever possible. 

When assessing options for replacement of high-bleed

pneumatic devices, natural gas price may influence the 

decision making process. Exhibit 6 shows an economic 

analysis of early replacement of a high bleed pneumatic

device with a lower bleed device at different natural gas

prices. 

5 
 

 

 

 

Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

Exhibit 5: Case Studies on Retrofit To Reduce Gas 

Leaks at Natural Gas STAR Partner Sites 

Study 

Impleme 

ntation 

Costs ($) 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(Mcf/yr) 

Annual 

Savings 

($/ 

year) 

Payback 

(months) 

IRR 

(%) 

Company 1: 

Platform 1 

Platform 2 

Retrofit 

Liquid-level 

controllers 

Company 2: 

Per device 

8,988 

13,892 

5,452 

702 

2,286 

3,592 

1,717 

219 

16,002 

25,144 

12,019 

1,533 

7 

7 

6 

6 

177 

180 

220 

218 

Exhibit 6: Gas Price Impact on 

Economic Analysis 

$3/Mcf $5/Mcf $7/Mcf $8/Mcf $10/Mcf 

Value of Gas 

Saved 

Payback 

Period 

(months) 

Internal Rate 

of Return 

(IRR) 

Net Present 

Value 

(i=10%) 

$780 

29 

31% 

$1,107 

$1,300 

18 

64% 

$3,078 

$1,820 

13 

95% 

$5,049 

$2,080 

11 

110% 

$6,035 

$2,600 

9 

139% 

$8,006 

Other Technologies 

Instrument air, nitrogen gas, electric valve controllers, and 

mechanical control systems are some of the alternatives to 

gas powered pneumatics implemented by Partners. 

Instrument Air. These systems substitute 

compressed, dried air in place of natural gas in

pneumatic devices, and thus eliminate methane 

emissions entirely. Instrument air systems are 

typically installed at facilities where there is a high 

concentration of pneumatic control valves and 

fulltime operator presence (for example, most gas 

Nelson Price Indexes 

In order to account for inflation in equipment and 

operating & maintenance costs, Nelson-Farrar 

Quarterly Cost Indexes (available in the first issue of 

each quarter in the Oil and Gas Journal) are used to 

update costs in the Lessons Learned documents. 

The “Refinery Operation Index” is used to revise

operating costs while the “Machinery: Oilfield Itemized 

Refining Cost Index” is used to update equipment 

costs. 

To use these indexes in the future, simply look up the 

most current Nelson-Farrar index number, divide by 

the February 2006 Nelson-Farrar index number, and, 

finally multiply by the appropriate costs in the Lessons 

Learned. 

processing plants use instrument air for pneumatic 

devices). The major costs associated with instrument 

air systems are capital and energy. Instrument air 

systems are powered by electric compressors, and 

require the installation of dehydrators and volume

tanks to filter, dry and store the air for 

instrumentation use. Generally, Partners have found 

that cost-effective implementation of instrument air 

systems is limited to field sites with available utility 

or self-generated electrical power. The Lessons 

Learned study, “Covert Gas Pneumatic Controls to 

Instrument Air,” provides a detailed description of 

the technical and economic decision process required 

to evaluate conversion from gas pneumatic devices to 

instrument air. 

Nitrogen Gas. Unlike instrument air systems that 

require capital expenditures and electric power, these 

systems only require the installation of a cryogenic

liquid nitrogen cylinder, that is replaced periodically, 

and a liquid nitrogen vaporizer. The system uses a 

pressure regulator to control the expansion of the 

nitrogen gas (i.e., the gas pressure) as it enters the

control system. The primary disadvantage of these 

systems stems from the cost of liquid nitrogen and

the potential safety hazard associated with using 

cryogenic liquids. 

Electric Valve Controllers. Due to advances in 

technology, the use of electronic control 

instrumentation is increasing. These systems use 

small electrical motors to operate valves and 

therefore do not bleed natural gas into the 

atmosphere. While they are reliant on a constant 

6 
 

 

Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

The average methane content of natural gas varies by natural gas 

industry sector. The Natural Gas STAR Program assumes the 

following methane content of natural gas when estimating 

methane savings for Partner Reported Opportunities. 

Production 79 % 

Processing 87 % 

Transmission and Distribution 94 % 

Methane Content of Natural Gas 

supply of electricity, and have high associated 

operating costs, they have the advantage of not 

requiring the utilization of natural gas or a 

compressor to operate. 

Mechanical Control Systems. These devices have 

been widely used in the natural gas and petroleum 

industry. They operate using a combination of 

springs, levers, flow channels and hand wheels.

While they are simple in design and require no 

natural gas or power supply to operate, their 

application is limited due to the need for the control

valve to be in close proximity to the process 

measurement. Also, these systems are unable to 

handle large flow fluctuations and lack the 

sensitivity of pneumatic systems. 

Each of these options has specific advantages and 

disadvantages. Where Natural Gas STAR Partners do 

install these systems as replacements to gas powered 

pneumatic devices, they should report the resulting

emissions reductions and recognize the savings. 

One Partner’s Experience 

Union Pacific Resources replaced 70 high-bleed 

pneumatic devices with low-bleed pneumatic

devices and retrofitted 330 high-bleed pneumatic

devices. As a result, this Partner has estimated a 

total reduction of methane emissions of 49,600 

Mcf per year. Assuming a gas price of $7 per Mcf,

the savings corresponds to $347,200. The costs of 

replacing and retrofitting all the devices, 

including materials and labor, is $166,300 at 2006 

costs, resulting in a payback period of less than 

one year. 

One Partner’s Experience 

Marathon Oil Company surveyed 158 pneumatic 

control devices at 50 production sites using the HiFlow Sampler to measure emissions. Half of these 

controllers were identified as non-bleed devices (e.g.,

weighted dump valves, spring operated regulators,

enclosed capillary temperature controllers, non-bleed

pressure switches). High-bleed devices accounted for 

35 of 67 level controllers, 5 of 76 pressure controllers, 

and 1 of 15 temperature controllers. Measured gas 

emissions were 583 scfh total; 86 percent of emissions

came from level controllers, with leaks up to 48 scfh, 

and averaging 7.6 scfh. Marathon concluded that 

“control devices with higher emissions can be 

identified qualitatively by sound prior to leak 

measurement, making it unnecessary to 

quantitatively measure methane emissions using 

technologically advanced equipment.” 

Lessons Learned 

Natural Gas STAR Partners offer the following Lessons 

Learned: 

Hear it; feel it; replace it. Where emissions can be 

heard or felt, this is a sign that emissions are 

significant enough to warrant corrective action. 

Control valve cycle frequency is another indicator of

excessive emissions. When devices cycle more than

once per minute, they can be replaced or retrofitted 

profitably. 

Manufacturer bleed rate specifications are not 

necessarily what users will experience. Actual bleed 

rates will generally exceed manufacturer’s 

specifications because of operating conditions 

different from manufacturer’s assumptions, 

installation settings and maintenance. 

Combine equipment retrofits or replacements with

improved maintenance activities. Do not overlook 

simple solutions such as replacing tubes and fittings 

or rearranging controllers. 

The smaller orifices in low-bleed devices and retrofit 

kits can be subject to clogging from debris in corroded 

pipes. Therefore, pneumatic supply gas piping and

tubing should be flushed out before retrofitting with 

7 
Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

smaller orifice devices, and gas filters should be well 

maintained. 

When replacing pneumatic control systems powered by 

pressurized natural gas with instrument air or other 

systems, do not forget to account for the savings from

the resulting methane emission reductions. 

Include methane emission reductions from pneumatics

in annual reports submitted as part of the Natural Gas 

STAR Program. 

References 

Adams, Jim, Norriseal, personal contact.
 

Burlage, Brian, Fisher Controls International, Inc., personal contact. 

Colwell, Chris, Masoneilan, personal contact.
 

Fisher Controls International, Inc. Pneumatic Instrument Gas Bleed 

Reduction Strategy and Practical Application. 

Garvey, J. Michael, DFC Becker Operations, personal contact. 

Hankel, Bill, Ametek - PMT Division, personal contact. 

Henderson, Carolyn, U.S. EPA Natural Gas STAR Program, personal 

contact. 

Husson, Frank, ITT Barton, personal contact. 

Loupe, Bob, Control Systems Specialist Inc., personal contact. 

Murphy, John, Bristol Babcock, personal contact. 

Radian Corporation. Pneumatic Device Characterization. Draft Final Report, 

Gas Research Institute and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

January 1996. 

Tingley, Kevin, U.S. EPA Natural Gas STAR Program, personal contact. 

Wilmore, Martin R., Shafer Valve Company, personal contact. 

Ulanski, Wayne. Valve and Actuator Technology. McGraw-Hill, 1991. 

8 
Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

Appendix A 

The following chart contains manufacturer-reported bleed 

rates. Actual bleed rates have been included whenever 

possible. Discrepancies occur due to a variety of reasons,

including: 

Maintenance. 

Operating conditions. 

Manufacturer vs. operating assumptions. 

It is important to note that manufacturer information has 

not been verified by any third party and there may be large

differences between manufacturer-reported bleed rates and

those found during operations. Until a full set of 

information is available, companies should be careful to 

compare bleed rates in standard units (CFH) when 

comparing manufacturers and models. During this study we

found that manufacturers reported information in a wide 

range of different units and operating assumptions. 

Gas Bleed Rate for Various Pneumatic Devices 

Controller 

Model Type 

Consumption Rate (CFH) 

Manufacturer 

Data 

Field Data 

(where 

available) 

High-Bleed Pneumatic Devices 

**Fisher 4100 

Series 

Pressure controller 

(large orifice) 35 

**Fisher 2500 

Series 

Liquid-level controllers 

(P.B. in mid range) 10-34 44-72 

*Invalco AE-155 Liquid-level controller 44-63 

*Moore 

Products—Model 

750P 

Positioner 42 

*Invalco CT 

Series Liquid-level controllers 40 34-87 

**Fisher 

4150/4160K 

Pressure controller 

(P.B. 0 or 10) 2.5-29 

**Fisher 546 Transducer 21 

**Fisher 3620J Electro-pneumatic 

positioner 18.2 

Foxboro 43AP Pressure controller 18 

**Fisher 3582i Electro-pneumatic 

positioner 17.2 

**Fisher 4100 

Series 

Pressure controller 

(small orifice) 15 

**Fisher DVC 

6000 

Electro-pneumatic 

positioner 14 

**Fisher 846 Transducer 12 

**Fisher 4160 Pressure controller 

(P.B. 0.5) 10-34 

**Fisher 2506 Receiver controller 

(P.B. 0.5) 10 

**Fisher DVC 

5000 

Electro-pneumatic 

positioner 10 

**Masoneilan 

4700E Positioners 9 

**Fisher 3661 Electro-pneumatic 

positioner 8.8 

**Fisher 646 Transducer 7.8 

**Fisher 3660 Pneumatic positioner 6 

**ITT Barton 

335P Pressure controller 6 

*Ametek Series 

40 Pressure controllers 6 

Low- or No-Bleed Pneumatic Devices 

**Masoneilan 

SV Positioners 4 

**Fisher 4195 

Series Pressure controllers 3.5 

**ITT Barton 

273A Pressure transmitter 3 

**ITT Barton 

274A Pressure transmitter 3 

**ITT Barton 

284B Pressure transmitter 3 

**ITT Barton 

285B Pressure transmitter 3 

**Bristol 

Babcock Series 

5457-70F 

Transmitter 3 

**Bristol 

Babcock Series 

5453-Model 624 

-II 

Liquid-level controllers 3 

**Bristol 

Babcock Series 

5453-Model 10F 

Pressure controllers 3 

**Bristol 

Babcock Series 

5455 Model 624 

-III 

Pressure controllers 3 

**ITT Barton 

358 Pressure controller 1.8 

9 
Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

**ITT Barton 

359 Pressure controller 1.8 

**Fisher 3610J Pneumatic positioner 16 

**Bristol 

Babcock Series 

502 A/D 

Recording pneumatic 

controllers <6 

**Fisher 4660 High-low pressure 

pilot <5 

**Bristol 

Babcock Series Transducers 0.42 

9110-00A 

Fisher 2100 

Series Liquid-level controllers 1 

**Fisher 2680 Liquid-level controllers <1 

*Norriseal 1001 

(A) (snap) Liquid-level controller 0.2 0.2 

*Norriseal 1001 

(A) Liquid-level controller 0 0 

(‘Envirosave’) 

*Norriseal 1001 

(A) (throttle) Liquid-level controller 

Double-acting pilot 

0.007 0.007 

**Becker VRP-B 

-CH 

pressure control 

system (replaces 

controllers and 

positioners) 

0-10 

**Becker HPP-5 Pneumatic positioner 

(Double-acting) 0-10 

**Becker EFP2.0 Electro-pneumatic 

positioner 

Single-acting pilot 

0 

**Becker VRPSB 

pressure control 

system (replaces 

controllers and 

positioners) 

0 

**Becker VRPSB GAP 

Controller 

Replaces pneumatic 

“gap” type controllers 

Single-acting pilot 

pressure control 

0 

**Becker VRP- system specifically 

SB-PID designed for power 0 

Controller plant type feeds 

(replaces controllers 

and positioners) 

Single-acting pilot 

**Becker VRPSB-CH 

pressure control 

system (replaces 

controllers and 

positioners) 

0 

**Becker HPPSB Pneumatic positioner 

(Single-acting) 0 

Actuator 

Model Size Manufacturer 

Data Field Data 

*Shafer RVSeries Rotary 

Vane Valve 

Actuators 

33” x 32” 1,084 

36” x 26” 768 

26” x 22” 469 

25” x 16” 323 

20” x 16” 201 

16.5” x 16” 128 

14.5” x 14” 86 

12.5” x 12” 49 

12” x 9” 22 

11” x 10” 32 

9” x 7” 12 

8” x 6.5” 8 

6.5” x 3.5” 6 

5” x 3” 6 

Actuator 

Model Size 

Number of 

Snap-acting 

Strokes per 

CF 

Number 

of 

Throttling 

Strokes 

per CF 

**Fisher Valve 

Actuators 

**Fisher Valve 

Actuators 

**Fisher Valve 

Actuators 

**Fisher Valve 

Actuators 

**Fisher Valve 

Actuators 

20 

30 

34/40 

45/50 

46/50 

21 

12 

6 

3 

2 

39 

22 

10 

5 

3 

* Last updated in 1996. 

** Last updated in 2001. 

10 
 

 

Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

Appendix B 

Controllers Compatible with MIZER Retrofits 

Type Brand/Model Number 

Liquid-level controllers C.E. Invalco — 215, 402, AE-155 

Norriseal — 1001, 1001A 

Pressure controllers Norriseal — 4300 

Suggested Retail Prices for Various Brand Low-Bleed Pneumatic Devices 

Brand/Model Price per Device 

(Estimates Based on Best Information Available at Time of Publication) 

**ITT Barton 335P (pressure controller) $920 

**ITT Barton 273A (pressure transmitter) $1,010 

**ITT Barton 274A (pressure transmitter) $1,385 

**ITT Barton 284B (pressure transmitter) $1,605 

**ITT Barton 285B (pressure transmitter) $1,990 

**ITT Barton 340E (recording pressure controller) $1,400 

**ITT Barton 338E (recorder controller) $2,800 

**Ametek Series 40 (pressure controllers) $1,100 (average cost) 

**Becker VRP-B-CH $1,575.00 

**Becker HPP-5 $1,675.00 

**Becker VRP-SB $1,575.00-$2,000.00 

**Becker VRP-SB-CH-PID $2,075.00 

**Becker VRP-SB-CH $1,575.00 

**Becker HPP-SB $1,675.00 

**Mizer Retrofit Kits $400-$600 

**Fisher 67AFR (airset regulators) $80 

**Fisher 2680 (liquid-level controllers) $380 

**Fisher 4195 (pressure controllers) $1,340 

**Bristol Babcock Series 9110-00A (transducers) $1,535-$1,550 

**Bristol Babcock Series 5453 (controllers) $1,540 

**Bristol Babcock 5453 40 G (temperature controllers) $3,500 

**Bristol Babcock Series 5457-624 II (controllers) $3,140 

**Bristol Babcock Series 502 A/D (recording controllers) $3,000 

**Bristol Babcock Series 5455-624 III (pressure controllers) $1,135 

**Bristol Babcock Series 5453-624 II (liquid level controllers) $2,345 

**Bristol Babcock Series 5453-10F (pressure controllers) $1,440 

* Last updated in 1996. 

** Last updated in 2001. 

11 
Options For Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices In The 

Natural Gas Industry

(Cont’d) 

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Air and Radiation (6202J) 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

October 2006 

EPA provides the suggested methane emissions estimating methods contained in this document as a tool to develop basic methane emissions estimates only. As 

regulatory reporting demands a higher-level of accuracy, the methane emission estimating methods and terminology contained in this document may not conform to 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W methods or those in other EPA regulations. 

12