Nov 2005 Kursk Project Report Mhc

7/30/2019 Nov 2005 Kursk Project Report Mhc

1/33

Report

Measurement of Leak Rates at Kursk Natural Gas Regulator Stations

Kursk, Russia

November 1 - 10, 2005

Submitted to:

Alexandre Okmianski

DirectorAddGlobe LLC

Phone: (650) 357-7735 ext. 25

Fax: (650) 357-7342

[email protected]

Submitted by:

Milton W. Heath III

Heath Consultants Incorporated9030 Monroe Road

Houston, TX 77061

713-844-1304

[email protected]

November 22, 2005


2/33

2

1.0 Summary and Introduction

This report describes a leak measurement program conducted in Kursk, Russia at Kursk Natural

Gas Distribution Company regulator stations. The survey was conducted from November 1st

through November 10th, 2005. During this program all standardized components, including

flanges, pipe thread connectors, block valves, regulators, plug valves and pressure relief valves in

natural gas service were surveyed for leaks. Any leaks found were tagged and measured using the

Hi Flow Sampler. These leak rate measurements were then entered into a database, where they

can be sorted both by the leak size and tag number, so that the leak rate of any individual leak can

be determined and the most significant leaks targeted for cost effective repair. These average leak

rates, known as emission factors, allow the leakage to be compared to industry averages.

2.0 Site Description

Table 1 details specific facility characteristics for the Kursk Regulator Stations.

Table 1: Site Description of Kursk Leak Measurement Sites

Site Visits Facility Type System AgeOperating

Pressures

47Regulator Stations

(above ground)47 years

0.3 MPa and 0.003

MPa

The Kursk natural gas distribution system has been operating since 1958 with approximately

8000 Kilometers of pipeline in the region. Roughly 3700 kilometers of this pipeline is situated

within the city limits of Kursk. Approximately one sixth (1/6) of this system is designed

aboveground where low pressure gas serves the residential and business communities. The vast

majority of the system (5/6) is belowground and travels along the roadways.

Within Kursk, there are reported to be 138 regulator stations, which regulate the higher pressures

(0.3 MPa) down to lower pressures (0.003 MPa) for residential service. During our eight days of

surveying from November 1st through November 10th, we were able to survey 47 of these

stations for leak detection and measurement.


3/33

3

3.0 Field Program Description

During this leak survey, leak detection at the facilities was conducted using catalyticoxidation/thermal conductivity detectors (Heath Gasurveyors 6-500). The Heath Gasurveyor

instruments were calibrated in Houston, Texas on Friday October 28 th, 2005 using both 2.5%

methane in air and 99% methane in air. All identified leaks (those that screened above 0.5%

methane in air) were tagged and numbered.

Once leaks were identified, leak rate measurements were made using the Hi-Flow Sampler. The

Hi-Flow Sampler makes leak rate measurements with the same accuracy as enclosure

measurements but at a speed approaching that of leak detection screening instruments (Howard et

al., 1994; Lott et al., 1995 Howard, 1995). The Hi-Flow Sampler uses a high flow rate of air to

completely capture the gas leaking from the component. A catalytic oxidation/thermal

conductivity sensor is used to measure the sample concentration in the air stream of the high flow

system. The Hi-Flow Sampler essentially performs an enclosure measurement using the flow

regime induced by the sampler instead of a physical enclosure. A description of the Hi-Flow

Sampler and its advantages over typical screening and enclosure measurements is provided in

Appendix I.

The Hi Flow Sampler was calibrated in Houston, Texas on October 28th and then calibrated in

Kursk, Russia on November 2ndand November 10th. Verification of calibration took place in theKursk Gas engineering office and field on November 3rdand November 7th.


4/33

4

4.0 Field Measurement Results

Individual leak rates for all leaks are presented in the appendices. Leak rates sorted by leakidentification number are presented in Appendix II. Leak rates sorted by component category

with emission factors are presented in Appendix III. Leaks sorted by leak rate are presented in

Appendix IV. All yearly values are based on continuous leakage throughout the year. Figures 1-6

are illustrative pictures of the work site with Hi Flow Sampling device.

A total of 47 regulator stations were inspected between November 1st and November 10th, 2005.

A total of 94 leaks were identified and measured amounting to a total leak rate of 918,591m3/yr.

Table 2 provides a summary of the results from the measurement program.

Table 2: Summary of Leak Rates at 24 Kursk Regulator Stations

Component CategoryLeak

Rate

(LPM)

Leak

Rate

(LPH)

Leak Rate

M3/Yr

Leak Rate from Valve Stem Packings (90leaks out of 244 valves surveyed)

1,614 96,828 848,213

Leak Rate from Flanges (1 leak out of 727flanges surveyed)

1.5 90 788

Leak Rate from Pressure Relief Valve (3

leaks out of 36 PRVs surveyed)132 7,944 69,589

Figure 1 - Nykoli, Chief of Gas Regulator Service Department, Assisting the project.


5/33

5

Figure 2 - Verification Team from DNV and United Nations Inspects stations and reviews

methodology.

Figure 3 - Russian Carbon Fund, Kursk Gas, DNV, United Nations, Rosgasification and Heath

Consultants Inc. inspecting sites.


6/33

6

Figure 4 - Max, Lead Specialist from "Center Gas Service Opt" assists with leak measurements

along with Nykoli of Kursk Gas.


7/33

7

5.0 Repair and Measurement of Emission Reductions

As part of this pilot program, an effort was made to repair a few of the identified leaks using

Gore-Tex sealing materials manufactured in the USA. Once the leaks were tagged and measured,

gas crews attempted to repair seven valve packing stem leaks. Leak rate measurements were once

again taken at each of the seven valves where complete repairs were validated and emission

reductions were verified. Table 3 provides a summary of the results from the emission reduction

efforts employed. Figures 1 and 2 are pictures of the engineering technicians making the repairs

on the valves.

Table 3: Summary of Valve Stem Packing Repairs Conducted during Pilot Program

Description and

Location

Leak Rate (LPM)

BEFORE

Leak Rate

(LPM)

AFTER

Site 12, Leak 1 18 0

Site 36, Leak 1 35.8 0

Site 36, Leak 2 227.7 0Site 36, Leak 3 4.7 0

Site 36, Leak 4 64.1 0

Site 36, Leak 5 13.5 0

Site 36, Leak 6 1.7 0

Total Reductions 365.5

Figure 5 Nykoli and Alex of Kursk Gaz repair leaking valve with new Gore-Tex sealants.


8/33

8

Figure 6


9/33

9

6.0 Emission Factors

Emission factors are the average leakage for a particular component category. They are calculated

by finding the total leak rate for each component category and dividing by the total number of

components surveyed in that category. A total of 1007 components were surveyed from

November 1st through November 10th, 2005. Out of this total, there were 244 valves screened for

at the regulator stations, of which 90 leaks were found, equating to a leak frequency of

approximately 36.8%. This is at the high end of the leak frequency range compared to similar

studies at regulator stations in the United States natural gas industry. The emission factors for the

valves and other two component categories surveyed at the Kursk regulator stations are displayed

in Table 4 and are based on measurements prior to any repairs attempted.

Table 4. Kursk Valve Emission Factors (Assumes Continuous Leakage)

Kursk Regulator Stations

Component

Category

Number of

Components

Surveyed

Emission Factor

(Liters Per Minute)

Kursk Valve Emission

Factor (m3/Component/Yr)

Regulator Valves 244 6.61 3,476Pressure Relief

Valves36 3.68 1,933

Flanges 727 .002 1.08

7.0 References

CMA, 1989. Improving Air Quality: Guidance for Estimating Fugitive Emissions from

Equipment. Chemical Manufacturer's Association, Washington, DC 20037.

EPA, 2000. Seventh Annual Natural Gas STAR Implementation Workshop, October 11 13,2000. Houston, TX. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Lott, B., T. Howard, and M. Webb, 1995. New Techniques Developed for Measuring Fugitive

Emissions. Pipe Line & Gas Industry, Vol. 78, No. 10., Oct. 1995.

Howard, T., R. Kantamaneni, and G. Jones, 1999. Cost Effective Leak Mitigation at Natural Gas

Transmission Compressor Stations. Report prepared for the Compressor Research Supervisory

Committee of PRC International; Gas Research Institute; and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Natural Gas Star Program. PRCI Report No. PR-246-9526.

Kantamaneni, R., G. Jones, M. Barna, P. Cooper, and T. Howard, 1997. Trends in Leak Rates atMetering and Regulating Facilities and the Effectiveness of Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR)

Programs. Report prepared for the Compressor Research Supervisory Committee of PRC

International; Gas Research Institute; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Natural GasStar Program (510 Third Street, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 2001).


10/33

10

Appendix I

Leak Measurement Techniques


11/33

11

A.1.1 Screening Techniques, Correlation Equations, and Bagging Measurements

Screening techniques, correlation equations, and enclosure (bagging) measurements have long

been the standard techniques to measure fugitive emissions from leaking process components

such as valves, flanges, and open-ended lines. Screening techniques originally started as a leak

detection method only. Correlations were then developed to relate the concentration measured

using a leak detection instrument to the leak rate. These correlations compare leak rates

measured using enclosure methods to the maximum concentrations measured either 1 cm or 1

mm from the components using a leak detector such as organic vapor analyzer (OVA) (CMA,

1989; Webb and Martino, 1992). Although these correlations make it easy to estimate leak rates,

the inaccuracies are unacceptable for true leak measurements. For any given leak, the estimated

leak rate can vary from the actual leak rate by as much as a factor of 1,000. With these

uncertainties, it is impossible to use screening techniques to determine which leaks are large

enough to justify repair on a cost-effective basis.

The most serious drawback of using screening concentrations and correlation equations is their

inability to accurately characterize leaks that are beyond the scale of typical leak detectors

("pegged sources"). The most common leak detector used when correlations are applied is the

Foxboro OVA-108 (and a recent version, the TVA-1000), which uses a flame ionization detector.

The sampling flow rate of the OVA-108 is approximately 1,000 ml/min, so if as little as 10

ml/min of methane is captured, the resulting concentration will be 10,000 ppm (1%) which is the

upper limit of the instrument. Wind speed, distance of the probe from the leak, and

characteristics of the leak such as exit velocity affect how much of the leak actually is captured

by the sample probe. These uncertainties explain the large scatter in estimating leak rates using

screening concentrations.

It is the pegged sources that contribute most to the facility emissions and losses. In our

experience, 3% - 6% of the components in a natural gas transmission facility will leak and

approximately 0.5 % will exceed the range of the leak detection instrument. One approach would

be to repair all of the pegged source leaks, or repair a percentage of these leaks that is equal to the

percent reduction of emissions that has been set as a goal. Unfortunately, this can be a costly and

ineffective strategy. Because of their inaccuracy, screening measurements cannot be used to

determine which leaks should be fixed first or what the leak reduction would result.

Bagging measurements are accurate but are too expensive and time consuming to measure every

leak at a facility. In this method, the leaking component is wrapped with a nonpermeable

material (such as Tedlar or Mylar) and a clean purge gas (such as nitrogen) sweeps through the

enclosure at a measured flow rate. Vacuum bagging may also be performed. For the case of

methane (CH4) the leak rate from the component can be calculated from the purge flow rate

through the enclosure and the concentration of methane in the outlet stream as follows:

QCH4 = Fpurge x CCH4 (1)

where:

QCH4 = leak rate of methane from the enclosed component (cfm),

Fpurge = the purge flow rate of the clean air or nitrogen (cfm), and

CCH4 = the measured concentration of methane in the exit flow (percent).


12/33

12

Besides screening with a flame ionization detector, other leak detection methods are available and

are often more economical. A soap bubble solution can provide a visual leak detection method

for many natural gas facility components. Although not appropriate for liquid process streams,very hot components, OELs, and flanges with deep crevices, the use of soap can increase the

speed of leak detection by a factor of two to three times that of screening with an organic vapor

analyzer. If leak rate measurements using Indaco sampling are performed, then any effective leak

detection method can be used to find leaks.

A.1.2 Hi-Flow Sampling and Direct Measurements

To overcome the shortcomings of current leak measurement methods discussed previously,

Indaco developed a system that is able to make measurements with the same accuracy as

enclosure measurements but at a speed approaching that of leak detection screening

measurements. The Hi Flow Sampler uses a high flow rate of air and a modified enclosure to

completely capture the gas leaking from the component. Catalytic oxidation and thermal

conductivity hydrocarbon sensors are used to measure the exit concentration in the air stream of

the system. The Hi Flow Sampler essentially makes rapid vacuum enclosure measurements so

that emissions are calculated as follows:

QCH4 = Fpurge x (Csample - Cback) (2)

where:

QCH4 = leak rate of methane from the leaking component (cfm),

Fsampler= the sample flow rate of the sampler (cfm),

Cmain = the concentration of methane in the sample flow (percent), and

Cback = the concentration of methane in the background near the component (percent).

The background concentration must be subtracted from the main sample concentration because itmay be elevated due to other leaks in the vicinity of the leak being measured. Variables such as

wind speed and wind direction may cause the background concentration to fluctuate, so thebackground is measured simultaneously with the sample concentration.

The Hi Flow Sampler is packaged inside a backpack, leaving the operators hands free for

climbing ladders or descending into manholes. The instrument is controlled by a handheld LCD

with an integral 4-key control pad, which is attached to the main unit via a 6 coiled cord. The gas

sample is drawn into the unit via a flexible 1 I.D. hose. Various attachments connect to the

end of the sampling hose providing the means of capturing all the gas that is leaking from the

component under test.

The main unit consists of an intrinsically safe, high-flow blower that pulls air from around the

component being tested, through a flexible hose and into a manifold located inside the unit. The

sample passes through a venturi restrictor where the measured pressure differential is used to

calculate the samples actual flow rate. Next, a portion of the sample is drawn from the manifold

and directed to a methane sensor that measures the samples methane concentration in the range

of 0.05 to 100% gas by volume. A second identical methanesensor channel measures the


13/33

13

background methane level within the vicinity of the leaking component. The final element in the

sampling system is a pump that exhausts the gas sample back into the atmosphere away from the

sampling area.

The measured flow rate and the measured methane levels (both leak and background levels) are

used to calculate the leak rate of the component being tested, with all measured and calculated

values being displayed on the hand-held control unit.

The top flow rate of the sampler is 8 cfm. Two opposing factors influence the choice of sample

flow rate for the system. Higher flow rates provide better leak capture especially if ambient

winds are a factor or if the leak has significant momentum. However, higher flow rates also

result in limits on the size of leak that can be quantified and increase the chance of interference

from nearby leaks. For instance, at a sample flow rate of 3 cfm, a methane leak of 0.006 cfm

would result in a concentration increase of 0.2 %. A sample flow rate of 6 cfm at the same leak

would result in a concentration increase of only 0.1 %. When working in an area where a high

background concentration is present, a larger net concentration increase is easier to quantify.

A series of experiments were conducted to validate the results of the Hi Flow Sampler. A

simulated leak was used to investigate the Hi Flow Sampler's ability to capture leaks. Laboratory

tests were conducted by releasing methane from a compressed gas cylinder through a two-stage

regulator and needle valve. The methane flow rate was measured using a calibrated rotameter(Cole-Parmer, Inc.) Methane flow rates were measured before and after each sampling period.

The leak rate generator was connected to different types of components that are typically

surveyed including a flange, valve, open ended line, and a pipe thread connector. Wind speeds of

up to 4.5 m/s (10 mph) were generated near the leak with a fan. The results of these tests are

shown in Table A-1. The average difference between the metered leak rate and the Hi Flow

Sampler was 3.3% when with a maximum difference 11.1%

Table A-1. Leak Measurement Sampler Compared to Metered Leaks (Indaco Laboratory)

Leak Rate (l/min)Type of

Component Rotameter Sampler

Difference

Rotameter - Sampler

Difference/

Rotameter

Abs. Value

Difference/

Rotameter

Open Ended Line 6.33 6.02 0.31 4.9% 4.9%

Open Ended Line 61.5 61.4 0.04 0.1% 0.1%

Open Ended Line 61.5 61.7 -0.28 -0.4% 0.4%

Open Ended Line 101.5 104.7 -3.24 -3.2% 3.2%

Open Ended Line 101.5 101.8 -0.31 -0.3% 0.3%

Open Ended Line 101.5 107.9 -6.41 -6.3% 6.3%

Open Ended Line 116.7 120.1 -3.40 -2.9% 2.9%Open Ended Line 116.7 119.8 -3.07 -2.6% 2.6%

Open Ended Line 133.1 137.6 -4.50 -3.4% 3.4%

Open Ended Line 144.2 151.8 -7.60 -5.3% 5.3%

Open Ended Line 188.5 201.4 -12.94 -6.9% 6.9%

Flange 5.14 5.18 -0.04 -0.8% 0.8%

Flange 5.14 5.27 -0.13 -2.4% 2.4%


14/33

14

Table A.1 (Continued)

Flange 6.28 6.14 0.14 2.3% 2.3%

Flange 6.28 6.60 -0.32 -5.1% 5.1%

Flange 6.28 6.66 -0.38 -6.1% 6.1%

Flange 6.28 6.05 0.23 3.7% 3.7%

Flange 6.28 6.05 0.23 3.7% 3.7%

Flange 6.28 6.89 -0.61 -9.8% 9.8%

Flange 6.28 5.97 0.31 4.9% 4.9%

Flange 38.7 37.2 1.41 3.7% 3.7%

Flange 56.8 59.3 -2.49 -4.4% 4.4%

Flange 58.6 57.8 0.83 1.4% 1.4%

Flange 63.3 66.1 -2.73 -4.3% 4.3%

Flange 74.1 70.9 3.20 4.3% 4.3%

Flange 80.3 78.0 2.23 2.8% 2.8%

Flange 80.3 80.2 0.08 0.1% 0.1%

Flange 84.9 81.7 3.29 3.9% 3.9%

Flange 84.9 82.3 2.63 3.1% 3.1%

Flange 85.6 82.7 2.92 3.4% 3.4%

Flange 85.6 76.1 9.51 11.1% 11.1%

Flange 88.4 87.0 1.43 1.6% 1.6%

Flange 92.4 89.6 2.78 3.0% 3.0%

Flange 100.8 96.7 4.07 4.0% 4.0%

Flange 100.8 95.2 5.57 5.5% 5.5%

Flange 101.1 101.1 0.03 0.0% 0.0%

Flange 102.1 95.7 6.42 6.3% 6.3%

Flange 112.0 106.7 5.30 4.7% 4.7%

Valve 1.56 1.59 -0.03 -1.7% 1.7%

Valve 1.56 1.56 0.00 0.2% 0.2%

Valve 1.56 1.56 0.00 0.2% 0.2%

Valve 2.54 2.49 0.05 1.8% 1.8%

Valve 2.54 2.45 0.09 3.5% 3.5%

Valve 3.44 3.48 -0.04 -1.2% 1.2%

Valve 4.22 4.47 -0.25 -6.0% 6.0%

Valve 4.22 4.47 -0.25 -6.0% 6.0%

Valve 5.14 5.36 -0.22 -4.2% 4.2%

Valve 5.14 5.21 -0.07 -1.4% 1.4%

Valve 6.28 6.49 -0.21 -3.3% 3.3%

Valve 38.7 38.7 -0.09 -0.2% 0.2%

Valve 38.7 40.4 -1.74 -4.5% 4.5%

Valve 58.7 57.4 1.28 2.2% 2.2%

Valve 58.7 60.0 -1.30 -2.2% 2.2%

Valve 78.2 76.2 2.05 2.6% 2.6%

Valve 78.2 81.1 -2.92 -3.7% 3.7%

Connector 1.56 1.58 -0.02 -1.4% 1.4%

Connector 2.54 2.53 0.01 0.5% 0.5%

Connector 2.54 2.49 0.05 1.8% 1.8%

Connector 2.01 1.94 0.07 3.4% 3.4%

Connector 3.44 3.32 0.12 3.4% 3.4%

Connector 4.22 4.49 -0.27 -6.4% 6.4%

Connector 5.14 5.30 -0.16 -3.2% 3.2%


15/33

15

Table A.1 (Continued)

Average Percent Difference = -0.2%

Average Percent Absolute Difference = 3.3%

Maximum Positive Difference = 11.1%

Maximum Negative Difference = -9.8%

Table A-2 shows the results of a similar experiment conducted as a demonstration at an EPA

contract laboratory using an EPA apparatus to simulate leaks from valve bodies, valve stems, and

flanges. In this case the average difference was -4.2% with a maximum difference of 10.5%.

Table A-2. Leak Measurement Sampler Compared to Metered Leaks (EPA Test Valve)

Type of Component Leak RateDifference

Rotameter - SamplerDifference/Rotameter

Abs. Value

Difference/Rotameter

Rotameter Sampler

Valve Body 8.03 8.64 -0.61 -7.6% 7.6%

Valve Body 8.03 8.18 -0.15 -1.9% 1.9%

Valve Stem 8.09 8.1 -0.01 -0.1% 0.1%

Valve Stem 8.09 8.43 -0.34 -4.2% 4.2%

Valve Stem 8.09 8.19 -0.10 -1.3% 1.3%

Flange 8.03 8.31 -0.28 -3.5% 3.5%

Flange 8.03 8.87 -0.84 -10.5% 10.5%

Average Percent Difference = -4.2%

Average Percent Absolute Difference = 4.2%

Maximum Positive Difference = None

Maximum Negative Difference = -10.5%

References

CMA, 1989. Improving Air Quality: Guidance for Estimating Fugitive Emissions fromEquipment. Chemical Manufacturer's Association, Washington, DC 20037.

Webb, M., and P. Martino, 1992. Fugitive Hydrocarbon Emissions from Petroleum ProductionOperations. Presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste ManagementAssociation, Paper No. 92-66.11.


16/33

16

Appendix II

Kursk Regulator Station Leak Rates Sorted by Leak Identification Number


17/33

Appendix II: Kursk Leak Rates Sorted by Leak Identification Number

17

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag

NumberOperatingPressure

GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year

1 1-Nov-05 1/1 0.3 MPa Valve StemPacking

13.3 798 6,990,480 6,990

2 1-Nov-05 2/1 .003MPa Valve StemPacking

49 2940 25,754,400 25,754


6.1 366 3,206,160 3,206

2 1-Nov-05 2/3 0.3 MPa Flange 1.5 90 788,400 788


158.5 9510 83,307,600 83,308


6.6 396 3,468,960 3,469

4 1-Nov-05 4/2 0.003MPa Valve StemPacking

4.9 294 2,575,440 2,575


1.5 90 788,400 788


47.8 2868 25,123,680 25,124


7 420 3,679,200 3,679


2 120 1,051,200 1,051


0.3 18 157,680 158

7 1-Nov-05 7/3 0.003MPa Valve Stem

Packing

6.1 366 3,206,160 3,206


13 780 6,832,800 6,833


7.9 474 4,152,240 4,152


0.2 12 105,120 105


1.4 84 735,840 736


20.5 1230 10,774,800 10,775


35.6 2136 18,711,360 18,711


21.9 1314 11,510,640 11,511


3.4 204 1,787,040 1,787


4.2 252 2,207,520 2,208


18/33


18

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag


GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


18 1080 9,460,800 9,461


1.8 108 946,080 946


4.2 252 2,207,520 2,208


2.7 162 1,419,120 1,419


16.7 1002 8,777,520 8,778


13.1 786 6,885,360 6,885


3.6 216 1,892,160 1,892


6 360 3,153,600 3,154


2.1 126 1,103,760 1,104


20.9 1254 10,985,040 10,985


20.3 1218 10,669,680 10,670


16.3 978 8,567,280 8,567


Packing

37 2220 19,447,200 19,447


2.1 126 1,103,760 1,104


18 1080 9,460,800 9,461


11.5 690 6,044,400 6,044


72.9 4374 38,316,240 38,316


4.9 294 2,575,440 2,575


8.8 528 4,625,280 4,625


1.3 78 683,280 683


35 2100 18,396,000 18,396

22 3-Nov-05 22/1 0.003MPa PressureRelief Valve

11 660 5,781,600 5,782


19/33


19

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag


GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


31.2 1872 16,398,720 16,399


2.7 162 1,419,120 1,419


4.5 270 2,365,200 2,365


3.6 216 1,892,160 1,892


7.9 474 4,152,240 4,152


7.5 450 3,942,000 3,942


4.4 264 2,312,640 2,313


14.8 888 7,778,880 7,779


23.3 1398 12,246,480 12,246


6.7 402 3,521,520 3,522


3.5 210 1,839,600 1,840


9.1 546 4,782,960 4,783


Packing

9.3 558 4,888,080 4,888


12 720 6,307,200 6,307


3 180 1,576,800 1,577


21.9 1314 11,510,640 11,511


9.4 564 4,940,640 4,941


4.7 282 2,470,320 2,470


14.6 876 7,673,760 7,674


38.1 2286 20,025,360 20,025


19.4 1164 10,196,640 10,197


3 180 1,576,800 1,577


20/33


20

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag


GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


25 1500 13,140,000 13,140


1.9 114 998,640 999


10.6 636 5,571,360 5,571


1.1 66 578,160 578


3.6 216 1,892,160 1,892


47.3 2838 24,860,880 24,861


83.3 4998 43,782,480 43,782


2.7 162 1,419,120 1,419


97.2 5832 51,088,320 51,088


10.8 648 5,676,480 5,676


35.8 2148 18,816,480 18,816


227.7 13662 119,679,120 119,679


Packing

4.7 282 2,470,320 2,470


64.1 3846 33,690,960 33,691


13.5 810 7,095,600 7,096


1.7 102 893,520 894


19.4 1164 10,196,640 10,197


47.7 2862 25,071,120 25,071


1 60 525,600 526


14.6 876 7,673,760 7,674


4 240 2,102,400 2,102


3.7 222 1,944,720 1,945


21/33


21

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag


GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


5.2 312 2,733,120 2,733


4.6 276 2,417,760 2,418


9.6 576 5,045,760 5,046


4.2 252 2,207,520 2,208


0.2 12 105,120 105


7 420 3,679,200 3,679

0 0 0

Total Leak Rate 1747.7 104862 918,591,120 918,591Total Number of Leaks 94

Number of Components Counted 1007

Number of Stations Inspected 47

Emission Factor Per Component(all)

1.7 104.133 912,206 912


22/33

22

Appendix III

Kursk Regulator Station Leak Rates Sorted by Component Category with

Emission Factors


23/33

Appendix III: Kursk Leak Rates Sorted by Component Category with Emission Factors

23

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag


GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


227.7 13662 119,679,120 119,679


158.5 9510 83,307,600 83,308


97.2 5832 51,088,320 51,088


72.9 4374 38,316,240 38,316


64.1 3846 33,690,960 33,691


49 2940 25,754,400 25,754


47.8 2868 25,123,680 25,124


47.7 2862 25,071,120 25,071


47.3 2838 24,860,880 24,861


37 2220 19,447,200 19,447


35.8 2148 18,816,480 18,816


35.6 2136 18,711,360 18,711


Packing

35 2100 18,396,000 18,396


31.2 1872 16,398,720 16,399


25 1500 13,140,000 13,140


23.3 1398 12,246,480 12,246


21.9 1314 11,510,640 11,511


21.9 1314 11,510,640 11,511


20.9 1254 10,985,040 10,985


20.5 1230 10,774,800 10,775


20.3 1218 10,669,680 10,670


19.4 1164 10,196,640 10,197


24/33


24

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag


GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


19.4 1164 10,196,640 10,197


18 1080 9,460,800 9,461


18 1080 9,460,800 9,461


16.7 1002 8,777,520 8,778


16.3 978 8,567,280 8,567


14.8 888 7,778,880 7,779


14.6 876 7,673,760 7,674


14.6 876 7,673,760 7,674


13.5 810 7,095,600 7,096


13.3 798 6,990,480 6,990


13.1 786 6,885,360 6,885


13 780 6,832,800 6,833


Packing

12 720 6,307,200 6,307


11.5 690 6,044,400 6,044


10.8 648 5,676,480 5,676


10.6 636 5,571,360 5,571


9.6 576 5,045,760 5,046


9.4 564 4,940,640 4,941


9.3 558 4,888,080 4,888


9.1 546 4,782,960 4,783


8.8 528 4,625,280 4,625


7.9 474 4,152,240 4,152


25/33


25

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag


GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


7.9 474 4,152,240 4,152


7.5 450 3,942,000 3,942


7 420 3,679,200 3,679


7 420 3,679,200 3,679


6.7 402 3,521,520 3,522


6.6 396 3,468,960 3,469


6.1 366 3,206,160 3,206


6.1 366 3,206,160 3,206


6 360 3,153,600 3,154


5.2 312 2,733,120 2,733


4.9 294 2,575,440 2,575


4.9 294 2,575,440 2,575


Packing

4.7 282 2,470,320 2,470


4.7 282 2,470,320 2,470


4.6 276 2,417,760 2,418


4.5 270 2,365,200 2,365


4.4 264 2,312,640 2,313


4.2 252 2,207,520 2,208


4.2 252 2,207,520 2,208


4.2 252 2,207,520 2,208


4 240 2,102,400 2,102


3.7 222 1,944,720 1,945


26/33


26

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag


GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


3.6 216 1,892,160 1,892


3.6 216 1,892,160 1,892


3.6 216 1,892,160 1,892


3.5 210 1,839,600 1,840


3.4 204 1,787,040 1,787


3 180 1,576,800 1,577


3 180 1,576,800 1,577


2.7 162 1,419,120 1,419


2.7 162 1,419,120 1,419


2.7 162 1,419,120 1,419


2.1 126 1,103,760 1,104


2.1 126 1,103,760 1,104


Packing

2 120 1,051,200 1,051


1.9 114 998,640 999


1.8 108 946,080 946


1.7 102 893,520 894


1.5 90 788,400 788


1.4 84 735,840 736


1.3 78 683,280 683


1.1 66 578,160 578


1 60 525,600 526


0.3 18 157,680 158


27/33


27

SiteVisit

NumberMeasurement

Date

LeakTag


GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

HourLiters

Per/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


0.2 12 105,120 105


0.2 12 105,120 105

(LPM) (LPH) (Liters/Yr) (M3/Year)

Total Leak Rate for Valves 1613.8 96828 848213280 848213.3

Total Valves Screened 244

Emission Factor (per component) 6.61 396.8 3,476,284 3,476


83.3 4998 43,782,480 43,782


38.1 2286 20,025,360 20,025


11 660 5,781,600 5,782


Total Leak Rate for PressureRelief Valves

132.4 7944 69589440 69589.44

Total PRVs Screened 36

Emission Factor (per component) 3.68 220.7 1,933,040 1,933

2 1-Nov-05 2/3 0.3 MPa Flange 1.5 90 788,400 788


Total Leak Rate for Flanges 1.5 90 788400 788.4

Total Flanges Screened 727

Emission Factor (per component) 0.002 0.124 1084.46 1.08


28/33

28

Appendix IV

Kursk Regulator Station Leak Rates Measurements Sorted by Leak Rate


29/33

Appendix IV: Kursk Leak Rates Sorted by Leak Rate

29

SiteVisit

Number

MeasurementDate

LeakTag

Number

OperatingPressure

GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

Hour

LitersPer/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


227.7 13662 119,679,120 119,679


158.5 9510 83,307,600 83,308


97.2 5832 51,088,320 51,088


83.3 4998 43,782,480 43,782


72.9 4374 38,316,240 38,316


64.1 3846 33,690,960 33,691


49 2940 25,754,400 25,754


47.8 2868 25,123,680 25,124


47.7 2862 25,071,120 25,071


47.3 2838 24,860,880 24,861


38.1 2286 20,025,360 20,025


37 2220 19,447,200 19,447


Packing

35.8 2148 18,816,480 18,816


35.6 2136 18,711,360 18,711


35 2100 18,396,000 18,396


31.2 1872 16,398,720 16,399


25 1500 13,140,000 13,140


23.3 1398 12,246,480 12,246


21.9 1314 11,510,640 11,511


21.9 1314 11,510,640 11,511


20.9 1254 10,985,040 10,985


20.5 1230 10,774,800 10,775


30/33


30

SiteVisit

Number

MeasurementDate

LeakTag

Number

OperatingPressure

GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

Hour

LitersPer/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


20.3 1218 10,669,680 10,670


19.4 1164 10,196,640 10,197


19.4 1164 10,196,640 10,197


18 1080 9,460,800 9,461


18 1080 9,460,800 9,461


16.7 1002 8,777,520 8,778


16.3 978 8,567,280 8,567


14.8 888 7,778,880 7,779


14.6 876 7,673,760 7,674


14.6 876 7,673,760 7,674


13.5 810 7,095,600 7,096


13.3 798 6,990,480 6,990


Packing

13.1 786 6,885,360 6,885


13 780 6,832,800 6,833


12 720 6,307,200 6,307


11.5 690 6,044,400 6,044


11 660 5,781,600 5,782


10.8 648 5,676,480 5,676


10.6 636 5,571,360 5,571


9.6 576 5,045,760 5,046


9.4 564 4,940,640 4,941


9.3 558 4,888,080 4,888


31/33


31

SiteVisit

Number

MeasurementDate

LeakTag

Number

OperatingPressure

GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

Hour

LitersPer/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


9.1 546 4,782,960 4,783


8.8 528 4,625,280 4,625


7.9 474 4,152,240 4,152


7.9 474 4,152,240 4,152


7.5 450 3,942,000 3,942


7 420 3,679,200 3,679


7 420 3,679,200 3,679


6.7 402 3,521,520 3,522


6.6 396 3,468,960 3,469


6.1 366 3,206,160 3,206


6.1 366 3,206,160 3,206


6 360 3,153,600 3,154


Packing

5.2 312 2,733,120 2,733


4.9 294 2,575,440 2,575


4.9 294 2,575,440 2,575


4.7 282 2,470,320 2,470


4.7 282 2,470,320 2,470


4.6 276 2,417,760 2,418


4.5 270 2,365,200 2,365


4.4 264 2,312,640 2,313


4.2 252 2,207,520 2,208


4.2 252 2,207,520 2,208


32/33


32

SiteVisit

Number

MeasurementDate

LeakTag

Number

OperatingPressure

GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

Hour

LitersPer/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


4.2 252 2,207,520 2,208


4 240 2,102,400 2,102


3.7 222 1,944,720 1,945


3.6 216 1,892,160 1,892


3.6 216 1,892,160 1,892


3.6 216 1,892,160 1,892


3.5 210 1,839,600 1,840


3.4 204 1,787,040 1,787


3 180 1,576,800 1,577


3 180 1,576,800 1,577


2.7 162 1,419,120 1,419


2.7 162 1,419,120 1,419


Packing

2.7 162 1,419,120 1,419


2.1 126 1,103,760 1,104


2.1 126 1,103,760 1,104


2 120 1,051,200 1,051


1.9 114 998,640 999


1.8 108 946,080 946


1.7 102 893,520 894

2 1-Nov-05 2/3 0.3 MPa Flange 1.5 90 788,400 788


1.5 90 788,400 788


1.4 84 735,840 736


33/33


SiteVisit

Number

MeasurementDate

LeakTag

Number

OperatingPressure

GenericDescription

LitersPer

Minute

LitersPer

Hour

LitersPer/Year

TotalEmissions

m3/year


1.3 78 683,280 683


1.1 66 578,160 578


1 60 525,600 526


0.3 18 157,680 158


0.2 12 105,120 105


0.2 12 105,120 105

0 0 0

Total Leak Rate 1361.5 81690 715,604,400 715,604

Total Number of Leaks 94

Number of Components Counted 1007

Number of Stations Inspected 47

Emission Factor Per Component 1.4 81.1221 710,630 711

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	klumerx
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Nov 2005 Kursk Project Report Mhc

Documents