DOEAD113308

Technology Reinvestment Program/Advanced “ZeroEmission” Control Valve (Phase II)

December 1998

Work Performed Under Contract No. DE-FC07-941D13308

ForU.S. Department of EnergyAssistant Secretary forEnergy Efilciency and Renewable EnergyWashington, DC

ByCurtiss-Wright Flow Control CorporationFarmingdale, NY

DISCLAIMER

This report was.prepared as an account of work sponsoredby an agency of the United States Government. Neitherthe United States Government nor any agency thereof, norany of their employees, make any warranty, express orimplied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility forthe accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of anyinformation, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, orrepresents that its use would not infringe privately ownedrights. Reference herein to any specific commercialproduct, process, or service by trade name, trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constituteor imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring bythe United States Government or any agency thereof. Theviews and opinions of authors expressed herein do notnecessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegiblein electronic image products. Images areproduced from the best available originaldocument.

—- -. . .... .... . ..-— —z.. .. .. , ——,. --- ~-, —-. --—.

DOEIID113308

TECHNOLOGY REINVESTMENT PROGRAIWADVANCED “ZERO EMISSION”CONTROL VALVE (PHASE II)

FINAL REPORT11/23/1993 – 12/31/1998

J. Napoleon

December 1998

Work Performed Under Contract No. DE-FC07-941D13308

Prepared for theU.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary forEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Washington, DC

Prepared byCurtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporation

Farrningdale, NY

P 7.-., . .. . .. . ..4: -+-.., .,. ---

. . .\

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT DEFC07-941D13308

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYFEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM/PROJECT FINAL REPORT

Technology Reinvestment Program/Advanced “Zero Emission” Control Valve

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT DE-FC07-941D13308

Reporting Period 11/23/93 through 12/31/98

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Target Rock Corporation Advanced “Zero Emission” Control Valve Development TechnologyReinvestment Project (TRP) was a 2 Phase Program that successfully achieved all programobjectives.

Phase I Program Objectives were to:

. Demonstrate the feasibility of spinning-off TRCs “zero emissions” valve (ZEV)technology to meet the fugitive emissions requirements of the 1990 Amendments to theClean Air Act.

● Significantly reduce the cost and expand the applications for a family of Advanced ‘ZeroEmissions” Control Valves.

Phase II Program Objectives were to:

. Greatly improve the ZEV’S marketability by making the ZEV capable of meeting severeand corrosive operational environments; continuously lowering its cost and demonstratingperformance from in-situ assessments.

● Define and develop a conceptual design of a full featured digital controller with growthpotential to “smart valve” capability to meet evolving commercial applications.

The objectives of Target Rock’s TRP program that was administered by the Department of Energywere successfully achieved. Target Rock’s Advanced Zero Emissions Valve:

c Was recognized by Processing Magazine as a “1998 Breakthrough Product of theYear” at ISA Show – Houston Astrodome (See Attachment 1)

. Model 100 and Model 120 received California Air Resource Board (CARB)endorsement and the California Environmental Technology Certification as a closedsystem without the potential for fugitive volatile organic compound emissions. (SeeAttachment 1)

. Demonstrated 4 Years of successful operation in Beta site at Exxon, Baton RougeRefinery.

(: :....

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT DE-FC07-941D13308

Subsequent to the conclusion of the funded program, Target Rock has successfully penetrated non-,.. nuclear applications for the ZEV and Smart Valve technology developed as a result of the

t ,.,.;.DOELI’RPfunding. Furthermore, TR’s Nuclear Navy Customer has expressed interest in this...{.--;,..technology for other shipboard applications. These efforts would not have been completed withinthe time frame without the ARPA/DOE finding.

2.0 APPROACH

A.

B.

co

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

Determine economic and technical needs for zero emission valve application in theHydrocarbon & Chemical Processing Industry (HPI & CPI) markets for meeting the 1990Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) volatile organic compound fugitive emissionsrequirements.

Spin-off the “zero emissions” valve (ZEV) technology that is critical to the U.S. Navy’sNuclear Powered Fleet to meet these technical and market requirements.

Develop a ZEV family line of prototypical designs that will allow the transitioned valvetechnology to meet the cost, functional, operational, performance and non-leakagerequirements.

Fabricate, assemble and test selected prototype valves.

Install and perform in-situ evaluations of prototype valve at targeted facilities.

Design, build and test a down sized valve controller and actuator that reduces valve productcost and expands valve utility.

Design, build and test a magnetically controlled “zero emissions” control valve.

Perform in-situ assessments of prototype valve systems.

3.0 SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY YEAR

The following Sections provide a chronology of Annual Accomplishments consistent with theannual Technology Progress Reports (See Attachments 1) submitted in accordance with ProgramReporting requirements. These Reports are provided as Attachments to this Final Report.

3.1 ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 1994

A. Completed initial market and user requirements definition for Hydrocarbon& ChemicalProcessing Industries. This included a design review of commercial valve line.

B. Completed initial definition of valve line& positioner requirements for targeted applications.

C. Completed development of upgraded positioner& controller design requirements.,,. ... ..

Page 2

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT DE-FC07-941D13308

.....>...

D.

E.

F.

3.2

A.

B.

c.

D.

E.

Successfully breadboarded a reduced sized, reduced cost controller.

Completed initial ZEV Commercialization Plan

Completed installation of prototype valve for in-situ evaluation in large petrochemical plant.Valve has been performing flawlessly for over 7 months.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 1995

The operational prototype valve that was installed in April 1994, in the large PetroleumRefinery in Louisian% performed flawlessly. The one glitch in operation that had been noted bythe customer just prior to scheduled detailed customer evaluation was pinpointed to amaintenance technician’s error. The detail customer evaluation included disassembly of thevalve and an examination of the internals for wear, breakage or corrosion. The valve wasreturned to Target Rock for additional testing and underwent some minor refurbishment priorto shipment back to the refinery. The valve was reinstalled and the customer is pleased with thevalve’s performance. The hazardous application was toluene.

The MPR Associate’s Silicon Control Rectifier (SCR) positioner design was completed anda portable prototype manufactured. The positioner was tested in TRC’S loop test facility.Test results showed that the control portion of the design was unstable and lacking controlelements found in other TRC positioners. Based on the fact that the SCR driver does notdeliver the full power of the conventional DC power supply, a decision was made to enhanceand repackage an existing positioner design with the following design concepts from theMPR positione~

1. Package in a commercial, low cost explosion-proof enclosure2. Local position indication (bargraph) circui~3. Packaging using the modular function block approach4. MPR test program

The repackaged positioner was completed through the prototype stage and is in process ofloop testing. Preliminary test results revealed a signal noise problem due to the signal linerouting in the new packaging design. Work is in process to resolve the noise problem andfinalize PC Board artwork and parts lists. This will be continued in Phase II under Task 3.

Work has started on an improved solenoid coil design, which enhances the solenoid powerthrough an improved magnetic circuit. Design consideration was also given to thesemiceability of the unit once installed on the ZEV. A slip-over-the-bonnet coil design wascompleted incorporating the improved magnetic circuit. A preliminary design prototype hasnot yet been manufactured. This work will be continued in Phase II under Task 2.

The development of the ZEV prototype has provided useful information and insights;however, it has been determined that the best alternative for bringing a competitively pricedproduct to market will be to incorporate these lessons learned into a commercial valvedesign. This work will be continued in Phase II under Task 2.

Page 3

.,:.-

FINAL TECHNICAL REP(3RT DE-FC07-941D13308

F.,.,...

3.3

Work was completed on a preliminary permanent magnet design tool specifically geared forvalve operators. Application of this tool was used to develop a design for a scale model of apermanent magnet valve operator. Status at this time is that the detail drawings for the scalemodel valve operator are complete, and work is ready to start on the manufacture. A closeworking relationship was formed with a permanent magnet vendor which has produceddesign calculation confirmations and further insights for dealing with permanent magnets ina production environment. This work will be continued in Phase II program under Task 4.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 1996

During 1996, expenditures on this project were temporarily put on hold while Target Rockdetermined the appropriate market direction.

A. Pursuant to this we continued market research with the installed base user sites and discussionswith process control instrumentation companies.

B. Discussions with process control companies have identified specific “smart” valvecommunications protocols that should be adapted into the design of the ZEV.

C. Market research has also identified specific design features that the market would like to see ina severe duty ZEV, including a high temperature coil design and a long life disc design.Technical work based on this market direction will be performed in 1997.

3.4 ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 1997

A. Successfully adapted the analog electronic technology developed initially in the nuclear marketto an analog technology acceptable to the industrial marketplace. These efforts resulted in:

1.

2.

3.

Completion of a cost-reduction design of the positioner. A proto~e positioner is nowavailable and will be subject to in-situ testing at the fmt opportunity.

Development of special tooling that is suitable for industrial use to support fieldinstallations of this product.

The design and prototype development of an Electronic Stroke Meter required forcalibration of the controller system.

B. A major marketing effort was undertaken to identify specific features required to beincorporated into the control valves in order to be a successful competitor in the industrialmarket. Additional marketing research efforts were contracted to three organizations:

1. Bay Technologies Group provided an overall assessment of each of the segments of thenon-nuclear industrial market to determine features and benefits demanded by thosemarkets, prime competition, and pricing strategies to achieve success.

Page 4

,.

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT DE-FC07-941D13308

2. Automation Research Corporation provided marketing studies providing detailedinformation on the development of digital process control systems, including whatsystems are available and descriptions of their technologies. In addition, theirAutomation Advisory Service provides information on the latest industry developmentsthat should be considered in ZEV design.

3. Applied Digital Engineering provided detailed information on communication protocolsand interface requirements with the digital control systems sold by others.

C. This market research, along with other indust~ initiatives, resulted in consolidatingtechnical efforts into three distinct areas:

1. Zero Emissions - The Model 120 ZEV has been accepted into the California EnvironmentalProtection Agency Pre-Certification Program. Under this program, the Cal/EPA certifiesmanufacturer’s claims regarding the capabilities of a pollution reduction technology.CWFC contracted with Radian International to perform independent testing and designreview of the ZEV and has submitted the results to the Crd/EPA to prove that our valvedesigns allow zero stem leakage.

2. Digital Controllers - Marketing studies determined that a digital, rather than the existinganalog interface is required to install the ZEV into the next generation of process controls.Participating in the process market requires that CWFC develop a digital interface usingthe communications protocols evolving in this industry. Various communicationprotocols were studied, including HART and Fieldbus, to determine the necessaryadaptations for the ZEV to operate in digital control systems. Work began on digitizingthe functions of the ZEV using off-the-shelf hardware and software,

3. Specifications - Marketing studies resulted in identification of a series of specificationrequirements that are important to the process industries. These include mechanicalrequirements (such as seal-welding, end-to-end dimensions, temperature ranges,corrosion resistance), electrical requirements (such as intrinsically safe power andexplosion-proof), and performance characteristics (such as speed, accuracy, andhysteresis). Industry demands certain documentation, such as standardized drawingsystems and sizing programs.

4. A ZEV prototype was developed for submittal to Underwriter’s Laboratories @L) for“explosion-proof” certification of the electrical housing.

Page 5

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT DE-FC07-941D13308

3.5 ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 1998,. .:.

,, ...’.

A. Zero Emissions - The Model 120 and the Model 100 ZEV were certified by the California.. .

Environmental Protection Agency Pre-Certification Program as a valid poll~tion reductiontechnology. The certification served as the basis for launching this product line into the .industrial market at the October 1998 ISA (Instrument Society of America) Show. It greatlyreduces monitoring costs for meeting EPA regulations. The results of the independent testing .and design review of the ZEV that was performed by Radian International were submitted toCal/EPA to prove that CWFC’S valve designs allow zero stem leakage. Cal/EPA verified that:

1. The Model 120 is “equivalent to a flange”

2. The Model 100 is “equivalent to pipe” with respect to fugitive emissions

B. Digital Controllers - A prototype digital controller was develop and previewed to theindustry. The digital controller is less costly to produce and provides the capability for theZENto:

1. Communicate with automated process communication protocols (HART, Fieldbus,Lanworks).

2. Incorporate on-line diagnostics and integral process controls to create a “Smart” valve.

C. Traditional Analog Interfaces -A design that will accept traditional analog signals forcustomers that have not upgraded their plants to digital control systems is under development.

D. Specifications - A ZEV prototype was developed and submitted to Underwriter’s Laboratories(UL) for “explosion-proof” certification of the electrical housing. This rigorous testing wascompleted at the end of 1998. UL certification is currently pending the review of the final testdata. No problems are anticipated in obtaining the certification. (Certification “wasreceived).

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

A. Target Rock demonstrated that it achieved all of the technical objectives defined in its TRJ?Phase I and Phase II Proposals.

B. Target Rock is continuing efforts to achieve the projected Commercialization goals for marketpenetration. Delays in enforcement of the CM of 1990 have impacted the anticipateddemand for this product in existing processing facilities. However, the benefits that are realizedfrom zero emissions and reduced life cycle maintenance costs has resulted in marketpenetration for new processing construction.

Page 6

... . . . ---- ~,, .. ....- ---- .*- ,W.m ~, ,.=-,..7-,-- ,-,- .-,T .

ATTACHMENT 1

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

DE-FC07-941D13308

ANNUAL TECHNICAL PROGRESS REPORTS

1994-1998

California Environmental Protection Agency

@~Air Resources Board “——Equipment Precertification Program

Evaluation of the Air Quality Performance Claimsfor Curtiss-Wright Flow-Control Valves:

Models 100 and 120

June 1998

,,-.,.

*

-

., ,.,

—.

.-.

—

., . . ... .. . .-=:s - . . ----. . . . ,.:-..,~:?;:>:~:..~:..

7%epurpose of $hh repoktis to dkunent the Air R&o~ct&Bo&s, (~’s) eviziuatioiz &dver~jixztionof the d qual@perfonnance cihhns made by the Curks- WC”ghtFiowControICorporation (CRF~ concerning itsMo&iXOOand120jlow-controI vaivk.-Upon successfulcompktion of the requirements associated with the ARB’s Equipment and Proc& Prti”ertij7cationProgram @qu@ment Precert#ii”on Program), a report is issued with two wmpanwn documen.tw 1)a ce@Zate; and2) an Exeeutive Oh. lke wmpanion documents serve as o~kiid records thatlheARB has in&pendentiy ven~.ithepflormance claimspre&nted in this repoti -

. . .

Certiliates carried undtr the ARB’s Eq@@nentPsecerdfhn Program are vaiidfor threeyearsfiom the date ksud praonikg the holder of the ce@ftie compiks wiih: I) the terms andwnditions identi~edin UA repo* and2) thegenerai req&vnents dikcussed & the ~ -

Pro- Gu:- and C .-- In addilion, Executive Orckm issued undkr 2he

“EquiprnentPrece@imztion Rogram idkntifi rquikements nccess~ to retain a vaiidcertiifi.1.. . .. . . .. .,. . . . . . “: ,.. .2’ite~C~kb+n.j”k@ctig@wotioI vaivesforriucktipowkgeneratidnfdities. .

since the ear~ 1970’s Z%e”flow-controlvahes, which &not en@oy a w pa.ckihg, or be.l!lb~ weredkvignedtomeet the requirements of the NtiearReguhxto~ Gmun&vioa ‘Z& ~Cphms to

ftier ~andthe use of itswdvesinto other industri&andb&&ves th~ becomitzg ce@~undkrtheAiZB’s’Equiprnent Prece@~Uat/on Progmm wiiiassist with rneedng thb objectk,.. . . ., ,..,,,,.:... ... x..;:. :. “ .:

... .,, . . .,.- , . . . . . .

. :.. ..... .. . .,. .-’.

~ hp@of~Eqt$kRece@tin ~piidhn~kage, the ~Crequestedthat the“ARBevaluate threejroposidp~onnance claims with respect lo the ab~ of thesu&ct jlbwwntrol vahws (Modek 100 gnd120) h controlfugitive emissions of voktik organic compounds Aspart of theprecertif&n evaiuatio~ theARB m=i@dthe CWFC in &signing a Ustpmtowl bven~ theproposed chzk Radian IntiationaiLimitedLihb~ Compaqy (Radian) was chosen bythe CB?FCti wnduct.the testing q@r.theARB izpprovedthe testprotowL During the w a minormodljkatian @ the Model 120J70wntnd vaIve war requested by the CWFC ~eARB approved thechm~e andzksting continued k or@na@phmned Af~m rev~ of thejinai test rtrsdts, &mnjuncti”on wilh the other dbc~ &cussed throughout this repo% the A.RB recommends thatprecdifuation c&i&ates be issuedto the CXFCforjlo-ontrol vaiveAZodkkXOOand12&

APpiicanb Calti$s-wrightFlowcontrol Corpomtioa1966E BfoadboliowRoadi2astFamin@ai%NY 11735-1768

Eqmipmen6- Fiow-ContmlValveModci100Fiow-CimtrolValveMwid 120

Contacd Mr. StevenRPaniy. ~Phone: (516)293-3800,~“on 647EMaik wm”~tm

MB StaffContacb

ApplicationNombeR 980601 “ “..- ““:ExecutiveOrdeE 698-016-931@12”Date ..

. . . ....-... .. .. . .

. . .. .. ,.... .... ‘...- ,.. . .. . .. .

.-, ““,.., ... . .. .. ;.-. .. ..

Title:~Md -*

Fax: (516)293+I? ,:~:<$:-T:. .. .....Webdtu wwW.trdh~.CO10:2:.... , :’ ......ARBWebsi* ww&arb.cagov

..-’ .............. .. .=.

.. . . ..... .. $..” .

r-/-

-.;,.,... ,

. .:’.+.

●

. .

CALIFORNIAENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYAIRRESOURCESBOARD

EQUIPMENTPR.ECERTIFICATIONPROGRAM

.

.-

devaluation of the Air QuaIity Perfoxinance Claims -for Curtiss-Wright Flow-Control Valves:

Models 100 and 120.

June 1998

...

s

., .

,

—

,

—

. .

Table of Con tent$

!m@2sm?

I.

. . IL

IIL

Introduction

A. -ve R*ofVolatile@~.

B. ~.

General information .“

A<B,c,Da

.

Summary of Scope. .

IV. Statement of CIaims.

V. Materials Available for Evaluation

VI. Technology Description “

VII. Technical Evaluation

“Ix

x

.IiL. .

XII.

AQg&d@&yB. ~ ofT~

Evahmtion of Claii

Test Results “

QuaIi& Management

Environmental and Economic Benefits

Recommendations

Suggested Operating Conditions

XIV. ”Precertiiication Conditions.

XV. Figures

1

11

“2

2“233

3

4

4

6

10

1010

14

17

18 .

19

.

..

-1.

,., ., 2.,.7..,:.,..‘-,...&.;,. 3.

4.5.

Curtiss-Wnght FIOWControI Valve Model 100 7

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Valve Model 120 7

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Valve Model 120 Cutaway 8

Cuxtiss-Wright Flow Control Valve Cutaway 9

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Valve Cycle Test Loop 13

XVI. Appendices

Appendix A-Test Results for Curtiss-Wright Flow-Control V@e Model 120Appendix B - ‘Testing to the Fugitive Emission Standards,” Valve ~ f~

1997..

.

-

.. .

..

L INTRODUCTION

This report dikcusses the technology used,:by the Curtiss-Wright F1OWControlCorporation (CWFC) in the design of itsflow+ontrol valves, the perfommce claimsto be verified by the Aix Resources Board(ARE3),the test procedures use~ the testresults, and the findings and recommendations“ofA.RBsta.ffconcerning the flow-controlvalves evaluated.

fL J&g&e Ejn&.i9ns of volatile O*

The control of fhgitive volatiIe organiccompounds (VOC) emissions ‘fromflow-control valves is part of the overall strategy toachieve and maintain heakhy air qua@ inCalifornia Tluough a series of complexatmospheric reactions, VOCS contribute to thefoxmatioh of ground-level ozone. As suchfederal, state and local air quality programsinclude strategies to reduce fugitive emissionsof VOCs into the atmosphere. ~l%ese controlstrategies rely heavily on promoting thedevelopment and use of continuallyimproving technologies, as weIl as periodicinspection and maintenance procedures toensure that performance is maintained

The CWFCbelieves that its flow-controlvalve Models 100 and .120axeeffective atreducing figitive VOC emissions Iiom avariety of industrial applications. As suchthe CWFC submitted an application under the

“ ARB’s Equipment Precerdfication Program.As part of its application package, the CWFCrequested verifkation of the ckixns that itsflow-control valve Models 100 and 120reliably reduce VOC figitive emissions.

B. Qgj@@ion of t~

This report is organized into several

Page 1

sections. The fi+t sectioq generalprovides background

information’on the ARB’s precertificationpro- as weli as the CWFC flow-conbolvalves being evaluated. The next four.Ctions, -~e w.

_ Mated A tie for ~~v“and ~ of Techn@y discuss thebreadth of our evaluatio% the performanceckims for the flow-control valves, theinformation that we relied on to conduct ourevaluation and a detailed description of theCWFC’Sflow-control valves (Models 100and 120).

I%e following three sections: ~.

n of _andk$& p~sent de~led ~o~tion Onoutechnical review and assessment of thepdonnance of the flow-control valves. Thesections entitled: Q@tv ~ and

provide supporting information on theCWFC’Sprocedures to produce values whichmeet the company’s clairm These sections .also provide a brief assessment of thepotential environmental and economicimpacts of the technology.

FinaiIy, the remaining sections:

. .~ and Prece~

. .

discuss the ARB sta&s detennirdon of theperformance of the valves relative to thecompany’s claims. These sections also .provide some geneml guiticc with respect toair quality permitting considerations as wellas specific conditions that must be met for thecertificate to remain valid for three years. The~ contain additional informationsupporting the evaluation documented in this

,

..

IL GENEI&4L INFORMATION “ “-...’. j

$,.;,‘.,, Under the regulations established by the....,)pro- equipment or processes eligible forthe Equipment Precertification Program mti1) have an air quality benefit 2) becommonly-used or have the potential to becommonly-used in the near fbture (marketready); an~ 3) not pose a significant potentialhazard to public health and safety and theenvironment Furthermore, to be eligible forthe progrzuq applicants for the program mustdemonstrate that they have sufficient control “over the manutkture of the equipment orprocess to ensure that they can consistentlyand reliably produce quipment whichperforms at least as well as that considered aspart of this evahxatiom “

A.~. .

The Equipment Precertiilcation Programis a voluntary statewide progmm for

., manufacturers of commonly-used”equipment. .or processes. A precondition fm enhy intothe program is that the equipment has an airquality benefit On June 14,1996, the ARBadopted section 91400 of the California Codeof Regulations which inmrporates the-

The regulation and Criteria were approved &the -ornia Ofliee of AdmhMxah“veLawon October31,1996 andbecameeffkedve onNovember 30,1996.

Under the Equipment PrecdficationPrognuQ man@Wurers request that the ARBconduct an independent third-partyverification of performance claims whichfocus on the air quality benefits of itsequipment or process. If the claim is ve&e&

—,. the manufactun$is * to refm to the results

of the ARB’s evaluation in its marketingliterature. Upon successful completion of theverification process, the applicant may alsorequest that the ARB notify specific airpollution control and air quality managementdistricts (districts) in California of the ARB’sdetermination As a result of the ARB’snotification the district has an advancedopportunity to become f~ar with the “performance of the equipment or process.

On June3,1996, theJ4RBreceiveda “request from the CWFC that ARB determineifits flow+ontrol valves Models 100 and 120were eligible for the EquipmentPrecert&ation Program After receivingconfirmation tim the ARB that the flow-eontrd valves”were eligible for the progranLthe CWFC submitted a precertific.stionapplication package to the ARB. Based onour initial review of the application package,we advised the CWFC that emissions testingwould be needed to support the pr@osedclaims In response, the CWFC contractedwith Radian International to pedorm testingof the flow+ontrol valves Models 100 and120. Prior to conducting the tests, the ARBstaffapproved the emissions test protocol.Once the tests wm completa we evaluatedthe reds along with other informationconcerning the past performance of the flow-control valves to detemine whether theclaims were verifiable;

In an effortto make progress towardsattabing healthy air quality in Californ@regulations restriet fngitive emissions ofVOQi from a broad spectrum of activities.The reduction of fiq$tive VOC emissionsfrom flow-control valves is one part ofWOW’S clean air strategy. Typically,

Page 2

.

.*.

_ flow-control valves have a“valve stem severalseals and bellows. Ml are common locations“,,for VOC emissions. As such local air districtrules and regulations specifi emission limitsand inspection schedules (see section XIYt

d Ouew Ccmd.

iti). Becausethe use of the CWFC.flow-control valvesModels 100 and 120 is claimed to reducefhgitive VOC emissions, the ARB evaluatedthe valves as air polhxtion control eqtipment

c. ro~

As part of our evahatiou Staffconducteda cursoxyreview of the potentiaIenvironmental impacts associated with theCWFC’Sflow-control valves Models 100 and120. Based on this review, we concluded thatthe valves would not liiely present health orenvironmental impacts different from thoseassociated with valves currently in wide use

_ throughout CalifornitL Pledse note that theCWFC is required to meet all applicablehealth and safety standards with respect to themanufacture, installation use, andmaintenaqcc of its flow-control valvesModels 100 and 120.

U* ~

Tile”recornmendations inthisreportarccontingent upon the CWFC Corporationhaving the legal rights to produce sad/ormarket flow-coritrol valve Models 100 and120. The CWFC documented its ownership ofthese rights in a letter to the ARB dated July ~14,1997, which state~ ‘curtiss-Wright FlowControl Corporation confirms that we retainthe ownership rights to manufacture orothenvise produce the equipment to beprectid both in the form ofprecertification conditions and therequirements in the Criteria for Equipment

and Process Precertificatio~ upon theproduction and marketing of the equipment.”

III. SUMMARY OF SCOPE

The CWFCclaims that the use of itsflow-control valve Models 100 and 120 willcontrol figitive”VOC emissions associatedwith the handling and storage ofhydrocarbons. Most fbgitive VOC emissionsresulting tim the haudling and storage ofhydrocarbons are leds from process -equipment and evaporation flom open areas.Generally, the control of fbgitive VOCemissions involves mkkdzing leaks andspills through the used of efficient airpollution control equipment (including state-of-the-art flow-control valves), modi.@ingprocesses, increasing monitoring andinspection tiquency, and improvingmaintenance practices.

For purposes of this repo~ VOCS areconsidered to be any compound containing atleast one atom of Carboq except exemptcompounds. Exempt compounds inchuk

carbon monoxidecarbon dioxideCd)OIliCacidmetallic carlddes or carbonatesammonium carbonate1,1,1-trichlomethanemethylene chloridetrichlorofluorom-e (CFC-11)dichlorodifluoromtie (CFC-12).chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22)trifluoromethane (CFC-23)trichlorotrifluo=tie (CFC-1 13)dichlorotetrafluobe (CFC-1 14)chloropentafluoro-c (CFC-1 1S)dichlorotrifluomethane (CFC-123) -2-chloro-l,l,lz-#uom*e

Page 3

.

.

.-

.. ....

-

—

“(HCFC-124)pentafluoroethane (HFC-125)1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134)tetrafluoretbane (HFC-134a)dichlorofluorocthane (HCFC-141b)chlorodifluoroethane (HCFC-142b)1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a)l,l+jifhoroethane (HFC-152a)

and the following four classes of “perfluorocarbon (PFC) compounds:

1. cyclic; branch~ or linear, completelyfluorinated alkanes; “2. cyclic, bwche~ or linear, completelyfluorinated ethers with umatunm“Ons;3. cyclic, branc~ or linear, completelyfluorinated te,rtiary arnines with notuWtWtiOnS; and4. saturated perflorocarbons containing sulfurand with sulfb bonds only to carbon andfluorine atoms.

IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

The following am the claims vezified byARB staff conceding the CWFC flow-conlrolvaIve Models 100 and 120. The verificationof these claims is predicated on thepresumption that the flow-control valves areinstalled and operated in accordance with thernanufadmr’;installation and operatinginstructioris.

L The Curtis Wright Flow ControlCorporation Model 100 flow-controlvalve is a closed system without thepotential for fugitive VOC emissions.

2. The Curtiss-Wright Flow ControlCorporation Model 120 flow-controlvalve has a calcdated fugitive VOCemission rate that is no greater than

3.

v.

.,

5.OE-8 kilograms per hour (.001pounds per year).

The Curtiss-Wnght Flow Control“Corporation Model 120 flow-controlvalve showed no performancedegradation after 112,109 cycles withrespect to fugitive VOC emissions.

MATERIALS AVAILABLE FOREVALUATION

‘Ile following materials were used aspart of our evaluation of the CWFC’S flow-control valve Models 100 and 120:

1.

2.

3.

.

4.

Page 4

Request to Detexmine Eligibility forARE PrecerMcation of Equipment orProcesses from Mr. James D. White ofthe curtiss-wIightFlow controlCorporation to Chairman John Dunlap ofthe ARB tmnsmitting the DeterminationofEligiiility apphatioq June 3, 1996.

Application for the ARB EquipmentPmcerdfication Program tim Mr. JamesIX White.of the Curtiss-Wright FlowControl Coloration to Mr. Raymond E.Menebroker of the ARB transmitting theapplication for the ARB precediicationpro- April 11,1997.

Curt@-Wri@ Flow ContdCopfiq QldMrm$

a f -1 ValvaSeptemberQ 1997.

.

. ..

5..-.,”-,

.’.

6.

7.

9.

10,

11.

—

Memorandum from ~. Raymond E.Menebroker of the ~’s StationarySource Division to Mr. George Lew ofARB’s Monitoring and LaboratoryDivision requesting assistance in theevaluation of a tesiing protocol for theCWFC flow+ontml valves models 100and 120,June 3,1997.

Letter fi-omMr. Richard Corey of theARB to Mr. Kurt Walderon of theChevron PipeLine Company, July 25,1997, tbnking Mr. Walderon for thefield tour where the CWFC flowcontrol valve Model 120 is in use.

Letterfium Mr. Steven IL Pauly of theCurtisS-Wright F1OW@ntrol Corporationto,Mr. Richard Corey of the ARBtransmitting the CWFC preecrti%ationapplication to the ARB, July 14,1997.

Letterfkom Mr. Steven R Pauly of the “Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporationto Mr. Glenn B. Sirn.isn of the ARBproviding cIarMcation of items m theCWFC i@kS.tiOQ Jdy 28,1997.

Letterfrom Mr. Richard Corey of theARB to Mr. Steve R Pauly of theCurtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporationeordinning receipt of the applicationpackage, July 31,1997.

Code of FederaI Regulations, Title 40,Part 60,&erdiX & ~ .of -vo~

.~ Us.Government Printing Office WashingtonD.C., June 22,1990. “

Air Resourees B04 ~

12.

13.

14:

15.

16.

Page 5

., ...

.QfRe-ble Avadable Con@lTee_ for The COnkQIof F-

. .v

. .of Volatile O_

. .s from Od and Gas Production

Process Fac~. . . ●

1Pl~. .

S&&n& kmk 8,1993.

Letter fim Mr. Steven R Pauly of theCurtiss-Wright FIOWControl Corporationto Mr. Glenn B. Sirnjian of the ARBtransmitting the testing protocol for flow-”control valve Models 100 and 120,septemt%?r12,1997.

Letter bm Mr. George Lew ofARB’s Monitoring and LaboratoryDivision to Mr. Raymond E.Menebroker of ARB’s StationarySource Division approving Curdss-Wright’s testing proti~l$ - .Septernber22, 1997.

Lettertim Mr. Richmxl Corey of theARB to Mr. Steven R Pauly of theCurtisS-Wright Flow Control Corporationapproving the CWFC’S testing protooolfor flow-control valve Models 100 and120, September 26, 1997. ~

Letter from Mr. Steven R Pauly of theCurtiss-Wright Flow ControI Corpor+ionto Mr. Riehsrd Cmy oftheARBreques@appmtitimod@ flow-control valve Model 120,November 14,1997.

Letter *m Mr. Richard Corey of theARB to Mr. Steven R. Pauly of theCUrtiSS-WrightFlow C@rOl Corporationapproving the modification to flow-control valve Model 120, Novernb& 18,1997.

.

..

17..,.

.’.,,,.,,.,. .....

18.

. . .

Repoit from Mr. Steven R. Pauly of theCurtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporationto Mri Richard Corey of the ARBdocumexkingthe te@g results for flow-control valve Models 100 and 120,January 13,1998.,

Curtiss-Wright Flow ControlCmpmatioq b-c~~

_@c@t 97X-130 TRP No.6319), January 13,1998.

For information on how to obtain thesernateria& please contact the ARB at thenumber provided at the beginning.of thisdocument

VL TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION -

‘h CWC flow-con@olvalve ModeI.s100and120 am a departure fimthestandardair-or motor-operated valve dtign typically”used for the storage and handling ofhydrocarbons. Specifically, the Models 100and 120 flow-control wolvesare solenoid-actoate~ they do not use a ~ packing, orbellows. Fwther, flow-conirol valve modelsisolate all movingpaxts within the process “pressure boundark ~ Model 100 flOW-control valve is completely seal-weld@whereas the Model 120 flow-control valve isseal-welded except for one body-tohnnetjoint sealed with an O-ring (figure 1 and 2).

.“.The CWFCfhv-contddv= = -.

tocontrol the flow of liquids, steaxq or gases.These v@es are solenoid-actuatd andemploy a pilot disc to assist actuatiom l%etwo basic designs are on/off isolation valvesand modulating contxol valves each with hardor soft seats and in either fhil open or Ml

closed configurations. As shown in figure 3 .(typical), the stainless steel bbrmet assembly,which encloses the moving parts (plunger,diSCS, connecting ro&j ~d pti of theposition sensor assemblies), iS either threaddand seal-welded to the valve body (Model100) or bolted with an O-ring seal to the valvebody (Model 120). The solenoid assembly,electrical hardware, and other parts of theposition sensor assembly, are motmted on theoutside of the bonnet assembly. Modulating “control valves use a linear variable difkrential “traxdormer (LVDT) as a position sensor(figure 3)0 On/ofFisolation valves use reedswitch ass~blies activated by a magnetassembly (figure 4) inside the bonnet forposition indication Both the ModeI 100 and120 flow-control valves are designed to ~operate on AC or DC voltage.

As shown in figure 4, operation of the .flow-contd vahs occurs when the solenoidassembly k energizd It develops a magneticfiel~ which His the plunger. This pulls thepilot off its scat in the main disc opening thevent port This changes the diH&enW

P~ between the top aid bottom mrfhcesof the main disc, which raises the main disc inservo motion to the @oL and allows the fluidat the irlIet to flow.

When tie solenoid assembly is de-emrgiz& ehimting the magnetic f- onthe plunger, the return spring seats the pilotdiscintheventpor& AShOwnin X4,with the vait ports clo+ the controlpres+ above the main disc inmases. Whenthe control p~ increases sufEciently, thecombined influence of the diflkmntialpressw and tie return spring exerts adownward force on tied ~ s=ting it inthe body, thereby closing the valve.As the main disc moves, the motion is

P&e 6

—I

,,.,;,...

.“

Bonnet

. .

CurtisS-wright FIow control

Valves Modeis 100 and 120. .

/Assembfy .

.

D

Model 100 -

/$Mnls Steel~ - - Bonnet Connectf~

.

+

. ...

. figure 1 ..

.+

Model 120

. .. .

[.~

.

+“Page 7

,-.... figure 2.

BoltedBonnet Connection .

----- . ... ,,,,,.<-- ,- .-.%m,rx---- .,,..= 7 ---- . -k-~m, ., ,. .,.. ,~- -m~,, .- ,“,

. .

.+-;,7.,/1

‘.”......“,\,. .....

. .-’

Curtiss-Wriglit FIOWControlValve Model 120 Cutaway

.

,

. .

. .

.

,. ri2-1IndicatorTubk

..

bly

Seal We

. Indicato.

-IIIcd I 1A

. .

SolenoidAssembly

RodDM—“.

.

J-=..:Pltigcr

+ctumspring

~VeIve Body

r“I,Ma@Disc

P&t

figure3’

Page ~

.<

,..? -...”..~

:

,, .

●✎✞

,,..,.>,.

,,?,-’ ‘~.,.;4.-

Curtiss-Wtight FlowControl Valve Cutaway

Position Sensor ~. .

&p . .

.—

~. Presmw..

Main Disc

Main Disc Seat

-.

?

.

,- Fixed Core

Mcmnble Core. .

figure 4

Page 9

‘,...

Y“ Pilot Disc “

.

.

-

,., ,. ...

.

transmitted through the plunger to theposition sensor element inside the pressureboundary. The internal movement is sensedby the ,external element of the position sensorassembly to signal the valve’s position. In theabsence”of differential pressure, the solenoidcoil develops sufficient force to fully open the “wdve directly.

The CWFC flow-control valve.Models100 and 120 dilZerfrom standard flow-controlvalves in several respects. Specifically, theModel 100 and 120 valves do not have a ~“packing, or bellows. Furthermo~ the Model100 does not have a bonnet flange. Thesecomponents are eliminated @ausc they aretraditionally weak spots for leak+ fbgitive

.emissions, or f~ufc. The CWFC believes thatby replacing these components, Ieaks fi-omthefollowing areas are eliminated

1.

2.

-.

3.

Stem seal - this is a dynamic (moving) .seal Ween the packing “andtheexternal.ly-actukted stem. The movementmay be rotational, linear, or acombimtion of the two. This is the niostcommon point where valves leak Thestem leakage rate almost alwayscontributes the bulk of the total fkgitiveemissions.

Packing gland - this is a static sealbetween the packing and the valve body.~ is also a common la PO@ ~d ss .such can influence fugitive emissionsfrom fiow+onirol valves.

Bellows - the bellows is a flexiile bamierthat provides additional protection agaipstfhgitive emissions from ~ical valves.However, over we beIIows can developcracks leading to leaks*

ln addition to not ha=g a stem, packingglan~ or bellows, the CWFC’S Model 100flow-control valve does not have a bonnetflange. The bonnet flange is a static sealbetween the upper and lower sections of thevalve. It is typically a flanged connectio~may sometimes b screwed or welded.Bonnet flange leaks are less common thanleaks from stem seals and packing glands.

but

The CWFC’S flow-cantrol valve Model120 has a bonnet joint-sealed v$th an O-fig. ”As this is a poten@l location for fhgitiveemissions, the Model 120 was subjeeted to thetesting procedures described in Section VII.

F&&n Internatior@ as a contractor tothe CWFC, @rformed an independent designreview of the flow-control valves Models 100and 120. Based upon the materials evaluatedas part of this report (see Seetionv,Matdala.~), including thedesign review conducted by RadianInternational, AR.B tihas verified thefollowing:

It was determined that it was notn&ssary to test the Model 100 (~ 1)flow-control valve for fbgitive VOCemissions because it is completely seal-welde& The CWPC ~ that the Model100 flow-control valve be verified asequivalent (iYoman emissio~ _ve) tofour welded mnnections. b shor4 properly-welded connecti- do not ~ve f@tive VOCemissions. x SUChwh~ Pm@Y installedand operate~ the Model 100 flow-control

Page 10

..7 ,., .-

.

? ..

-

-,.’. ,.. . .

vidvewould not have fugitive VOCemissioti.

“Mdiu2!l

The Model 120 flow-control valve is seal-”welded except for one body-to-bonnet joint(figure 2), sealed with one O-ring. Thisf=ttue should enable the valve to reduce

“I%gitiveemissions as compared to moretypicai valves. The CWFC requested that theModel 120 flow control valve be verified asequivalent (from an emission perspective) tothree welded mnnections and one flangedconnection. The Model 120 flow-controlvalve that was tested on October 29,1997 hadtwo O-ring seals. One of the O-ring seals wasat the main body-to-bonnet joint as describedabove. A second (figure 3) O-ring seal wasIocated at the indicator tube-to-bonnet jointHowever, on November 14,1997, the CWFCnotified the ARB that it intended to replacethe second O-ring with a seal-welcL Merreceiving approval to mOdi@the test planfiorn the ARB, a s=ond test reflecting themodification was pdormed on December17, 1$W7.

F~re 3 is a cut away view of the flow-control valve Model 120, showing thep~ boundary, location of the seal wekls,and the O-ring. These are areas whereemissions could possibly occur. For Model120 flow-control valves, three offour pressmeboundary joints are completely seal-welde&However, the body-to-bonnet joint is sealedwith an elastomer O-ring (the pressureboundary is Shaikd in figure3). W SdS are

staticseals;thereareno moving seals likeconventional stem @. In additio~ all ofthe joints am flanged seals or are weldtd ‘heflanged joints are highiy engineered andcontrolled to eliminate the Iated stresses that

exist on similar flanged connectors in plantpiping systems and can contribute toconnector emissions.

B. ~ of Test Protocol

Prior to conducting an emissions test offlow-control valve Model 120, we requestedthat a test protocol be prepare& We receiveda test protocol fkomthe CWFC on September12, 1gg7. We approved the test pmtcxd ~d .notified the CWFC of our determination onSeptenim 26,1997. “

Radian International used the UnitedStates Euviromnental Protection Agency(U.S. EPA) Reference Test Method 21

.@mmnation of VolatiIe Org-ticCompound Leaks) fm the testing of flow-control valve Model 120. The testing ofModel 120 consisted of two phases. The keyelements of the two phases of the tests aYeasfollows:

1. &essmze“ the @veto 300 pounds persquare inch gas (psig) with methane

2. Screen the valve for any signof leakageusing U.S. EPA Ref=ncc Test Method 21

3. Perform ablow-through bag test to measureleakage

4. Screen the valve for any sign of leakageusing U.S. EPA Refmce Test Method 21

5. Repressurize the valve and return it to themandwturer for accelerated wear testingand moditkations.

thevalveto 300psig with1. Presmize

Page 11

.

. . . .

-,, , >,.:.,

.:>,:....

....’

methsne2. Screen the valve for any sign of leakage

using U.S. EPA Reference Method 213. Pefiorm a blow-through bag test to measure

Ieaklge4. Screen the valve for ~y sign of leakage

using U.S. EPA Method 21.

- Phase I ofthc testing of Model 120 was.performed oh October 29,1997. The valvewasthen sent back to the CWFC where the

“modifications ~ vnth seal wekj.).

were made and a 112,109 valve cycle test wasperformed (figure 5). A&r the cycle test wascomple@ the valve was r@rned to RadiimInternational fa Phase II of the test onDecember 17,1997.

Phase II of the test was identical to PhaseI for the purposes of the emissions testihg.The purpose of the secondp@e of testingwas toveri@ that the Model 120 flow-controlvalve had ho increase in fugitive emissionsafter 112,109 total cycles. Methane was usedinthistest be-it isalight-end .hydrocarbon andj as suohj is an excellent..surrogate for detedng-fbgitive VOC ~emissions

The accelerated wear test was initiatedonce the valve was returned to the fhctoryafter the M phase of testing. The valve %vas

.:. ”in@ledinthe test loop shown krfigure5.l’hevakcwas~titi shoptitiroom ternpemture at approximately 100 psig.The outlet needle valve was throttled down tolimit outlet flow as neussary. The valve’spcisition indicator oimuit W8sconnected to asystem that relayed the position signal to acycle counter. The valve was cheoked at leastthree times a day to record the number ofcycles completd An accumulator, tostabiii supply pressure, and a muffler were

also included in the testing loop. The test wasadmhistmtively terminatedwheD112, 109cycles were achieved.

VIII. EVALUATION OF CLAIMS: “

This section presents additionalinformation relating to the claims verified byARB staff as part of its evaluatiorL & statedearlier, the ARE .statTevaluation andrecommendations, &presented in this repo* .are predicated on the expcdation that theflowantrol valves are installed and operatedin accordance with the rnimufhctum’sinstructions.

To assist the reader, each of the claimsidentified on page 4 (IV. ~ of _

.

are @ed in @is SCCtiOILFollowing eaohCkh.1are SUppOrtkgCOILIIIleXItSwhich XllSybChelpfid in interpreting the significance of eacholailm

1. The Cmtiss-WAght Flow ControlCorporation Model 100 f10w40ntrOl

valve isa dosed system without thepotential for fugitive VOC ernissiom

Based on our evaluatiorL the CWFCModel 100 flow-control valve should betreated as.four ymlded connections fkmn theP&specdve oflhgitive VOC emissions.Gwen that properly-welded Wrul=tiorls forma complete ~ no fbgitive VOC emissionswould be expectd As such the valve wouldnot be expectd to require moqitiring beyondthat appromfir Weldd eQnnAons.

2. The Cu*W*t Flow ControlCorporation Model UO flow-controlvalve has a calatd fhgitiveVOC etition ~te mat fi no greatertkm 5.0= ~OmUM per how (.001

Page 12

.,-.,

.

Curtiss-Wright Cycle Test Loop

,. ..,,,.,..

Valve Infernal

Position Switches _. .

\ rzx=Accux&.later

.s.. ~p—‘AirIn

InletIsolation

Valve

I

:-

11

[

q?clinglway

1

M@cr

*

. ..

—

pounds per year).

The emission rate presented in the claimis”an upper-bound estimate (i.e., actualemissions are expected to be lower). Theupper-bound emission rate was czdculatedbyconsidering the fmt that the test gas (methane)used as a sumogate for figitive VOCemissions was not detected at the lower limit“ofdeteotion (1 ppm) of tbc analyzer used inthe emissions test of the CWPC CorporationModel 120 flow-eontro~valve. As is typicallythe case for emission results which are belowthe li.riit of dctectiouone-halfof thedetection limit was used in the calculation of afbgitivc VOC emission rate for the Model 120flow-control vaIve.

From the perspective of fbgitive VOCemissions, the CWFC Model 120 ftow-contml valve should be treated as a seal-welded”unit with-one flang6,.

3. The Curtiss-Wright Flow ControlCorporation Model 120 flow-eontrdvalve showed no pe~orrnanccdegradation after 1I2,109 eycks withrespeet to fugitive VOC emissions.

This was documentedby ourevaluationof the emissions test results. Specifically,afier 112,109 cycles, methanewas notdetected in any of the tests of the O-ring sealin the bonnet-to-body joint

. xmmsuurs

The testing protocolfor the CWFC flow-control valve Model 120 employed the U.S.EPA Reference Test Method 21 inconjunction with the prouyhre described inthe ~

● . .

EQinMks (united states Environmental

Protection Agency, Publication Number EPA-453/R-39-026). The CWFC received theARB’s approval on September 26,1997, touse the test protocol in the emissions testing.The summary of the test results submitted bythe CWFC are presented in Appendix A.

The bonnet+o-body joint of the CWFCModel 120 flowumtrol valve was tes@d inthe Radian Corporation laboratories beforeand after an accelerated wear test consistingof 112,109 opdclose cycles. Two bag tests -were performed before the accelerated weartest and three bag tests W~ @OrmCd after

he accelerated wear test. One pre-aeceleration bag test was oonducted at anitrogen flow rate of 2 liters per minute,%hilcthe other was eonduoted at 7 Iiters per minute.The post-acceleration bag tests were allconducted at nitrogen flow rates ofapproximately 2 liters per minute.

The purposeof the accekrated wear testwas to demonstrate that the CWFC Model120 flow-oontrol valve showed nodegradation with respcct”to emissions, after aspeeific amount of use. An article .qparing

.in YaIve ~ entitled %sting to theF&itive Emission Standards’, (included inAp~ti B) was the basis fbr selection ofthe number of cycles in the test The articleref-d to the Me of 100,000 eycks as anWpprim ~u to use to evaluate .accelerated wear in high performance conlrolwolves.

A RaMsch total hydrocarbon analyzerwith a lower detection limit of 1 piut permillion @pm) was used to de.teothydrocarbons. Me~e w= dmsen as thetest gas Ww,.m a li@=d hydrocarbo~ itis an excellent surrogate for deteoting fhgitiveVOC emissions. Me-e W= not detected at

Page 14

Yw----- . . . . .

>.

.-,,,,. $

‘., .

.

.

the lower limit of detection (1 ppm) of theanalyzer in any of the pre-acceleration or“post-acceleration bag tests. Using the AI@’s

standard approach for evaluating emissionsdata which are below the detection Emig one-half of the detection limit W* used in thecalculation of the I@itive VOC emission ratefor the Model 120 flow-control valve.

Test mn number F3 was chosen as thebasis for the emissions calculation because itrepresented the most conservative (highest)estimated emission rate. A calculation of theemission rate for the pre-accelerated wear test

is presented on the folIowing page.

In summary, the CWFC flow-con~olvalve Model 120 valve had no detectableemissions before or after the accelerated weartest. As stated in the cla$ns section of thisrepon the resulting VOC figitive emissionrate from the bonnet-to body joint wascalculated to be no.greater than 5.033-8kilograms per hour, which is equivalent toapproximately 0.001 pounds per year.

. .

-

-

:,

.,.-.

Page 15

,

)

.

Kilograms of volatile organic compounds (VOC)per hour=

-.,.i Fclx[(=’%lx[-lx [ml.+..’ , Where:

VC = VOC concentration (reported as methane)

~CGMW = Molecular weight of calibration gas (metlume)

W = Molar vohune at normal conditions, Odegrees CelsiUS(O”C)

NC= Conversion of normal cubic meters per hour at O“Cto cubic meters per hour at latm -

N = Flow rateof nitrogen

OR= Ratio of oxygen concentmtion in sampling devi~ to o~gen concentration in ambient air

ML= Factor to convert from grams per minute (@in) to kilograms per how (k@o@ .

Inputs for test run:

vc+)~~lo~ CGMW = 16 gramdmole

MV = 22.413 L/mole “ NC= 22°C + 273°C = 1.08.

273°CN2 = 2.0 I.fmin

ML=.06k#hr OR= 4.5%/ 21%= .21

= Note: 22°’ was ambienttemperatureduringtesting

T-t run calculations:

“ [0.,xloq [Z&] [%] [4=

~[0.5.104] [.66] [fiq [.06] =—

..

5.0 x 104 kilograms of VOCS per hour

Page 16

J

.

-,,

,,

,-, ,.

-

-

. . .

X QUALITY MANAGEMENT

The CWFC has developed extensivequality management practices and standardsfor its flow-control valve Models 100 and120. The standards &e described in theCWFC, Target Rock Corpordion -

. .~ April 21997.This ManuaI incorporates the provisions ofSections I and VIII of the American Societyof Mechanical.Engineers (ASME) Boiler andPressure Vessel Code. ‘l%eManual containsestablished quality management practices forthe following areas:

- Desipq Drawing, Specification- Material Control and Procedure Control- Process Control- Inspection and Testing- Control of Measuring-Valve Stamping and Test Equipment

sealing-- Record Retention- Foxns

‘Ihe CV@2’s QualityManagementPro- was reviewed by ARB staff as partof our evaluation of flow-control valvesModels 100 and 120. As a resultof ourCVdUdiOQ ~ staffhas determined that thequality management program is Suffieiendycomprehensive to support cmtify@ theCWFC flow-control valve Models 100 and ,120.

XL ENVIRONMENTALANDECONOMIC BENEFITS

Aspart of our review, we evaluated thepotential air quality impacts of the flow-control valve Models 100 and 120. The useof the flow-control valves wiI?likely result ina reduction of fugitive VOC emissions when.

compared to traditional valves with a stenqpacking, and belIows.

As part of our evaluation we alsocontacted current users of the CWFC flow-control valves. The users of the flow-controlvalves, which were from various indties,indicated that the flow-control valves have asignificantly longer Me, with less requiredmaintenance, * conventional flow-controlvalves. The ARB staff also visited apetroleum bulk termimd where one of the .flow-control valves has been used success.fidlyfor several years. It should be notedthatunder certain conditions, er@ssionreductionsresult@ from the instdation of the CWFCflow-control valves may be eligible foremission reduction credits. l’h~fore,appropriate air districts in California should beconsulted to determine the eligiiili~ for anyemission reduction credits.

XtX. RECOMMENDATIONS

M.er evaluating the information

discussed inthisrepcm-staffrecommends tbt the CWFCflow- controlvalve Models 100 and 120 be certified underits Equipment PmcertMcation Program.SpecificaUy, we have independently verifiedthe claims of the CWFC eon- its flow-control valves Models 100 and 120, aspresented in the claims section of this repofi

By accepting certification under theARB’s pro-the CWFC assum~ for theduration of me three-year certification peri~responsibility for main- the qualily ofthe manufactured equipment and materials at alevel equal to or better than was provided toobtain this certification. Certification underthe ARB’s program is also contingent on therecipient agreeing to be subject to quality .

Page 17

. .

monitoring by the ARB as provided by law.

,-...The ARB makes no express or implied, .,,

...:warrantiesas to the perfo~ce of the .manufacturer’s product or equipment Nor,does the AI& warrant that the manufhcturdsproduct or equipment is free from any def=tsin workmmship or materkd caused by

“negligence, xrkse, accide@ or other causes.“TheARB sta&believ~ however, that theCWFC’S flow-control valves Models 100 and120 will achieve performance levels presentedin the claims section of this repmt Our ~deta “ tion is based on our evaluation ofthe data tibmitted by tie CWFC, as well asthe other information identified in this reportO&recommexyiations are predicated on&eexpectation @t imtdation and opemtion ofthe valves”arc performed m accor@ncewitlithe manufhctumr’s specifications. “. .

. .. .

XLU SUGGESTED 0PEIL4TINGCONDITIONS

In CSMO* stationarysourcesare

permittedat the local l~el by districts. Eachof California’s 35 districtshaverulesandregulationswhich mustbe metto meeive andmaintainanairqualitypcrmit ThedistrietrulesandXC@@iOXIS refket federal and stateregulatory requirements as Wll”as anyadditional mquircments that the districtboards determine to be appropriate for theregioa ,

. . . Technolo@s which have been certifidunder the ARB’s Equipment PrecerMcationProgram are subject to the same fed@ state,and load permitting requirements as.SOUrCCSwhich have not b&n certified In sh~rem”iptof a cerdiicate under the ARB’s “Equipment Precertification Program does notin anpy limit the authority of local &r

dticts. However, it is expected that local airdistricts will have an interest in consideringthe information presented in this report whenmaking permitting decisions. Therefw, wehave includ~ some information on inspecdonfrequency that districts may consider helpfidwhen making pkrrn.ittingdecisions on thevalves discussed in this ‘report

After it has begn det&rnincd that the yalvehas been propedy install* the impectionrecommendations diffkr for the Model 100 and”Model 120 flow-control valves. Specifically,it is recommended that the Model 100 beinspected on a fkquency consistent with thatwhich applies to welded pip That isbecause; improperly install~ the Model 100does not include any features which wouldsuggest that there is a potentifd for figitiveemissions.

For the Model 120, quartedy to semi- “annual inspections (using a leak detection-cnt) are suggested fix the first year. Ameasurement of 10,000 parts per million “orgreat& sho~d be considered a leak If fourconsecutive redings below 100 parts permillion or less are gecorde& it isrecommended that the impactions beconducted annually. . - ‘

If, during anyinspc@o@ areadingof10,000 pats perrnillion or greater is mcotia,it is recommended that the valve b. repaidand that quarterly iXls@tiOnSbe resumed.Alternatively, if any readings are over 100parts permilLionbut lessthanl0,000itissuggested that the cause of the reading beinvestigated and that the valve be repaired if “needed Mter any repair is compl~ it issuggested that impcctioti take place on aquarterly basis until four cmsecudve readingsbelow 100 parts per million are made, then

Page 18

~. .- .....,._..T.. ,. .,mr _ ~,+z-T.-. ..s,-.< r- --- - -. .- —’mx=,.mm-r.-.z s.-> - ,, --- . ..—

.

. .

returqto annual inspections. “ . “-.-

XIV. PRECERTIFICAnON,.,’CONDITIONS

The recommendations in this ~port areconditional on the flow-controlwalvcs beinginstalle~ inspected and maintdne&in

accordance with the CWFC operator’s .manual and the CWFC @nerd Ref~ncebook. In order for the precertification toremain vaE~ the CWFC must retainmantiac.turing rights to the flow-controlvalves Models 100 and 120. .

*

. .

1

.

Page”19

-...p. .— -.- .?7T7 ,! . ..J .,..,.. , , ,.. ,. .>, -nc7>=. .,,5 :-. ,: ,- - .- n--..m . , . . . . . <. ..7 . . - -,.%-r . -,..

..-’

—“

)...

Test”Results for Curtiss-Wright F1OWValve Model 120

. .

Page 20

~- --,- .,,-~, ,,. ---- ,,--? -—--- ,-.. .,.> ---, - .-x*m-.c-- .-.. .=,-= .,. . . .,- -------- . ..-

l“-.,,,,..

.J

%tmMl...,,,.,

?ntroductio~

-.

Bag Testing Report

Target Rock CoritrolValve ModeI 120

*

lkis is a repoti of testing that was performed on the Twget Rocket Model 120 control valve.The testing was done by Radian Intemational.LLC in OIUAUSh Tex=, labomtory on October29 and December 17, 1997. The test W= pfionned ina~ord~c~ wi~ the test plan submittedto and approved by CARB with a few exceptions noted below.

‘RdtsThe Target Rock Model 120 control valve was tested in the kdkm labomtori~ &fore andafteran accelerated wear test of >50,000 open/cIose cycles. Two bagging tests were performed dtigthe initial testing before accelerated wear, and three bagging tests were performed after theaccele~ted wear test. All test results were below the detectable levels of the Raffisch totalhydrocarbon analyzer, and the emissions are calculated as less than the emissions at the detectionlimit Table 1 presenti a summary of the test results.

In the initial test series, two bagging t~ were done on the bonnet-to~body joint one at a— nitrogen flow rate of nominaUy 7 liters peraninute and one at 2 liters per minute. Hydrocarbon

concentrations were below the detectable level on both runs. The Ratfisch Model RS55CA totzdhydrocarbon analyzer had a lowe~ sqle division of one part per million when calibrated with thece”itified40 ppm methane in air standard. Half of that lowest division (0.5 ppm) was selected asthe reading to use iri calculation when no perceptible response was obse~ed. This resulted in amass emission rate from the bonnet-to-body joint of less than 4E-8 kilograrnslhour.

After accelerated wear, three bagging tests were done on the bonnet-to-body joint. AU of thesetests were at nitrogen flow rates of approximately 2 liters per minute and all resulted in non-detectable hydrocarbon concentrations. me emission mtes calculated on the basis of thedetection limit were less than 5E-8 lcilogramdhour. It should be noted that the emission mteswere not really higher a% the accelerated wear testing-all tests showed non-detectablehydrocarbons. The minor dWerences in edculated emission rates are due to variations innitrogen flow rates, temperature, oxygen concentrations, and background hydrocarbonconcentrations. Essentially, the control valve had no detectable emissions using Method 21 orbagging before or after accelerated wear. Based on the detection limits of.the analykx, it can besaid that any emissions from the valve were less thanm~ per hour, which is about 0.001pounds per year.

.

..,.

). .

>-. ..”

Table 1. Summary of Bag Test Results

Test

11: body-to-bonnct joint

12b: body-to-bonnct joint

F1: body-to-bonnet joint

F2a: body-to-bOMeljOifll

F3: body-to-bonnet joint

Conditions

N2 = 6.97 Urn02=o%

T= 72,2“F

N2 = 2.0 Urn02= 0%

T= 72.6 “F

N2=2.05I/m02 =.3.9Y0T=71.5 “

N2=2.05l/m.02= 2.3%T=71.6

N2=2.01Urn“02 * 4,5yo

T=71.7

Hydrocarbon Concentration (ppmv)

*

o <0.s 4.5

“o <0.5 4.5

0 I I<().5 4.5

CalculatedEmission Rate

(WW

.<1 .38E.7

a.96E-8

4.99E-8

4.56E-8

5.07E-8

2

. .

Comments

WlghN2 flow/low sensitivity run toget a quick reading.

Repeat of Test 12wi~ a fr~hclean bag.

Repeat of test F2 which had toohigh an 02 reading (6%)

I.

“8 .

/,

CGC = (3C -((Tent 02)/21 )*BG)where.CGC = CoxTcctedGas Concentration (ppmv hydrocarbons in the mple bag);GC = Gas Concentration @pmv hydrocarbons in the sample bag);

- Tent 02= oWgcn concentration in the tented vohune (volume %); andBG = background hydrocarbon concentration (ppmv hydrocarbons).

.3

/

... .-”

#

M%%!!!!.-

h w~c .olls/Vanations from the ProDosed Tes t Plan .

The test plan (Attachment C) that was proposed for this pre-certification test and approved byCA.RBwas adhered to with the following minor exceptions:

1. The initkd tests pressurized the control valve to-only 75 psig of methane instead of the 300psig specified in the test plan. The regulator that was supplied with the standard gas limiti tieoutlet pressure to 75 psig. Aother R@ator that wo~d fit tie cylinder threads could not be

“accessed in time for the initial test. A regulator that allowed the full 300 psig pressure was usedfor the post-accelemted wear test.

2. The test plan specified that final samples for hydrocarbon concentration would be collected inaluminized Myk@ bags and analyzed on a laboratory G#FID. Continuous emission monitorswere used for both oxygen and hydrocarbon analyses. The Ratfkch total hydrocarbon analyzer isan FID with a sensitivi~ qual to that available in the laboratory instrument that was originallyspecified. For the high nitrogen flow runs (about 7 litersper minute), both the oxygen analyzer

and the hydrocarbon analyzer could be kept on-line tith continuous output of results. Thisoffered a much higher contldence in deciding when steady state conditions were achieved thanthe approach specified in the test plan (which was based on previous field bagging approaches).For lower nitrogen flow runs, only the oxygen analyzer was kept on-line and a 5 liter Tedl&~bag was filled with the sample gas once steady state was achieved. The Rati]sch hydrocarbon-analyzer was then used to a&lyze the contents of the 5 liter Tedlar bag to get the hydrocarbonconcentration for calculations of the mass emission rate. We believe that this approach offeredbetter demonstration of steady-state conditions and equal serisitivity to the approach specified in

. the test plan, plus the advantage of having fmt mm-around on sample results.

3. In the test plan, we did not propose to analyze a background bag. This was done because wethought that the background.in the lab would”not be a problem, but a tubing leak in the methanesupply line did create an elevated background at one point in the testing. Because of this, we dldcollect background hydrocarbon concentration data and used it in the calculations. This had noeffect on the tests of the bonnet-to-body joint tests, because oxygen concen~tions were reducedto zero in the bag in the pre-accelemted wear testing and background VOC values were zero inthe post-accelerated wear testing. There was only a minimal effect on the indicator tu&to-bor&et seal testing, and this slifit effect is imrn~etial since the seal will be welded on the final

. . control vah. The quation for correcting for the background hydrocarbon was taken from theProtocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates published by EPA in 1995:

$.. . ‘\:.

..” . .

. ..% ..,

. .

1 -.

/-- ‘ ‘“.,

Article Entitled ‘Testing to the Fugitive Emissions Standards,m Vslv~ .

. .. .

—

I

. . .. ...’

Page 21.

,..;::,.O““m”.“, .,

. . .

.. . ‘

.

. ,.

. .

.

:-

4

-

----. .. .. .. ... ~. “.. . .... -.

,::,.. . .. ::. . ,., ... - .~.,.. . . ..0 .;.

. . ● . .

- ““T-----..~......””

.

..— — . --.. . . ....

..-..- . =: --------- - .. . .. ; . . . .:...;- ...-. ------ -. :...-.“

.- .,---- -

. . ‘“’”:?.G!h5e:;;~?’:??f:??-:”:?-’‘~~’... .... .... ..~itive Emission

Siwndards.

.

F

..-

.

.

. ..,. .

. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . .“. .

. .. .

h ~&~ .,. .... .. .

Waccuqibdiaydxlna?A-3vidlaqJziiGiiax—=====f==#—----rnlmlllipkr19=ofd%-dYcm#adsfy dMizulrcwul-as Thtdka SaD&did=lAKdwa&Duxirlg199Z1W3,cnlmnkm&nn$rcFhlkl~

18 VALVE IAA6AZIME .

Wucsulmsals “ -. .. . .

&aftwssa&wlaeM&kdcmisalt&r*

--~hmve=-==Iacdwrskmilq-amlilckimunna”ddr’sda”amud%uk Widariumfxui& kmaybepmibkmatlxlply+lbothsu d?ds-khue-qondtenumbErofw&uaefd4d= t=cd mxittxedewmpnHick%lmc&i&uxiudlkrupca

....

r

.

~,’,,,.

4

. .

ZiiiiaPzl-==.. ,.. ”

,. ,:- *. . .

AkiI=--.. -.. . ‘“

MEdkl=,* ~ -...“. . .

-. . .

PacaI~ti - -.-caf-.&~ ,“

..

● ✎✎

Zaiilk .

. .

.. . ... . . .. . --- . ..=

I. . . . . . .

. ..

. ... -..

.=-“

. . . .. “.:.

. . .. .. ... . ...

. . .. ...- y-~. . . . . ..

...

.:

. .‘1’...

. . ..’ .-

*. i%tmmsbdmk.dm= pqc 19

.. . . , ....?..,+ -... .-. . . .5 :

—. ..> . . ..

. ... ..:,:.

,

.

. . .. . . .. .

‘. . ...

.

,

I !..

. “. . ....

I.PAs?iu-:...”””“... . .%.AruslBM3+d17p. .-.I..,,:A

t I -,,. .M--* ‘“ ‘ .:’:lmm ‘.. : ; ~ :;

. . .. ,......- ... .“- . . . . . . ,----- --+jim-‘“-..’ “.-. .MIdmlid---~ .-. - ~~

. .

t

. . .. . . . . mm1

I -4=--- ., I 01.

NraderofTl=mfCTCI-;

T#mbluk Mii9m6pnemdune.

b

Namixr afCyds Valve TWC

S.m Namldlv4&OmIli=alrnntm*

Z5PUI ~~ .w==--

XWx!o. . w~daadamud Tarv6

TdA 3

.arcxwcCT@CafsaItifm ake ~ (mad) Mc- 10C.Thisb@mCdly&Covccd3r& mser.ThiKpammcura k dcud atde !mfrmm2xmm&C & 44 pdommce.

Jhckmkd Cydms ..—...—

Asda&~afrk+,+el*tid.=kAm,*n04 IiK3ptdfiiati~k rndanblqdewmfms Thudbsf&anifdnfzCmm&fof=ui4cxw=h iAcnakcsicdiffiilr txoduswsmmalu=d-anmappl=-u=ppb his. The cdy pmhn widt the FCI sctccciotn n dxum:WIWS.suchasImgerntamallyupemtcd~e 4.=0 may havedUTicukyc#@ k

canhudmfJo@?23

s

W1 Overarin.

. Side Ann

...-...<...

.. .,

4‘. -! ‘

‘ii. ., J... . .

I..1

1.. i.

t’. .—4

. .“

-.

0.

I

I;

i

i..

....-J--:- -

s&diir&&iYsm6mofrl p.. ::,:%.-3 - ~

: .-:--++ . . . ~~ .- + . :.:...:+

~-. ..: :::-..+.. *.,. :.

:—*I ●..7;::. .. :.$ . . . ;-: seal+ scctiank.M2ciu= ‘.-.. . 4:...4.4.. .*<..W<.* : -7? ----?...:Y ~.-.~.-.-~ - . . .. . ~ . : @&mdad” :

. . .. . . . . . . ..-:. . . . .. .. . .. . . . ..... _.t&ec&&#’’&... B&c8kxbrx”~

z.~a.a-... . i :ti.3&s=-. .7. -~>y. . ..- . . .

&-&&j . . .+*m*. .... . .,. +:...:1.- . .. - .. . . .. .. .

:-. ,. s . .-..*.S- . . .. ~ . ...d .

- *f* :+ .

-,.‘5 “-. . .“: . -..L.=....Ma@-==.++. ::.. ;,.... . ..: . ...-.””?--y-,-” .- -n - -

i.

-. .

. *r~A. -Hi&&did “;.. I Luxf&rri4rd- ..~...;... ... . ....

Ab.tninuxn ~

--. . ..;~;...-...;.:,. * - -. Y’M+. . ~.:-+. -. ..---. ., ;LA. . .

“ &i&&As--k-. &.. J- . . .

Cirelc Reid= 3esprw JZS

,— . . . .

.

.,,’

. ... .,:

,.:;:..i‘ -.., ., ..

,- ...

.“”# ~. “ “ “ “4-~..-:., -. .... ... “.. . - .%. ~. ::... .- ., --: ---- , “.:..- . . ... -:w- -.:. .-:

.

24 UAVJE MA6&ZlNE

Ikbks

wrimmkzuncahtichc~~btidudia A i8mxmzTcfihcqdEf7c=dmcrlmiflishax131ax4@lgle2330

.- ..- .-.

Theq@&s~&t&dxicmhxt4G

38 ‘) CHEMICALEoIJIPMEHTO www.~hcmcquipmag.cmr AUGUST1s94

— “ Wig)- &** CURTISS-WRIGHT FLOW CONTROL—w VJ >i:l~ Electro-Magnetic control Valves Eliminate Fugitive Emissions and Maintenance -*

-,.-,,, .

1. 998 I...., 1— —

I

curtiss-Wright Flow Control(CFWCmanufacturescontrolvdvcs, In sizes up to 8 inch-

es, for Ilqulds, gas and steam. TheCWFCdesign Is a departorefromthe standard dr or mqor operatedvalve dcslgnstyplcatly used for theXorage and handllng of hydrocar-bons. Spcclflcally, the Model lWand 120 VStVeS am d&tJo+x@sU-

cafly actualed they do not usc q

stem, pacldng or bellows. Further,there am few moving parts andthey are atl wlfhln ffre processpres-sure boundary. The mrdrrenvfrorr-

OlfheCwFcrieslgnare -● No Fugltlve EMtaalosza- CWFC

valves have no stem seaf, themost common point wherevalves leak. The stem leakagerate almost aIways contributesthe bulk of the total fugItlveemkslons. Bellows can provfdeadditional protection againstfrcgltlve emlsslons; however,over time bellows can dcvetopCMCkS and kaks.

● f.ow Mafntcnrurce- Secause It isdt etectric, there k no pneumaUcsupply system to rrraIntafn.Also,th~e a~e few moving parts to

and no Iubrlcatlon Is3.

tl .mtonothatinganystwrsacamg, or beUowa, the bonnet of2WFC’S Model 100 valve IS seatweldeddirectly to the W&S bodyto ellm[nate bonnet leaks. CWFC%Model 120 vafve haa a trottedbon.net Jokitsealed with an &tng.

Basfc Technologyllrese valwsmesolenoidxtmtertand employ ● pilot disc to aasktoperation. The two basic deafgnaa=wdf~tianddrdatingcontxofvatves. Operatfonofthe valves occurs whm the aole-rroIdtaenergized tockvdopamag.ncUctfetd. This Uftsthephmgerandputlaaplbtd lhaaeattoopmanhrternsfvmt port. When the dfffer-enuatpreaaum beWenfhctopandbottom surfaces of the mafn discChang= Srdftckntfy,the matn dfscfollows to servo motfon to the pUotand atlowa the flukt at the lrdet toflow,brmodotatlngdue an dec-tmnfc poaltloner contmfa dactrfcatpower to theao!mdd to match dfscPOSIUOISwttfrdesbed Omw

Col/EPA CePHfiCatiaftThe abllftyof CWFCModd 1111and120control vatves to control fugt-tlve volatile organic compounds(vo~cmisslons has been brdefzemd .ertilIcd by the Caflfarrds, /EPA). This certl!lcatlon

.s a bask for local Afr$uamy htarmgement Dlstrlcts toreduce oermIttlnu costs. etlmbrata

ollutlun ~redlts Ior use ofOVTCVZhs.

skddlw-”&@vderdb prpe”

Cal/EPAEvaluationCaf/EPA performed anIndependent designreview of both theModels 100 ●nd 120.They determined thattesting of the Modd lWwas not necessarybecause It ts Cuopkrdyseal-wefded. The Modef120 Is seal-weldedescept for one bod~bonnetJdsrt,SealedWfthanO-ring

Shsce an O-ring jotnttheoretically has thepotential for Iugltlveemks[ons. It was autr-Jecttotestirzg.llse test-tng of the Model 120Constatedofttueephsu-es: P2esaurtze the vatveto 300 PSIG WhtS

methane; screen thevatve uaIns EPA Method21; perform ● blow-fhroughtragtesttorne&Surwkakagqand Saeenthe valve again usingEYAMetfrorf 21.

m accekrated wearaging teat was conduct-ed to showthat emla-Shna rates are urzaffect-ed by equipment age.

., ..,,,?

The test was administrativelykrnzfosted Zdtex112109Cycles.

Flnat mrtadons testtrlg Consisted

ok Pressurizing the vak to 300 P3fGwith methan6 screeIs vafva usingEPA Method 21; perform a blowfhmugh bag test to measure lmtr-egc and mreen vatve a@rr usingEPAMethod 21.

CaVEPA Test RmtttsThe CWIT Modd IClt COSZSIOIvatveis a closed system without thepotentfsf Ior fugltlve VOC cmfa.dons. * Such, the VatveWoutdnotbe expected to require mooftortrrgbeyond that appropriate for wdd-ed mmedoes.

The CWFC Mode) 120 controtvafwhaaadxfated fugttfve Voc●mfsslon rate that fa no greaterthan S.OE-S kflogranrs per hour.(J131panda perytx). Thta upper-bmsmd emtsatoarmte was catcutat-ectbyconatdertng ttrefactthatthetestgas (rnethrme)usedasa~gate for frzglfiveVOCmsladom wasnot detected at the fewer Orrrttofdetection (t PPM) of the endyzerused Enteatfng. Tlmtfq onAatfof the detection ltmft was used tnthe cafcutatfon of a fugitfve VOCerntadon rate. Frum the perspec.Uveof fugltfvsVocardaafona,theCWTt2Modd 120ahmstdbefreatedSsonefhngi xtconnedn

The Modet 120 control vstveshowed no performance degrada-tion after 112,109 cycles wfth=X ~ WU’= WC emlsatma.AgbrghasooefiectoatheabmtyofCWFCvatves to control mdaafons.

WA recormnendaUona coo-sisted of the foffowtn~ Erntaslonredrrcthra -uttfrrg fmm thelnstsd-tattonof CWFCvrdvcasnaybeeU@-bkforembaton rcdudon~the Medd 100 shoutd be inspectedon a frequency conafstent withwelded plp.q for the ktockf 120,quarterfy to Semi-armusf inspec-tions ●re suggested for the ffmtyear. U four Conaecuttva readfngabelow 100 PPM are ~ tt tsrecommended that the lLsspec-tfOIIS be conducted SZMudty.”

LOWMaintenanceAtl CWCvatverequlra Btttesnsfn-tenance. There are few movingpartatoweara.nd thaetnvabeendesfgoed to operate for hundredsofthcrusmda ofcydes. Tbatidpackfng, beffows md lubrkatfoedfndnates ryplcdpertodlc szuln@nanm Zcqukmmta.

Clzrt&Wrf@rtS3mswlW4E&odbdowfz&~~~~11=

MoroMoamamn-wrttOfra7u

l+’

.

.