Please note this product is no longer for sale by LDARtools.

LDARtools was recently identified at the 4C conference of being the “Think Tank” for the entire LDAR Industry. This makes us pretty proud. We are doing our best to live up to that role and today we are announcing our newest product.

The EPS Pro is the first in a line of cooling tower monitoring products that will redefine the best practice.

While the EPS Pro was built to comply with the required standards(appendix P), the status quo was ignored. Gone are the project boards, dolly and neoprene plugs! There was a better way to do it an we found it.

What exactly does Appendix P require?

3.1 Air stripping apparatus. An air stripping apparatus as presented in Figure 1 and meeting the following requirements:

3.1.1 The stripping chamber shall be a cylinder 36 inches in length with an internal diameter of 3 inches, and constructed of clear, heavy-walled glass.

3.1.2 The stripping chamber packing material shall be beryl saddles between 6 to 8 millimeter size. The depth of the packing material will be 26 inches.

3.1.3 The end caps of the stripping chamber must meet the dimensions specified in Figure 2. Neoprene stoppers are recommended; however, securing clamps will be required to prevent leakage. Black rubber stoppers are not allowed due to the
potential absorption and release of organic compounds. Alternative designs for the end caps, such as customized threaded plastic caps with Neoprene gaskets, are acceptable provided the materials used are non-reactive with the sample matrix or target compounds, and the end caps meet the specifications in Figure 2. The tip of the water sample inlet line is intentionally left 5 to 6 inches above the water level in the stripping chamber to help accelerate the response of the system as some VOCs will be released immediately as the water falls into the chamber.

3.1.4 Tubing used in the air stripping apparatus for transporting gas and water shall
be 1/4 inch stainless steel or Teflon material. Stainless steel or Teflon 1/4 inch
tubing of minimal length shall be used to route water sample from the sample tap to
the air stripping apparatus. The water sample tubing from the sample tap shall not
be more than 50 feet in length.

3.1.5 An empty, clear-glass flask is used as a knock-out to remove some of the moisture in the stripped air stream, but gas exiting the stripping chamber will essentially be at saturated moisture for the ambient conditions. Different styles of knockout flasks are acceptable; however, the flask must be clear-glass and 500 ml or less in size.
3.1.6 A T-union with one leg leading to a bubbler must be included.

Check it out below! Rugged!

You start the quarter with 5,000 components to monitor. As the weeks tick off, more and more and more components get monitored. The data in your handheld computers gets uploaded each day.  Your LDAR database recognizes the components that were monitored and they are removed from the schedule.

But some components DON’T get monitored.

As early as the first week of the quarter, the number of “scheduled to be monitored” includes what we call “stragglers:” components that a technician tried to monitor but, for a whole variety of reasons, did not monitor. As the quarter rolls by and each day draws to a close, the number of components that a technician tried, but was unable to monitor grows.

The problem is that the major LDAR Database programs (like LeakDAS, Guideware and FEMS, for instance) do not differentiate between components that are “fresh” (i.e. no one has tried to monitor them) and components that are stragglers (i.e. a technician tried, but was unable to monitor).

The result is that, toward the end of the quarter, a larger and larger proportion of the components “in the schedule” are stragglers. Some have called this the “dregs.” Others, have referred to them as “trash routes.”  Another term is “DTFs” (as in Difficult to Find.)

Perhaps you have heard tales of the legendary LDAR technicians, who could take these trash routes and (by magic, voodoo or exemplary skills and dedication) find and monitor all of the components.

But, the stress can be difficult to absorb and is compounded by the realization that we are going to have to do it all again – next quarter.

Now there is an alternative. It is the result of Bluetooth advances that have made it possible to equip the technicians with handheld computers that are capable of doing more than simply displaying a record of a component to be monitored and then storing the monitoring results.  With the new software that is available, the technicians can give details as to WHY she was unable to complete a component that was scheduled to be monitored. Rather than simply skipping over the components (which tells the database, the site administrator and the next technician that sees this component NOTHING), the technician can provide valuable information about the situation surrounding this component.

There are more the 12 different reasons why a technician might not be able to monitor any given component.  IN EACH AND EVERY CASE, your program objectives of value, integrity and safety are facilitated if and only if you know which of those reasons is true for each component.

IT MATTERS whether the technician did not monitor the component because she couldn’t find it OR if she could find it, but was not able to identify the emission seams on a complicated piece of equipment, for instance.  IT MATTERS that you know that BEFORE you send out the next technician.

We will consider each of the possible scenarios in our next blog and how KNOWING can make a big difference for you and the success of your LDAR program.

In the mean time, check out our new palapa!

Since 1990, Method 21 has required a daily calibration to confirm the accuracy and reliability of the analyzer, such as a TVA 1000B or phx21.

As the years past, knowledgeable LDAR professionals began to notice the impact that contaminated filters were having on the reliability of the monitoring results. It became more and more apparent that as debris accumulated in the filter and the sample flow was compromised, the  PPM readings being displayed were no longer accurate.

In other words, a dirty filter, by degrading the quality of the sample getting to the detector could and likely would lower PPM readings significantly outside of the accuracy range of the analyzer.   A 600PPM leak at the valve packing could be displaying as a 60PPM leak on the analyzer’s readout.

Leaks were being missed. Potentially LOTS of leaks were being missed.

The first reaction was for the industry to become more diligent about encouraging technicians to be mindful of the condition of their filters.

Several years ago, the EPA began including Drift Assessment requirements as provisions in LDAR Consent Decrees.  One of the primary motivators for these drift assessments was to mandate a midday or end-of-day confirmation that the analyzer was still generating accurate readings.  Stated another way, the drift assessment was meant to ensure that the readings were not being improperly lowered as the result of lowered flow caused by clogged or compromised filters.

For instance, if the analyzer produced a reading of 400 on a known gas of 500, the most obvious cause was a restriction in the flow rate caused by a dirty filter.  Finding this result would call into question the accuracy of the readings taken earlier that day and, generally, required that certain components be remonitored.

The most obvious preventative or corrective action, of course, was a diligent program of filter maintenance and replacement.

Unfortunately, what too many LDAR technicians did was precisely what they should NOT have done: they simply established the practice of replacing all filters immediately prior to performing the drift assessment.

When replacing the filter is done purely and solely for the purpose of drift assessment it greatly calls into question the legitimacy of the results.

Are you doing drift assessments? Are the results  you are getting legitimate?  Are your technicians replacing filters before they do them? Are you sure?

There is a better way to do it. And, we at LDARtools found it. THAT better way will be the topic of our next blog!

LDAR analyzers (like the TVA-1000B and the phx21) are typically operated with multiple filters in place. Filters are positioned in various places, including at the probe tip.  Process environments (where LDAR programs are conducted) are prone to a wide variety of factors (such as dust, dirt, chemicals, etc.) that can either damage the analyzer or compromise its accuracy.  Thus, the importance of filters.

The problem is that, in order to protect the LDAR analyzer from the contaminating particles, the probe tip filter, for instance, has to “trap” the offending particles.  In other words, the filter doesn’t eliminate the contaminant; it catches it and holds it- right there in the middle of the sample flow.

As the filter does its job, the contaminants accumulate on the surface of the filter.  The result of this accumulation is that the passage that the filter is defending starts to get clogged by the foreign particles. This means less of the sample passes through. The accuracy of the results of the analyzers (expressed in PPM) starts to suffer.

The deterioration of the accuracy of the analyzers is completely hidden from the technician. Unless she is constantly vigilant about the condition of the filters, the contamination will occur and the accuracy of the readings will suffer.

Testing has confirmed that, when monitoring a known gas of 500ppm, a TVA will continue to operate and display readings without providing any warning or indication until the filter is so clogged that the readings have deteriorated by as much as 90%- at which point the TVA will flame-out. In other words, we have seen a TVA, with a clogged probe-tip filter,  generate readings of 45ppm when sampling a 500ppm gas.

This is also a primary reason why drift assessments are so integral to the efficacy of an LDAR program- UNLESS your technicians are changing out filters right before they perform the drift assessment.

Are they?

If you would like to learn more about LDARtools’ new PATENTED solution to the challenge of maintaining LDAR integrity in the face of filter contamination, watch this space!