Estudio de La EPA Con Gazprom 1996

United States
Environmental Protection Air and Radiation EPA 430-R-96-010

Agency 6202J May 1996
I
I
A
,EPA Methane Leak Measurements
I
at Selected Natural Gas Pipeline
Compressor Stations in Russia
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division
RAO Gazprom
May 1996
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division
Methane Leak Measurements
RAO Gazprom
EPA 430R96-G10
May 1996
Air and Radiation
6202J
May 1996
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
3EPA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 111
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Ovewiew of the Russian Gas System ........................................................................................ 2
1.3 The U.S. Natural Gas STAR Program ......................................................................................... 4
2.0 FIELD MEASUREMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................................... 7
2.1 Sources of Leaks at Compressor Stations ................................................................................ 7
2.2 Field Measurements .................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Leak Detection and Measurement Methodology .....................................................................10
3.0 MEASUREMENT RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Chaplygin Compressor Station ............................................................................................... 12
3.2 Pervomaiskaya Compressor Station ....................................................................................... 13
3.3 Petrovsk Compressor Station ........................................................................................... 16
3.4 Storojovka Compressor Station ...............................................................................................18
3.5 Comparison of Station Results ......................................................................................... 19
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES .......................................................................................22
4.1 Implications of Results for Overall Russian Gas System Emissions .................................... 22
4.2 Applicability of Natural Gas STAR Best Management Practices t o the Russian System .....24
4.3 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 25
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX A: PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF LEAK DETECTION AND MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
APPENDIX C: DETAILED LEAK REPORTS
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of the Study 1
1.2 Overview of the Russian Gas System 2
1.3 The U.S. Natural Gas STAR Program 4
2.0 FIELD MEASUREMENT PROGRAM 7
2.1 Sources of Leaks at Compressor Stations 7
2.2 Field Measurements 9
2.3 Leak Detection and Measurement Methodology 10
3.0 MEASUREMENT RESULTS 12
3.1 Chaplygin Compressor Station 12
3.2 Pervomaiskaya Compressor Station 13
3.3 Petrovsk Compressor Station 16
3.4 Storojovka Compressor Station 18
3.5 Comparison of Station Results 19
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES 22
4.1 Implications of Results for Overall Russian Gas System Emissions 22
4.2 Applicability of Natural Gas STAR Best Management Practices to the Russian System ..... 24
4.3 Next Steps 25
REFERENCES 27
APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF LEAK DETECTION AND MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
APPENDIX C: DETAILED LEAK REPORTS
Table of Exhibits
EXHIBIT 1.2.1: MAP OF THE RUSSIAN GAS SYSTEM 3
EXHIBIT 1.2.2: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RUSSIAN GAS TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ....................4
EXHIBIT 1.3.1: NATURAL GAS STAR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR REDUCING
METHANE EMISSIONS IN THE U. 8
EXHIBIT 2.1 . I : STANDARD RUSSIAN COMPRESSOR STATION LAYOUT ....................................... 8
EXHIBIT 2.1.2: COMPRESSOR STATIONS IN THE FIELD MEASUREMENT PROGRAM ....................9
EXHIBIT 3.1.1: SUMMARY OF LEAK RATES AT CHAPLYGIN COMPRESSOR STATION .................14
EXHIBIT 3.1.2: GAS LOSS BY LEAK SIZE -- CHAPLYGI 14
EXHIBIT 3.2.1: SUMMARY OF LEAK RATES AT PERVOMAISKAYA COMPRESSOR STATION ....... 15
EXHIBIT 3.2.2: GAS LOSS BY LEAK SIZE -- PERVOMAISKAY 15
EXHIBIT 3.3.1: SUMMARY OF LEAK RATES AT PETROVSK COMPRESSOR STATION .................. 16
EXHIBIT 3.3.2: GAS LOSS BY LEAK SIZE -- PETROVSK 17
EXHIBIT 3.4.1: SUMMARY OF LEAK RATES AT STOROJOVKA COMPRESSOR STATION .............18
EXHIBIT 3.4.2: GAS LOSS BY LEAK SIZE -- STOROJOV 19
EXHIBIT 3.5.1: CROSS STATION COMPARISON 20
EXHIBIT 3.5.2: AVERAGE METHANE EMISSION FACTOR BY COMPONENT TYPE ........................21
EXHIBIT 4.1 . I : EXTRAPOLATION OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS RESULTS TO GAZPROM
COMPRESSOR STATIONS 23
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ii
Table of Exhibits
EXHIBIT 1.2.1: MAP OF THE RUSSIAN GAS SySTEM 3
EXHIBIT 1.2.2: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RUSSIAN GAS TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 4
EXHIBIT 1.3.1: NATURAL GAS STAR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR REDUCING
METHANE EMISSIONS IN THE U.S 8
EXHIBIT 2.1.1: STANDARD RUSSIAN COMPRESSOR STATION LAYOUT 8
EXHIBIT 2.1.2: COMPRESSOR STATIONS IN THE FIELD MEASUREMENT PROGRAM 9
EXHIBIT 3.1.1: SUMMARY OF LEAK RATES AT CHAPLYGIN COMPRESSOR STATION 14
EXHIBIT 3.1.2: GAS LOSS BY LEAK SIZE -- CHAPLYGIN 14
EXHIBIT 3.2.1: SUMMARY OF LEAK RATES AT PERVOMAISKAYA COMPRESSOR STATION 15
EXHIBIT 3.2.2: GAS LOSS BY LEAK SIZE -- PERVOMAISKAYA 15
EXHIBIT 3.3.1: SUMMARY OF LEAK RATES AT PETROVSK COMPRESSOR STATION 16
EXHIBIT 3.3.2: GAS LOSS BY LEAK SIZE -- PETROVSK 17
EXHIBIT 3.4.1: SUMMARY OF LEAK RATES AT STOROJOVKA COMPRESSOR STATION 18
EXHIBIT 3.4.2: GAS LOSS BY LEAK SIZE -- STOROJOVKA 19
EXHIBIT 3.5.1: CROSS STATION COMPARiSON 20
EXHIBIT 3.5.2: AVERAGE METHANE EMISSION FACTOR BY COMPONENT TYPE 21
EXHIBIT 4.1.1: EXTRAPOLATION OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS RESULTS TO GAZPROM
COMPRESSOR STATIONS 23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the Fall of 1995, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with
RAO Gazprom, the Russian national gas production and transmission company, sponsored a
leak detection and measurement program at four compressor stations in Russia. The purpose
of the program was to measure leaks from natural gas compressor components as a first step
toward developing better overall estimates of methane emissions from Russian natural gas
pipeline compressors. This cooperative measurement program marks the first time that actual
leak measurements have been taken at Gazprom facilities. Previous emissions estimates
made by Gazprom and others have been calculated by subtracting from the total amount of
gas produced the sum of (1) all natural gas delivered to consumers and (2) gas used internally
by the natural gas system. Another objective of this leak detection and measurement program
was to begin to identify profitable opportunities to reduce fugitive emissions at Gazprom
compressor stations. This report represents the initial chapters of a larger report to be
developed jointly by EPA and Gazprom this summer on opportunities to reduce methane
emissions from sources in the Gazprom system.
To perform the leak measurements, EPA and Gazprom used the state-of-the-art High Flow
Sampling System developed in the US. by the Gas Research Institute and lndaco Air Quality
Services. Two of the four compressor stations surveyed are located at the southern end of the
Gazprom network near the city of Petrovsk; the others are near Moscow. The stations are
typical of Russian compressors, with an average throughput of between 65 and 190 million
cubic meters per day.
The results of this leak detection and maintenance program found that a small number of
compressor station components accounted for the vast majority of the measured leaks. This
was also true within component categories -- that a few leaks were much larger and accounted
for most of the leaking natural gas. This finding is consistent with leak patterns in the US. At
the Gazprom facilities, the largest leaks were found at unit valve vents. Other large leaks were
found at recycle vents, station blowdown vents and start gas vents. The largest leak was
estimated at 294,556 cubic meters per year.
This study uses the leak rates measured during the survey to estimate emission factors
(average leak rates) for component types. The emission factors were then used to estimate a
total leak rate from all Russian compressors using Gazprom estimates of the number of
compressors systemwide. These findings should be considered preliminary due to the small
sample of components measured and the uncertainty surrounding the numbers and types of
components at all Gazprom compressor stations. Nevertheless, the findings demonstrate the
potential for profitable methane emissions reduction opportunities.
Specifically, the study highlights the probable effectiveness of directed inspection and
maintenance programs at Russian compressor stations. The distribution of leaks,
concentrated as they are in a few components, suggests that a directed inspection and
maintenance program could profitably reduce total leakage substantially by focusing on a few
types of components.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the Fall of 1995, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with
RAO Gazprom, the Russian national gas production and transmission company, sponsored a
leak detection and measurement program at four compressor stations in Russia. The purpose
of the program was to measure leaks from natural gas compressor components as a first step
toward developing better overall estimates of methane emissions from Russian natural gas
pipeline compressors. This cooperative measurement program marks the first time that actual
leak measurements have been taken at Gazprom facilities. Previous emissions estimates
made by Gazprom and others have been calculated by subtracting from the total amount of
gas produced the sum of (1) all natural gas delivered to consumers and (2) gas used internally
by the natural gas system. Another objective of this leak detection and measurement program
was to begin to identify profitable opportunities to reduce fugitive emissions at Gazprom
compressor stations. This report represents the initial chapters of a larger report to be
developed jointly by EPA and Gazprom this summer on opportunities to reduce methane
emissions from sources in the Gazprom system.
To perform the leak measurements, EPA and Gazprom used the state-of-the-art High Flow
Sampling System developed in the U.S. by the Gas Research Institute and Indaco Air Quality
Services. Two of the four compressor stations surveyed are located at the southern end of the
Gazprom network near the city of Petrovsk; the others are near Moscow. The stations are
typical of Russian compressors, with an average throughput of between 65 and 190 million
cubic meters per day.
The results of this leak detection and maintenance program found that a small number of
compressor station components accounted for the vast majority of the measured leaks. This
was also true within component categories -- that a few leaks were much larger and accounted
for most of the leaking natural gas. This finding is consistent with leak patterns in the U.S. At
the Gazprom facilities, the largest leaks were found at unit valve vents. Other large leaks were
found at recycle vents, station blowdown vents and start gas vents. The largest leak was
estimated at 294,556 cubic meters per year.
This stUdy uses the leak rates measured during the survey to estimate emission factors
(average leak rates) for component types. The emission factors were then used to estimate a
total leak rate from all Russian compressors using Gazprom estimates of the number of
compressors systemwide. These findings should be considered preliminary due to the small
sample of components measured and the uncertainty surrounding the numbers and types of
components at all Gazprom compressor stations. Nevertheless, the findings demonstrate the
potential for profitable methane emissions reduction opportunities.
Specifically, the study highlights the probable effectiveness of directed inspection and
maintenance programs at Russian compressor stations. The distribution of leaks,
concentrated as they are in a few components, suggests that a directed inspection and
maintenance program could profitably reduce total leakage substantially by focusing on a few
types of components.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Study
In the Fall of 1995, the US. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA) sponsored a methane
leak detection and measurement demonstration program at four natural gas pipeline
compressor stations in Russia. The purpose of this program was
(1)
to measure leaks from natural gas compressor station components as a first step
toward developing better overall estimates of methane emissions from Russian
natural gas pipeline compressors; and
(2)
to begin to identify profitable opportunities to reduce fugitive emissions at Russian
compressor stations.
The program was undertaken with the cooperation of Russia's RAO Gazprom ("Gazprom"),
which owns and operates the Unified Gas Supply System of Russia, and under the auspices of
the U.S.IGazprom Working Group, a cooperative publidprivate initiative with Gazprom, EPA,
and the US. Department of Energy ("DOE). The Working Group, organized under the Gore-
Chernomyrdin Commission's Energy Policy Committee, coordinates a variety of energy
initiatives to improve Russia's energy infrastructure in an environmentally safe and economic
manner, utilizing U.S. private sector expertise. In particular, the goals of the U.S.IGazprom
Working Group are to develop projects that:
Increase the efficiency of natural gas production and delivery systems in Russia;
Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, such as methane (the principal
component of natural gas);
Reduce emissions of regional air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and carbon
monoxide:
Reduce groundwater and soil contamination associated with natural gas production;
and
Encourage U.S. and Russian commercial cooperation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Study
In the Fall of 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") sponsored a methane
leak detection and measurement demonstration program at four natural gas pipeline
compressor stations in Russia. The purpose of this program was
(1) to measure leaks from natural gas compressor station components as a first step
toward developing better overall estimates of methane emissions from Russian
natural gas pipeline compressors; and
(2) to begin to identify profitable opportunities to reduce fugitive emissions at Russian
compressor stations.
The program was undertaken with the cooperation of Russia's RAO Gazprom ("Gazprom"),
which owns and operates the Unified Gas Supply System of Russia, and under the auspices of
the U.S./Gazprom Working Group, a cooperative public/private initiative with Gazprom, EPA,
and the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE"). The Working Group, organized under the Gore-
Chernomyrdin Commission's Energy Policy Committee, coordinates a variety of energy
initiatives to improve Russia's energy infrastructure in an environmentally safe and economic
manner, utilizing U.S. private sector expertise. In particular, the goals of the U.S./Gazprom
Working Group are to develop projects that:
Increase the efficiency of natural gas production and delivery systems in Russia:
Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, such as methane (the principal
component of natural gas):
Reduce emissions of regional air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and carbon
monoxide:
Reduce groundwater and soil contamination associated with natural gas production;
and
Encourage U.S. and Russian commercial cooperation.
In addition to this recent measurement work, Working Group activities have also included valve
sealing and pipeline corrosion demonstration projects, a Spring 1995 U.S. study tour for
Gazprom technical experts to U.S. natural gas facilities, and a Fall 1995 conference in
Saratov, Russia on natural gas pipeline standards and project finance.
This cooperative measurement program marks the first time that actual leak measurements
have been taken at Russian facilities. Previous emissions estimates made by Gazprom and
others have been calculated by subtracting the sum of (1) all natural gas delivered to
consumers and (2) natural gas used internally by the natural gas system from the total amount
of natural gas produced. This report represents the initial findings for a larger report to be
developed jointly by EPA and Gazprom this summer on opportunities to profitably reduce
methane emissions from key sources in the Gazprom system.
1.2 Overview of the Russian Gas System
Russia, the world's largest producer, transporter, and exporter of natural gas, holds reserves
estimated at about 212 trillion cubic meters ("TCM"). In 1994, Russia produced just over 600
billion cubic meters ("BCM") of natural gas, consuming about 400 BCM internally and exporting
just over 100 BCM to western Europe and 80 BCM to the Commonwealth of Independent
States ("CIS") countries and the Baltic states. By way of comparison, the Russian natural gas
market is roughly the size of the U.S. natural gas market: U.S. domestic consumption was 590
BCM (or 20.75 trillion cubic feet) in 1994, domestic production was 560 BCM (the balance
accounted for by imports).
Approximately 90 percent of Russian gas production originates from western Siberia in the
Tyumen District. Other producing areas include the Orenburg region in the Northern
Caucasus, and the Komi region in the Northwest. See Exhibit 1.2.1.
About 95 percent of natural gas in Russia is produced by Gazprom - a joint stock company
partially owned by the Russian government. Gazprom also owns most of the country's
140,000 km high pressure transmission pipeline system and 16 storage facilities.' Gazprom
has eight regional production divisions and fifteen regional transmission divisions, which are
referred to as "associations." The most important of the transmission associations are
Tumentransgaz, Uraltransgaz, Permtransgaz, Volgogradtransgaz, Mostransgaz, and
Yugtransgaz. Approximately 40 percent of Gazprom equity is held by the Russian
government, while the remaining 60 percent is distributed between Gazprom employees and
outside investors.'
Gazprom sells gas directly to some industrial customers, but mainly sells gas to local gas
distribution networks which resell directly to end users. The distribution networks are
controlled by a large number of regional and municipal companies, most of which operate
under the umbrella of the former state distribution company, Rosgazifikatsiya. About 60
percent of Rosgazifikatsiya is owned by the Russian g~vernment . ~
1
Gazprom, Annual Report 94; 1995.
OECDIIEA, Energy Policies of the Russian Federation: 1995 Survey. Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, Paris, France.
lbid.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
In addition to this recent measurement work, Working Group activities have also included valve
sealing and pipeline corrosion demonstration projects, a Spring 1995 U.S. study tour for
Gazprom technical experts to U.S. natural gas facilities, and a Fall 1995 conference in
Saratov, Russia on natural gas pipeline standards and project finance.
This cooperative measurement program marks the first time that actual leak measurements
have been taken at Russian facilities. Previous emissions estimates made by Gazprom and
others have been calculated by subtracting the sum of (1) all natural gas delivered to
consumers and (2) natural gas used internally by the natural gas system from the total amount
of natural gas produced. This report represents the initial findings for a larger report to be
developed jointly by EPA and Gazprom this summer on opportunities to profitably reduce
methane emissions from key sources in the Gazprom system.
1.2 Overview of the Russian Gas System
Russia, the world's largest producer, transporter, and exporter of natural gas, holds reserves
estimated at about 212 trillion cubic meters ("TCM"). In 1994, Russia produced just over 600
billion cubic meters ("BCM") of natural gas, consuming about 400 BCM internally and exporting
just over 100 BCM to western Europe and 80 BCM to the Commonwealth of Independent
States ("CIS") countries and the Baltic states. By way of comparison, the Russian natural gas
market is roughly the size of the U.S. natural gas market: U.S. domestic consumption was 590
BCM (or 20.75 trillion cubic feet) in 1994, domestic production was 560 BCM (the balance
accounted for by imports).
Approximately 90 percent of Russian gas production originates from western Siberia in the
Tyumen District. Other producing areas include the Orenburg region in the Northern
Caucasus, and the Komi region in the Northwest. See Exhibit 1.2.1.
About 95 percent of natural gas in Russia is produced by Gazprom - a joint stock company
partially owned by the Russian government. Gazprom also owns most of the country's
140,000 km high pressure transmission pipeline system and 16 storage facilities.' Gazprom
has eight regional production divisions and fifteen regional transmission divisions, which are
referred to as "associations." The most important of the transmission associations are
Tumentransgaz, Uraltransgaz, Permtransgaz, Volgogradtransgaz, Mostransgaz, and
Yugtransgaz. Approximately 40 percent of Gazprom equity is held by the Russian
government, while the remaining 60 percent is distributed between Gazprom employees and
outside investors
2
Gazprom sells gas directly to some industrial customers, but mainly sells gas to local gas
distribution networks which resell directly. to end users. The distribution networks are
controlled by a large number of regional and municipal companies, most of which operate
under the umbrella of the former state distribution company, Rosgazifikatsiya. About 60
percent of Rosgazifikatsiya is owned by the Russian government.
3
, Gazprom, Annual Report 94; 1995.
2 OECD/IEA, Energy Policies of the Russian Federation: 1995 Survey. Organisation for Economic Co-
Operation and Development, Paris, France.
3 Ibid.
I
2
Russia
* Notional Copitol
Tomrk Ciiy 1 Oolort
-P,pel,ne
-Internai~onal Bo~noory
..-.
Internal Boundary
Exhibit 1.2.1
CS Comeressor Statmn
Russian Natural Gas
Transmission System
West
Siberia
Basin
"* Notional Capitol
Tomsk City I Oblost
Pipeline
-- International Boundary
Internol Boundary
CS Compressor Station
Miles
p.3
800 km
Russia
Exhibit 1.2.1
Russian Natural Gas
Transmission System
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
Major characteristics of the current state of the Russian gas industry are given in Exhibit 1.2.2.
The largest portion of gas produced in Russia (54 percent) is used for electricity generation, 33
percent is consumed by industry, and the remaining 13 percent is consumed in residential and
commercial sector^.^ Gazprom's natural gas transportation system includes 140,000 km of
high-pressure pipelines, 230,000 km of low-pressure pipeline and about 250 compressor
stations, with about 4,000 compressors. The industry operates 31 gas storage facilities with a
total active working capacity of 40 BCM.'
Exhibit 1.2.2: Characteristics of the Russian Gas Transmission System
11. Gas production (l o9 m31year) 435 643 641 643 640 1 617 1 607 ]/
2. Delivery of gas to gas transmission
pipelines (10' m3tyear)
403 603 767 682 654
3. Total compressor station power, 10' 17.6 35.6 46.2 39.2 37
kW
I
4. Proportion of gas turbines compared
to total compression
0.817 0.840 0.849 0.820 0.8
5. Gas consumption for internal needs
during main transport (10' m3)
30.5 52.3 63.1 54.4 51.6 49.75 56.31
6. Proportionof gas used during main 7.6 8.7 8.2 7.6 7.9
transport (%)
1.3 The U.S. Natural Gas STAR Program
The work sponsored by EPA in Russia to measure methane emissions from natural gas
compressor stations parallels ongoing efforts in the U.S. under EPA's Natural Gas STAR
Program. The STAR Program is one of the activities included in the 1993 U.S. Climate
Change Action Plan, which outlines activities that the U.S. will undertake to reduce U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Natural Gas STAR Program
is a voluntary, industrylgovernment partnership between PA and the US. natural gas industry
designed to reduce methane emissions from U.S. natural gas systems. (Methane-the primary
component of natural gas-is a potent greenhouse gas, 25 times more effective at trapping
heat than carbon dioxide.) The STAR Program for the transmission and distribution sectors
began in 1993; a new program for producers was launched in Spring 1995.
Companies that join the STAR Program (STAR Partners) agree to implement cost-effective
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") that reduce leaks and losses of natural gas. PA
supports these activities by promoting information sharing, and technology transfer, removing
unjustified regulatory barriers to implementing STAR BMPs, and providing Partners with public
recognition for their success in reducing methane gas emissions.
Bordiugov, A,, Methane Emissions at Russian Gas Industry Facilities. Idiij&&s, Quarterly Journal of the
Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 99, No. 3-4, July-December, 1995, p. 273..
IEA, 1995.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
Major characteristics of the current state of the Russian gas industry are given in Exhibit 1.2.2.
The largest portion of gas produced in Russia (54 percent) is used for electricity generation, 33
percent is consumed by industry, and the remaining 13 percent is consumed in residential and
commercial sectors.' Gazprom's natural gas transportation system includes 140,000 km of
high-pressure pipelines, 230,000 km of low-pressure pipeline and about 250 compressor
stations, with about 4,000 compressors. The industry operates 31 gas storage facilities with a
total active working capacity of 40 BCM,s
Exhibit 1.2.2: Characteristics of the Russian Gas Transmission System
....
19110 .1l!85 19
90.
1991
..)1.1192) 19l!3< .1994
1. Gas production (10 m'/year) 435 643 641 643 640 617 607
2. Delivery of gas to gas transmission 403 603 767 682 654
- -
pipelines (10 m'lyear)
3. Total compressor station power, 10 17.6 35.6 46.2 39.2 37 - -
kW
4. Proportion of gas turbines compared 0.817 0.840 0.849 0.820 0.8
- -
to total compression
5. Gas consumption for internal needs 30.5 52.3 63.1 54.4 51.6 49.75 56.31
during main transport (10 m')
6. Proportion of gas used during main 7.6 8.7 8.2 7.8 7.9
- -
transport (%)
Source: Bordiuaov, 1995; lEA, 1995.
1.3 The U.S. Natural Gas STAR Program
The work sponsored by EPA in Russia to measure methane emissions from natural gas
compressor stations parallels ongoing efforts in the U.S. under EPA's Natural Gas STAR
Program. The STAR Program is one of the activities included in the 1993 U.S. Climate
Change Action Plan, which outlines activities that the U.S. will undertake to reduce U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Natural Gas STAR Program
is a voluntary, industry/government partnership between EPA and the U.S. natural gas industry
designed to reduce methane emissions from U.S. natural gas systems. (Methane-the primary
component of natural gas-is a potent greenhouse gas, 25 times more effective at trapping
heat than carbon dioxide.) The STAR Program for the transmission and distribution sectors
began in 1993; a new program for producers was launched in Spring 1995.
Companies that join the STAR Program (STAR Partners) agree to implement cost-effective
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") that reduce leaks and losses of natural gas. EPA
supports these activities by promoting information sharing, and technology transfer, removing
unjustified regulatory barriers to implementing STAR BMPs, and providing Partners with public
recognition for their success in reducing methane gas emissions.
4 Bordiugov, A., Methane Emissions at Russian Gas Industry Facilities. Idojanis, Quarterly Journal of the
Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 99, No. 3-4, July-December, 1995, p. 273..
5 lEA, 1995.
I
4
In the first three years of the program, STAR Partners reduced methane emissions by 10
billion cubic feet ("Bcf'), worth approximately $20 million. By the year 2000, STAR Partners
are expected to achieve reductions of over 35 Bcf of natural gas, worth over $70 million.
Savings of this magnitude provide enough additional natural gas to heat 500,000 homes and
are the carbon equivalent of removing over 3 million automobiles from the nation's roads.
Exhibit 1.3.1 Natural Gas STAR Best Management Practices for Reducing Methane
Emissions in the US.
The approach to reducing natural gas leaks developed by the Natural Gas STAR Program in
the U.S. has direct application in Russia (as well as in other countries). The major elements of
this approach include:
ldentify emissions reductions opportunities: EPA works closely with the US. natural
gas industry to better understand and quantify emissions sources. EPA and
Gazprom are undertaking a similar collaboration, building on this previous work in
the US.
0
ldentify and promote best management practices that cost-effectively reduce leaks.
In the U.S., STAR partners implement practices and technologies when the value of
the gas saved equals or exceeds the cost of reducing leaks. EPA and Gazprom will
outline similar cost-effective opportunities in a report to be published later this year.
BMP I
BMP I1
BMP Ill
BMP I
BMP II
Develop and test new technologies for locating and reducing methane emissions.
In particular, EPA and its STAR Partners are working with GRI and the American
Gas Association's ("AGA) International Pipeline Research Committee to field test
the High Flow Sampler at transmission compressor stations in the U.S. (The High
Flow Sampler is the first device capable of directly measuring methane leak
volumes.) This research has helped to develop more accurate data on the nature
and behavior of leaks at U.S. natural gas facilities which aids in reducing overall
mitigation costs. The work in Russia with Gazprom is a further extension of this
effort.
Production
Identify and replace high-
bleed pneumatic devices
Install flash tank
separators on dehydrators
Other practices
Distribution
Directed inspection and
maintenance (18M) at
surface facilities
Identify and rehabilitate
leaking distribution pipe
BMP Ill
BMP IV
BMP V
BMP VI
The STAR Program has determined that directed inspection and maintenance programs are a
cost effective leak mitigation strategy at compressor stations in the U.S. Experience shows
that over 70 percent of overall methane losses at compressor stations can be attributed to 30
percent of the leaks. This finding allows pipeline operators to concentrate and direct their
inspection and repair efforts toward the few problem components where the payoff in saved
natural gas can be substantial. The results of the initial Russian measurements are generally
Transmission
Directed l 8M at compressor
stations
Greater use of turbines in
place of reciprocating
engines
ldentify and replace high-
bleed pneumatic devices
Other practices
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In the first three years of the program, STAR Partners reduced methane emissions by 10
billion cubic feet ("Bet"), worth approximately $20 million. By the year 2000, STAR Partners
are expected to achieve reductions of over 35 Bcf of natural gas, worth over $70 million.
Savings of this magnitude provide enough additional natural gas to heat 500,000 homes and
are the carbon equivalent of removing over 3 million automobiles from the nation's roads.
Exhibit 1.3.1 Natural Gas STAR Best Management Practices for Reducing Methane
Emissions in the U.S.
Distribution Transmission Production
Directed inspection and Directed I&M at compressor Identify and replace high-
BMPI maintenance (I&M) at BMPIII stations BMPI bleed pneumatic devices
surface facilities
Identify and rehabilitate Greater use of turbines in Install flash tank
BMP II leaking distribution pipe BMPIV place of reciprocating BMP II separators on dehydrators
enaines
BMPV Identify and replace high- BMP III Other practices
bleed oneumatlc devices
BMPVI Other oractices
The approach to reducing natural gas leaks developed by the Natural Gas STAR Program in
the U.S. has direct application in Russia (as well as in other countries). The major elements of
this approach include:
Identify emissions reductions opportunities: EPA works closely with the U.S. natural
gas industry to better understand and quantify emissions sources. EPA and
Gazprom are undertaking a similar collaboration, building on this previous work in
the U.S.
Identify and promote best management practices that cost-effectively reduce leaks.
In the U.S., STAR partners implement practices and technologies when the value of
the gas saved equals or exceeds the cost of reducing leaks. EPA and Gazprom will
outline similar cost-effective opportunities in a report to be published later this year.
Develop and test new technologies for locating and reducing methane emissions.
In particular, EPA and its STAR Partners are working with GRI and the American
Gas Association's ("AGA") International Pipeline Research Committee to field test
the High Flow Sampler at transmission compressor stations in the U.S. (The High
Flow Sampler is the first device capable of directly measuring methane leak
volumes.) This research has helped to develop more accurate data on the nature
and behavior of leaks at U.S. natural gas facilities which aids in reducing overall
mitigation costs. The work in Russia with Gazprom is a further extension of this
effort.
The STAR Program has determined that directed inspection and maintenance programs are a
cost effective leak mitigation strategy at compressor stations in the U.S. Experience shows
that over 70 percent of overall methane losses at compressor stations can be attributed to 30
percent of the leaks. This finding allows pipeline operators to concentrate and direct their
inspection and repair efforts toward the few problem components where the payoff in saved
natural gas can be substantial. The results of the initial Russian measurements are generally
I
5
consistent with findings at US. facilities; that is, that a small number of leaks accounts for the
majority of the emissions. Directed inspection and maintenance programs, therefore, are also
expected to be cost-effective in Russia. Detailed cost-benefit analysis of this option will be
presented in the EPAIGazprom opportunities report.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
~
I
I
consistent with findings at U.S. facilities; that is, that a small number of leaks accounts for the
majority of the emissions. Directed inspection and maintenance programs, therefore, are also
expected to be cost-effective in Russia. Detailed cost-benefit analysis of this option will be
presented in the EPA/Gazprom opportunities report.
6
2.0 FIELD MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
2.1 Sources of Leaks at Compressor Stations
The layout of a typical Russian compressor station is presented in Exhibit 2.1.1. Photographs
of the compressor stations where measurements were made are presented in Appendix A.
Compressor stations are located at intervals along the pipeline network to increase or maintain
pipeline pressures and thus allow the gas to flow. The pressures in the pipelines at the four
Gazprom compressor stations surveyed were between 50 and 75 kilograms per square
centimeter (about 700 to 1060 pounds per square inch).
Gas is drawn from the mainline large diameter pipes (about 1.2 meters in diameter) by the
suction created by the compressors. The natural gas first flows through a series of scrubbers,
where any condensed liquids or other impurities are removed from the gas stream. (See
Photo A.4.) From the scrubbers the gas enters the intake section of the station valve yard, a
large collection of pipes and valves that distributes gas to the various compressors of the
station. (See Photo A.l.) The many valves in the station valve yard also allow operators to
redirect gas flows as needed. For example, compressors that are down for maintenance can
be bypassed by closing the appropriate valves. Part of the gas stream may also be redirected
to fuel the compressor engines for gas-driven compressors. Electric compressors, which are
common in Russia, do not use fuel gas.
From the valve yard, natural gas is run through the compressors -- the compressor stations
surveyed in this study had between 10 and 31 compressors each -- where the pressure is
increased to the level required by the pipeline system. The compressors themselves are
located in large shed-like buildings to contain noise and to protect them from the elements.
After compression, the gas is then returned to the discharge section of the station valve yard
and from there it flows through coolers to remove the excess heat generated by the
compression process. (See Photo A.5.) Once cooled, the gas is then pushed back into the
pipes of the mainline under the now much higher discharge pressure.
A significant part of a standard leak survey is directed at the compressors and the valves and
vents attached to them. A typical compressor station in Russia has centrifugal compressors
driven by an engine running off a portion of the gas being compressed. There are a number of
vents on the compressors that can be major leak sources. The fuel gas and starter gas vents
release gas from the engine and compressor starter into the atmosphere. The compressor
blowdown vents release gas from inside the compressors when they are depressurized. (In
Russia, compressors are routinely depressurized when brought off-line.) These blowdown
vents are composed of a pair of unit valve vents, a smaller blowdown valve, and an open-
ended stack located in the station valve yard. The unit valve vent is kept open and the
blowdown valve closed when the compressor is running, while the reverse is true when the
compressor is not running. Leaks from either one can escape through the stack into the
atmosphere.
The various ball, gate, control and plug valves that control and direct the flow of gas
throughout the entire compressor station complex are also sources of leaks. Other possible
leak sources are pressure relief valves associated with the compressors, scrubbers, and
i'
2.0 FIELD MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
The various ball, gate, control and plug valves that control and direct the flow of gas
throughout the entire compressor station complex are also sources of leaks. Other possible
leak sources are pressure relief valves associated with the compressors, scrubbers, and
2.1 Sources of Leaks at Compressor Stations
The layout of a typical Russian compressor station is presented in Exhibit 2.1.1. Photographs
of the compressor stations where measurements were made are presented in Appendix A.
Compressor stations are located at intervals along the pipeline network to increase or maintain
pipeline pressures and thus allow the gas to flow. The pressures in the pipelines at the four
Gazprom compressor stations surveyed were between 50 and 75 kilograms per square
centimeter (about 700 to 1060 pounds per square inch).
Gas is drawn from the mainline large diameter pipes (about 1.2 meters in diameter) by the
suction created by the compressors. The natural gas first flows through a series of scrubbers,
where any condensed liquids or other impurities are removed from the gas stream. (See
Photo A.4.) From the scrubbers the gas enters the intake section of the station valve yard, a
large collection of pipes and valves that distributes gas to the various compressors of the
station. (See Photo A.1.) The many valves in the station valve yard also allow operators to
redirect gas flows as needed. For example, compressors that are down for maintenance can
be bypassed by closing the appropriate valves. Part of the gas stream may also be redirected
to fuel the compressor engines for gas-driven compressors. Electric compressors, which are
common in Russia, do not use fuel gas.
From the valve yard, natural gas is run through the compressors -- the compressor stations
surveyed in this study had between 10 and 31 compressors each -- where the pressure is
increased to the level required by the pipeline system. The compressors themselves are
located in large shed-like bUildings to contain noise and to protect them from the elements.
After compression, the gas is then returned to the discharge section of the station valve yard
and from there it flows through coolers to remove the excess heat generated by the
compression process. (See Photo A.5.) Once cooled, the gas is then pushed back into the
pipes of the mainline under the now much higher discharge pressure.
A significant part of a standard leak survey is directed at the compressors and the valves and
vents attached to them. A typical compressor station in Russia has centrifugal compressors
driven by an engine running off a portion of the gas being compressed. There are a number of
vents on the compressors that can be major leak sources. The fuel gas and starter gas vents
release gas from the engine and compressor starter into the atmosphere. The compressor
blowdown vents release gas from inside the compressors when they are depressurized. (In
Russia, compressors are routinely depressurized when brought off-line.) These blowdown
vents are composed of a pair of unit valve vents, a smaller blowdown valve, and an open-
ended stack located in the station valve yard. The unit valve vent is kept open and the
blowdown valve closed when the compressor is running, while the reverse is true when the
compressor is not running. Leaks from either one can escape through the stack into the
atmosphere.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
7
Exhibit 2.1.1: Typical Russian Compressor Station Layout
Source: Gazprorn
8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Exhibit 2.1.1: Typical Russian Compressor Station Layout
Source: Gazprom
8
coolers. In addition, leaks can be found at the numerous flanges, small tubing joiners, and
pipe thread connectors located throughout the station. All of these components are usually
screened in compressor station surveys. Because of time restrictions on this study, only
limited sections of the four compressor stations, as outlined below, were surveyed and
measured.
2.2 Field Measurements
The field measurement program described in this report was conducted over two separate two-
week periods. The first measurements were made from October 17, 1995 to October 26, 1995
at the compressor stations of Storojovka and Petrovsk. These stations are located near the
city of Saratov and operated by Yugtransgaz. The second set of measurements was
conducted from November 27, 1995 to December 7, 1995 at the Pervomaiskaya and
Chaplygin compressor stations. These stations are operated by Mostransgaz and located near
the town of Michurinsk. (Selected photographs from the field measurements are in Appendix
A,) Due to time constraints, a subset of the components at each site was selected for the
measurement program. In total, lndaco screened 1,800 components, finding leaks and taking
measurements at 348 of these. The number of compressors at each site, the operating
pressure, and the throughput of each station are described in Exhibit 2.2.1.
Exhibit 2.2.1: Compressor Stations i n the Field Measurement Program
-
Gas Pressure
Siie
Natural Gas Turblne
Compressors
Electr~cCentr~fugal
Compressors
Througnput'
(1~ ~ / r n ~ / d a ~
lnleUOutlet
fkglcm2) -
Chaplygln 8 (6 3 MW) None 65 50175
2 (16 MW)
Pewomaiskaya 3 (25 MW) 28 (19.5 MW) 82 50175
Petrovsk 6 (6MW) 25 (4 MW) 96 59/67
Storojovka 5 (6.3 MW) 7 (4 MW) 188 N/A
4 (6.3 MW)
'Average daily throughput.
At the Chaplygin compressor station, measurements were made only at blowdownlunit valve
vents, fuel gas vents, starter gas vents, and cooler blowdown vents, where significant leakage
was expected. No measurements were made on other components. The temperature during
these measurements ranged from approximately -15C to -9% with variable, light to strong
winds.
At the Pervomaiskaya compressor station, measurements were made at the field and valve
yard components, scrubbers, and at the components outside the compressor buildings. No
measurements were made on the compressors themselves or at the blowdownlunit valve
vents. The blowdown system was described as double blocked with two valves, so leakage
across the unit valves to the blowdown vents may not be as significant as at other sites. The
temperature during these measurements ranged from approximately -9C to -4C with
intermittent snow and moderate winds.
Exhibit 2.2.1: Compressor Stations in the Field Measurement Program
At the Chaplygin compressor station, measurements were made only at blowdown/unit valve
vents, fuel gas vents, starter gas vents, and cooler blowdown vents, where significant leakage
was expected. No measurements were made on other components. The temperature during
these measurements ranged from approximately -15C to -9C with variable, light to strong
winds.
coolers. In addition, leaks can be found at the numerous flanges, small tUbing joiners, and
pipe thread connectors located throughout the station. All of these components are usually
screened in compressor station surveys. Because of time restrictions on this study, only
limited sections of the four compressor stations, as outlined below, were surveyed and
measured.
At the Pervomaiskaya compressor station, measurements were made at the field and valve
yard components, scrubbers, and at the components outside the compressor buildings. No
measurements were made on the compressors themselves or at the blowdown/unit valve
vents. The blowdown system was described as double blocked with two valves, so leakage
across the unit valves to the blowdown vents may not be as significant as at other sites. The
temperature during these measurements ranged from approximately -9C to _4C with
intermittent snow and moderate winds.
9
I
. ~ _._0<.
I
Gas Pressure
-,
Site
I'Hlural
; "."
;1
Inlet/Outlet
Ike/em
2
)
Chaplygin
8, ~ 6 3 MV::
None 65 50175
216MW
Pervomaiskaya 3 (25 MW) 28 (19.5 MW) 82 50175
Petrovsk 6 (6MW) 25 (4 MW) 96 59/67
Storojovka 5 (6.3 MW)
:11(4 M W ~ \
188 N/A
46.3 MW
Average daily throughput.
2.2 Field Measurements
The field measurement program described in this report was conducted over two separate two-
week periods. The first measurements were made from October 17, 1995 to October 26, 1995
at the compressor stations of Storojovka and Petrovsk. These stations are located near the
city of Saratov and operated by Yugtransgaz. The second set of measurements was
conducted from November 27, 1995 to December 7, 1995 at the Pervomaiskaya and
Chaplygin compressor stations. These stations are operated by Mostransgaz and located near
the town of Michurinsk. (Selected photographs from the field measurements are in Appendix
A.) Due to time constraints, a subset of the components at each site was selected for the
measurement program. In total, Indaco screened 1,800 components, finding leaks and taking
measurements at 348 of these. The number of compressors at each site, the operating
pressure, and the throughput of each station are described in Exhibit 2.2.1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Measurements at the Petrovsk compressor station were made at components in the field and
valve yard and at blowdownlunit valve vents. The site was described as having European
components rather than Russian components. Although the compressors were operating, time
limitations prevented measurements at the compressors themselves. The focus of the
measurements at this site were the leaks across the unit valve leaks to the blowdown vents.
The temperature during these measurements ranged between approximately -4C to 8OC with
moderate winds.
At the Storojovka compressor station, measurements were made of components in the field
and valve yard. The compressors at the facility were depressurized during the measurement
program due to construction at the station. Consequently, no measurements are available at
the compressors or at the blowdownlunit valve vents. The weather during the measurement
was blustery with temperatures between -4C and 8OCwith intermittent rain and strong winds.
2.3 Leak Detection and Measurement Methodology
An overview of leak detection and measurement technology is presented in Appendix B along
with a description of High Flow Sampling. Below is a description of the approach used in the
Russian measurements.
Leak detection was performed using both soap solution and screening with a methane
detection instrument. Soap solution was sprayed on components such as valves, pipe thread
connectors, and tubing connectors. Any components at which bubbles formed were tagged.
Flanges and open ended lines were screened using Bascom-Turner CGI-201 Gas Sentries.
Any components screening above 500 part per million ("ppm") were tagged.
Orange metal tags were used to tag the leaks. The 3 by 5 inch tags were labeled by
permanent marker with a sequential leak number and a description of the leak location if
necessary. The size and color of the tag provide good visibility for relocating the leak for
subsequent high flow measurements. (Photo A.2 shows soap screening and tag at a small
ball valve.)
Once leaks were located and tagged, the High Flow Sampler was used to measure the leak
rate. Leak rates were measured by holding the nozzle of the High Flow Sampler within 1cm of
the leak while holding the background probe approximately 5 cm to 10 cm away, depending on
the type and size of component tested. This allowed the background concentration to be
accurately determined during the leak measurement. An industrial stretch plastic was used to
block wind and leak momentum and to direct leak flow into the high flow sampler. Leak rate
measurements at flanges were made by sealing the flange circumference with either duct tape
or stretch wrap. Openings were left at opposite sides of the flange for air entry and exit. In
addition, large leaks at open pipes and blowdown vents were measured using a rotometer-a
flowmeter used in this measurement program to measure particularly large leaks.
Leak rate data were recorded manually on data sheets printed for this purpose. These data
included leak tag number, a brief description of the leak (type of component and service), High
Flow Sampler anemometer velocity (which is calibrated to sample flow rate), background
concentration, and sample concentration.
10
Leak rate data were recorded manually on data sheets printed for this purpose. These data
included leak tag number, a brief description of the leak (type of component and service), High
Flow Sampler anemometer velocity (which is calibrated to sample flow rate), background
concentration, and sample concentration.
2.3 Leak Detection and Measurement Methodology
An overview of leak detection and measurement technology is presented in Appendix B along
with a description of High Flow Sampling. Below is a description of the approach used in the
Russian measurements.
At the Storojovka compressor station, measurements were made of components in the field
and valve yard. The compressors at the facility were depressurized during the measurement
program due to construction at the station. Consequently, no measurements are available at
the compressors or at the blowdown/unit valve vents. The weather during the measurement
was blustery with temperatures between -4C and aoc with intermittent rain and strong winds.
Measurements at the Petrovsk compressor station were made at components in the field and
valve yard and at blowdown/unit valve vents. The site was described as having European
components rather than Russian components. Although the compressors were operating, time
limitations prevented measurements at the compressors themselves. The focus of the
measurements at this site were the leaks across the unit valve leaks to the blowdown vents.
The temperature during these measurements ranged between approximately -4C to aoc with
moderate winds.
10
Leak detection was performed using both soap solution and screening with a methane
detection instrument. Soap solution was sprayed on components such as valves, pipe thread
connectors, and tubing connectors. Any components at which bubbles formed were tagged.
Flanges and open ended lines were screened using Bascom-Turner CGI-201 Gas Sentries.
Any components screening above 500 part per million ("ppm") were tagged.
Orange metal tags were used to tag the leaks. The 3 by 5 inch tags were labeled by
permanent marker with a sequential leak number and a description of the leak location if
necessary. The size and color of the tag provide good visibility for relocating the leak for
subsequent high flow measurements. (Photo A.2 shows soap screening and tag at a small
ball valve.)
Once leaks were located and tagged, the High Flow Sampler was used to measure the leak
rate. Leak rates were measured by holding the nozzle of the High Flow Sampler within 1 em of
the leak while holding the background probe approximately 5 em to 10 em away, depending on
the type and size of component tested. This allowed the background concentration to be
accurately determined during the leak measurement. An industrial stretch plastic was used to
block wind and leak momentum and to direct leak flow into the high flow sampler. Leak rate
measurements at flanges were made by sealing the flange circumference with either duct tape
or stretch wrap. Openings were left at opposite sides of the flange for air entry and exit. In
addition, large leaks at open pipes and blowdown vents were measured using a rotometer-a
flowmeter used in this measurement program to measure particularly large leaks.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
,
Quality assurance was conducted by making replicate measurements, which included using
different sample flow rates. Varying the sample flow rate provides data on the success of leak
capture. If the leak rate measured by the sampler remains constant as the sample flow is
increased, then the leak capture at both sample flow rates was successful. At flanges,
replicate measurements were made by reversing the air entry and exit locations. Other quality
assurance measures included a laboratory calibration of the entire high flow sampler system
before and after the first set of field measurements by introducing known flow rates of
methane into the instrument and comparing the known leak rates to the results calculated from
the high flow sampler data.
The number and type of components which were surveyed for leaks were recorded at each
facility. The categories included flanges, pipe thread connections, tubing connections, gate
and needle valves, plug and ball valves (included as one category), control valves, open
ended lines, pressure relief valves, station blowdown vents, compressor blowdown vents, and
unit valve vents. These component counts were used to calculate emission factors for each
component category by dividing the total leak rate by the total number of components. The
results of the measurement program are presented in the following section.
The number and type of components which were surveyed for leaks were recorded at each
facility. The categories included flanges, pipe thread connections, tubing connections, gate
and needle valves, plug and ball valves (included as one category), control valves, open
ended lines, pressure relief valves, station blowdown vents, compressor blowdown vents, and
unit valve vents. These component counts were used to calculate emission factors for each
component category by dividing the total leak rate by the total number of components. The
results of the measurement program are presented in the following section.
Quality assurance was conducted by making replicate measurements, which included using
different sample flow rates. Varying the sample flow rate provides data on the success of leak
capture. If the leak rate measured by the sampler remains constant as the sample flow is
increased, then the leak capture at both sample flow rates was successful. At flanges,
replicate measurements were made by reversing the air entry and exit locations. Other quality
assurance measures included a laboratory calibration of the entire high flow sampler system
before and after the first set of field measurements by introducing known flow rates of
methane into the instrument and comparing the known leak rates to the results calculated from
the high flow sampler data.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
DRAFT DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
11
3.0 MEASUREMENT RESULTS
This section summarizes the results of the leak survey and measurements at each of the
Gazprom compressor stations. For each station we present a table showing the leak results
by component type. Also presented is a graph that shows the distribution of emissions by the
number of leaks: this illustrates the concentration of emissions in a small number of large
leaks. For each compressor station, the tables identify the types of components surveyed and
number of leaks found, characteristics of the leaks (total, average size, largest, smallest), an
emission factor, and estimates of the costs of the leaks. Specifically --
The first three columns show the types of components surveyed, the number of
components of each type that were surveyed, and the number of leaks found and
measured.
The total emissions column is the sum of all the leak rates measured expressed in
cubic meters per year. The average leak size is the total divided by the number of
leaks found.
Then next two columns show the largest and the smallest leak for the specific
component type, expressed in cubic meters per year.
The component emission factor is equal to the total emission volume for that
component type divided by the total number of components surveyed.
The final two columns estimate leakage cost. The total leak cost for each
component type is calculated by multiplying the total emission volume by $56 U.S.
per thousand cubic meters (an estimate provided by Gazprom representing an
expected world price for natural gas). The average cost per leak is equal to the
total cost divided by the number of leaks found.
We have not summed the leaks for the individual compressor stations. Because only subsets
of components were measured, station totals would be irrelevant and possibly misleading. In
addition, because of the relatively small numbers of components measured, the calculated
emission factors per component type should be considered very preliminary.
3.1 Chaplygin Compressor Station
Exhibit 3.1.1 presents the results of the measurements at the Chaplygin compressor station.
Measurements at the Chaplygin station focused on leaks across the unit valves to the
blowdown vent (labeled unit valve vents in Exhibit 3.1 . I ) and leaks from the recycle vents, fuel
gas vents, starter gas vents, bypass vents, and cooler vents. The total leak rate from leaks
measured at this facility was 848,400 cubic meters per year. At a price of $56 (U.S.) per
1000 cubic meters of gas (the price quoted at the time of the measurements), this represents
an average loss of $47,500 per year. Leaks from components not measured at this station
(such as gate and ball valve stems) would increase the overall natural gas loss recorded.
The leaks across the unit valves to the blow down stacks represent the largest source at this
site (34.7 percent). Leaks at unit valves tend to occur when compressors are depressurized
12
3.0 MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Then next two columns show the largest and the smallest leak for the specific
component type, expressed in cubic meters per year.
The component emission factor is equal to the total emission volume for that
component type divided by the total number of components surveyed.
The total emissions column is the sum of all the leak rates measured expressed in
cubic meters per year. The average leak size is the total divided by the number of
leaks found.
12
The first three columns show the types of components surveyed, the number of
components of each type that were surveyed, and the number of leaks found and
measured.
3.1 Chaplygin Compressor Station
Exhibit 3.1.1 presents the results of the measurements at the Chaplygin compressor station.
Measurements at the Chaplygin station focused on leaks across the unit valves to the
blowdown vent (labeled unit valve vents in Exhibit 3.1.1) and leaks from the recycle vents, fuel
gas vents, starter gas vents, bypass vents, and cooler vents. The total leak rate from leaks
measured at this facility was 848,400 cubic meters per year. At a price of $56 (U.S.) per
1000 cubic meters of gas (the price quoted at the time of the measurements), this represents
an average loss of $47,500 per year. Leaks from components not measured at this station
(such as gate and ball valve stems) would increase the overall natural gas loss recorded.
The leaks across the unit valves to the blow down stacks represent the largest source at this
site (34.7 percent). Leaks at unit valves tend to occur when compressors are depressurized
The final two columns estimate leakage cost. The total leak cost for each
component type is calculated by multiplying the total emission volume by $56 U.S.
per thousand cubic meters (an estimate provided by Gazprom representing an
expected world price for natural gas). The average cost per leak is equal to the
total cost divided by the number of leaks found.
We have not summed the leaks for the individual compressor stations. Because only subsets
of components were measured, station totals would be irrelevant and possibly misleading. In
addition, because of the relatively small numbers of components measured, the calculated
emission factors per component type should be considered very preliminary.
This section summarizes the results of the leak survey and measurements at each of the
Gazprom compressor stations. For each station we present a table showing the leak results
by component type. Also presented is a graph that shows the distribution of emissions by the
number of leaks: this illustrates the concentration of emissions in a small number of large
leaks. For each compressor station, the tables identify the types of components surveyed and
number of leaks found, characteristics of the leaks (total, average size, largest, smallest), an
emission factor, and estimates of the costs of the leaks. Specifically--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ,
I
,
and the unit valves are blocking gas at pipeline pressure from entering the compressor. Leaks
across the unit valves travel through the open blowdown valve to the atmosphere in this
condition. When the compressor is operating, these unit valves are open and the blowdown
valve is closed. Consequently, when depressurized compressors with large leaks across the
unit valves are put into service, the unit valve leak disappears.
The blowdown valve is typically a much smaller valve (approximately 2 inches to 4 inches) than
the unit valves (12 inches to 36 inches) and in U.S. natural gas transmission systems has been
found to leak less than the unit valve by at least a factor of five (GRI, 1996). Significant leaks
can occur across blowdown valves when a compressor is in operation. No leaks were found at
the blowdown valves surveyed at Chaplygin.
The recycle vent on Unit 1 at Chaplygin was the single largest leak found in the survey (25
percent of the total). This is a leak across a 2 inch plug valve which was closed (but leaking)
during the measurement. Both the recycle and bypass vents may be affected by the status of
the compressor, depending on whether it is running or not, but not enough data are available
from Chaplygin to determine this effect. The other components surveyed at Chaplygin are not
subject to the changes discussed for the unit valves. The fuel gas vents, start gas vents, and
cooler vents should be relatively constant sources unless the systems on which they are
located are vented. Exhibit 3.1.2 illustrates the distribution of leaks measured at Chaplygin.
3.2 Pervornaiskaya Compressor Station
Exhibit 3.2.1 presents the results of the leak rates at the Pervomaiskaya compressor station.
At this station, leak measurements focused on valves, connectors, and open ended lines.
Again, these measurements are a subset of this station and do not represent the entire facility
leak rate. Additionally, time limitations prevented complete component counts at all of the
process areas where the leak measurements were made.
The largest emission factors at this station were for open ended lines, followed by control
valves, cooler blowdowns (which could be grouped with open ended lines), ball valves,
pressure relief valves, gate valves, tubing connectors, pipe thread connectors, needle valves,
and flanges. As at Chaplygin, the largest 10 percent of the mechanical leaks account for a
vast majority of the leak total (see Exhibit 3.2.2). Ball valve measurements were made at both
the stem of the valve and at the body, such as from a bolted flange fitting that is part of the
valve's original manufacturing process. The leakage from the ball valve body accounted for
only 12 percent of the total ball valve leak rate. This suggests that future screening might be
confined to the stem only without missing a significant portion of the leak rate. This would
speed the leak detection process for this category of component by at least a factor of two.
13
3.2 Pervomaiskaya Compressor Station
Exhibit 3.2.1 presents the results of the leak rates at the Pervomaiskaya compressor station.
At this station, leak measurements focused on valves, connectors, and open ended lines.
Again, these measurements are a subset of this station and do not represent the entire facility
leak rate. Additionally, time limitations prevented complete component counts at all of the
process areas where the leak measurements were made.
The largest emission factors at this station were for open ended lines, followed by control
valves, cooler blowdowns (which could be grouped with open ended lines), ball valves,
pressure relief valves, gate valves, tubing connectors, pipe thread connectors, needle valves,
and flanges. As at Chaplygin, the largest 10 percent of the mechanical leaks account for a
vast majority of the leak total (see Exhibit 3.2.2). Ball valve measurements were made at both
the stem of the valve and at the body, such as from a bolted flange fitting that is part of the
valve's original manufacturing process. The leakage from the ball valve body accounted for
only 12 percent of the total ball valve leak rate. This suggests that future screening might be
confined to the stem only without missing a significant portion of the leak rate. This would
speed the leak detection process for this category of component by at least a factor of two.
and the unit valves are blocking gas at pipeline pressure from entering the compressor. Leaks
across the unit valves travel through the open blowdown valve to the atmosphere in this
condition. When the compressor is operating, these unit valves are open and the blowdown
valve is closed. Consequently, when depressurized compressors with large leaks across the
unit valves are put into service, the unit valve leak disappears.
The blowdown valve is typically a much smaller valve (approximately 2 inches to 4 inches) than
the unit valves (12 inches to 36 inches) and in U.S. natural gas transmission systems has been
found to leak less than the unit valve by at least a factor of five (GRI, 1996). Significant leaks
can occur across blowdown valves when a compressor is in operation. No leaks were found at
the blowdown valves surveyed at Chaplygin.
The recycle vent on Unit 1 at Chaplygin was the single largest leak found in the survey (25
percent of the total). This is a leak across a 2 inch plug valve which was closed (but leaking)
during the measurement. Both the recycle and bypass vents may be affected by the status of
the compressor, depending on whether it is running or not, but not enough data are available
from Chaplygin to determine this effect. The other components surveyed at Chaplygin are not
subject to the changes discussed for the unit valves. The fuel gas vents, start gas vents, and
cooler vents should be relatively constant sources unless the systems on which they are
located are vented. Exhibit 3.1.2 illustrates the distribution of leaks measured at Chaplygin.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
13
Exhibit 3.1.1: Summary of Leak Rates at Chaplygin Compressor Station
I/
"Un& valves may not leak year round because for part of the time, the compressor is running. See Section 4.1 for how we adjusted for
this.
Exhibit 3.1.2: Gas Loss by Leak Size -- Chaplygin
for 46% of measured gas loss.
Top 10% Third 10% Filth 10% Seventh 10% Ninth 10%
LeaksArranged by Size
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 3.1.1: Summary of Leak Rates at Chaplygin Compressor Station
W',,"
""
No. of No/of Total,

(;omporients ,eakS

,Fao,
c$"iyiY" .....,".,;.
.
Surveved Found

Unit Valve" 6 3 294,556 98,185 134,582 76,178 49,093 $16,497.06 $5,499.02
vents
Recycle 10 1 213,299 213,299 213,299 213,299 21,330 $11,946.15 $11,946.15
Vents
Fuel Gas 10 4 206,361 51,590 105,520 2,494 20,636 $11,557.53 $2,889.38
Vents
Start Gas 10 6 117,585 19,598 76,178 1,262 11,759 $6,585.54 $1,098
Vents
Bypass 10 2 12,330 6,165 11,700 630 1,233 $880.58 $345.28
Vents
Cooler Vents 24 3 4,269 1,423 2,675 99 178 $239.11 $79.70
Based on a gas price of $5611 000 m
3
.. Unit valves may not leak year round because for part of the time, the compressor is running. See Section 4.1 for how we adjusted for
this.
Exhibit 3.1.2: Gas Loss by Leak Size -- Chaplygin
Largest 2 measured leaks account
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
100%
90%
80%
..
.s
70%
..
60%
50%
::l
..
m
40%
:E
'0
30%
0
20%
10%
0%
Top 10% Third 10% Fifth 10%
Leaks Arranged by Size
Seventh 10% Ninth 10%
14
- -
Exhibit 3.2.1 : Summary of Leak Rates at Pervomaiskaya Compressor Station
NR =not recorded.
Exhibit 3.2.2: Gas Loss by Leak Size -- Pervomaiskaya
U
Largest 18 measured leaks acmunt for
62% of measured gas loss
Top 10% Thlrd 10% Fifth 10% Seventh 10% Nlnth 10%
I
I Exhibit 3.2.1: Summary of Leak Rates at Pervomaiskaya Compressor Station
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f ...

'>$ly"
,n,.t., .... .,
rn'M
Ball Valve Stems 44,329 821 9,400 0 NC $2,482.73 $45,98
Ball Valve Bodies NR 12 5,892 491 1,949 0 NC $329,99 $27,50
Ball Valve Total 168 66 50,221 761 9,400 0 299 $2,812,73 $42,62
Gate Valves 36 20 8,205 410 1,211 43 228 $459,51 $22,98
Needle Valves 35 15 3,809 254 1,630 7 109 $213,31 $14.22
Gate/Needle 71 35 12,013 343 1,630 7 169 $672.82 $19.23
Valves Total
Control Valves 4 4 3,081 770 2.136 103 770 $172.55 $43.14
Flanges 33 4 3,330 632 3,077 57 101 $186.48 $48.62
Pipe Thread 299 29 38,658 1,333 14,243 12 129 $2.165.10 $74.66
Tubing 66 13 9,280 714 3,823 0 141 $519.76 $39.98
Connectors
Cooler Slowdown 16 16 8,048 503 1,977 108 503 $450.63 $28.16
Vents
Open Ended lines 12 6 9,388 1,585 9,082 0 782 $525.77 $87.63
Pressure Relief 6 3 1,646 549 767 112 274 $92.17 $30.72
Valves
* Based on a gas price of $56/1000 m
3
NR =not recorded.
NC =not calculated.
I
Exhibit 3.2.2: Gas Loss by Leak Size -- Pervomaiskaya
Largest 18 measured leaks account for
62% of measured gas loss.
15
Ninth 10% Seventh 10% Fifth 10% Third 10%
100%
90'/0
80%
III
III
70%
.3
III
III 60%
50%
"
III
II
40%
:;;
30%
"
20%
10%
0%
Top 10%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.3 Petrovsk Compressor Station
The measurement program at the Petrovsk compressor station focused on quantifying leak
rates across the unit valves, blowdown stacks on depressurized compressors and blowdown
valves on pressurized compressors. A limited number of measurements were made at valves,
connectors, and open ended lines in the field area of the station. The results of these
measurements are presented in Exhibit 3.3.1.
The largest emission sources at this station were found at the unit valves on depressurized
compressors. The emission factor for the unit valves on depressurized compressors at
Petrovsk is approximately twenty times larger than for Chaplygin unit valves (this illustrates the
uncertainty of the small data set that has been collected). As at Chaplygin, no leak rate was
observed across the blowdown valve on pressurized compressors. The total leak rate from the
four unit valve leaks was 4.36 million cubic meter per year with a value of $244,000 per year.
The largest of these leaks was equal to $145,000 per year, which is 59.6% of the leak rate
from the four. These results assume a full year of leaking from the closed position. The leak
totals would be halved if the compressors ran 50 percent of the time. Nevertheless, these are
significant leaks.
Exhibit 3.3.1: Summary of Leak Rates at Petrovsk Compressor Station
Vents
Slowdown 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
Valve Vents
Sail Valves 1 1 15.336 1,394 3,805 10 $858.91 $78.08
plug Valves 1 n n 77 n $4.32 $4.32
BalllPlua 31 12 15.413 1.284 3,805 10 497 $863.23 $71.94
Vakes
Flanges : For 2 19,508 9,754 17.688 1,820 $1,392.58 $546.29
Demonstratio
n Only
Pipe Thread 93 2 66 33 57 9 1 $3.67 $1.84
Tubing 24 1 127 127 127 127 5 $7.12 $7.12
Connectors
Open Ended 13 1 909 909 9 W 939 70 $50.90 $50.90
1 ' Based on a gas price of $5611M)O rn3
11
Exhibit 3.3.2 illustrates the distribution of leaks. In this exhibit, the four largest leaks are shown
separately, since they are substantially larger than the rest of the leaks.
16
Exhibit 3.3.1: Summary of Leak Rates at Petrovsk Compressor Station
Exhibit 3,3,2 illustrates the distribution of leaks, In this exhibit, the four largest leaks are shown
separately, since they are substantially larger than the rest of the leaks.
3.3 Petrovsk Compressor Station
The measurement program at the Petrovsk compressor station focused on quantifying leak
rates across the unit valves, blowdown stacks on depressurized compressors and blowdown
valves on pressurized compressors. A limited number of measurements were made at valves,
connectors, and open ended lines in the field area of the station. The results of these
measurements are presented in Exhibit 3.3.1.
The largest emission sources at this station were found at the unit valves on depressurized
compressors. The emission factor for the unit valves on depressurized compressors at
Petrovsk is approximately twenty times larger than for Chaplygin unit valves (this illustrates the
uncertainty of the small data set that has been collected). As at Chaplygin, no leak rate was
observed across the blowdown valve on pressurized compressors. The total leak rate from the
four unit valve leaks was 4.36 million cubic meter per year with a value of $244,000 per year.
The largest of these leaks was equal to $145,000 per year, which is 59.6% of the leak rate
from the four. These results assume a full year of leaking from the closed position. The leak
totals would be halved if the compressors ran 50 percent of the time. Nevertheless, these are
significant leaks.
16
J'jPof

Total

.
found rn.'iJ' .
m'iyr
$Jvr,.,
Unit Valve 4 4 4,358,181 1,089,545 2,596,536 23,694 1,089545 $244,086.36 $61,021.59
Vents
Blowdown 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
Valve Vents
Bali Valves 11 15,336 1,394 3,805 10 $858.91 $78.06
Pluo Valves 1 77 77 77 77 $4.32 $4.32
Ball/Plug 31 12 15,413 1,284 3,805 10 497 $863.23 $71.94
Valves Total
Gate/Needle 22 13 11,024 848 5,099 13 501 $617.41 $47.49
Valves
Flanges: For 2 19,508 9,754 17,588 1,820 $1,092.58 $545.29
Oemonstratio
n Onlv
Pioe Thread 93 2 58 33 57 9 1 $3.67 $1.84
Tubing 24 1 127 127 127 127 5 $7.12 $7.12
Connectors
Open Ended 13 1 909 909 909 909 70 $50.90 $50.90
Lines
* Based on agas price of $56/1 000 m
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 3.3.2: Gas Loss by Leak Size -- Petrovsk
Four Largest Leaks
100%
I
80%
70%
60%
for 99%of measured gas loss.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Leak 1 Leak 2 Leak 3 Leak 4
Leak 1: Petrovsk SuctionIDischarge Valve. ID # 1004
Leak 2: Petrovsk SuctionIDischarge Valve, ID # 1007
Leak 3: Petrovsk SuctionIDishcarge Valve, ID # 1008
Leak 4: Petrovsk SuctionIDischarge Valve, ID # 1003
100%
1
All Leaks Excluding Four Largest
I
Largest Third Fiflh Sevent h Ninth
10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
I Eaual to gas loss from Petrovsk excludins that from four largest leaks
17
1 Equal to gas loss from Petrovsk excluding that from four largest leaks.
Exhibit 3.3.2: Gas Loss by Leak Size -- Petrovsk
17
Ninth
10%
Leak 4 Leak 3 Leak 2
Four Largest Leaks
All Leaks Excluding Four Largest
Third Fifth Seventh
10% 10% 10%
Leak 1: Petrovsk Suction/Discharge Valve, ID # 1004
Leak 3: Petrovsk Suction/Dishcarge Valve, ID # 1008
100%
<J> 90%
<J>
0
80% ...J
<J>
..
70%
C)
."
60%
e
::>
50% <J>
..
..
40% :;;
~
30%
.... 20%
0
~
10%
0%
Leak 1
100%
90%
~
<J>
80% <J>
0
...J
70%
<J>
..
C)
60%
01
.5
50%
c
'iii
E 40%
..
Il:
30% ....
0
;!.
20%
10%
0%
Largest
10%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4 Storojovka Compressor Station
Measurements at the Storojovka compressor station were limited due to construction at the
site. Because this construction required that the entire compressor area be depressurized, no
measurements were possible to determine leak rates across unit valves or at any other
components associated with the main compressor station. The measurement program
focused on leak rates at valves, connectors, open ended lines, and stationlpipeline blowdown
vents. Exhibit 3.4.1 summarizes the measurement data collected.
The largest leak rate observed at Storojovka was from a station blowdown vent which had a
leaking bypass valve. This vent was leaking at a rate of 278,900 cubic meters per year,
equivalent to $15,620, which accounts for about 60 percent of the total volume from all leaks
found (see Exhibit 3.4.2 for the distribution of leaks). Station blowdown vents had the largest
emission factor of all categories which were surveyed at this station; however, no information
is available for other typically large categories such as compressor unit valve leakage at this
site because the compressors were depressurized.
Ball and plug valves had the next largest emission factor for the components surveyed at
Storojovka. Leak rates were measured separately at ball valve bodies, ball valve stems, and
plug valves but have been grouped together for the calculation of emission factors. This is
also true for gate and needle valves, which were grouped as one category for counting
purposes at this site.
Exhibit 3.4.1: Summary of Leak Rates at Storojovka Compressor Station
plug valves
1
29 1 77.488 1
2,672 1 35.545 1
o 1 $4,339.51 1 $149.64
BalllPlug Valves I 54 1 35 1 83,621 1 2,389 1 35.545 1 o 1 1,549I $4,682.98 1 $133.80
Total
Gate Valves NR 22 36.376 1,653 11.216 16 $2,037.23 $92.60
NeedleValves NR 6 5,045 541 3,929 64 $282.58 $47.10
GatelNeedle 126 28 41,422 1,479 11.216 16 329 $2.319.81 $82.85
Valves Total
Underground 54 8 15,076 1,885 4.183 196 279 $844.38 $105.55
Valves
BalllPlugl 108 43 98.697 2.295 35,545 0 914 $5.527.36 $1 28.54
Underaround
-
Total
-
Flanges 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
Pipe Thread 231 7 7,591 1,084 7,197 6 33 $425.13 $60.73
Tubing 206 6 12,830 2,138 9,016 44 62 $718.49 $1 19.75
~onn&tors
Open Ended Lines 73 8 7,804 975 3.871 0 107 $437.05 $54.63
Station Blowdown 6 3 314.433 104.81 1 278.904 4,550 52.406 $17,610.09 $5870.03
Vents
Based on a gas price of $5611000 m3
3.4 Storojovka Compressor Station
Measurements at the Storojovka compressor station were limited due to construction at the
site. Because this construction required that the entire compressor area be depressurized, no
measurements were possible to determine leak rates across unit valves or at any other
components associated with the main compressor station. The measurement program
focused on leak rates at valves, connectors, open ended lines, and station/pipeline blowdown
vents. Exhibit 3.4.1 summarizes the measurement data collected.
The largest leak rate observed at Storojovka was from a station blowdown vent which had a
leaking bypass valve. This vent was leaking at a rate of 278,900 cubic meters per year,
equivalent to $15,620, which accounts for about 60 percent of the total volume from all leaks
found (see Exhibit 3.4.2 for the distribution of leaks). Station blowdown vents had the largest
emission factor of all categories which were surveyed at this station; however, no information
is available for other typically large categories such as compressor unit valve leakage at this
site because the compressors were depressurized.
Ball and plug valves had the next largest emission factor for the components surveyed at
Storojovka. Leak rates were measured separately at ball valve bodies, ball valve stems, and
plug valves but have been grouped together for the calculation of emission factors. This is
also true for gate and needle valves, which were grouped as one category for counting
purposes at this site.
Noco!

Largest Smallest Emission Total Cost

Leaks

Factor $iyl"'

Su Found
",',vi
Tn
3
ttl.f ,fNvr/corn
r,
--SJW""'-
Ba" Val....e Stems NR 4 5.654 1,414 4,192 122 $316.67 $79.17
Ball Valve Bodies NR 2 478 239 464 15 $26.80 $13.40
Plug Valves 29 77,488 2,672 35,545 0 $4,339.51 $149.64
Ball/Plug Valves 54 35 83,621 2,389 35,545 0 1,549 $4,682.98 $133.80
Total
Gate Valves NR 22 36,376 1,653 11,216 16 $2,037.23 $92.80
Need\e Valves NR 6 5,048 541 3,929 64 $262.58 $47.10
Gate/Needle 126 28 41,422 1,479 11,216 16 329 $2,319.81 $82.85
Valves Total
Underground 54 8 15,076 1,885 4,183 196 279 $844.38 $105.55
Valves
Ball/Plug/ 108 43 98,697 2,295 35,545 0 914 $5,527.36 $128.54
Underground
Total
Flanges 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00
Pipe Thread 231 7 7,591 1,084 7,197 6 33 $425.13 $80.73
Tubing 206 6 12,830 2,138 9,016 44 62 $718.49 $119.75
Connectors
Open Ended Lines 73 8 7,804 975 3,871 0 107 $437.05 $54.63
Station Slowdown 6 3 314,433 104,811 278,904 4,550 52,406 $17,610.09 $5870.03
Vents
.
Based on a gas price of $5611 000 m
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 3.4.1: Summary of Leak Rates at Storojovka Compressor Station
18
Exhibit 3.4.2: Gas Loss by Leak Size -- Storojovka
3.5 Comparison of Station Results
Because only a subset of components at each station were surveyed, the total measured leak
rate at each station cannot be directly compared. Examining the similarities and differences
between emission factors of components at the stations provides a more useful comparison.
Exhibit 3.5.1 provides a comparison of emission factors at similar components between
stations and also presents average emission factors for all four sites. Exhibit 3.5.2 illustrates
the results of the emission factor estimate.
The largest average emission factor was for leakage across the compressor unit valves vents.
This value was 465,274 m3/year per compressor unit valve set. It must be remembered that
this leakage only occurs when the compressor is depressurized and not running. The amount
of time this occurs is unknown. [Insert Gazprom estimate?] For purposes of this report, we
have assumed that such components are depressurized on average half the time. No leaks
were observed for the reverse condition when the compressor is pressurized and the
blowdown valve is closed. The emission factor for unit valves at Petrovsk was four times
higher than at Chaplygin. Chaplygin is a newer station than Petrovsk and at least three of the
unit valve sets measured at Chaplygin had been replaced within the last year, which may
account for the smaller emission factor for these components.
19
90%+-------------------------------;
Exhibit 3.4.2: Gas Loss by Leak Size -- Storojovka
100% -r--------------------------------,
19
Ninth 10% Seventh 10% Filth 10%
for 82% of measured gas loss,
third 10% Largest 10%
10%
80%
0%
..
:g 70%
...J
..
C; 60%
~ 50%
~ 40%
:iii
{!. 30%
'0
'$. 20%
The largest average emission factor was for leakage across the compressor unit valves vents.
This value was 465,274 m'/year per compressor unit valve set. It must be remembered that
this leakage only occurs when the compressor is depressurized and not running. The amount
of time this occurs is unknown. [Insert Gazprom estimate?] For purposes of this report, we
have assumed that such components are depressurized on average half the time. No leaks
were observed for the reverse condition when the compressor is pressurized and the
blowdown valve is closed. The emission factor for unit valves at Petrovsk was four times
higher than at Chaplygin. Chaplygin is a newer station than Petrovsk and at least three of the
unit valve sets measured at Chaplygin had been replaced within the last year, which may
account for the smaller emission factor for these components.
3.5 Comparison of Station Results
Because only a subset of components at each station were surveyed, the total measured leak
rate at each station cannot be directly compared. Examining the similarities and differences
between emission factors of components at the stations provides a more useful comparison.
Exhibit 3.5.1 provides a comparison of emission factors at similar components between
stations and also presents average emission factors for all four sites. Exhibit 3.5.2 illustrates
the results of the emission factor estimate.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
Exhibit 3.5.1: Cross Station Comparison
20
-
- _.-
..., .. -
- - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
Exhibit 3.5.1: Cross Station Comparison
0
33 425
62 718
329
914
107 437
4 1,089,548 244,osa
4
Chaplygin
Component # of
(Cornp) Co",!,
Surveed
Compressor Vents
Unit Valve 6 49,093 16,497
Vents
Recycle 10 21,330 11,946
Vents
Fuel Gas 10 20,636 11,558
Vents
Start Gas 10 11,759 6,586
Vents
Bypass 10 1,233 691
Vents
Blowdown 4
Vents
Station Vents
Station
Blowdown
other Components
Ball/Plug 31 497 863 168 299 2,813 108
Valves"
Gate/Needle 22 501 47 71 169 873 126
Valves"
Control 4 770 173
ValVes
Cooler 24 178 239 16 503 481
Slowdown
Vent
Pressure
6 274 92
Relief Valves
Flanges"
66 50 186 74
Pipe Thread
93 4 299 129 2,165 231
Connector
Tubing 24 5 7 66 141 520 208
Connector
Open Ended 13 70 51 12 782 526 73
lines
" Groups ball valves and plug valves; assumes all underground valves are ball valves.
.. Groups needle and gate valves.
... Flan es measured at Petrovsk were icked for demonstration ani and are not inclUded in this summa
20
I I , r n V D D D m - - - - - - - - -
Exhibit 3.5.2: Average Methane Emission Factor by Component Type
Unit Valve Vent 465,274
Station Blowdown Vent
Recycle Vent
Fuel Gas Vent 20,636
Start Gas Vent
Emission Factor
(m3lyrlnumber of components su~eyed)
21
-------------
-
- -
Exhibit 3.5.2: Average Methane Emission Factor by Component Type
465,274
I---..,.----..,----........ L7----.__---I
10,000 20,ooll 50,001I 500,000
Unit Valve Vent
Station Slowdown Vent
I
Recycle Vent
I
Fuel Gas Vent
Start Gas Vent
Sypass Vent
.1,233
'"
Control Valve 1l\!l 770
a.
>.
Sail/Plug Valve il 535 I-
...
C
'"
Cooler Slowdown Vent 308 c
0
a.
E Gate/Needle Valve 294
0
0
Pressure Relief Valve 274
Open Ended line 185
Tubing Connector 75
Pipe Thread Connector 74
Flange 24
Compo Slowdown Vent 0
0 5,000
Emission Factor
(m3/yr/number of components surveyed)
21
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The objectives of this leak identification and measurement demonstration program were
(1)
to measure leaks from natural gas compressor station components as a
first step towards developing better overall estimates of methane emissions
from Russian natural gas pipeline compressors; and
(2)
to begin to identify profitable opportunities to reduce fugitive emissions at
Gazprom compressor stations.
The High Flow Sampler technology was successfully deployed in this measurement
program and Gazprom technicians were trained to use it. A High Flow Sampler device
has been loaned to Gazprom to continue their own measurements. The implications of
the measurements made in this program for overall Russian natural gas system
emissions estimates and potential strategies for reducing emissions are addressed
below.
4.1 Implications of Results for Overall Russian Gas System Emissions
Using the measurements taken at the four compressor stations, an estimate has been
developed of the overall leaks from Russian compressor facilities. This estimate is
based on a relatively small sample of leak screenings (1,800 components) and
measurements (348 components), and did not include measurements from a large
number of components that would normally be expected to have leak rates. (These
vary from station to station; at some no ball and gate valves were screened; at others
flanges were not examined; at all stations only some components were reviewed.)
Therefore, the estimate of overall leakage should be considered preliminary. Any
refined estimation would benefit from follow-up measurements across a broader range
of components and component types.
The approach used in this estimation and the results are shown in Exhibit 4.1. The
approach consisted of the following steps.
Average emission factors (or leak rates) were calculated for all of the
component categories measured across the four compressor stations.
These emission factors are expressed as cubic meters per year per
component surveyed.
The number of components in each category were estimated for the entire
Gazprom pipeline system. These estimates were based on a Gazprom
estimate that it has about 4,000 compressors in its system at about 250
compressor stations. Using the component counts at Pewomaiskaya, an
estimate of the number of each component associated with compressors
was developed. (For example, at Pewomaiskaya the number of blowdown
vents per compressor was 2.81 blowdown vents/compressor; there was one
unit valve vent per compressor.) Thus, with 4,000 compressors in the entire
Gazprom system, one may expect 4,000 unit valve vents-one per
22
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The objectives of this leak identification and measurement demonstration program were
(1) to measure leaks from natural gas compressor station components as a
first step towards developing better overall estimates of methane emissions
from Russian natural gas pipeline compressors; and
(2) to begin to identify profitable opportunities to reduce fugitive emissions at
Gazprom compressor stations.
The High Flow Sampler technology was successfully deployed in this measurement
program and Gazprom technicians were trained to use it. A High Flow Sampler device
has been loaned to Gazprom to continue their own measurements. The implications of
the measurements made in this program for overall Russian natural gas system
emissions estimates and potential strategies for reducing emissions are addressed
below.
4.1 Implications of Results for Overall Russian Gas System Emissions
Using the measurements taken at the four compressor stations, an estimate has been
developed of the overall leaks from Russian compressor facilities. This estimate is
based on a relatively small sample of leak screenings (1,800 components) and
measurements (348 components), and did not include measurements from a large
number of components that would normally be expected to have leak rates. (These
vary from station to station; at some no ball and gate valves were screened; at others
flanges were not examined; at all stations only some components were reviewed.)
Therefore, the estimate of overall leakage should be considered preliminary. Any
refined estimation would benefit from follow-up measurements across a broader range
of components and component types.
The approach used in this estimation and the results are shown in Exhibit 4.1. The
approach consisted of the following steps.
Average emission factors (or leak rates) were calculated for all of the
component categories measured across the four compressor stations.
These emission factors are expressed as cubic meters per year per
component surveyed.
The number of components in each category were estimated for the entire
Gazprom pipeline system. These estimates were based on a Gazprom
estimate that it has about 4,000 compressors in its system at about 250
compressor stations. Using the component counts at Pervomaiskaya, an
estimate of the number of each component associated with compressors
was developed. (For example, at Pervomaiskaya the number of blowdown
vents per compressor was 2.81 blowdown vents/compressor; there was one
unit valve vent per compressor.) Thus, with 4,000 compressors in the entire
Gazprom system, one may expect 4,000 unit valve vents-one per
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
22
compressor--and 11,250 station blowdown vents-2.81 per compressor--and
so on across all components.)
An activity factor (percent of time a component leaks) was assumed for each
component to account for the fact that some components only leak when a
compressor is running and others leak only when a compressor is not in
service. For all but two components the activity factor is 1.0; for unit valve
vents and compressor blowdown vents, the activity factors are assumed to
be 0.50, meaning that these leaks occur about half the time.
The product of these factors is an estimate of the total annual emissions for
all compressor stations for each component type. The sum of these will
yield an estimate of the total emissions from all compressors.
The results of this estimation are shown in Exhibit 4.1.1. The estimate for the total
compressor station losses is about 2 BCM per year. This number is an estimate of the
total methane emissions attributable to leaks from those components at compressor
stations that are directly related to the numbers of compressors. Since this estimate
does not include compressor exhaust and engine start and stop emissions, the 2 BCM
does not represent the total estimated leakage from all compressor station
components.
The final column of Exhibit 4.1 shows the percentage that each category of
components contributes to the total estimated leak rate from the Russian gas system
compressors. This percentage contribution provides a guide for where efforts should
be focused to reduce fugitive emissions and natural gas loss at compressor stations. It
also indicates the sensitivity of the total estimate to the accuracy of emission factors,
component counts, and activity factors of the individual categories. For example, if the
activity factor for unit valves were to increase by 20 percent to 0.6 instead of 0.5, the
total leak rate from the system would increase approximately 10 percent.
The data collected during this field measurement program and the emission factors
calculated from these data represent only a limited subset of components at each of
the four facilities tested. More extensive measurements and component counts are
required to refine the emission factors. The major sources at compressor stations that
have not been quantified include emissions from compressor seal vents, components
on the compressors themselves (such as compressor seal vents), and fuel components
on gas powered turbines. It is not known if these components are significant sources,
but compressor seal vents are the most likely source to be significant compared to the
major leaks currently observed at the compressor stations. In addition, a better
understanding of activity factors is necessary before an accurate assessment of
fugitive emissions from the Russian transmission system can be made using the
approach outlined above.
23
compressor--and 11,250 station blowdown vents-2.81 per compressor--and
so on across all components.)
An activity factor (percent of time a component leaks) was assumed for each
component to account for the fact that some components only leak when a
compressor is running and others leak only when a compressor is not in
service. For all but two components the activity factor is 1.0; for unit valve
vents and compressor blowdown vents, the activity factors are assumed to
be 0.50, meaning that these leaks occur about half the time.
The product of these factors is an estimate of the total annual emissions for
all compressor stations for each component type. The sum of these will
yield an estimate of the total emissions from all compressors.
The results of this estimation are shown in Exhibit 4.1.1. The estimate for the total
compressor station losses is about 2 SCM per year. This number is an estimate of the
total methane emissions attributable to leaks from those components at compressor
stations that are directly related to the numbers of compressors. Since this estimate
does not include compressor exhaust and engine start and stop emissions, the 2 SCM
does not represent the total estimated leakage from all compressor station
components.
The final column of Exhibit 4.1 shows the percentage that each category of
components contributes to the total estimated leak rate from the Russian gas system
compressors. This percentage contribution provides a guide for where efforts should
be focused to reduce fugitive emissions and natural gas loss at compressor stations. It
also indicates the sensitivity of the total estimate to the accuracy of emission factors,
component counts, and activity factors of the individual categories. For example, if the
activity factor for unit valves were to increase by 20 percent to 0.6 instead of 0.5, the
total leak rate from the system would increase approximately 10 percent.
The data collected during this field measurement program and the emission factors
calculated from these data represent only a limited subset of components at each of
the four facilities tested. More extensive measurements and component counts are
required to refine the emission factors. The major sources at compressor stations that
have not been quantified include emissions from compressor seal vents, components
on the compressors themselves (such as compressor seal vents), and fuel components
on gas powered turbines. It is not known if these components are significant sources,
but compressor seal vents are the most likely source to be significant compared to the
major leaks currently observed at the compressor stations. In addition, a better
understanding of activity factors is necessary before an accurate assessment of
fugitive emissions from the Russian transmission system can be made using the
approach outlined above.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
23
Exhibit 4.1 . l : Extrapolation of Fugitive Emissions Results t o Gazprom
Compressor Stations
4.2 Applicability of Natural Gas STAR Best Management Practices t o the Russian
System
As noted previously, the Natural Gas STAR program in the United States has identified
a number of best management practices ("BMPs") for natural gas pipeline companies
that reduce leaks at natural gas facilities in the U.S. Among the BMPs identified, one is
particularly applicable to fugitive emissions at Russian compressor stations: directed
inspection and maintenance at compressor stations.
The aim of a directed inspection and maintenance program is to focus resources on the
identification and repair of leaks that contribute most to overall emissions and for which
24
Exhibit 4.1.1: Extrapolation of Fugitive Emissions Results to Gazprom
Compressor Stations
4.2 Applicability of Natural Gas STAR Best Management Practices to the Russian
System
As noted previously, the Natural Gas STAR program in the United States has identified
a number of best management practices ("BMPs") for natural gas pipeline companies
that reduce leaks at natural gas facilities in the U.S. Among the BMPs identified, one is
particularly applicable to fugitive emissions at Russian compressor stations: directed
inspection and maintenance at compressor stations.
The aim of a directed inspection and maintenance program is to focus resources on the
identification and repair of leaks that contribute most to overall emissions and for which
rfi\"'YV' "'iii/i?
'/
,@1 'i
/e" ..
/ ... \
T6tAI

!=b.: i7
I/i .... 'i/ . ;i.'
I.. ......
./... ............??i iii
.. ../ ....[.;............
Compressor Unit 465,274 4000 0.5 930.5 47.89%
Valve Vents'
Station Slowdown 52,406 11,250 1.0 589.6 30.34%
Vents
Sail/Plug Valves 535 224,000 1.0 119.9 6.17%
Compressor 21,330 4,000 1.0 85.3 4.39%
Recvcle Vents-
Compressor Fuel 20,636 4,000 1.0 82.5 4.25%
Gas Vents-
Compressor Start 11,759 4,000 1.0 47.0 2.42%
Gas Vents
Pipe Thread 74 398,667 1.0 29.6 1.53%
Connectors
Gate/Needle 294 94,667 1.0 27.9 1.43%
Valves"'"
Tubing Connectors 75 88,000 1.0 6.6 0.34%
Cooler Slowdown 308 21,333 1.0 6.6 0.34%
Vents
Compressor 1,233 4000 1.0 4.9 0.25%
Svoass Vents
Control Valves 770 5,333 1.0 4.1 0.21%
Pressure Relief 274 12,000 1.0 3.3 0.17%
Valves
Open Ended lines 185 16,000 1.0 3.0 0.15%
Flanges- 24 88,000 1.0 2.1 0.11%
Compressor 0 4,000 0.5 0 0.00%
Slowdown Vents
Systemwide Compressor Station Total 1,942.9 100.00%
Leak only occurs when compressor is depressurized (assumed to be 50% of the year); emission factor refers to total leak
from the suction and discharge valves.
Emission factor based on leak rate measurements at one station only; dependence on compressor status is uncertain.
... Emission factor based on leak rate measurements at one station only.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
24
the benefits of repair (in terms of the value of the natural gas saved relative to the costs
of the repair or maintenance activity) are correspondingly the greatest. A directed
inspection and maintenance program depends on two elements:
Accurate leak measurements such as those performed with the GRlIlndaco
High Flow Sampler; and
An ongoing assessment of leak trends to aid in determining where and how
often measurement surveys need to be made (e.g., quarterly, semi-annually
or annually) and which components need to be monitored.
The measurements undertaken in this study suggest that focusing on the largest leaks
at a compressor station can significantly reduce leak rates. This refers both to all leaks
at a station and leaks within categories of components where a few leaks dominate a
component category. For example, of the four leaking unit valves measured at the
Petrovsk station, repairing the largest would reduce the gas loss from the unit valve
category by 60 percent. Similarly, repairing the largest of the 29 leaking pipe threads at
Pervomaiskaya would reduce the leak rate from those components by almost 40
percent.
As an overall strategy, the results of this study suggest that significant reductions can
be achieved by focusing repair efforts on the vent systems at these stations.
Compressor unit valve vents account for the largest leak category by a wide margin. If
these leaks could be repaired, 48 percent of the total estimated emissions potentially
could be eliminated.
Each category of leaks may have specific best management practices for leak
reduction once the leak rates are known. For example, it may be useful to inspect and
maintain vents more frequently than the other components due to the significance of
leaks from vents. Such a program could include applications of special sealants in vent
valves on a monthly basis. On the other hand, some component categories that are
shown to leak less may only require annual inspection and maintenance regimes.
Research supported by the EPA currently is aimed at establishing the optimum time
frames for such directed inspection and maintenance of various component categories
for transmission and distribution pipelines in the U.S. Whether the cycles identified as
optimal for U.S. facilities would be similarly optimal for the Russian system remains to
be seen. Facility managers and engineers will be best qualified to determine the
appropriate strategies once more information about the character and extent of leaking
components is known for Russian facilities.
4.3 Next Steps
This study has demonstrated the efficacy of high flow sampling to identify major
sources of emissions from Russian compressor station components. As noted in this
report, however, measurements were made at a relatively small number of components
at the four compressor stations. To expand upon the work initiated under this study
25
the benefits of repair (in terms of the value of the natural gas saved relative to the costs
of the repair or maintenance activity) are correspondingly the greatest. A directed
inspection and maintenance program depends on two elements:
Accurate leak measurements such as those performed with the GRl/lndaco
High Flow Sampler; and
4.3 Next Steps
This study has demonstrated the efficacy of high flow sampling to identify major
sources of emissions from Russian compressor station components. As noted in this
report, however, measurements were made at a relatively small number of components
at the four compressor stations. To expand upon the work initiated under this study
An ongoing assessment of leak trends to aid in determining where and how
often measurement surveys need to be made (e.g., quarterly, semi-annually
or annually) and which components need to be monitored.
The measurements undertaken in this study suggest that focusing on the largest leaks
at a compressor station can significantly reduce leak rates. This refers both to all leaks
at a station and leaks within categories of components where a few leaks dominate a
component category. For example, of the four leaking unit valves measured at the
Petrovsk station, repairing the largest would reduce the gas loss from the unit valve
category by 60 percent. Similarly, repairing the largest of the 29 leaking pipe threads at
Pervomaiskaya would reduce the leak rate from those components by almost 40
percent.
As an overall strategy, the results of this study suggest that significant reductions can
be achieved by focusing repair efforts on the vent systems at these stations.
Compressor unit valve vents account for the largest leak category by a wide margin. If
these leaks could be repaired, 48 percent of the total estimated emissions potentially
could be eliminated. .
Each category of leaks may have specific best management practices for leak
reduction once the leak rates are known. For example, it may be useful to inspect and
maintain vents more frequently than the other components due to the significance of
leaks from vents. Such a program could include applications of special sealants in vent
valves on a monthly basis. On the other hand, some component categories that are
shown to leak less may only require annual inspection and maintenance regimes.
Research supported by the EPA currently is aimed at establishing the optimum time
frames for such directed inspection and maintenance of various component categories
for transmission and distribution pipelines in the U.S. Whether the cycles identified as
optimal for U.S. facilities would be similarly optimal for the Russian system remains to
be seen. Facility managers and engineers will be best qualified to determine the
appropriate strategies once more information about the character and extent of leaking
components is known for Russian facilities.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
25
and to generate better information on methane emissions from Russian compressors,
the following steps are planned:
1. Follow-up measurements will be performed at one or more of the
compressor stations. Such follow-up measurements should include
complete component surveys to document the numbers and types of
components as well as to identify those that are leaking. Such follow-up
studies should also incorporate information on Russian compressor
technologies and on operations and maintenance policies.
2.
In conjunction with Gazprom, EPA plans to provide on-going training for
Gazprom technicians in measuring leaks with the High Flow Sampler. This
training should be aimed at determining whether the High Flow Sampler or
another form of leak detection and measurement is suited for Gazprom
personnel and operations.
3.
Gazprom and EPA will build upon these initial measurements, as well as
upon demonstration data collected in conjunction with the U.S./Gazprom
Working Group, to identify cost-effective technologies and practices that
reduce emissions of methane from all of Gazprom's major sources --
compressor stations, pipelines and production facilities. This analysis will
parallel related work undertaken by EPA and the US. natural gas industry
and possibly form the basis for a Natural Gas STAR Program in Russia.
26
and to generate better information on methane emissions from Russian compressors,
the following steps are planned:
1. Follow-up measurements will be performed at one or more of the
compressor stations. Such follow-up measurements should include
complete component surveys to document the numbers and types of
components as well as to identify those that are leaking. Such follow-up
studies should also incorporate information on Russian compressor
technologies and on operations and maintenance policies.
2. In conjunction with Gazprom, EPA plans to provide on-going training for
Gazprom technicians in measuring leaks with the High Flow Sampler. This
training should be aimed at determining whether the High Flow Sampler or
another form of leak detection and measurement is suited for Gazprom
personnel and operations.
3. Gazprom and EPA will build upon these initial measurements, as well as
upon demonstration data collected in conjunction with the U.S.lGazprom
Working Group, to identify cost-effective technologies and practices that
reduce emissions of methane from all of Gazprom's major sources --
compressor stations, pipelines and production facilities. This analysis will
parallel related work undertaken by EPA and the U.S. natural gas industry
and possibly form the basis for a Natural Gas STAR Program in Russia.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
26
REFERENCES
Bordiugov. A., 1995. Methane Emissions at Russian Gas Industry Facilities in m,
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 99, No. 3-4. July-
December 1995.
CMA, 1989. Improving Air Quality: Guidance for Estimating Fugitive Emissions from
Equipment. Chemical Manufacturer's Association, Washington, DC 20037.
Gazprom, 1995. Annual Report 94. Informational and Advertising Center for the Gas
Industry.
Gritsenko. A.I., 1994. Gas Industry of Russia: Strategy of Development and Gas
Supply to Europe. Presented at the March 16-17. 1994 meeting of the Moscow
lnternational Energy Club, Paris, France.
Howard, T., R. Siverson, A. Wenzlick and B. Lott, 1994. A high flow rate sampling
system for measuring emissions from leaking process components. Presented at the
1994 International Workshop on Environmental and Economic Impacts of Natural Gas
Losses, Prague, Czech Republic.
OECDIIEA, 1995. Energy Policies of the Russian Federation: 1995 Survey.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.
U.S. EPA, 1993. Options for Reducing Methane Emissions Internationally; Vol. 11:
International Opportunities for Reducing Methane Emissions. Report to Congress,
p. 3-12.
Webb, M., and P. Martino, 1992. Fugitive Hydrocarbon Emissions from Petroleum
Production Operations. Presented at the 8sth ~ n n u a l Meeting of the Air and Waste
Management Association, Paper No. 92-66.1 1.
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Bordiugov. A., 1995. Methane Emissions at Russian Gas Industry Facilities in Id6hinis,
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 99, No. 3-4. JUly-
December 1995.
CMA, 1989. Improving Air Quality: Guidance for Estimating Fugitive Emissions from
Equipment. Chemical Manufacturer's Association, Washington, DC 20037.
Gazprom, 1995. Annual Report 94. Informational and Advertising Center for the Gas
Industry.
Gritsenko, A.I., 1994. Gas Industry of Russia: Strategy of Development and Gas
Supply to Europe. Presented at the March 16-17, 1994 meeting of the Moscow
International Energy Club, Paris, France.
Howard, T., R. Siverson, A. Wenzlick and B. Lot!, 1994. A high flow rate sampling
system for measuring emissions from leaking process components. Presented at the
1994 International Workshop on Environmental and Economic Impacts of Natural Gas
Losses, Prague, Czech Republic.
OECDIlEA, 1995. Energy Policies of the Russian Federation: 1995 Survey.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, France.
U.S. EPA, 1993. Options for Reducing Methane Emissions Internationally; Vol. II:
International Opportunities for Reducing Methane Emissions. Report to Congress,
p.3-12.
Webb, M., and P. Martino, 1992. Fugitive Hydrocarbon Emissions from Petroleum
Production Operations. Presented at the 85
th
Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste
Management Association, Paper No. 92-66.11.
Exhibit A.l Petrovsk Compressor Station
Unit valves outside compressor building.
(Saratov, Russia; October, 1995)
A- I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit A.1 Petrovsk Compressor Station
Unit valves outside compressor building.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE A-1
Ball valve soap screening. Note bubbling foam (arrow) and tag.
A-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ball valve soap screening. Note bUbbling foam (arrow) and tag.
Exhibit A.3 Storojovka Compressor Station
High Flow Sampler measurement (component hidden).
A-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit A.3 Storojovka Compressor Station
High Flow Sampler measurement (component hidden).
Exhibit A. 4 Pervomaiskaya Compressor Station
Screening a buried valve; scrubbers in background.
(Moscow Region, Russia; December, 1995)
A-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit A. 4 Pervomaiskaya Compressor Station
Screening a buried valve; scrubbers in background.
Exhibit A.5 Pe~omaiskaya Compressor Station
High Flow Sample measurement at a cooler blowdown.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit A.5 Pervomaiskaya Compressor Station
High Flow Sample measurement at a cooler blowdown.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE A-S
High Flow Sampler measurement at a ball valve.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
High Flow Sampler measurement at a ball valve.
APPENDIX 8. OVERVIEW OF LEAK DETECTION AND MEASUREMENT
TECHNIQUES
This section provides an ovewiew of techniques that are currently used to
detect and quantify leak rates at natural gas facilities. Of these techniques, the high
flow sampling method and the direct measurement approach using a rotameter (for
very large leaks) were applied at the Russian facilities.
A. Leak Detection Techniques
The most common methods of leak detection in natural gas systems are the
use of soap solution and screening using a methane detection instrument. Soap
solution leak detection is straightforward but requires the person performing leak
detection to pay constant attention to the components being screened. Generally leaks
respond in three ways to bubble solution. First, they may form bubbles that are
immediately obvious to the operator. Second, the bubble formation may be slower and
may not be obvious until 1- 2 minutes later. This requires the operator to look back
occasionally over the area which has been previously sprayed. Third, the leak may be
so large that it blows the leak solution away quickly and no further bubbles are formed.
This requires the operator to watch the component to which the soap solution is applied
during the application.
Soap solution screening may not be suitable for all components. Flanges with
deep crevices and hot or moving parts fall in this category. (Soap solution is also not
useful for liquid component streams but this is not an issue at natural gas transmission
compressor stations.) A methane detection instrument should be used for these
components. Although Foxboro units such as the OVA-108 and the TVA-1000 have
been used for many past studies of using screening and correlation equations, lighter
weight and wider range instruments are available from other sources. For this study
the Bascom - Turner CGA 201 was used to screen any components that could not be
screened using soap solution. This screening was performed for leak detection only
6. Screening Techniques, Correlation Equations, and Bagging Measurements
Screening techniques, correlation equations, and bagging measurements
(technically called enclosure measurements) have been grouped together for
discussion because of their close relationship to each other. Screening techniques
originally started as a leak detection method'only and guidelines have-been o&ed by
U.S. EPA Method 21. 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 1cm 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 often as high as
three orders of magnitude.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE B-1
APPENDIX B. OVERVIEW OF LEAK DETECTION AND MEASUREMENT
TECHNIQUES
This section provides an overview of techniques that are currently used to
detect and quantify leak rates at natural gas facilities. Of these techniques, the high
flow sampling method and the direct measurement approach using a rotameter (for
very large leaks) were applied at the Russian facilities.
Soap solution screening may not be suitable for all components. Flanges with
deep crevices and hot or moving parts fall in this category. (Soap solution is also not
useful for liquid component streams but this is not an issue at natural gas transmission
compressor stations.) A methane detection instrument should be used for these
components. Although Foxboro units such as the OVA-108 and the TVA-1000 have
been used for many past studies of using screening and correlation equations, lighter
weight and wider range instruments are available from other sources. For this study
the Bascom Tumer CGA 201 was used to screen any components that could not be
screened using soap solution. This screening was performed for leak detection only
A. Leak Detection Techniques
The most common methods of leak detection in natural gas systems are the
use of soap solution and screening using a methane detection instrument. Soap
solution leak detection is straightforward but requires the person performing leak
detection to pay constant attention to the components being screened. Generally leaks
respond in three ways to bubble solution. First, they may form bubbles that are
immediately obvious to the operator. Second, the bubble formation may be slower and
may not be obvious until 1 2 minutes later. This requires the operator to look back
occasionally over the area which has been previously sprayed. Third, the leak may be
so large that it blows the leak solution away quickly and no further bubbles are formed.
This requires the operator to watch the component to which the soap solution is applied
during the application.
B1 DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
B. Screening Techniques, Correlation Equations, and Bagging Measurements
Screening techniques, correlation equations, and bagging measurements
(technically called enclosure measurements) have been grouped together for
discussion because of their close relationship to each other. Screening techniques
originally started as a leak detection method only and guidelines have been outlined by
U.S. EPA Method 21. 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 often as high as
three orders of magnitude.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 1000 mllmin, so if as little as 10 mllmin 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 errors observed in applying
correlation equations. In practice, leak rates greater than 100 mllmin (often much less)
will register offscale. Leak rates greater than 1 literlmin (again, onen much less) will
result in a concentration greater than lo%, which will blow out the flame of the flame
ionization detector in the OVA.
It is the pegged sources from the largest leaks that contribute most to the facility
emissions and losses. In general, 3% - 6% of the components in a US. natural gas
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, since
these leaks can vary tremendously and much effort can be spent in repairing leaks that
do not significantly reduce gas loss.
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 purge gas (air or nitrogen)
sweeps through the enclosure at a measured flow rate. 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:
where:
aCH4= leak rate of methane from the enclosed component (Ilmin),
F~~~~ = the purge flow rate of the clean air or nitrogen (Ilmin), and
ccH4= the measured concentration of methane in the exit flow (percent).
C. High Flow Sampling
To overcome the shortcomings of current leak measurement methods discussed
previously, a high flow rate sampling system was developed for the Gas Research
Institute that is able to make measurements with the same accuracv as enclosure
measurements but at a speed approaching that of leak detection screening
measurements (Howard et al., 1994, Lott et al., 1995). The new sampler uses a high
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 8-2
where:
C. High Flow Sampling
0CH4 =leak rate of methane from the enclosed component (l/min),
F
purge
=the purge flow rate of the clean air or nitrogen (l/mln) , and
CCH4 =the measured concentration of methane In the exit flow (percent).
B-2
(1 )
To overcome the shortcomings of current leak measurement methods discussed
previously, a high flow rate sampling system was developed for the Gas Research
Institute that is able to make measurements with the same accuracy as enclosure
measurements but at a speed approaching that of leak detection screening
measurements (Howard et aI., 1994, Lott et aI., 1995). The new sampler uses a high
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 1000 mllmin, so if as little as 10 mllmin 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 errors observed in applying
correlation equations. In practice, leak rates greater than 100 mllmin (often much less)
will register offscale. Leak rates greater than 1 literlmin (again, often much less) will
result in a concentration greater than 10%, which will blowout the flame of the flame
ionization detector in the OVA.
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 nonperrneable material (such as tedlar or mylar) and a purge gas (air or nitrogen)
sweeps through the enclosure at a measured flow rate. 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:
It is the pegged sources from the largest leaks that contribute most to the facility
emissions and losses. In general, 3% - 6% of the components in a U.S. natural gas
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, since
these leaks can vary tremendously and much effort can be spent in repairing leaks that
do not significantly reduce gas loss.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
flow rate of air to completely capture the gas leaking from the component. A methane
detector is used to measure the exit concentration in the air stream of the high flow
system. The high flow sampler essentially performs an enclosure measurement using
the flow regime induced by the sampler instead of a physical enclosure. Emissions are
calculated similarly to an enclosure measurement as follows:
where:
QCH4= leak rate of methane from the leaking component (Ilmin),
Fsampler = the sample flow rate of the high flow rate sampler (Nmin),
CsmW = the concentration of methane in the sample flow (percent), and
CBackground= the concentration of methane in the background near the component
(percent).
The background concentration must be subtracted from the main sample flow
because it may 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 a three way valve is used to switch between
background and sample to determine an accurate background concentration, or two
detectors may be used simultaneously.
Two opposing factors influence the choice of sample flow rate for the system.
Higher flow rates provide a better chance of complete 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 auantified and increase the chance of
interference from nearby leaks. For instance, at a ;ample flow rate of 100Ilmin, a
methane leak of 50mllmin will result in a concentration increase of 500ppm. A sample
flow rate of 500Ilmin at the same leak would result in a concentration increase of only
100ppm. When working in an area where a high background concentration is present,
a larger net concentration increase is easier to quantify.
The High Flow Sampler has been validated using both laboratory and field
measurements. A simulated leak was used to investigate the high flow sampler's ability
to capture leaks. The 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 one liter soap bubblemeter (Alltech, lnc.)
Methane flow rates were measured before and after each sampling period and had a
nominal range of 0.5Ilmin to 11 Ilmin. All volumetric flow rates have been converted to
conditions at 7O0F,1atm. The agreement of the bubblemeter measurements and high
flow sampler measurements was within 5% for most measurements with a maximum
deviation Of 12%.
As indicated previously, the High Flow Sampler allows an accurate emission
rate to be made in less than one tenth the time required to perform an enclosure
measurement. Consequently, the High Flow Sampler makes it possible to accurately
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 8-3
As indicated previously. the High Flow Sampler allows an accurate emission
rate to be made in less than one tenth the time required to perform an enclosure
measurement. Consequently, the High Flow Sampler makes it possible to accurately
flow rate of air to completely capture the gas leaking from the component. A methane
detector is used to measure the exit concentration in the air stream of the high flow
system. The high flow sampler essentially performs an enclosure measurement using
the flow regime induced by the sampler instead of a physical enclosure. Emissions are
calculated similarly to an enclosure measurement as follows:
Q
CH4
= leak rate of methane from the leaking component (I/min).
Fsampler =the sample flow rate of the high Row rate sampler (IImin).
C
Sampie
=the concentration of methane in the sample flow (percent). and
Csackground =the concentration of methane in the background near the component
(percent).
The background concentration must be subtracted from the main sample flow
because it may 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 a three way valve is used to switch between
background and sample to detemnine an accurate background concentration, or two
detectors may be used simultaneously.
B-3
(2)
Q
CH4
=FSampler x (Csampie _CSackground)
The High Flow Sampler has been validated using both laboratory and field
measurements. A simulated leak was used to investigate the high flow sampler's ability
to capture leaks. The 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 one liter soap bubblemeter (Alltech. Inc.)
Methane flow rates were measured before and after each sampling period and had a
nominal range of 0.5 11min to 11 IImin. All volumetric flow rates have been converted to
conditions at 70'F. 1 atm. The agreement of the bubblemeter measurements and high
flow sampler measurements was within 5% for most measurements with a maximum
deviation of 12%.
Two opposing factors influence the choice of sample flow rate for the system.
Higher flow rates provide a better chance of complete 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 100 l/min. a
methane leak of 50 mllmin will result in a concentration increase of 500 ppm. A sample
flow rate of 500 llmin at the same leak would result in a concentration increase of only
100 ppm. When working in an area where a high background concentration is present,
a larger net concentration increase is easier to quantify.
where:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
quantify emission rates from leaking components instead of estimating the emission
rates from screening correlations. The implications are two fold. First, emissions can
now be quantified far more accurately than was ever possible before. Previously it has
been uneconomical to perform enclosure measurements at all leaking components or
even at all the components which resulted in "pegged source" (off scale) screening
values.
Secondly, with the leak rate database that can be generated for a specific
facility, the largest leaks can be targeted for priority repair. Generally, the majority of
emissions result from a relative small fraction of the leaking components. Repair of the
large leaks allows large (and quantifiable) reductions in emissions in an economic
manner.
D. Direct Measurements Using a Rotameter
Rotameters are used to supplement high flow measurements when the leaks
identified are extremely large. For the Russia measurements, rotameters were used for
10 of the 348 total measurements.
The largest emissions observed at compressor stations in the U.S. and in
Russia are generally from open ended lines (4" to 12" in diameter) which are used as
vents for blowdown valves. The largest leaks actually occur when compressors are
blown down and the blowdown valve is open, allowing leaks across the suction and
discharge valves to vent through the blowdown line. Metal plates with short pipe thread
fittings and full open quick connects were connected to rotameters to make direct
measurements at leaks of these vents. This provides the ability to change back and
forth easily between several rotameters which cover the range of 0.1 scfm to 330 scfm
of natural gas. The plates have closed cell foam pads to provide a tight seal to the rim
of the open ended lines, which often have rough edges. By having the rotameter
connect directly to the plate, the pressure drop of the system is minimized.
8-4
D. Direct Measurements Using a Rotameter
Rotameters are used to supplement high flow measurements when the leaks
identified are extremely large. For the Russia measurements, rotameters were used for
10 of the 348 total measurements.
Secondly, with the leak rate database that can be generated for a specific
facility, the largest leaks can be targeted for priority repair. Generally, the majority of
emissions result from a relative small fraction of the leaking components. Repair of the
large leaks allows large (and quantifiable) reductions in emissions in an economic
manner.
quantify emission rates from leaking components instead of estimating the emission
rates from screening correlations. The implications are two fold. First, emissions can
now be quantified far more accurately than was ever possible before. Previously it has
been uneconomical to perform enclosure measurements at all leaking components or
even at all the components which resulted in "pegged source" (off scale) screening
values.
The largest emissions observed at compressor stations in the U.S. and in
Russia are generally from open ended lines (4" to 12" in diameter) which are used as
vents for blowdown valves. The largest leaks actually occur when compressors are
blown down and the blowdown valve is open, allOWing leaks across the suction and
discharge valves to vent through the blowdown line. Metal plates with short pipe thread
fittings and full open quick connects were connected to rotameters to make direct
measurements at leaks of these vents. This provides the ability to change back and
forth easily between several rotameters which cover the range of 0.1 scfm to 330 scfm
of natural gas. The plates have closed cell foam pads to provide a tight seal to the rim
of the open ended lines, which often have rough edges. By having the rotameter
connect directly to the plate, the pressure drop of the system is minimized.
8-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C. DETAILED LEAK REPORTS
C-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C. DETAILED LEAK REPORTS
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE C-1
Russian Screening Data Summary -- Leaks by Component Class
17-May-96
Sile
ilt1. Jrtln1
Oate
Indaco
Leak 10# Description
Size
(units)
Equip,
Ty""
Sampler
Measurement..
Slimp 8kgnd
Rotameter
Measurements
Scaling CarrecUon
menl Faclf)r Factor
LeakRate LeakRate Cost
(Urnin) (SCFII) ($/Year)
Scrcen*** Screen
Insfrmnt
Chaplygin
Recycle Vents
Unit I - Recycle De:c-95 No Tag OEL on Plug Valve (Running) lin d 42 3.6 1.342 405.8208 859.89 $11,946 0
H
Vent
Recycle Venls Tolal
405.8 859.89 $11,946
Bypass Vents
Unit 9 - Bypass Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Blowndown) lin a 6.5 0.45 0 3.6 1.342 1.1983 2.54 $35 0
H
Vent
Unit 12 - Bypass Dcc-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Running) 2in a 7.3 8.m 0 3,6 "1.342 22.2607 47.17 $655 0
"
Vent
Bypass Venls Tolal
23.5 49.71 $691
Starting Gas Vents
Unit 5 - Valve 10 Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve NR in a 4.75 3.55 0 3,6 1.342 6.6782 14.15 $197 0
H
Vent
Unit II Start Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Blowndown) Jin a 6.8 1.90 0 3.6 1.342 52191 Il.{16 $154 0
"
Gas Manifold
Vent
Unit 10- Start De<-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Blowndown) 3in a 5.9 1.00 0 3.6 1.342 2.4018 5.09 $71 0
"
Gas Manifold
Vent
Unit 9 - Start Gas Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Rlowndown) Jin a 6.8 10.50 0 3.6 1.342 26.5791 5ti.)2 $782 0
"
Manifold Vent
Unit 12 Start Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Running) Jin a 8 13.m 0 3.6 1.342 37.9022 80.31 $1,116 0
"
Gas Manifold
Vent
Unil 7 Starting Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Running) 3in b 30 16 1.342 1449360 307.10 $4,266 0
"
Gas Vent
Slarling Gas Venls Tolal
223.7 474.03 $6,586
Fuel Gas Vents
Unit 6 Valve 9 Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve NR in a 52 12m 0 36 1.342 22.8514 48.42 $673 0
"
Vent
Unit 12 Fuel No Tag OEL On Ball Valve (Running) 2in a 10.2 92.00 0 3.6 1.342 2m.7613 425.19 $5,910 0
"
Gas Venl
.._,",.,.._---------_.. _-.""._- ""-----".. _"""'-. __.. " .. ..... __.".. -" .. .. .. _-,, ...--- "',,_._---
Page. 1 of 17
- - - - - - - - -
- - - -
- - -
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
Rotameter
HighFlow Sampler
Measurements
Indaco Size
E . I Measurements
Correction ILeakRate LeakRate Cost
Screen*** Screen
.qUlp.
Mca.<ur... ScalioR
Site Dale Leak IIJ# Ilcscription
(units)
Type Velodly Slimp Bkgnd
menl Farlor Factor (Vrnin) (SeFlI) ($fYear) Instrmnt
GalPmm - Chaplygin / Unit 7 Fuel Gas Vent, , , continued
Unit 7 - Fuel Gas Dec95 No Tag QEL on Ball Valve (Running) 2in b 34 3.6 1.342 1642608 348.05 $4,835 0
"
Venl
Unit I - Fuel Gas Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Running) 2in
"
7.1 165 0 3.6 1.342 47457 1006 $140 0
"
Vent
Fuel Gas Vents Total 392,6 R31.92 $11,558
Unit Valve Vents
Unit 4 - Valve 5 Dec-95 No Tag Unit Valve Vent (Blowndown)- :Win b 53 3.6 1.342 256.05.16 542.55 .'57,537 0
"
Vent Ball Valve
Unit.5 - Valve .5 Dec-95 No Tag Unit Valve Vent (B1owndown)- JOin b 30 3.6 1.;142 144.9360 307.10 $4,266 0
"
Vent Ball Valve
Unit 6 - Valve 5 Dec-95 No Tag Unit Valve Vent (Blowndown)- JOin b 33 3.6 1.342 159.4296 337.81 $4,693 0
"
Vent Ball Valve
Unit Valve Vellts Total
560.4 1,187.47 $16,497
Cooler Vents
Cooler 4 Vent Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Gate Valve 2in a 4.6 0.10 0 3.6 1342 0.1885 OAO $6 0
"
Cooler 6 Vent Dcc-95 No Tag DEL on Gate Valve 2in a 4.85 IA5 0 3.6 1.342 2.8441 603 $84 0
"
Cooler 6 Vent Dec95 No Tag OEL on Gate Valve 2 ill a 5A 235 0 3.6 1.342 5.0926 10.79 $150 0
"
Cooler Vents Total
8.1 17.22 $239
Chaplygin Total
1,614.2 3,420.23 $47,516
Pervomaiskaya
Gate Valves
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1004 Gate Valve I in a 1.8 0.75 0 0.5392 1.14 $16
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1005 Gate Valve
1in
"
1.5 OA5 0 0.2687 0.57 58
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov95 1014 Gale Valve Stern/Pipe Thread .5 in
"
5.6 0.60 0 1.3726 2.91 $40
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1019 Gate Valve Stem
.75 in a 3.75 0.80 0 1.2171 2.58 $36
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1065 Gate Valve (Chero--Italy)
I in a 3.9 120 0 1.8922 4.tll $56
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1066 Gate Valve (Chero--Italy) I in a
4 0.40 0
0.6524 1.38 $19
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1068 Gate Valve (Chero--ltaly) I in a 3.25 0.15 0 0.1986 OA2 $6
Cooler A Outlet 1071 Gale Valve (Chero--Itaiy) I in a 3.7 0.15 0 0.2266 OA8 $7
Cooler A Olillet Nov-95 1074 Gme Valve (Chero--Italy) 1in a 16 0.90 0 0.5720 1.21 $17
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1078 Gate Valve (Chero--ltaly) I in a 3.8 0.45 0
0.6963 IA8 $20
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1080 Gate Valve (Chcro--Italy) 1in a 1.55 0.75 0
OA620 0.98 $14
.__ ...,---- ... "_._......... ..,,._---...""
Page 2 of 17
Rotameter
High Flow Sampler I Measurements
Indueo
Size
Measurements L kR L kR' C Screen*** Screen
Equip. Measure. Scaling Correction ea ate ea ale ost
Site Dute Leak 10# Description
(units) Type I Velocity Samp 81'1:00 menl Factor FlIclllr I (Vmin) (SCFH) ($/Year)
Instrmnt
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya / Cooler B Outlet. .. continued
Cooler B Outlet Nov
w
95 1099 Gate Valve (Chero-ltaly)
lin a 5.5 0.98 0
2.1820 4.62 $64
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1101 Gate Valve (Chero--Italy) I in a 4.05 0.25 0
OAI35 0.88 $12
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1105 Gate Valve (Chero--Italy) I in a 3.35 0.10 0
0.1366 0.29 $4
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1108 Gale Valve (Chero--Italy)
I in a 3.65 0.15 0
0.2235 OA7 $7
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1121 Gate Valve
I in a 1.5 4.00 0
2.3042 4.88 $68
Cooler B Outlet Nov
w
95 1123 Gate Valve
I in a 3.15 0.85 0.05
1.0190 2.16 $30
Unit Valve Nov-95 1126 Gate Valve
I in a 3.65 0.30 0
OA463 0.95 $13
Gas Turbine I
Unil Valve Area-- Nov-95 1156 Gale Valve
I in a 2.05 0.10 0
0.0827 0.18 $2
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area
ww
Nov-95 1159 Gate Valve
I in a 2.9 0.60 0
07043 1.49 $21
Gas Turbine 3
Gate Valves Total
15.6 33.08 $460
Ball Valves
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov
w
95 1001 Ball Valve
6 in a 4.8 10.00 0
17 .8841 3789 $526
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1002 Ball Valve
6in a 5.3 2.90 0
6.1335 13.00 $181
Turbine Inlet)
6in a 1.7 2.25 0
1.5018 3.18 $44
Turbine Inlet)
6in a 2.9 4.00 0
4.5388 9.62 $134
Turbine Inlet)
6in a 2.3 \0.00 0
8A523 17.91 $249
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov
w
95 1008 Ball valve
24in a IA 0.20 0
0.1115 0.24 $3
Turbine Inlet)
6 in a 1.4 0.10 0.05
0.0279 0.06 $1
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov95 1010 Ball Valve
oin a 3.5 1.90 0
2.6655 5.65 $78
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov+95 1011 Ball Valve
oin a 3.4 0.90 0
1.2383 262 $36
Turbine Inlet)
6in a 4.9 lAS 0
2.8738 609 $85
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nov95 1023 Ball Valve
in n 3.45 0.83 0
1.1530 244 $34
Turbine Inlct)
in a 3.55 1.22 0
1.7483 3.70 $51
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nov95 1027 Ball Valve Stem
24io a 2
),00 0
3.8399 8.14 $113
Turbine Inlet)
,,-.--.__._' --
}'age3of /7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
?
"7

m

m

>
;
;
;

P
z
z
z

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- -
Rotameter
mghFlow Sample< I Measurements
Indaco
Size
Measurements
L kR t I kR Ie Screen""*
Screen
Equip.
MeliSUrt- Scallnl': ea a e a e ost
Site Dale Leak 10#
(units) Type I Velocity Simp BkCnd men! Factor Factor I (tlmin) (SCFH) ($fYear)
Ins'trmnt
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya / Scrubber 4 (Gas Turbine Inlet). .. continued
Scrubber 4 (Gas Noy-95 1028 Ball Valve Crank
in a 3.2 0.30 0
0.3905 0.83 $11
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nov-95 1029 Ball Valve Stem
in a
3.9 0.25 0
0.3980 0.84 $12
Turbine Inlet)
6in a
4 2.60 0
4.1481 8.79 $122
Turbine Inlet)
6 in a
3.7 0.55 0
0.8275 1.75 $24
Turbine Inlet)
6in a
4.3 1.20 0
2.0890 4.43 $61
Turbine Inlet)
4in a
5.7 1.00 0
2.3196 4.91 $68
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov-95 1037 Ball Valve Crank
24io a
1.78 0.05 0
0.0358 0,08 $1
Turbine Inlet)
24in a
1.77 0.15 0
0.1066 0.2.1- $3
Turbine Inlet)
4 in a
1.74 0.20 0
0.1.196 0.:10 $4
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov-95 1040 Ball Valve Body
4in a
1.78 0.10 0
0.0715 0.15 $2
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov-95 1041 Ball Valve Stern
4in a
1.56 0.20 0
0.1247 0.26 $4
Turbine Inlet)
6in a
6.5 5.00 0
12.7327 26.98 $375
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1043
Ball VaJve Stem
6in a
1.75 0.45 0
0.3152 0.67 $9
Turbine Inlet)
SCfllbber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1044
Ball Valve Body
4in a
1.72 2.10 0
1.4209 301 $42
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 104.\
Ball Valve Stern
4in a
1.72 0.]0 0
0.2067 0.44 $6
Turbine Inlet)
Ball Valve Stem
6in a
1.62 00.\ 0
0,0325 0.07 $1
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1053
Ball Valve Crank
24io a
1.35 0.50 0
0.2675 0.57 $8
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1054 Ball Valve Stem
4in a
3.45 0.45 0
0.6313 \.34 $19
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1055
Ball Valve Stem
6in a
1.49 0.03 0
0.0149
0.0] $0
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1059
Ball Valve Stem
6in a
1.33 0.05 0
0.0265 0.06 $1
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1061.1 A
BaJl Valve Stem (Biffi)
Sin a
1.55 0.35 0
0.2165 0.46 $6
Cooler A hllet Nov-95 1061.2 B
Ball Valve Body Conn (Biffi)
Sin a
6.1 1.50 0
3.7074 7.86 $109
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1062.1 A
BaH Valve Stern (Biffi)
Sin a
255 1.95 0
1.9802 4.20 $58
---",--,,----

Page 4 of 17
-- ----
Gawrom - Pervomaiskava /Cooler A Inlet. ..continued
Cooler A tnlct Nov-95 Hirll Valve Body Conn (Riffi) Xin a
Cooler A lnlcl NovdS Ball Valve Stern (Riffi) Bi n a
Cooler A lnlel Nov-95 Ball Valve Stem (Bi ffi ) Si n a
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 Ball Vdvc Hody Conn (Riffi) 8i n a
Cooler A Oullet Nov-95 Bell Valvc Stern (Ri ffi ) l oi n a
Cooler A Outlel Nov-95 Rnll Vvlvc Slem (Riffi) 10i n it
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 Ball Vnlve Stem (Riffi) IOi n a
Coolcr A Oullct Nov-95 Hall Valve Stern (Biffr) l oi n a
Cooler B Inlet Nov-95 Ball Valve Stem (Bi ffi ) I ni n s
Cooler B lnlct Nov-95 Ball Valve Body Conn (Bi ffi ) l oi n a
Coolcr R Inlet Nov-95 Bull Vnlve Body Conn (Hiffi) l oi n a
Cooler B lnlct Nov-95 Ball Valve Rody Conn (Biffi) l oi n a
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 Ball Valve Stern (Hiffi) l oi n a
Cooler B Outl d Nov-95 Ball Valve Stern (Bi fti ) l o i n a
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 Ball Valve Slcln (Bi ffi ) IOi n s
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 Ball Valve Stern (Biffi) 10i n a
Coder H Oullel Nov-95 Ball Valve Stern (Bi ffi ) IOi n a
Cooler R Outlet Nov-95 Hall Valve Slcm (Riffi) I l l i n a
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 Ball V;,lue Stern (Bi ffi ) IOi n n
Unit Valve Aren~-Nov-95 Ball Valve Top Joint (Grove) 311i n h
Gzs Turbine I
Unit Valve Area- Nov-95 Ball Valvc Rody Range Xin a
Gas Turhine t
Uni l Valve Area-- Nav-95 Ball Valve Stem 8i n a
tias Turbine I
Unit Valvc Area-- Nov-95 Ball Valve Slem 8i n a
Gas Turbine I
Uni l Valve Area-. Nuv-95 1131.I A Ball Valve Body Flange 8i n a
Gas Turbine I
Uni l Valvc Arra-- Nov-95 1 131.2 R Ball Valve Body Range Roll 8 i n :I
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-93 1132 Ball Valve Stem 8i n a
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Am- - Nov-95 1 133 Ball Valve Slem 2i n a
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valvc Area-- Nov-95 l l 5 l Ball Valve Stern 6i n a
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-. Nov-95 1155 Ball Vnlve 75i n a
tins Turbine 2
High-Flow Sampler
Rotameter
Measurements
IndllCO
Sin Eqlli('.
Measurements
I,eakRate LeakRalc Cost Screcn*** Screen

Site Date Leak 10# Oescriptlnn
(units)
Typ'
Ve!oclfy Saml' kgod
menl
(VOlin) (SCFH) ($/Ycar) Instrl11nl
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya / Cooler A Inlet. .. continued
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1062.2 B Ball Valve Body Conn (Bim) 8in a 3.3 0.05 0 0.0673 0.14 $2
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1063 Ball Valve Stem (Riffi)
8 in a 1.2 0.25 0
0.1186 0.25 $3
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1064.1 A Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) 8 in a 1.48 0.35 0 0.2063 044 56
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1064.2 B Ball Valve Body Conn (Bim) 8in a 5 140 0
2.8334 6.00 $83
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1070 Ball Valve Stem (Riffi)
lOin a 2.9 0.10 0 0.1180 025 53
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1073 Ball Valve Stem (Biftl) lOin a 1.64 0.05 0 0.0329 0.07 51
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1079 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi)
lOin a 3.55 0.30 0 04339 0.92 $13
Cooler A OUilet Nov-95 1082 Ball Valve Stem {Bim) lOin a 3.05 0.50 0
06185 1.31 $18
Cooler B Inlet Nov-95 1092 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) lOin a 1.09 0.50 0 0.2138 0.45 $6
Cooler B Inlet Nov-95 1093 Ball Valve Body Conn (Bjftl) lOin a 1.61 0.00 0
O.OmlO 0.1)1) $0
Cooler B Inlet Nov-95 1094 Ball Valve Body Conn (Biffi) lOin a
]4 0.88 0
1.21}42 2.55 $35
Cooler B Inlet Nov-95 1095 Ball Valve Body Conn (Hiffi) lOin a 5.9 0.10 0
0.2424 0.51 57
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1096 Ball Valve Stem (Hiffi)
lOin a 3.1 045 0
0.5662 1.20 $17
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1100 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) to in a 3.3 0.25 0
0.3359 0.71 $10
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1102 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) lOin a 3.05 0.17 0
0.2110 0.45 $6
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1103 Ball Valve Stem (Rim)
lOin a 2.9 0.10 0
0.1180 0.25 $3
Cooler B Outlet Nov-9S 1104 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi)
JOin a 2.6 0.10 0
01055 022 $3
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1107 Hall Valve Stem (Biffi) lOin a 3.35 0.25 0
0-3411 n.72 $10
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1110 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) lOin
,
5.11 0.40 0 0.8.159 1.77 $25
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1127 Rail Valve Top 10int (Grove) JOin h
0.00 0
0.0000 n.on $0
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area- Nov-95 1128 Ball Valve Body Flange
Bin a 5.5 0.20 0 OA511 0.96 $1.1
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area-- Nov+95 1129 Ball Valve Stem
8in a .92 0.00 0
0.0000 000 $0
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1130 Ball Valve Stem
8in a 3 0.05 0
0.0611 0.1] $2
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area Noy-95 1131.1 A Ball Valve Body Flange
8in a 3.35 0.70 0
0.9507 2.01 $28
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area- Nov-95 1131.2B Ball Valve Body Flange Bol! Rin a 1.46 045 0
0.2613 0.55 $8
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve 1132 Ball Valve Stem
8in a 3 0.45 0
0.5476 1.16 SI6
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area.. Nov-95 1133 Ball Valve Stem 2 in a 3.35 0.05 0
0.0684 0.14 S2
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Nov-95 1151 Ball Valve Stem
6in a 2.9 0.20 0
0.2357 0.50 $7
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Nov95 1155 Ball Valve
.75in a J 0.00 0 O.oomJ {tOO $0
Gas Turbine 2

----"'--
Page 5 of 17
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Sampler
Rotameter
Measurcment<;
Indaco
Size
E .! Measurements
Correclhm ! LeakRate LcakRatc Cost Screen"'*'" Screen
,qUip. MeWiure. Scaling
Slle Date Leak 10# Description
(units) Type Velocity Slimp lI\lgnd
ment Faclor 1'liclOr {Vmin} (SCFB) ($/Ycar)
Instrront
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya / Unit Valve Turbine 3... continued
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1164 Ball Valve
3in a 2 0.00 0
0.00(X) 0.00 $0
Gns Turbine 3
Ball Valves Total
95.6 202.46 $2,813
Control Valves
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1137 Control Valve
2in a 6 1.68 0
4,0644 8.61 $120
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Nov-95 1138 Control Valve
2in a 48 010 0
0,1968 0.42 $6
Gas Turbine 2
2in a 4.5 0.70 0
1,2824 2.72 $38
Gas Turbine 2
2in a 2.8\ 0.28 0
0.3182 0.67 $9
Gas Turbine 3
Control Valves Total
5.9 12.42 $173
Needle Valves
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1067 Needle Valve
I in a 3.85 0.35 0
0.5494 1.16 $16
I in a 3.55 0.10 0
0.1449 0.31 $4
I in a 1.79 0.05 0
0.0360 OJ)8 $1
I in a
1.67 015 0
o. I()()4 0.21 $3
I in a 128 148 0
0.7389 1.57 $22
Cooler A Outlc! Nov-95 1081 Needle Valve
I in a 1.47 0.45 0
0.2632 0.56 $8
I in a 1.5 0.40 0
02390 0.51 $7
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1097 Needle Valve
I in a
1.46 0.15 0
0.0874 0.19 $3
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1098 Needle Val ve
I in a
1.09 0.40 0
o17 I2 0.36 $\
I in a 1.57 0.37 0
0.2319 0.49 $7
I in a
3.25 030 0
0.3967 0.84 $12
I in a I.J 0.18 0
0.0903 0.19 $3
I in a
4.8 1.60 0
3.1010 6.57 591
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1161 Needle Valve
.5 in a
5.3 0.50 0
1.0830 2.29 $32
Gas Turbine 3
Unit Valve Area- Nov-95 1163 Needle Valve
.5 in a
1.32 003 0
0.0131 003 $0
Gas Turbine 3
Needle Valves Total
7.2 15.35 $213
Pressure Relief Valves
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov-95 1022 Pressure Relief Valve
6in a
6.2 0.58 0
1.4581 )Jl9 $43
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1139 Pressure Relief Valve
2in a 5.2 0.10 0
0.2133 0.45 $6
Gas Turbine 2
._----
._--".- ._-_..
----------
Page 6 of J7
Rotameter
Wgh.Flow Sampler I Measurements
Indaco
Sb.e Equip. Mea.'iurements Measure- Scaling CorTt'cthm LeakRate LeakRate Cost
Screen Screen
Sile Date Leak 10# Description
(units)
Type I Velocity Samp Skglld menl FlIClor "aclor I (llmin) (SCFH) ($/Year)
Instrmnt
--------,
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya / Unit Valve AreaGas Turbine 3... continued
Unit Valve Area Nov-95 1158 Pressure Relief Valve I in a 5.3 0.68 0 1.4595 3.09 $43
Gas Turbine 3
Pressure Relief Valves Total
3.1 6.63 $92
Open Ended Lines
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov-95 1013 DEL on Gate Valve .5 in a 1.6 0.15 0 0.0961 0.20 $3
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1060 OEL on Ball Valve I in a 1.87 0.70 0 0.5237 1.11 $15
Cooler A OUIlet Nov-95 1084 DEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 5.4 1.73 0 3.7614 7.97 $111
(Blowdown)
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1085 OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 5 0.10 0 0.2050 0.43 $6
(Blowdown)
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1086 OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 32 0.25 0 0,3255 0.69 $10
(Blowdown)
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1087
OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 4.9 0.22 0
0.4414 0.94 $13
(Blowdown)
Cooler A Oull<-:t Nov-95 1088
0.6614 1.40 $19
(Slowdown)
0.3413 0.72 $10
(B1owdown)
0.7008 148 $21
(Blowdown)
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1091 OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 5.5 0.75 0 1.6823 3.56 $50
(Blowdown)
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1111
OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2 in a 5.4 0.95 0
2.0875 4.42 $61
(Blowdown)
-
GEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 4.85 0.43 0
0.8422 1.78 $25
(Blowdown)
Cooler B Outlet Nov95 1113
DEL on Ball Valve (Grove) lin a 5 0.18 0
0.)586 0.76 $11
(Blowdown)
GEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 4.95 0.30 0
0.6077 1.29 $18

DEL on Ball Valve (Grove)
2in a 5.1 0.53 0
1.0935 2.32 $32
(B1owdown)
OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) lin a 5.1 0.20 0
004180 0.&9 $12
(Blowdown)
OEL on Ball Valve (Grove)
2in
"
4.95 0.18 0
0.3549 0.75 $10
(Blowdown)
Cooler B Oullct Nov-95 1118
lin a 5 0.70 0
104267 3.02 $42
(Blowdown)
Unit Valve Area-- 1134
DEL on Ball Valve
,75 in a
1.49 0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine I
----- --
Page 7 of 17
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rotameter
High-Flow Sampler I Meosuremenl'
Indaco
Size
Measurements L kR I kR C '
Screen Screen
Equip. Measure... Sullng CorrUon ea ate ~ e a ate ost
Site Dale Leak 10# Description
(unlh)
Type I Vdoclty S.mp Bkgnd menl FilCtor F,clor I (IImln) (SCFH) ($Near) Instrmnt
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya / Unit Valve A r e a ~ ~ G a s Turbine 2... continued
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1140 OEL on Tube Valve .Sin a 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1143 GEL Oin a 169 0.00 0 0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1166 OEL on Solenoid Operator .5 in a 3.8 12.50 0 17.2410 36.53 $508
Gas Turbine 3
Open Ended Lines Total
33.2 70.28 $97.
Tube Fittings
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov-95 1021 Tube Filling .5 in a 3.15 0.20 0 0.2564 0.54 $8
Turbine Inlct)
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1120 Tube and Pipe Thread I in a .97 0.80 0 0.1015 0,64 $9
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1141 Tube Fitting (w! ice) .5 in a 3.4 1.15 0 1,5783 3.34 $46
Gas Turbine 2
Unil Valve Area-- Nov-95 1142 Tube Ball Valve .5 in a 3.9 2.95 0 4.5714 9.69 $1.J5
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1146 Tube Fitting (w! ice) .5 in a 2.75 1.10 0 1.2170 2.58 $36
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area- Nov-95 1147 Tube Fitting (w! ice) .5 in a 2.1 1.75 0.15 1.4649 3.10 $43
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1148 Tube Filling .5 in a 1.34 0.00 0 0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1149 Tube Fitting .5 in a .8 0.25 0 0.0772 0.16 $2
Gao:; Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1150 Tube Fitting .5 in a 2.95 0.40 0 0.4787 101 $14
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1152 Tube Fitting .5 in a 1.26 0.00 0
O.O{)OO 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1162 Tube Fitting .5 in a 1.1 000 0 0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 3
Unil Valve Area Nov-95 1165 Tube Filling (w! ice) .5 in a 3.45 $.50 0.05 72716 15.41 $214
Gas Turbine 3
Unit Valve Area- Nov-95 1169 Tube Fitting .75in a 1.12 1.00 0 04377 0.93 $13
Gas Turbine 3
Tube Fillings Total
17.7 37.41 $520
Pipe Tbreads
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov95 1015 Pipc Thread
.5 in a 3.4 0.30 0 0.4151 0.88 $12
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov-95 1016 Pipc Thread
.75 in
"
:t45 1.10 0 1.5130 1.25 $45
Turbine Inlet)
Page 8 of /7
Rotameter
Sampler I Measurements
Indaco EfJulp. Measurements Scaling Omectloo LeakRate LeakRate Cost Scrccn*** Screen
Site Date Leak 10# l>cscriptlon (umts) Type I Velodly Samp Ukgod menl Faclflr FlKtor I (Umin) (SCFH) ($fYcar) lnstrmnt
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya / Scrubber 5 (Gas Turbine Inlet). .. continued
Scrubber 5 (Gas Noy.95 1017 Pipe Thread I in a :t55 2.70 0 3.8124 8,08 $112
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1018 Pipe Thread ,75in a 3.450.90 0 1.2568 2.66 $37
Turbine Inlet}
Scrubber 5 (Gas Noy-95 1020 Pipe Thread .75in a 3.4 LID 0 1.5105 3.20 $44
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 4 (Gas Noy-95 1025 Pipe Thread .75in a 3.450.58 0 0,8056 1.71 $24
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nov-95 1026 Pipe Thread .75 in a 3.1 0.55 0.1 0.5656 1.20 $17
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov-95 1033 Pipe Thread .75in a 1.60.15 0 0.0961 0.20 $3
Turbine Inlet)
Scrtlbbcr3(Gas Nov-95 1034 Pipe Thread .75io a 1.660.95 0 0.6269 I.:.n $18
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov-95 1035 Pipe Thread .75 in a 1.63 1,80 0 1,1556 2.45 $34
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1047 Pipe Thread .75 in a 3.45 0.55 0 0.7708 1.63 $23
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1048 Pipe Thread .75in a 4.25 0.55 0 0,9524 2.02 $28
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1049 Pipe Thread .75 in a 4.15 0.65 0 1.0976 2.33 $32
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1051 Pipe Thread .75 in <I 1.76 0.20 0 0.1413 0,30 $4
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1052 Pipe Thread ,75 in <I 1.78 0.20 0 0.1429 0.30 $4
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1056 Pipe Thread .75 in a 1.16 2.75 0 1.2265 2.60 $36
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1057 Pipe Thread .75in a 5.1 0.50 0 1.0417 2.21 $31
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nov.95 1058 Pipe Thread .75in a 1.64 0.75 0 0,4898 1.04 $14
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1076 Pipe Thread I in a 1.07 0.20 0 0.0841 0.18 $2
Cooler BOutlet Nov-95 1122 Pipe Thread I in a 1.3 1.10 0 0.5622 1.19 $17
Unit Valve Area-- NoY-95 1135 Pipe Thread .75 in a 1.29 0.05 0 0.0256 0,05 $1
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area.- Nov-95 1136 Pipe Thread .75 in a 1.17 {l.O5 () 0.023 I 005 $1
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area-. Nov-95 1144 Pipe Thread 2 in a 2.85 5,50 0.1 5.9324 1257 $175
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area.- NoY.95 1154 Pipe Thread ,75 in a 2.930,00 0 27.0981 57.42 $798
Gas Turbine 2
._,, __ __ .M ,, . "" _
Page 901 J7
-------------------
- - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
HighwFlow Sampler
Rotameter
Measurements
Indaco
Size
E .! Measurements
correction! LeakRate LeakRate Cosl
Screen"'''' Screen
.qUlp. Measure- Scaling
Sile Date Leak m# Descripllon
(units) Type Vcloclly Samp llkgnd

Fador Faclor (llmin) (SCFH) ($fYear)
Instrmnt
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya I Unit Valve Turbine 3... continued
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1167 Pipe Thread
I in a
4.1 0.10 0
0.1677 0.36 $5
Gas Turbine 3
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1168 Pipe ThreadIWe1d
I in a
1.63 0.15 0
0.0979 0.21 $3
Gas Turbine 3
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1170 Pipe Thread(nearGate Valve) I in a 2.75 2.80 0
3.0455 6.45 $90
Gas Turbine 3
Unit Valve Area-- Nov95 1171 Pipe Thread on Gate Valve
I in a
.97 0.20 0
0.0758 0.16 $2
Gas Turbine 3
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1172 Pipe Thread(nearGate Valve)
I in a
1.75 14.00 0
18,7968 39.83 $553
Gas Turbine 3
Pipe Threads Total
73.6 155.85 $2.165
Flanges
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1046 Flange
;n
"
3.85 0.15 0
0.2400 0.50 $7
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1119 Flange
2in a 1.37 0.25 0
0.1362 0.29 $4
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1145 Flange
30in a 2.55 600 0
5.8551 12.41 $172
Gas Turbine 2
Unil Valve Area-- Nov-95 1160 Flange
I in a
2.65 0.10 0
0.1076 0.23 $3
Gas Turbine 3
Flanges Total
6.3 13.42 $186
Pervomaiskaya Total
258.1 54h.91 $7.598
Storojovka
Underground Valves
Field Area Oct-95 1004 Ball Valve (Underground)
36in a
4.2 0.55 0
11763 2A9 $15
36in a
4.7 3.15 0
7.3570 15.59 $217
in a
3.55 2.50 01
4.2445 8.99 $125
Field Area Ocl-95 1053 Valve -- Underground
? a
5.5 2.90 0
7.9593 16.86 $234
Field Area Oct95 1054 Valve Underground
? a
4.65 0.90 0
2.1263 4.51 $63
Field Area Ocl95 1055
Valve Underground
? a
4.95 1.90 0
4.7344 10.03 $139
Field Area Ocl95 1073 Underground Valve
? a 4.85 0.15 0
0.3726 0.79 SII
Field Area Oct95 1074 Underground Valve
,
a
4 0.35 0
07119 151 S21
Undergmund Valves Total
28.7 60.78 S844
Plug Valves
Field Area OCI-95 100LI A Plug Valve
80mma 4.55 0.60 0
1.3909 2.95 S41
Field Area Oct-95 1007 Plug Valve (Station Vent)
gOmma 4.5 3.00 0
6.7148 14.21 $198
Field Area OCI-95 1014 Plug Valve Actuator
in a 1.99 OAO 0
OAOOO 0.85 $12
-----"',,------,._--
_.",,--- -",,--"""--' -,_.. _--._"-,-,,,--,------- -_...---_.-,,-._----""'--_._-_._--_...
Page JO of 17
Gazprom - Storojovka /Field Area. .. continued
Ficld Area Plug vdvc 3i n n 1.6 0.00
Field Area Plug Vnlve 3i n a 1.6 0.00
Field Area Plug Valve Slem 6 i n u 3.7 0.70
Field Area Plug Valve 3 in a 3.55 0.70
Field Arca Plug Valve 3i n a 1.61 0.10
Field Area Plug Valve 3i o a 3.75 0.30
Field Area Plug Valve 6i n u 1.46 0.75
Rr l d Area Plug Valve 4i n a 4.25 3.48
Field Area Plug Valve Rody Ftmge 4i n a .9 0.00
Field Area Plug valve 6i n a 1.325 0.15
Field Area Plug Valve l i n a I. 2 0.02
Field Area Plug Valve I 2i n a 4.8 1.85
Ficld Arca Plug Valve 12in a 3.7 0.30
Ficld Area Plug Valve bi n a 5.7 3.50
Field Area Plug Valve Crmk 6i n i b 3.24 7.00
Field Area Plug Valve 12i n a 5.87 29.00
Ficld Area Plug Vdvc Crank l 2i n a I 2 0.05
Field Area Plug valve 12i n a 4.7 4.(M
Field Area Plug Valve Crirnk 12i n a 4 0.90
Ficld A m Plug Valve Crank l 2 i n a 1.07 0.10
Field Area Plug Valve Crmk 12i n a 83 0.05
Field Area Plug Valve Crmk 12i n a 1.04 0,115
Geld Area Plug Valve l 2i n a 5 2.15
Ficld Area ~~ ~
Plug Valves Total
Gate Valves
Scrubber A r a Oct-95 1001 Gale Velve Scruhhcr 5
Scrubher Area Oct-95 1002 Gate Valve
Scnlhher Area Ocl-95 1003 Gale Valve
ScruhherAna Ocl-95 1004 Gate Vdve
Scruhher Area Ocl-95 1005 Gale Vnlvc
Ficlrl Area 00- 95 1013 Gale Valve
Field Arcn Oct-95 1021 Gale Vvlve
High-Flow Sampler
Rotameter
Measurements
Indaco
Size Equip.
Mea.<iuremenCs
LeakRate LeakRate Cost Screen Screen
Measure- Selliing Cotrecflon
Sill.' l)ate Leak mit Description
(units)
T,p<
Velocity SalOp 8kgnd
nIent Factor Fl:lor (Vmin) (SCf'H) ($lYe.r) Instrmnt
Gazprom - S/orojopka / Field Area. .. continued
Field Area OCI95 1018 Plug Valve 3in
1.6 0.00 0 0.0000 0.00 $0

Field Area 0<:1-95 1018 Plug Valve 3 in
1.6 0.00 0.1 0.0000 0.00 $0

Field Area OCI-95 1020 Plug Valve Slem 6 in
3.7 0.70 0 1.3145 2.79 $39

Field Area 0<.:t-95 1023 Plug Valve 3in a 3.5$ 0.70 0
1.2604 2.67 $37
Field Area 0<.:t-95 1024 Plug Valve 3in a 1.61 (UO 0 0.0806 0.17 $2
Field Area 0<.:1-95 1025 Plug Valve 3io
3.75 0.30 0
05734 1.21 $17
Field Area De'-95 1026 Plug Valve 6 in a 1.46 0.75 0 0.5427 1.15 $16
Field Area OCI95 1050.2 B Plug Valve 4 in a 4.25 3.48 0 7.3063 15.48 $215
Field Area OCI-95 1051 Plug Valve Body Flange 4in a .9 0.00 0 0.0000 000 $0
Field Area OCI-95 1052 Plug Valve 6 in a 1.325 0.15 0 0.0987 lUI $3
Field Area Oct-95 1061 Plug Valve I in a 1.2 0.02 0 0.0089 (),O2 $0
Field Area OCI-95 1079 Plug Valve 12in a 4.8 1.85 0 4.4708 9.47 $132
Field Area Oct-95 1080 Plug Valve 12in a 37 0.30 0 0.5657 1.20 $17
Field Area OCI-95 1088 Plug Valve 6in a 5.7 350 0 9.9007 2098 $291
Field Area OCI-95 1089 Plug Valve Crank 6in a 3.24 7.00 0 10.81()O 23.31 $318
field Area Oct-95 1092 Plug Valve 12in a 5.87 29.00 0 67.6300 151.47 $1,991
Field Area OCI-95 1093 Plug Valve Crank 12in a 1.2 0.05 0 0.0297 0,06 $1
Field Area Oct9S 1095 Plug Valve 12io a 4.7 4.00 0 9.2649 19.6.1 $27.1
Field Area Oct-95 1096 Plug Valve Crank 12in a 4 0.90 0 1,8255 3.87 $54
Field Area Oct-95 1097 Plug Valve 12in a 1.16 0.15 0
0.0859 0.18 $3
Field Area OCI-95 1098 Plug Valve Crank 12 in a 1.07 0.10 0
0.0526 0.11 $2
Field Area OCI-95 1099 Plug Valve 12in a I.J 0.15 0 0.0968 0.21 $3
Field Area OCI-95 IIO() Plug Valve Crank 12in a 83 005 () 0.0201 OJ)4 $1
Field Area Oct-9S 1102 Plug Valve Crank Ilin a 1.04 0.05 0 00256 005 $1
Field Area OCI-95 1103 Plug Valve Ilin a 5 2.15 0
5.3987 11.44 .$/59
Field Area OCI-95 1104 Plug Valve J2in a 4.91 750 0
17.5600 35.60 $517
Plug Valpes Total
147.4 319.35 $4,340
Gate Valves
Scrubber Area OCI-95 1001 Gale Valve Scrubber 5 SOmma 5.1 3.10 0
7.8677 16.67 $232
Scrubber Area Oct-95 1002 Gate Valve SOmma 4.6 4.00 0 9.0654 19.21 $267
Scrubber Area OCI-95 1003 Gale Valve 50mma 4.9 3.70 0 8.9653 19.00 $264
Scruboer Area OCI-95 l()(l4 Gale Valve SOmma 4.45 2.70 0 5.9930 12.711 $176
Scruober Area Ocl-95 1005 Gale Valve 50 nun a 2.193 24.00 0 2f.3400 47.50 $628
Field Area Oct-95 IOlJ Gale Valve I in a 1.4 11.10 0 0.0697 0.15 $2
Field Area Ocl95 1021 Gale Valve .5 in a 1.86 ()I 0 0 0.0936 020 $3
- ---------"--_.. _",,.. __.------ ---
..,,-"-"-----"
..__._--
._------------"",--'-"'---- " . - ~ - - - - ~ - , , ~ - ..~ - , - - ' ' ' ' ' '
Page 11 of 17
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
High-Flow Sampler
Rolamcter
Measurements
Sl b Dale
Indaco
Leak In# 1)e~rn~l i en
smr
(unit51
E,,,,I,,
TY*
Memuremen@
MeUure. .,,,nr
vdoav s a w n k ~ d .,.., Fulor
Co,r.cu on
Flclor
LeakRsle
(Vmin)
LrakHal e Cusl
(SCFII) ( $Near )
Screen*" Screen
Instrmnt
Garprom - Stori,jovka /Field Area. ..continued
Field Area Ocr-95 Gas Vdve l i n a
Ficld Area Ocl-95 Gale Vdve l i n u
Field Ar m Ocl-95 Gale Vdve Zi n u
Field Ar m Ocl-95 GsnValve Zi n n
Field Area Ocl-95 Gale Valve* 2 Pipe Th. l i n a
Field Area Ocl-95 Gate Vdve l in a
Field Area Ocl-95 Gale Valve l i n o
Field Area Oct-95 Gate Vdvc 4i n a
Ficld Area Ocl-95 Gale Valve 2i n n
Field Area Ocl-95 Gate Valve 2i n a
Field Area Ocl-95 Gale Valvc 4i n a
Field Area Oa-95 Gate Vdve 4i n a
Field Area Oct-95 Gale Valve 2i n a
Field Area Ocl-95 Gale Vnlvc l i n a
Field Area Ocl-95 Gate Valve l i n a
Gate Valves Total
Rail Valves
Field Area Ocl-95 Ball Valve Body Flange 36i n a
Field Area Ocl-95 Bd l Vdve Vent (for F-4) .Sin a
Field Area Ocl-95 Ball Vnlvc Veril Si n a
Field Are;, Ocl-95 Ball Valve Rody Flange 36i n a
Ficld Area Ocl-95 Ball Valve l i n a
Field Area Oct-95 Hall Volve 12i n a
1laN Valves T ~ m l
Needle Valves
Field Area Oct-95 Needle Valve I!" B
Field Area Ocl-95 Needle Valve Stem l i n a
Field Area Ocl-95 Needle Valve Stem l i n a
Field Aren Ocl-95 Needle Valve l i n B
Field Aren Ocl-95 Needle Valvc l i n a
Field Area Oct-95 Needle Vdve l i n a
Needle Valves Total
Station Blowdown Vents
Fteld Ar m Ocl-95 1009 Slation Rlowdown (Plug vnlvc) Z(N1rnrn n
-. - -. -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rotameter
fligh-Flow Sampler
Measurements
Indaco Sil:e
Equip.
Measurements
l,eakRate ua.kR1Jle Cost Screen"'''' Screen
Measure ScaUng Corndlon
Site Date Leak 10# I>escriptlon
T,,,,, Velocity Slimp Bkgnd
Rlenl Facwr Factor (Vrnin) (SeFB) ($fYear) Instrront
Gazprom - Slorojovka I Field Area. .. continued
Field Area Oel95 1028 Gate Valve I in a 4.55 0.55 0 1.2756 2.70 $38
Field Area OCI95 1029 Gale Valve fin a U4 0./5 0 0.0844 0.18 $2
Field An.'fl OCI-95 1058.2 B Gate Valve 2in a 1.87 1.49 0 1.3823 2.93 $41
Field Area Ocl-95 1063 Gale Valve 2in a 4.6 0.20 0 0.4707 1.00 $14
Field Area Ocl-95 1068 Gale VaiveT 2 Pipe Th. J in a 1.13 0.13 0 0.0697 0.15 $2
Field Area OCI-95 1076 Gate Valve I in a 3 3.60 0 5.3066 11.24 $156
Field Area OCI-95 1077 Gate Valve I in a 1.4 0.50 0 0.3473 0.74 $10
Field Area OCI-95 1081 Gale Valve 4in a 1.7 0.10 0 0.0853 018 $3
Field Area OCI-95 1082 Gale Valve lin a 4 1.45 0 2.9250 6.20 .$86
Field Area Ocl-95 /083 Gate Valve 2in a 1.2 0.05
0.0297 0.06 $1
Field Area Oct-95 1084 Gale Valve 4in a 1.29 0.25 0 0.1598 0.34 $5
Field Area Oct-95 1085 Gate Valve 4in a 4.75 I.L'i 0 27691 5.87 $82
Field Area Oct-95 1086 Gate Valve 2in a 3.45 0.40 0 0.7018 1.49 $21
Ficld Area OCI-95 1087 Gate Valve I in a .64 0.15 0 ().O455 o. If) $1
Field Area Oct-95 I/O/ Gate Valve I in a 1.1 0.30 0 01622 0.34 $5
Gate Valves Total
69.2 148.93 $2,1)37
Ball Valves
Field Area Oct-95 1005 Ball Valve Body Flange 36in a .6 0.10 0 0.0283 0.06 $1
Field Area OCI-95 1006 Ball Valve Vent (for F-4) .5 in a 1.83 0.55 0 0.5038 un $15
Field Area 1012 Ball Valve Vent .5in a 3.25 1.25 0 2.0462 4.34 $60
Field Area OCI-95 1016 Ball Valve Body Flange 36in a 3.85 0.45 0 0.8821 1.87 $26
-
Field Area Oct95 1062 Ball Valve I in a 1.18 0.40
0.2.126 0.49 $7
Field Area OCI-95 1090 Ball Valve 12in a 5.7 2.80 0 7.9750 16.90 $235
Ball Valves Total
11,7 24.7:l $343
Needle Valves
Field Area OCI-95 1031 Needle Valve I in a 123 0.20 0 0.1217 0.26 $4
Field Area Oct-95 1066 Needle Valve Slem I in a .58 0.45 0 0.1221 026 $4
Field Area Oct-95 1067 Needle Valve Stem I in a 1.3 0.45 0 0.2895 0.61 $9
Field Area Oct-95 lOW Needle Valve I in a .59 1.00 0 0.2749 0.58 $8
Field Area Oct-95 1070 Needle Valve I in a .72 3.98 0 1.3161 2.79 $39
Field Area OCI-95 1072 Needle Valve 1in a 0.93 I 20.00
7.4800 16.58 $220

Needle Valves Total
9.6 21.08 $283
Station B1owdown Vents
Field Area Oct-95 1009 Station Blowdown (Plug valve) 200 film a 4, !5 4.25 0 8.6569 18.34 $255
...__._---_._ ._-.
._"",,-.--.. ,----,,,,,,,--_._.-
----
'-""-"'''''- , "" ..,,--_....-
Page /2 Of 17
Rotameter
lUghFlow Sampl., I Measuremeots
tndaco

Equip. Measurements Scaling Correction LeakRate LeakRate Cost
Screen*** Screen
SUe Dale Leak 11)# Oescriptlnn
(units) Type I Velocily SIlIllP t1kgod Illent Factor Factor I (Vmin) (SeFH) ($/Year)
Instrmnt
Gatprom - Storojovka / Field Area. .. continued
Field Area Oct-95 1010
Station Blowdown (Bypass)
150mmb
110 3.6 1.34 530.6400 1,124.37 $15,620
Field Area Ocl-95 1017 Station Vent
6in a
4.41 35.50 0
58.9400 133.23 $1,735
Station Blowdown Vents Total
598.2 1.275.94 $17,610
Open Ended Lines
Field Area Ocl-95 1001.2 B
GEL on Plug Valve
80mma 4.4 1.70 0
3.7676 7.98 $111
GEL on Plug Valve
2in a .51 0,10 0
0.0236 0.05 $1
OEL on Plug Valve
3 in a 4.5 3.30 0
7.3645 15.60 $217
Pig Launch (GEL on Ball Valve)
30in a 4.65 1.10 0
2.5936 5.50 $76
Field Area Ocl-95 1030
Solenoid Box DEL
0 a 1.14 0.00 0
0.0000 000 $0
Field Area Gct-95 1050.1 A OEL on Plug Valve
4in a 4.85 0.43 0
1.0528 2.23 $31
Field Area Oct-95 1058.1 A
DEL on Gate Valve
2in a .99 0.08 0
0.0364 0.08 $1
GEL on Gate Valve
I in a .38 0.05 0
0.0084 0.02 $0
Open Ended Unes Total
14,8 31.46 $437
Tube Fittings
Field Area Oct-95 1002 Tube Fitting
.5 in a 1.97 1.65 0
1.6124 3.42 $47
Ficld Area Oct-95 1003 Tube Fitting
.5 in a 1.38 7.<Xl 0.15
4.3903 9.30 $129
I in a 5.1 7.<Xl 0
17.1600 36.98 $505
I in u
1.34 015 0
0.0999 021 $3
Tuhe Filling/Gate Valve
I in a 1.13 0.15 0
0.0836 0.18 $2
Field Area Oct-95 1094 Tube Filling
I in a 235 0.90 () 1.0621 225 $31
Tltbe Fittings Total
24.4 52.33 $718
Pipe Threads
Field Area 1019 Pipe Thread
5in u 1.4 0.05 0
O.oJ49 0.07 $1
Pipe Thread (on Gale Vlv) I in
"
1.17 0.05 0
0.0341 007 $1
Field Area Oct-95 1057 Pipe Thread
I in a 4.58 6.20 0
13.6900 29.47 $403
Field Area Oet-95 1059 Pipe Thread
I in
"
.53 0.05 0
0.0123
0,0] $0
Field Area Oct95 1064 Pipe Thread
I in a .91 0.90 0
0.3958 0.84 $12
Field Area Oet-95 1065 Pipe Thread
I in a 1.24 a.05 0
00307 IHl7 51
Field Area Oc,95 1071 Pipe Thread
I in
"
1.93 0.25 0
0.2426 0.51 57
Pipe Threads Total
14.4 31.06 5425
Storojovka Total
918.5 1,965.66 $27,038
Gazprom Total
2,790.8 5,932,79 $82.152
>--" ".".--->--------"_._,'._--
Page 13 of /7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------
Rotameter
High-Flow Sampler I Measurements
Indueo
Size Equip. Measurements Mea,ur.,. SClIling Correction LeakRate LeakRate Cost Screen*** Screen
Site Date Leak 10# Description
(units) Type I Velocity Slimp tnr.gnd 'Oenl Faclor FaCior I (llmin) (SCFH) ($/Vcar)
Instrmnt
YUfrllnt 'az
Petrovsk
Plug Valves
Valve Field Oct-95 1006 Plug Valve
2in a 2.9 0.10 0
01469 lUI $4
PIllg Valves Total
0.1 O.Jl $4
Gate Valves
Outside Turbine Oct-95 1004 Gatc Valve
I in a
4 5.011 0
9.7014 20.56 $286
Buildings
Outside Turbine Ocl-95 1005 GulC Valve
I in a 3.25 0,05 0
0.0825 0.17 $2
Buildings
Valve Field Oct-95 1009 Gatc Valve
I in a 2.5 0.10 0
0.1262 0.27 $4
Valve Field Ocl-95 1011 Gatc Valve
I in a
2.5 0.40 0
0.5034 1.07 $15
Valve Field Oct-95 1014 Gatc Valve
I in a 2 0.05 0
0.0502 0.11 $1
Valve Field OCI-95 1015 Gate Valve
2in a 1.5 0.15 0
0.1119 0.24 $3
Valve Field Oct-95 1019 Gale Valve
I in a 1.03 0.05 0
0.0252 0.115 $1
Valve Field OCI-95 1021 Gate Valve
I in a .45 0.25 0
0.0510 0.11 $2
Valve Field Ocl95 1022 Gale Valve
2in a
2.76 0.20 0
0.2790 059 $8
tin a 2.9 3.05 0
43493 9.22 $128
Valve Field Ocl-95 1026 Gale Valve
I in a
3.9 2.90 0
5.5977 IIR6 $165
2in a
1.07 0.10 0
0.0524 0,11 $2
Valve Field 1031 Gatc Valve
I in a
.9 0.10 0
0.0437 0.09 51
Gate Valves Total
21.0 44.44 $617
Ball Valves
Valve Field Oct-95 1007 Ball Valve
6 in a
2.2 0.10 0
0.1108 (2) $)
V:llve Field OCl-95 1008 Ball Valve
2io a 2.95 3.40 0
4.9166 10.42 5145
2in a 1.95 3.20 0
3.0344 6.43 $89
Valve Field OCI-95 1013 Ball Valve
lin a 1.7 0.10 0
0.0849 0.18 $3
I mel a I 0.45 0
0.2189 0.46 $6
2in a 1.11 360 0
1.8920 401 556
Valve Field 1018 Ball Valve
lin a
1.74 6.00 0
4.9207 1043 5145
6in a
.76 0.05 0
00182 0.04 51
.
Valve Field OCI-95 1023 Ball Valve
4 in a
22 700 0
72402 1534 521J
lin a
3.8 0.05 0
0.0967 0.20 53
Valve Field 1029 Ball Valve
lin a 3.4 4.00 0
6.6445 14.08 5196
Ball Valves Total
29.2 6U2 5859
._-._.__._-_._-._--_..,"- ,,,.. _._..,,,-_.- _._..__ _...,_.... _...._.., --,-----_._-------
Page 14 of 17
Unit Valve Vents
Yutranmaz - Petrovsk / Compressor Suction/Discharge Valves (Campressors Depressurized). ..continued
-
Cornprersnr Oct-95 1003 Ball Valve IOOOmrna 4.48 25.00 0
45.5938 96.61 $1.342
Sucth,dDirch;ag
e Valves
(Compressors
Dcpressurired)
Ctrrnprcssor Oel-95 1004 Rall Valve
SucliodDischarg
e Valves
(Compressors
Ikpressurized)
Cornprcrsnr Ocl-95 1007 Ball Valve
Sucliodl)ischarg
e Valves
(Compressors
Depressei2rd)
Compressor Ocl-95 1008 Ball Valve
SacfindDischarg
e Valves
(Compressors
I)ennssu~ized)
Unit Valve Vents Total
Station Iflowdown Vents
Camprcssor Oct-95 1001 Ball Valve
Blowdown Valve
Vents
(Compressors
Running)
Compressor Ocl-95 IlXIZ Ball Valve
Blowdown Valve
Venw
(Compressors
Running)
Compressor Ocl-95 1005 Rall Valve
Hl owd~wnValve
Vents
(Compressors
Running)
Compressor Ocl-95 too6 Dall Valve
Blowdown Volvc
Vents
(Compressors
Running)
Slle Oate
Indaco
Leak ID# Description
Size
(units)
Equip.
Tyf'"
Sampler

VeJocJly 5.mp Hkgnd
Rotameter

Scaling Correction
nrenl Fadm' FlK'lor
(Urnin) (SCFH) ($!Vear)
Screen'll'll Screen
Instrmnt
96.61 $1.342
8,291.8 17,569.45 $244,086
45.5938
1.342 912.0252 1.932.48 $26.R47
1.342 2,394.0661 5,072.76 $70,474
1.342 4.940.1363 10,467.60 $145,423
24
63
130
1000 mm c
1000mmc
1000 mm c
Ball Valve
Ball Valve
BaH Valve
1007
1008
1004
Ocl-95
OCt95
Unit Valve Vents
Yutranzgaz _ Petrovsk / Compressor SuctionlDischarge Valves (Compressors Depressurized). .. continued
Compressor Ocl-95 1003 Ball Valve IOOOmma 4.4825,00 0
Suction/Oischarg
e Valves
(Compressors
Depressurized)
Compressor
SuclionlDischarg
e Valves
(Compressors
Depressurized)
Compressor
SuclioniDischarg
e Valves
(Compressors
Depressurized)
Compressor
Suction/Discnarg
e Valves
(Compressors
Depressurized)
Unit Valve Vents Total
Station H1owdown Vents
Compressor OCl-95 1001 BaH Valve
Blowdown Valve
Vents
(Compressors
Running)
Compressor Oct-95 1002 Ball Valve
Blowdown Valve

(Compressors
Running)
Compressor OCI-95 1005 Ball Valve
Blowdowl1 Valve
Vents
(Compressors
Running)
Compressor OCI-95 1006 Ball Valve
Blowdown Valve
Vents
(Compressors
Running)
100mma
100 mm a
100mma
- -
Page /5 of /7
-
$0
$0
$0
$0
-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
- - -
o
o
o
o
-
o 0.00
o D.OO
o 0.00
o 0.00
- -
, "l'l
- - - - - - - -
S i x Equip.
High-Flow Sampler
Measurements
Rotameter
Measurements
Mll,,tm.
n8 rorrn,,nn LeakRate
(umi-I
LeakRate Cnst
IGPPIi) ( $Near)
Screen.** Screen
lnstrmnt
Stalion Blowdown Vents Total
0.0 0.00 $0
Open Ended Lines
Yutranzgaz - Petrovsk / Valve Fie@. ..continued
Valve Field Oct-95 1027 OEL on Hall Valve
Tuhe Fittings
Valve Field Ocl-95 1010 Tuhe Filling
Tube Fittings Total
Pipe Threads
Oulride Turhinc Oel-95 1IK)l Pipe Thread
lin B 1.45 0.15 0
Buildings
Vslvr Field Oct-95 1024 Pipe Thread
fin B 7 0.05 0
Pipe Threads Total
Flanges
Outside Turbine Oct-95 1002 Flange
Ruildings
Oulside Turbine Oct-95 1003 Flange
Buildings
Flanges Total
Petrovsk Total
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Sile nate
Indaco
Leak 10# Description
Sh:e
(units)
Equip.
T,p<
High-Flow Sampler
Measurements
Velocily Sarop 8"gnd
Rotameter
Measurements
Scaling Corrtellon
menl Factor
(llmin) (Senn ($/Year)
Screen*** Screen
Instroml
Station Blowdown Vents Total
0.0 0.00 $0
Tube Fittings
Valve Field 0(.;1-95 1010 Tube Fitting I in a 2.4 0.20 0
Tube Fittings Total
Pipe Threads
Outside Turbine Ocl-95 1001 Pipe Thread lin a 1,45 0.15 ()
Buildings
Valve Field Ocl-95 1024 Pipe Thread 1in a .7 0.05 ()
Pipe Threads Total
Flanges
Outside Turbine Oct-95 1002 Flange
24io a 3.55 23.m 0
Buildings
Outside Turbine Oct-95 100] Flange
24in a 2.7 2.60 0
Buildings
Flanges Total
Petrovsk Total
Yutranzgaz Total
Open Ended Lines
Yutranzgaz - Petrovsk / Valve Field. .. continued
Valve Field Oct-95 \027 OEL on Ball Valve
gin a 4.55 0.75 o 1.7290 3.66 $51
1.7 3.66 $51
0.2419 0.51 $7
0.2 0.51 $7
0.1080 0.23 $3
0.0167 0.04 $0
0.1 0.26 $4
33.6537 7UI $991
3.4623 7.34 $102
37.1 78.64 $1,093
8,381.3 17,759.11 $246,721
8.381.3 17,759.11 $246,721
Page /6 of /7
Site Date
Indaco
Leak 11)# nescrlpllon
Size
(unlls)
Equip.
Type
High.Flow Sampler
Measurements
Veloclly Samp Hkgnd
Rotameter
Mea....urements
Measure- Scalln!: Correction
menl Factor Factnr
LeakRate
(I/min)
LeakRate Cost
(SCFH) ($/Year)
Screen Screen
Instrmnt
NA = Not Applicable
NR = Not Reported
a = High Flow Sampler Ver.l
b =Omega Rotameter wIGlass
Float
c = Kin2 Rotameter
'" Replicate
.... Vent Leaking Inside Also
..... Screening with organic vapor analyzers not done for components 2"
or below per NGPL implementation of inspection and maintenance
-
Page /7 of /7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russian Screening Data Summary Leaks by Leak Size
17-May-96
Site
GIlZ rtlm
Oale
Indacil
Leak 10# Ikscripllon
SilC
{units)
Equip.
Ty",
High"Flow Sampler
Measurements
Veloclly Samp Hlll:nd
Rotameter
Measurements
Measure- Sullng CorrecUOli
menl Factor Factor
LeakRate LcakRale Cost
(llmin) (SCFH) ($fYt'ar)
Screen"'*'" Screen
Instrmnl
Chaplygin
Unit I - Recycle Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Plug Valve (Running) 2in d 42 3.6 1,342 405.8208 859.89 $11,946
()
"
Vent
Unit 4 - Valve 5 Dec-95 No Tag Unit Valve Vent (Blowndown)- 30in h 53 36 1.342 256,0536 542.55 $7,5:n 0
"
Vent Ball Valve
Unit 12 - Fuel Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Rlmning) 2in a 10.29200 0 ],6 1.342 200,7613 425.39 $5.910 0
"
Gas Vent
Unit 7 - Fuel Gas Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Running) 2in h 34 3.6 1.342 164.2608 348.05 $4,835
(J
"
Vent
lIoilo - Valve 5 Dec-95 No Tag Unit Valve Vent (B1owndown)- 30in h 33 3.6 1.342 159.4296 337,81 $4,693 0
"
Vent Ball Valve
Unit 7 Starting Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Running) 3 in h 30 3.6 1.342 144.9360 307.10 $4,266 0
n
Gas Vent
Unit 5 - Valve 5 Dec-95 No Tag Unit Valve Vent (B1owndown)- 30in b 30 3.6 1.342 144.9360 307.10 $4,266 0
"
Venl Ball Valve
Unil 12 Starl Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Rail Valve (RtlOning) 3 in
"
8 13.00 0 30 1.342 37.9022 80.31 $1,116
(J
"
Gas Manifold
Ven!
Unil 9 - Slart Gil.'; Dec-95 No Tn.g OEL on Rail Vnlve (Rlowndown) 3in a 6.R 10.50 0 J.n 1..142 26.5791 56:n $782 0
n
Manifold Vent
Unit 6 - Valve 9 Dec-95 No Tag aEL on Ball Valve
;n
a 5.2 12.00 0 3.6 1.342 22.8514 48.42 $673 0
"
Vent
Unit 12 - Bypass Dec-95 No Tug OEL on Ball Valve (Running) 2in a 7.3 800 0 3.6 1.342 22.2607 47.17 $655 0
"
Vent
UnitS - Valve 10 Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve
;n
a 4.75 3.55 0 3.6 1.342 6.6782 14.15 $197 0
n
Vent
Unit II Start Dec95 No Tag aEL on Ball Valve (Blowndown) 3in a 6.8 1.90 0 3.6 1.342 5,2191 11.06 $154 0
"
Gas Manifold
Ven!
Cooler 6 Vent No Tag DEL on Gate Valve 2in a 5.4 2.35 0 3.6 1.342 5.0926 1079 $150 0
"
Unit I Fuel Gas Dec95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Running) 2in a 7.1 1.65 0 36 1.342 4.7457 1006 5140 0
n
Vent
.
Cooler 6 Vent Dec-95 No Tag aEL on Gale Valve 2in a 4.85 1.4$ 0 3.6 1.342 2.8441 603 584
(J
"
Unit 10 Start Dec-95 No Tag OELon Ball Valve (Blowndown) 3in a 5.9 1.00 0 )6 1.342 2.401 B 5.09 .571 0
n
Gas Manifold
Vent
.. __.__. -_..... _.- ..._"'---"'-.__.,,--_.. ._---_....._--,-_..__."'-----.-
Page I of 15
e Cost Screen**' Screen
site 1) ( $Near) I ndr mnt
Gazprom - Chaplygin / Uni t 9 - Bypass Vent. ..continued
Unit 9 - Bypass k c - 9 5 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Rlowndown) 2i n a 6.5 0.45 0
3.6 1.342 1.1983 2.54 $35 O 0
Vent
Cooler 4 Vent Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Gate Valve 2i n a 4.6 0.10 0 3.6 1.342 0.1885 0.40 $6 0
Chaplygin Total
1,614.2 3,420.23 $47.516
Pervomaiskaya
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1 154 Pipe Thread
Gar Turbine 2
Uni l Vnlve Area-- Nav-95 Pi pe Thread(neilr Gale VaJve) l i n a
Gas Turbine 3
Scrubbcr 6 (Gas Nov-95 Ball Villve 6i o a
Turbine Inl el l
Unit Valve Area-. Nov-95 OEL on Solenoid Operator .5 i n a
Gas Turhine 3
Scrubher 2 (Gas Nov-95 Rnlt Valve Stem 6i n a
Turbine Inlct)
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nav-95 Ball Valve 6i n a
Turhine fnlel)
l l ni l Valve Ace& Nov-95 Tube Filling ( wl ice) 5 i n a
Gas Turbine 3
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 Ball Valve 6i n a
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area-. Nov-95 Pi w Thrcnrl 2i n a
Gns Tuthfnc 2
Unit Valve Area-. Nov-95 1145 Flange
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Vnlve Area-. Nov-95 1 I42 Tube Hall Valve
Gas Turbine 2
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1006 Hall Valve 6i n a 2.9 4.10 0
45388 962 $134
Turbine Inlct)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov-95 1030 Ball Valve Stern k , , , ? .a 4 2.60 O
Turbine Inlet)
Uni l Valve Area.. Nov-95 1 137 Conlrol Valve 2i n a 6 1.68 0
Gas Turbine I
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nov-95 1027 Wall Vulve Stem 24i n n 2 5 . 0 0 0
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 5 (Gar Nov-95 1017 Pipe Thr ed l i n a 3.55 2.70 0
Turhine Inlet)
Coder A Oullet Nov-95 1084 OEl. on Rall Valve (Grove) 2i n a 5.4 1.73 0
(Hlowdown)
Cooler A lnlcl Nov-95 1061.2 B Ball Valve Body Conn (Ri ft3 Bi n a
6.1 I 5 0 0
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1125 Needle Valve l i n a 4.8 1.60 0
Sampler
Rotameter
Measurements
Indaco Size Equip.
Measuremenl'i
LeakRale LeakRale Cosl Screen Screen
Sellllnr CorndJoo
Site Date L.eak 10# Description
(units) T,,,. Velocity Slimp ftkllnd
_.,
Io'ac(f)r Fllclor (Umin) (SCFH) ($/Ycar) fnsfrmnt
Gazprom - Chaplygin / Unit 9 Bypass Vent. . continued
Unit 9 - Bypass Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Ball Valve (Blowndown) 2 in a 6.5 0,45 0 3.6 1.342 1.1983 2.54 $35 0
"
Vent
Cooler 4 Vent Dec-95 No Tag OEL on Gate Valve 2in a 4.6 0.10 0 3.6 1.342 0.1885 0,40 $6 0
"
Chaplygin Total
1,614.2 3,420.23 $47,516
Pervomaiskaya
Unit Valve Area-- Nov+95 1154 Pipe Thread .75 in a 2.9 30.00 0 27.0981 57,42 $798
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-9S 1172 Pipe Thread{nelll' Gale Valve) I in a 3.75 14.00 0 18.7968 39.83 $553
Gas Turbine 3
Scrubber 6 {Gas Nov-95 1001 Ball Valve 6in a 4.8 10.00 0 17.8841 37.89 $526
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Nov-95 1166 OEL on Solenoid Operator .5 in a 3.8 12.50 0 17.2410 36.53 $508
Gas Turbine 3
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1042 Ball Valve Stem 6in a 6.5 500 0 12.7327 26.98 :$175
Turbine Inlei)
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1007 Ball Valve 6in a 2.3 10.00 0 8,4523 1791 $249
Turbine Inlel)
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1165 Tube Filling (wI ice) .5 in a 3,45 5.50 0.05 7.2736 ISA! $214
Gas Turbine 3
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1002 Ball Valve 6io a 5.3 2.90 0 6./335 13.00 $181
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Areu+- Nov95 1144 Pipe Thread 2in a 2.85 5.50 0.1 5,9324 12.57 $175
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-+ Nov+95 1145 Flange 30in a 2.55 6.00 0 5.8551 12.41 $172
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-. Nov-95 1142 Tube Rail Valve .5 in a 3.9 2.95 0 4.5714 9.69 $/35
Gas Turbine 2
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1006 Ball Valve 6in a 2.9 4.00 0 4.5388 9.62 $1::14
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov-95 1030 Ball Valve Stem U ii; 4 2.60 0 4.1481 8.79 $122
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area,- Nov-95 1137 Control Valve 2in a 6 1.68 0 4.0644 8.61 $120
Gas Turbine I
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nov-95 1027 Ball Valve Stem 24io a 2 5.00 0 3.8399 8.14 $113
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov-95 1017 Pipe Threud lin a 3.55 2.70 0 3.8124 8.08 $112
Turbine InleO
Cooler A Outlct Nov-95 1084 OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 5.4 1.73 0 37614 797 .1/11
(Blowdown)
Cookr A Inlet Nov-95 1061.28 Ball Valve Body Conn (Hiffi) 8 in a 6.1 150 0 3.7074 7.86 $109
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1125 Needle Valve I in a 4.8 1.60 0 3.1010 6.57 $91
+m_, ____
__.. _-... _----
----
Page 2 of 15
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HighFI/)wSampler
Rotameter

Inda)
Slzl:
E I!
Meawremerlts
Corrt<tfun !LeakRate LeakRatt
C(lst
Screen'
Screen
.qu p.
/loteiISUn-- SnJI<lC
Site
D.", Led lUll
lit-scription
(unil} Iype
Vd...nty ... ......nl
I'-,rlor

(Vmin)
(SCFHJ ($/Year)
Ins(rtnn(
Gazprom .- Pervomaiskaya I Unit Valve Turbine 3... conthwed
Unit Valve ArctJ-- No\'-95
\170
Pipe Thread(neur Gate. Valve)
I in
,
,.75 2.80
(\
3,0455
645
$90
Gas. Turbine 3
Scrubber:) (OriS Nov-95
1012
Rail Valve
6in
,
4.9 1..15
0
U73R
6.09
$gS
Turbine Inle!)
Cooler A Inlet
Nov-95 1064.28
Ball Valve Booy Conn (Biffi)
Bin
5
\.40
(\
2.'B34
(din $RJ
Scrullbt'f 5 (Gas Nc)V95 1010
Ball Valve
6in
, 3.5
1.90
0
2.6(Jj.'l
).(,) $/8
Turhinc flllel)
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nov-{}S
tmil
Ball Valve Stern
4 in a
5.7
LhO
0
2.3196
4,9j $68
'Turhine Inkt)
Ccmler B Oullef Nov95
fl21
(/rIle Valve
I in a
1.5 4.00
0
2.3042:
4.88
$68
COQkr B OUtlet Nov-95
1099
Gate Valve (Chero- lIaly)
I in
, 5.5
0.98
0
2.1820
462
$64
Scrubber 3 (Ga.s Nov-95
1032
Rail Valve Stem
6il1
,
-1-:\ 1.20
0
2flR90
4,4.1-
$61
Inlet)
Cooler BOutler Nov95
1111
ORt on Rail Vnlve: {Grove)
2il)
,
5.4 0.95
0
2nk75
4,"'2
$61
(BI(1w(/llwn)
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95
1{)f,21 A
Ball Valve Sfem (Bini)
Bin
2.55 L95
0
1,91:W2
410
$58
Co\)ler A OlJtlet Nov95
1061
Gale Valve (Chern-It"ly)
I in
3.9 1.21J
1J
1.H.922
4,01
$56
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nvv-95
J024
Ball Valve
in
J.55
1.22
0
1.748.1
:1.70
.1.'1 I
TlJIbillt: Inkt)
CODkr A Oullel Nov-95
1{)91
OEL on BaH Valve (Gmw;l)
2in
55
0.75
0
1.6813
.1.56
$50
(Blowd<JWll)
Unit Valve Arca-- Nuv-95
1141
Tube filling (wi icc)
," in a
14 1./5
I)
1.5783
.1.)4
$46
Gas Tuthine 2
Scrubber 5 (Oas Nov-9S
1016
Pipe Thread
.15 in
,
3.45 UO
(\
1.5330
3.15
545
Turhine Inlet)
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov-95
1020
Pipe Thrcad
.7'5 in
,
3.4
un
0
1.511)5
:U.O
$44
Turhil1c Inlee)
Scrubbn 6 (Gas NO'll-95
1(0)
Ball Valve
6 in
,
1.7
2,25
0

} \R
$44
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area- Nm:95
1/47
Tuhe Fining (wI kc)
.5 III a
2.:1 1.75 OJ5
, 4flJQ l.ll)
$4}
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Nov-95
1158
Pressure Relief Villve
I in
, 5.1
0.68
0
J.4595
3.09

Gus Turhine '\
Scrubber 5 <Gas Nov-95
1022
Pressure Relief Valve
(1 in a
6.2
0
14581
3.1)9
$'13
inlet)
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95
II\R
OF.I, on Ball Valve (Grove)
2. in
,
5
n.71)
(\
1.4267
3.02-
542
(Blowdowtl)
Scrubber 2 (G<iS
Nov-<)S
Hl<l4
Ball Vnlv<:" Rody
4in a
J.72
2.1\)
I)
1,4209
:\.0 \
542
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 5 (Gas NOI'-95
10/4
OllIe Valve Stem/Pipe Threlld
.5 in a
5.6 0.00
0
13726
2.91
.140
Turl,inc Inlet)
_._..
-----_.
......
---.-

Pagelof /5
Rotameter
High-Flow Sampler I Measorements
Indaco
Size
Measurements I kR t I' kR C ' Screcn*** Screen
Equip. Scaling Correctlon .. ea a e ..ea ate ost
SUI.' Date Leak mil Description
(units) Type I Velodly Samp Bkgnd lJIenl Factor ('actor I (l/min) (SCFH) ($fYear)
Instrmnt
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya / Unit Valve Area--Gas' Turbine 2... continued
Unit Vulve Area-- Nov95 1153 Control Valve
2in a 4.5 0,70 0
1.2824 272 $38
Gas Turbine 2
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1018 Pipe Thread
.75 in
"
3.45 0.90 0
1.2568 2.66 $37
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov-95 1011 Ball Vulve
6in a 3.4
0,90 0
1.2383 2.62 $36
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1056 Pipe Thread
.75 in a 1.16 2,75 0
1.2265 2.60 $36
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1019 Gate Valve Stem
.75 in a 3,75 0,80 0
1.2171 258 $36
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Nov-95 1146 Tube Fitting (wI ice)
.5 in a 2,75 1.10 0
1.2170 258 $36
Gas Turbine 2
Cooler B Inlet Nov-95 1094 Ball Valve Body Conn (Him)
lOin a 3.4 0,88 0
1.2042 2,55 $)5
,75 in a 1.63 1.80 0
1.1556 2.45 $34
Turbine Inlet)
io a 3.45 0.83 0
1.1530 2.44 $34
Turbine Inlet)
.75 in a 4.15 0.65 0
1.0976 2.33 $32
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler B Outlet Nov95 1115
2in a 5, I 053 0
1.0935 2.:'1 $32
(Blowdown)
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1161 Needle Valve
.5 in a 5.3 050 0
1.0830 2.29 $32
Gas Turbine 3
Scrubber I (Gil" Nov-95 1057 Pipe Thread
.75 in a 5.1 0,50 0
1.0417 221 $31
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1123 Gate Valve
I in
"
3.15 0.85 0,05
1.(1190 2,16 $30
.75 in
"
4.25 0.55 0
0.9524 2.02 $28
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 IIJI.IA Ball Valve Body Flange
Rin a 3.35 0.70 0
0.9507 201 $28
Gas Turbine I
OELon Ball Va!ve(Grove)
2 in a 4,85 0.43 0
0.8422 1.78 $25
(Blowdown)
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1110 Ball Valve Stem (Bim)
lOin a 5,11 0.40 0
0.8359 1.77 $25
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov95 1031 Ball Valve Stem
6in a 3.7 0.55 0
08275 1.75 524
Turbine Inlet)
.75in a 3.45 0.58 0
0,8056 1.71 524
Turbine Inlet)
.75 in a :\.45 055 0
0.7708 1.61 S23
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler A Outlet Nov95 1077 Needle Valve
I in a 1.28 1.48 0
0,7389 157 $22
Unit Valve Area Nov-95 1159 Gllle Valve
I in a 2.9 0.60 0
0.7043 1,49 $21
Gas Turbine 3

.. _..
Page 4 oj /5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
I - - - -
Iiigh-Flnw Sampler
Rotameter
Measurements
Meanrrernenlr
Meururt
LeakRate 1,eakRate Cest Sercfn*** Scrccn
VIlrnily Fump Hklnd
Gawrorn - Pervornaiskaya / CoolerA Ourkt (Blowdown). . . continued
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 OEl, on Ball Valve (Gmve) 2i n a
(Blowdown)
Cooler A Outlcl Nnv-95 Gate Valve (Chcm--Italy) l i n n
Cooler A Outld Nov-95 OEI, on Ball Vnlve (Gmvc) 2i n s
(Blowdown)
Cooler A Oullel Nov-95 Gale Valve (Chern--Italy) l i n ;,
Scruhher I (Gas Nou-95 Ball Vdve Stem 4i n il
Twhine Inlet)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov-95 P i p Thread 7 5 i n a SIX
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler A Outlet NOV-95 Ball Valve Stem (Bi fl i ) I l l i n a
Coolcr B Outlcl Nov-95 OEL on Rall Vdvc (Grove) 2i n a
(Blowdown)
Coolcr A Outlet Nov-95 Gate Vnlve (Chrm-Italy) l i n a
Cnolcr B Outlet Nov-95 Hall Valve Stem (Bi fl i ) l 0i n a
Scruhhcr 4 (Gas Nnv-95 Pipe Thread .75 in a
Turhine Inlet)
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 Pipe Thread l i n a
Cooler A Outlet NOV-95 Needle Valve l i n a
Unit Valve Area-- N o d 5 Rall Valve Stem 8i n a
Gas Turhine I
Scrubbcr 6 (Gas Nov-95 Gate Valve l i n a
l'urhine Inlet)
Coolcr A lnlel Nnv-95 OEL m Ball Valve l i n a
Scruhhcr 4 (Gas Now95 Pipe Thrcad 7 5 i n a
Tvrhine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 I'uhe Fitting Si n a
Gas Turhinc 2
Coolcr A Outlet Nov-95 Gvte Vdve (Chcro--flaiyl l i n a
Unit Vnlve Area-- Nov-95 Ball Valve Body Flmge 8i n a
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area-. Nov-95 Gvte Valve l i n s
Gas Turbine 1
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 OEL an Ball Valve (Grow) 2i n a
(Blowdowo)
Unit Valvc Area-- Nav-95 Tuhe Fitting . 75i n r
Gas Turbine 3
Cooler A Outlct Nov-95 Ball Valve Stem (Bifli) IOi n a
Cooler U Outlet Nov-95 OEL on Bntl Valve (Grove) 2i n a
(Blowdown)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Rotameter
High.Flow Sampler
Measurements
Indaco Size Equip.
Measurements
LeakRate LeakRatc Cost Screen*** Screen
Measure- Scaling Correction
Sile nate Leak 10# Oescripllof\
(units) T,,,, Velndty 8kgnd
ruenl Faclor f"actor <Vmin) (SCFIf) (.IlYeaf) InSfrmnt
Gazpr{}/n - Pervomaiskaya / Cooler A Outlet (Blowdown).. . continued
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1090 OEt. on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 5.7 0.30 0 0.7008 1.48 $21
(Slowdown)
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1078 Gate Valve (Chcro-ltaly) I in
"
3.8 OA5 0 0.6963 1,48 120
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 IDSR OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in
"
4.9 0.33 0 0.6614 lAO $19
(Blowdown)
Cookr A Outlei Nov-95 1066 Gate Valve (Chero--ltaly) I in a 4 0.40 0 0.6524 I.J8 $19
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1054 Ball Valve Stem 4in a 3A5 OA5 0 0.631] l.34 $19
Turbine Inlel)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Nov-9S 1034 Pipe Thread .75 in a 1.66 0.95 0 0.6269 1.J3 $18
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler A Outlet Nov-9S 1082 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) lOin a 3.05 0.50 0 0.6J85 UI $18
Cooler B Outlct Nov-9S 1114 OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 4,95 0.30 0 0.6077 1.29 518
(Slowdown)
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1074 Gate Valve (Chero--Ilaly) I in a 1.6 0.90 0 05720 f.21 $17
Cooler S Outlet Nov-95 1096 Ball Valve Stem (Bifti) lOin a 3. I 0.45 0 0.5662 1.20 $17
SCfIlhber 4 (Gas 1026 Pipe Thread .75 in a 3.1 0.55 0.1 0.5656 1.20 $17
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1122 Pipe Thread lin a f.3 LlO 0 0.5622 19 $17
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1067 Needle Valve I in a 385 0.35 0 05494 I 16 516
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1132 Ball Valve Stem Rin a J 0.45 0 0.5476 I 16 $16
Gas Turbine I
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1004 Gate Valve I in a fR 0.75 0 05392 1.14 $16
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler A Inlet Nov95 1060 OEL on Ball Valve I in a 1.87 0.70 0 0.5217 I.fl $15
Scrubber 4 (qas 1058 Pipe Thread .75 in a 1.64 0.75 0 OA898 L04 514
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1150 Tube Fitting 5in a 295 040 0 0.4787 1.0 I $14
Gas Turbine 2
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1080 Gate Valve (Chero--ftaly) I in a 1.55 0.75 0 0.4620 0.98 $14
Unit Valve Nov-95 lf28 Ball Valve Body Flange 8in a 5.5 0.20 0 OA5 I I 0.96 $1]
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1126 Gate Valve I in a 3.65 0.30 0 0.4463 0.95 $13
Gas Turbine I
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1087 OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 49 0.22 0 0,4414 0,94 51]
(Blowdown)
Unit Valve lf69 Tube Fitting ,75io a Ll2 1.00 0 0.4.177 093 51.1
Gas Turbine J
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1079 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) lOin a 3.55 0.]0 0 OA339 0.92 $1.1
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1116 OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 5.1 020 0 OAI80 0.89 $12
(Blowdown)
.._-,,,,-,,,.,"--,,---"""--._,--,,_.-- .."""._-"" ... ...
Page 5 of /5
Rotameter
IUgh-Flow Sampler I Measurements
Indaco
Slt.e
Measurements [ kR t L kR C t Screen*** Screen
Equip. Measure. Scallng Correction ,ea a e ca ate os
Site Dale
Leak 11)# Uescrlptlon
(units) Type I Velocity Samp Bkgnd ment Factor Flletor I (llmin) (SCI-lI) ($fYcar)
InsCrmnl
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya I Scrubber 5 (Gas Turbine Inlet). .. continued
Scrubber 5 (Gas 1015 Pipe Thread
.5 in a 3.4 0.30 0
0.4153 0.88 $12
Turbine Inlet)
Gate Valve
I in a 4.05 0.25 0
0.4135 0.88 $12
;n
a
}.9 0.25 0
0.3980 0.84 $12
Turbine Inlet)
I in a 1.25 0.10 0
0.3967 084 $12
Scrubber 4 (Gas Nov-95 1028 Ball Valve Crank
in a 1.2 0.30 0
0.3905 08'> $11
Turbine Inlet)
2in a 5 0.18 0
03586 076 $11
(Blowdown)
Cooler B Outlel Nov-95 1117
2in a
4.95 0.18 0
0.3549 0,75 $10
(B1owdown)
2in a 4.9 0.17 0
O.}41} 0.72 $10
(Blowdown)
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1107 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi)
lOin a 3.35 0.25 0
0.3411 0.72 $10
Cooler B Outlel Nov-95 1100 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi)
lOin a 3.3 0.25 0
0.3359 0.71 $10
nEL on Ball Valve (Grove)
2in a
}.2 0.25 0
0.3255 0.69 $10
(Blowdown)
Unit Valve Area- i\!,\ 1157 Control Valve
2in a 2.85 0.28 0
0.3182 0.67 $9
Gas Turbine 3
Ball Valve Stem
6 in a 1.75 0.45 0
0.3152 0.67 $9
Turbine Inlet)
Tube and Pipe Thread
I in a .97 0.80 0
0.3015 0.64 $9
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1005 Gate Valve
I in a 1.5 0.45 0
0.2687 0.57 $8
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1053 Ball Valve Crank
24in a 1.35 0.50 0
0.2675 0.57 $8
Turbine Inlet)
I in a 1.47 045 0
02612 0.50 $8
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1131.2B
Ball Valve Body Flange Boll
Rin a
1.46 0.45 0
0.2013 0..'15 $8
Gas Turbine I
Scrubber 5 (Gas Nov-95 1021 Tube Fitting
.5 in a 3.15 0.20 0
0.2564 0.54 $8
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler B Inlet Nov+95 1095
Ball Valve Body Conn (Bim)
lOin a 5.9 0.10 0
0.2424 0.51 $7
Cooler A Oullel Nov-95 1083 Needle Valve
I in a 1.5 0.40 0
0.2390 0.51 $7
Scrubber I (Gas Nov-95 1046 Flange
in a 3.85 0.15 0
0.2359 0.50 $7
Turbine Inlet)
Unil Valve Area-- Nov-95 1151 Ball Valve Stem
6 in a 2.9 0.20 0
0.2357 0.50 $7
Gas Turbine 2
I in a 1.57 0.37 0
0.2319 0.49 $7
Cooler A Outlel Nov-95 1071
Gate Valve (Chero--Italy)
I in a 3.7 0.15 0
0.2266 0.48 $7
---.. .----
Page 6 of /5
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
High-Flow Sampler
Rotameter
Measurements
lndaco
Size
E I I Measurements
Corrl'Ctlon ILeakRate LeakRate Cost
Screen*** Screen
,qu p.
Mellllure- SCaJ'flg
Site Date Leak 11)# Descrlpllon
(units) Type VelocUy Simp 8kgnd
_.,
Factor
Factor (llmin) (SCFH) ($lYear)
Instrmnt
Ga;prom - Pervomaiskaya / Cooler B Outlet. . continued
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1108 Gale Valve (Cheroltaly) I in
,
3.65 0.15 0 0.2235 0.47 $7
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1061.1 A Ball Valve Stem (8iffi) 8 in
,
1.55 0.35 0 0.2165 0.46 $6
Cooler B Inlet Nov-95 1092 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) lOin a 1.09 0.50 0 0.2138 0.45 $6
Unit Valve Nov-95 1139 Pressure Relief Valve 2in a 5.2 0.10 0
0,2133 0.45 $6
Gas Turbine 2
Cooler B Outlct Nov-95 1102 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) lOin a l05 0.17 0 0.2110 0.45 $6
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1045 Ball Valve Stem 4in a 1.72 0.30 0 02067 0.44 $6
Turbine Inlct)
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1064.1 A Ball Valve Stem (8iffi) 8in
,
1.48 0.35 0 0.2063 0.44 $6
Cooler A Oullet Noy95 1085 OEL on Ball Valve (Grove) 2in a 5 0.10 0 0.2050 0.43 $6
(Blowdown)
Cooler A Outlet Nov95 1068 Gate Valve (Chero--Italy) 1in a 3.25 0.15 0 0.1986 0.42 $6
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1138 Control Valve 2in a 4.8 0.10 0 0.1968 0,42 $6
Gas Turbine 2
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1098 Needle Valve I in a 1.09 0.40 0 0.1712 0.36 $5
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1167 Pipe Thread I in a 4.1 0.10 0 0.1677 (U6 $5
Gas Turbine 3
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1069 Needle Valve I in
,
3.55 0.10 0 0.1449 0,31 $4
Scrubber 2 (Gas Noy-95 1052 Pipe Thread
.75 in
,
1.78 0.20 0 0.1429 0.30 $4
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1051 Pipe Thread .75io a 1.76 0.20 0 0.1413 0.30 $4
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 3 (Gas Noy95 1039 Ball Valve Stem
4in a 1.74 0.20 0
01396 030 $4
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler B Outlet Noy95 1105
Gale Valve (Chero--Italy) I in a 3.35 0.10 0
0.1366 0.29 $4
Cooler B Outlet Nov-95 1119 Flange
2in a 1.37 025 0
01362 0.29 $4
Scrubber 3 {Gas Noy-95 1041 Rail Valve Stem
4in a 1.56 0.20 0
0.1247 0.26 $4
Turbine InleO
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1063
Ball Valve Stern (Biffl) Rin a 1.2 0.25 0
01186 0.25
$,
Cooler B Outlet 1103
Ball Valve Stern (Biffl) lOin a 2.9 0.10 0
0.1180 025 $3
Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) lOin a 2.9 0.10 0
0.1180 025 $3
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1008 Ball valve
24in a 1.4 0.20 0
0.1115 0.24 $3
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1160 Flange
I in a 2.65 0.10 0
O.I()76 0.23
$,
Gas Turbine 3
Scrubber J (Gas Nov-95 1038 Ball Valve Stern
24in a 1.77 0.15 0
01066 023 $3
Turbine Inlet)
Ball Valve Stem (Biffi)
lOin a 2.6 010 0
0.1055 0.22 $3
Cooler A Outlet Nov95 1075 Needle Valve
I in
,
Lfi7 015 0
0.1004 0.21 $3
--"--------..__.,,'"---,,.__. "",,"" ...._-
Page 7 of /5
Rotameter
Indaco Sh.e Equip. Measnrements Scaling Correction LeakRate LeakRate Cost Screen*** Screen
SUe Date Leak ID# Description (units) Type 1 Velocity Slimp Kkgnd men! FaClor FIICior I (Vmin) (SCFIf) ($/Ycar) Instrmnt
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya I Unit Valve AreaGas Turbine 3... continued
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1168 Pipe ThreadIWeld I in a 1.63 0.15 0 0.0979 0.21 $3
Gas Turbine 3
ScrubberS (Gas Nov-95 1013 OEL on Gate Valve .5in a 1.6 0.15 0 0.0961 0.20 $3
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber3(Gas Nov-95 1033 Pipe Thread .7Sin a 1.6 0.15 0 0.0961 0.20 $3
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler B Oullet Nov-95 1124 NeedleVaJve I in a 1.3 0.18 0 0,0903 0.19 $3
Cooler BOutlet Nov-95 1097 Needle Valve lin a 1.460,15 0 0.0874 0.19 $3
Cooler A Outlet Nov-95 1076 Pipe Thread 1in a 1.07 0.20 0 0.0841 0,18 $2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1156 Gale Valve I in a 2.05 0.10 0 0.0827 O,IR $2
Gas Tllrbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1149 Tube Fitting .5in a .8 0.25 0 0.0772 0.16 $2
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1171 Pipe Thread on Gale Valve I in a .97 0.20 0 0.0758 n.ln $2
Gas Turbine 3
Scrubber3(Gas Nov-95 1040 Ball Valve Body 4in a 1.780.10 0 0.0715 0.15 $2
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1133 Ball Valve Stern 2 in a 3.35 0,05 0 0.0684 0,14 $2
Gas Turbine I
Cooler A Inlet Nov-9S 1062.28 Ball Valve Body Conn (Riffi) Sin a 3.30.05 0 0.0673 0.14 $2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1130 BallValveSlcm 8in n 3 0.05 0 0.0611 0.13 $2
Gas Turbine 1
Cooler AOutlet Nov-95 1072 Needle Valve I in a 1.79 0.05 0 0.0360 0.08 $1
Scrubber 3 (Gas 1037 Ball Valve Crank 24in a 1.780.05 0 0.0358 0.08 $1
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler AOutlet Nov-95 1073 Ball Valve Stem (Biffi) 10 in a 1.64 0.05 0 0.0329 0.07 $1
Scrubber 2 (Gas Nov-95 1050 Ball ValveStcm 6in a 1.62 0.05 {) 0,0325 0.07 $1
Turbine Inlet)
Scrubber 6 (Gas Nov-95 1009 Ball Valve 6in a 1.4 0.10 0.05 0.0279 0.06 $1
Turbine Inlet)
Cooler A Inlet Nov-95 1059 Ball Valve Stem 6in a 1.330.05 0 0.0265 0.06 $1
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1135 Pipe Thread .75 in a 1.29 0.05 0 0.0256 0.05 $1
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Nov-95 1136 Pipe Thread ,75 in a 1_17 0.05 () 0,0231 0,05 SI
Gas Turbine I
Scrubberl(Gas Nov-95 1055 Ball Valve Stem 6in a 1.490.03 0 0.0149 0.03 SO
Turbine Inlet)
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1163 Needle Valve .5in a 1.32 0,0) 0 0.0131 0.03 SO
Gas Turbine 3
Unit Valve Nov-95 1164 Ball Valve 3 in a 2 0.00 0 0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 3
... .. ...,,'" --.. _._--"" .. -
Page 8 of 15
-------------------
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
High-Flow Sampler
Rotameter
Measuremenls
lnclaco
Size Equip.
Measurements
correctlnn) LeakRale LeakRate Cost
Screen"'''' Screen
M .. Scaling
Site Oate Leak m# Ile,sc;riplion

Typ<
Vel"dly Slimp ""gnd menl F'lKllOr Factor (I/min) (SCFH) ($fYear)
lnslrmnl
Gazprom - Pervomaiskaya / Unit Valve Turbine 2... continued
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1155 Ball Valve
.75io
"
3 0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 2
Cooler B Inlet Nov-95 1093 Ball Valve Body Conn (Bifli) lOin a 1.61 0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1129 Ball Valve Stem
gin a .92 0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1127 Ball Valve Top joint (Grove) 30in h
0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-9) 1143 OEL
oin a
1.69 n,on 0
0.0000 n,on $0
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Noy-95 1134 OEL on Ball Valve .75 in a
1.49 0.00 0
0.0000 o.on $0
Gas Turbine I
Unit Valve Area Nov-95 1152 Tube Fitting
.5 in a 1.26 0.00 0
O.()OOO O.O() $0
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1148 Tube Fitting
.5 in a
1.34 0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 2
Unit Valve Area- Nov-95 1162 Tube Filling
.5 in a 1.3 0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 3
Unit Valve Area-- Nov-95 1140 OEL on Tube Valve .5 in a
0 0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Gas Turbine 2
Pervnmaiskaya Total
2.5R.1 546.91 $7.5'JR
Storojovka
Field Area Oct-95 1010 Station Blowdown (Bypass) 150nunb
110 1.6 1.34 530.6400 1.124.37 $15.620
Field Area Oct-95 1092 Plug Valve
12in a
587 29.00 0
676393 143.32 51.991
Field Area Oct-95 1017 Station Vent
6in a
4.41 3550 0
589373 124.88 $1,735
Scrubber Area Oct-95 1005 Gate Valve
SOmma 2.19324.00 0
21.3434 45.22 $628
Field Area 0(;t-95 1104 Plug Valve
12in a
4.91 7.50 0
17.5593 .17.21 $517
Field Area Oct-95 1075 Tube Filling
1in a
5.1 7.00 0
171110 36.26 $504
Field Area Ocl95 1057 Pipe Thread
I in a
4.58 6.20 0
13.6961 29.02 $403
Field Arca Oct95 1089 Plug Valve Crank
6 in a
3.24 7.00 0
10.7987 22.88 $318
6in a
5.7 3.50 0
9.9007 20.98 $291
Field Area Oct-95 J(J95 Plug Valve
12 in a
4.7 4.00 0
92649 19.61 $271
50mma
4.6 4.(X, 0
9(1654 19.21 S2fl7
50mma
4.9 3,70 0
8.9653
19,{X) $264
Field Area Oct-95 1009 Station Blowdown (Plug valve) 200mm a 4.15 425 0
8.6569 18..14 $255
Field Area OCI-95 1090 Ball Valve
12 in a
57 2.80 0
7.9750 16.90 S135
Field Area Oct-95 1053 Valve -- Underground
? a
5.5 2.90 0
7.9593 16.86 S134
Scrubber Area Oct-95 1001 Gale Valve Scrubber 5
50mma 5.1 3.10 0
7.8677 16.67 $132

Page 9 of /5
- Ga~prom Storojovka / Fi el d Area. . .continued
Rel d Area Needle Vdve l i n a
Fi rl d Area OELon Plug Valve 3i n a
Field Area Ball Valve (Underground) Shin a
Field Area Plug Valve 4i n a
Field Area Plug Valve (Station Vcnr) 80 mrn a
Scrubber Area Gate Valve 50 mrn a
Ficld Area Plug Vdve 12i n a
Field Area Gate Vnlve l i n a
Field Area Valve -- Underground ? a
Ficld Area Plug Valve 12in a
Field Aren Tubc Fitting 5 i n a
Ficld Area Ball Valve (Underground) i n B
Field Area OEL on Plug Valve 80 n m u
Field Area Gdte Vdve 2i n a
Field Area Gate Valve 4i s a
Field Area Pix Launch (OEL on Ball Valve) 30i n a
Ficld Area Valve -- Undergroand ? a
Fiekl Arca Ball Valve Vent .5 i n a
Ficld Area Plug Valve Crank 12in a
Ficld Areo Tube Fllfing .5i n a
Field Area Plug Valve 80 tnn? a
Fi rl d Area Gate Valve 2i n s
Field Area Needle Valve l i n a
Field Area Plug Vdvc Slem hi n a
Field Area Gale Valve 1 i n B
Field Area Ball Valve (Underground) 36i n a
Ficld Area Tube Fitting l i n a
Ficld Arca OEL on Pkrg Valve 4i n a
Field Ar m Ball Vnlve Body Flange 3hi n o
Field A m Underground Valve ? a
Field Area Gvle Valve 2i n a
Field Area Phg Valve 3i n a
Field Area Plug Valve I 2i n a
-. - .- -
Page 10 of I5
D -
High-Flow Sampler
Rotameter
Measurements
Indaro
Size Equip.
Measurements
LeakRate LeakRate Cost Scrcen Scrcen
M...ll$ur.... Sf ('nrrUon
Site Date Lellk 11)# Oescriptlon
(units) Type Vdocity Simp Bkgnd ~ . , h, Fa(wr (Vmin) (SCFII) ($Nea,) Instrmnt
Gazprom - Storojovka / Field Area. .. continued
Field Area Oct-95 1072 Needle Valve lin a .931 20.00 0 7.4868 15.86 $220
Field Area Oet95 1022 GEL on Plug Valve 3 in a 4.5 3.30 0 7.3645 15.60 $217
Field Area Oct-95 1008 Ball Valve (Underground) 36in a 4.7 3.15 0 7.3570 15.59 $217
Field Area Oct-95 1050.2 B Plug Valve
4 in a 4.25 3.48 0 7.3063 15.48 $215
Field Area 0,.-95 1007 Plug Valve (Station Vent) SOmma 4.5 3.00 0 6.7148 14.23 $198
SOmma 4.45 2.70 0 5.9930 12.70 $176
Field Area Oct-95 1103 Plug VaJve 12in a 5 2.15 0 5.3987 11.44 $159
Fidd Area Oct-95 1076 Gale Valve
1 in a 3 3.60 0 5.3066 11.24 $156
Field Area Oct95 1055 Valve .. Underground ? a 4.95 1.90 0 4.7344 10.03 $139
12in a 4.8 1.85 0
4.4708 9.47 $132
Field Area OCI-95 1003 Tube FItting .5 in a 1.38 7.00 0.15
4.3903 9.30 $129
Fidd Area Ocl95 1011 Ball Valve (Underground) in a 3.55 2.50 0.1 4.2445 8.99 $125
Field Area Oct-95 1001.2 B OEL on Plug Valve 80mma 4.4 1.70 0 3.7676 798 $111
Field Area Ocl-95 1082 Gale Valve
2in a 4 1.45 0 2.9250 6.20 $86
Field Area 0,.-95 1085 Gale Valve
4in a 4.75 1.15 0 2.7691 5.87 $82
Field Area Oct-95 1027 Pig Launch (OEL on Ball Valve) 30in a 4.65 I.JO 0 2.5936 550 $76
Field Area Ocl-95 1054 Valve -- Underground ? a 4.65 0.90 0 2.1263 4.51 $63
Fidd Area OCI-95 1012 Ball Valve Vent ,5 in a 3.25 1.25 0
lJ)462 4.34 $60
Field Area Ocl95 1096 Plug Valve Crank 12in a 4 0.90 0 1.8255 3.87 $54
Field Area Oct-95 J002 Tube Fitting
.5 in a 1.97 1.65 0 1.6124 3.42 $47
Field Area Ocl95 HKII.I A Plug Valve 80mma 4.55 0.60 0 1.3909 295 $41
Field Area Oet95 1058.2 B Gale Valve 2in a 1.87 1.49 0 r:J823 2.93 $41
Field Area Oet-95 1070 Needle Valve I in a .72 3.98 0 1.3161 279 $39
Field Area Oct95 1020 Plug Valve Stem 6in a 3.7 0.70 0 1.3145 2.79 $39
Field Area Oct-95 1028 Gale Valve I in a 4.55 0.55 0 1.2756 2.7() $38
Field Area Oet-95 1023 Plug Valve
3 in a 3.55 0.70 0 1.2604 2.67 $37
Field Area Ocl-95 1004 Ball Valve (Underground) 36in a 4.2 0.55 0 1.1763 2.49 $35
Field Area Oct-95 1094 Tube Fitting I in a 2.35 0.90 0 1.0621 2.25 $31
Field Area Ocl-95 1050.1 A DEL on Plug Valve 4in a 4.85 0.43 0 1.0528 2.23 $31
Field Area Oct-95 1016 Ball Valve Body Flange 36in
"
3.85 045 0 0.8821 1.87 $26
Field Area Oct-95 1074 Underground VaJve ? a 4 0.35 0 0.7139 1.51 $21
Field Area Oct95 1086 Gille Valve 2 in a 3.45 0.40 0 0.7018 1.49 $21
Field Area Oct-95 1025 Plug Valve 3in a 3.75 0.30 0 0.5734 1.21 $17
Field Area Oct-95 1080 Plug Valve 12in a 3.7 0.30 0 0.5657 1.20 $17
Field Area Oct-95 1026 Plug Valve 6 in a 1.46 0.75 0 0.5427 1.15 $16
_ . " ' ~ - - - - " ' - " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . _ - ' ' ' ' ' ' - - - ' ' ' ' ~ - " _ . , . _ - - - - - - - _ . _ , - ' ' ' ' - - - - - - -
---,.... _._.. _------ ~ - - - - - ' " -- , ~ " ' . _ , - " - " " " ' ~ " ' ~ - ~ ~ _ . -
Page 100/ /5
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
.
S O 0
S O 0 V O I
Y O 0
0 1 ' 0 Y
Y ( 1 0
S t S O Z I
9 0 ' 0
5 0 0 2 . 1
L O O
s 0 . 0 P Z I
L O O
5 0 0 L C ' I
L O O
S O 0 P I
8 0 . 0
8 0 0 6 6 '
0 1 O
5 1 ' 0 P 9
I 1 . 0
0 1 ' 0 L O 1
$ 1 0
E l 0 f l ' l
1 1 ' 0
0 1 ' 0 P I
L I ' ( I
0 1 0 1 9 1
8 I 0
5 ' 1 . 0 E I ' I
X I ' 0
5 1 ' 0 P I ' !
8 1 ' 0
0 1 ' 0 L ' I
8 1 ' ( I
5 1 ' 0 9 1 1
O Z O
0 1 ' 0 9 8 . 1
1 Z . O
5 1 ' 0 Z I
I Z 0 I S Z E l
1 i O
$ 1 ' 0 P i 1
Y Z 0 O Z ' O E Z ' I
O Z ' I I S P 0 8 5 '
P i 0 S Z U 6 Z ' I
V f O O f 0 I I
6 P O O P O X I I
I S O S Z O E 6 . l
X S O 0 0 1 6 5 '
I 9 0 S P O i I
P L O 0 5 . 0 P I
h L O 5 r 0 S X P
P 8 ' 0 0 6 ' 0 1 6 '
S X O 0 P 0 6 6 ' 1
0 0 1 O Z ' 0 9 P
L O I 5 5 ' 0 E 8 l
. Rotameter
HIgh-Flow Sampler I Mea.,uremenls
Indaeo
Sil.e
Measurements I R I " Screen'll*'ll Screen
Equip. M t a ~ u r t - Scolhlg Corrtction Jeak ate JeakRate Cost
Site Pate Leak 11)# Pcscriptl(ln
(units) Type I Vetodly Samp Bkgnd ment Faclnr Foclor I (Umin) (SCFH) ($/Year)
Instrmnt
Gazprom - Siorojovka / Field Area. .. continued
Field Area Oct-95 1015 OEL on Plug Valve 2in a .51 0.10 0
0.0236 0.05 $1
Field Area Oct-95 1100 Plug Valve Crank
12in a 83 0.05 0
0.0201 0.04 $1
Field Area Oct-95 1059 Pipe Thread I in a .53 0.05 0
0.0123 0.0] $0
Field Area Ocl-95 1061 Plug Valve I in a 1.2 0.02 0
0.0089 0.02 $0
Field Area Oct-95 1060 OEL on Gate Valve I in a .38 D.OS 0
0.0084 0.02 $0
Field Area Oct-95 1044 NO LEAKS 0 a
0.0000 0.00
Field Area Oct-95 1037 NO l.EAKS
0 a
0.0000 0.00
Ficld Area Ocl-95 1042 NO LEAKS 0 a
0.0000 0.00
Field Area OCI-95 1035 NO LEAKS
0 a
0.0000 0.00
Ficld Area OCI-95 1038 NO LEAKS
0 a
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
Field Area Ocl-95 1040 NO LEAKS
0 a
0.0000 0.00
Field Area Od-95 1043 NO LEAKS
0 a
0.0000 0.00
Field Area OCI-95 1041 NO LEAKS
0 a
(l.OOOO 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 0.00
0.0000 000
0 a
0,0000 0,00
Field Area OCI-95 1032 NO LEAKS 0 a
0.0000 0.00
0 a
0.0000 0,00
Field Area Oct-95 1048 NO LEAKS
0 a
0.0000 0.00
0 a
0.0000 0.00
Field Area Oct-95 1045 NO LEAKS
0 a
0.0000 0.00
3in a 1.6 0.00 0
o.moo 0.00 $0
3in a 1.6 0.00 0.1
O.O()(XI 0.00 $0
Field Area OCI-95 1051
Plug Valve Body Flange
4in a .9 0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Field Area Oct-95 1030 Solenoid Box OEL
0 a 1.14 0.00 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Storojovka Total
918.5 1,946.18 $27,038
Gazprom Total
2.790.8 5,9IJ..lI 582,152
Poge 12 of IS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
Petrovsk
Cotnpressor Ocl-95 Brill Valve 1000 ,ill,, C
Sucrion/Oischarg
e Valves
(Conlprcsrors
1)cpressurired)
Cornpressor Ocl-95 Hall Valve 10n0 in,,, c
Sucrion/Discharg
e Valvcs
(Conqxessors
Ocpressuri~ed)
Coroprcssor Ocl-95 Roll Valve Itlfl0 mrn c
Suction/Oischarg
E Valves
(Compressors
Ikpressurired)
Compressor Ocl-95 Roll Valve I000 mrn a
Suction/Discharg
e Valves
(Compressors
tkpmss"u~.ed)
Ou~sidcTurhinc Ocl-95
24 i n r
Buildings
Outside Turhinc Ocl-95
l i n il
Baildings
Vdve Field Oul-95 Hall Valve 4i n P
Valve Field Oct-95 Boll Volve 2i n a
Valve Field OCI-95 Gale Valve l i n B
Valve Field Ocl-95 Ball Valve 2i n a
V;,lvc Field Ocl-95 Ball Valve 2i n 8
Vdve Field Ocl-95 Gate Valve l i n u
Outside Turbine Ocl-95 Range 24i n u
Buildings
Vdve Field Ocr-95 Ball Valve 2i n a
Valve Field Ocl-95 Ball Valve Zi n a
Vdve Field Ocl-95 OEL on Wall Vnlve . 8i n a
Vnlvr Field Ocr-95 Gale valve l i n a
Vdve Field Ocl-95 Gate Valve 2i n a
Valve Field Ocl-95 Tuhe Fitting l i n a
Valve Field Ocr-95 Rail Valve Ime1 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
High-Flow Sampler
Rotameter
Measurements
Indaco Sile Equip.
Measurements
LeakRate LeakRate Cost Screcn** Screen
Meil'lure- StlllJng Corrl'dion
SUe Date Leak 10# Oesc:ription
(units) T,,,, Vtloclty Slimp Ilkgnd
ment Factor Filetor (Vmin) (SCFH) ($fYe..) IWitrmnl
Yutran , 'az ' ,
Petrovsk
Compressor Ocl-95 1004 Ball Valve 1000 mm c DO 1,342 4.940.1363 10,467.00 $145,423
SuctionlDischarg
e Valves
(Compressors
Deprcs$urizcd)
Compressor Ocl-95 1(X)7 Ball Valve IOOOmmc 63 1.342 2,394.0661 5,072.76 $70,474
SuctioniDischarg
e Valves
(Compressors
Depressurized)
Compressor Oct-95 100R Ball Valve InOOtmn c 24 1.342 912.{1252 1,932.48 $26,847
SUclion/Discharg
e Valves
(Compressors
Depressurized)
Compressor OCI-95 1003 Bait Valve {(lOO Hun a 4A8 25.00 0 45.5938 96.61 $1,142
Suc{jonIDischarg
e Valves
(Compressors
Depressurized)
Outside Turbine Oct-95 1002 Flange 2tl in a 3.5.5 23.00 0 33.(i537 71.31 $991
Buildings
Outside Turbine Oct-95 1004 Gale Valve I in a 4 5,00 0 9,70J4 2{Ufi $2R6
Buildings
Valve Field 0(;1-95 1023 Ball Valve 4in a 22 1.00 0 7.2402 15.34 $213
Valve Field Oct-95 1029 BaB Valve 2in a JA 4.00 0 6.6445 J4.0R $196
Valve Field OCI-95 1026 Gate Valve I in a ],9 290 0 55911 11X6 $165
Valve Field OCI-95 1018 Balf Valve 2in a 1.14 6,00 0 4,9207 10.43 $145
Valve Field Oct-95 WOS Ball Valve 2in a 2.95 JAO 0 4,9166 10.42 $145
Valve Field Ocl-95 1025 Gale Valve I in a 2.9 3,05 0 4J493 9,22 $128
Outside Turbine Ocl-95 1003 Flange 24in a 2.7 2.60 0 3.4623 734 $102
Buildings
Valve Field Oct-95 1012 Ball Valve 2in a 1.95 320 0 3.0344 6A3 $89
Valve Field Ocl-95 1011 Ball Valve 2in a 1,(1 3.60 0 1.8920 4,01 S56
Vulve Field Oet-95 1021 OEl on Balf Valve 8 in a 455 0.75 0 1.7290 3.M S5I
Valve Field Oet-95 1011 G<:tle Valve I in a 2.5 0.40 0 05034 1.07 SI5
Valve Field 1022 Gate Valve 2in a 2.16 020 0 0.2190 0.59 $8
Valve Field Oct-95 1010 Tube Filling lin a 2.4 0.20 0 0.2419 Ojl $7
Valve Field Oct-95 1016 Ball Valve I me! 11 I 0,45 0 0.2189 OA6 $6
._.."-,,.- -----,.,-'-'-..---..--""'--------"---.,,----------------
Page 13 af 15
Rolamder
.
Measurements
LeakRatc LeakRate Co."t Screen-
n
Screen
lndacn
Site EqUIP'1
Sul1ng Cornd!on I (V') (SCFH) (srv. r)
Instrmnt
l)# 0 I
(unils) Type S_mp Skgoo menl 'F1tWI' helor mm ' ea

Site Date Leak I eser pilon
Yutranzgaz .... Petrovsk / Valve Field. .. continued.
01469 0..11 $4
I V I
210 11 2.9 0.10 0
.
Valve Field OCI-95 1006 Pug a ve,
0 1262 027 $4
V I
1m a 2.5 0.\0 0
.'
Valve Field Oct-95 \0{)9 Gate ave
0 1119 (J 24 $3
2'
I.:'i Ole;: ()
..,
Valve Ficld Oct95 lOIS Gate Valve
10 a
'.
01108 02' $3
6"
22010 0
.'" .
Valve Field Octl)5 1007 Ball Valve
In a .'
() IORO () 23 $J
.
lin a 1,45 0.15 0
."
Outside Turbine Oct95 1001 ripe Thread
8u\\dings
.
3 & () as 0
0.0967 0,20 $3
VaJvcFicid Oct-95 1028 Ball Valve
2m a ..'
00849 018 $3
I V I
2in a 1.7 0.10 0
"
Valve Field Oct-95 101.1 Ba I a ve
00825 0 17 $2
G V
I
\ in a :\.25 0.05 0
.'
Out!\ide Turbine Oct-95 \005 ate ..... ve
Buildings
2 in a 1.07 O. 10 0
0.0524 0.11 $2
Valve Field Oct-951030 Gate Valve
OO'i1O 011 $2
o Va!'
1in a .45 0.25 0
. - .
Valve Field Oct-95 1021 ate 've.
0,0502 0.1 I $1
I
I 10 a 2 0.05
YalveFicld Oct-95 !014 OaleV.lve,
00437 004 $1
G Val
110 a .9 n.\{) {)
.'-
Valve Field OCI-95 1031 ate ve
()()2S2 OO'i $1
.
I'
103 005 0
. - ..
Valve Field Oct-95 1019 Gate Valve
II ..'
0,0182 (W4 $1
B II V 1
6 In a .16 0.05 0
Valve Field Oct-95 1020 a ave.
0.0167 O.()4 $0
, p' Th d
110 a .7 0.05 0
Valve Field OCI-95 10..4 Ipc rea
00000 000 $0
BllVI
to{)mfTlo 00.00 ()
.'
Compressor Oct-95 1002 a II ve
B1owdown Valve
Vents
(Compressors
Running)
100
() 000 0
0.0000 0.00 $0
Compressor Ocl-9, 1006 Aall Valve
mm a
'
Slowdown Valve
Vents
(Compressors
Running)
0
O,O{)(Xl 0,00 $0
C
0
"
'5 1001 Ball Valve
\0010111 a 0 0.00
ompressor C - ';1
, ,
Blowuown Valve
Vents
(Compressors
Running)
0,0000 O,{)O $0
C
0 I 95 I
()()S Ball Valve
100 10m [l 0.00 0
ompressor c - _
Blowdown Valve
Vents
(Compre.<;sor.s
Running)
8,381.:\ 17,7.59.11 $146,721
Petrovsk To/al
8.381.3 17.7$9.11 $246,721
Yutrallzgaz Total
."---.- .-- .. ..... /4 of /5
-------------------
Measurements
kRate Cast Screen*.* Screen
InstrmnI
NA = Not Avvlicilhle
..
NR = Not Reported
a = High Flow Sampler - Ver.1
* Replicate
** vent Leakinx Inside Also
*** Screening with organic vapor analyzers mot done for eornponenl2"
h = Omqa Rolameter w1Glass or helow per NGPI, irn~lementalion of inspection and mainlensnee
Float
E = Kine Rofarneter
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
-
Rotameter
Measurements
Site Date
Indllco
Leak 10# Oescrlption
Size
(units)
Equip.
T,...
HighFlow Sampler
Measurements
MusUl"t'- St."'" C(}I'redlon
Velocity Slimp Bkgnd ment Factor Factor
- = _ c c c ' " c - ~ c.c.
LeakRale LeakRate Cost
(Urn;.) (SeFlf) ($rv.,j
Screen""" Screen
Instrmot
NA = Not Applicable
NR =Not Reported
a = High Flow Sampler. Vcr.t
b =Omega Rotameter w/Glass
Float
c == Kin!! Rotameter
" Replicate
** Vent Leaking Inside Also
*** Screening with organic vapor analyzers nol done for components 2"
or below per NGPL implementation of inspection and maintenance
Page /5 of /5

Estudio de La EPA Con Gazprom 1996

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Estudio de La EPA Con Gazprom 1996

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

United States

Environmental Protection Air and Radiation EPA 430-R-96-010

1.6 0.00 0 0.0000 0.00 $0

1.6 0.00 0.1 0.0000 0.00 $0

3.7 0.70 0 1.3145 2.79 $39

7.4800 16.58 $220

(unils) Type S_mp Skgoo menl 'F1tWI' helor mm ' ea

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi