ASTM NEWS ASTM International and American Petroleum Institute (API)


Launch Petroleum Inspector Training Program ASTM and API continue existing cooperation with new eLearning program.


ASTM International today announced the launch of the Petroleum Inspector Training Program (PITP), an eLearning certifi cate program available through the API and ASTM Learning Centers.


Utilizing Using ASTM’s established standards that guide inspectors in evaluating the quality and safety of petroleum products, PITP advances consistency, safety, and reliability in inspections.


The convenient, online program is designed for organizations seeking to bolster their internal training programs or for individuals preparing for certifi cation programs. It features engaging learning experiences that incorporate cutting-


edge animations and interactive content.


The current program consists of seven modules that include technical documents, downloadable infographics, and quizzes. It focuses on manual sampling, the utilization usage of gauging equipment, shore tank gauging, and manual gauging of marine vessels. Planned additional Additional content on temperature determination is planned and will be made available when complete.


“The program complements our growing library of educational products.” said Athena Huss, Manager, OnDemand Solutions. “Combining ASTM’s experience with


standards-based eLearning programs with API’s deep knowledge of industry practices and research, allows for a comprehensive learning experience for Petroleum Inspectors.”


“We are proud to work with ASTM, whose mission helps to improve lives worldwide,” said Sean Thomas, API’s Director of Training Programs. “We are committed to working with partners whose programs advance safe and effective work environments.”


About API


API represents all segments of America’s natural gas and oil industry, which supports nearly 11 million U.S. jobs and is backed by a


growing grassroots movement of millions of Americans. Our approximately 600 members produce, process and distribute the majority of the nation’s energy, and participate in API Energy Excellence®


, which is accelerating


environmental and safety progress by fostering new technologies and transparent reporting. API was formed in 1919 as a standards-setting organization and has developed more than 800 standards to enhance operational and environmental safety, effi ciency and sustainability.


Media Inquiries: Gavin O’Reilly, tel +1.610.832.9618; goreilly@astm.org


Are low-sulphur fuel mandates coming for more fuels? Talking Point


Heading Copy


Where will low-sulphur requirements strike next?


xxxxx@reply-direct.com


The International Maritime Organisation’s 2020 sulphur cap forced maritime operators to overhaul fuel blends and reconfi gure monitoring regimes.


But while sulphur reduction dominates offshore compliance agendas, nothing similar has been brought forward for land.


However, this could be about to change.


National air quality regulators, particularly in Europe and North America, are signalling that low-sulphur requirements could be extended to other fuels.


For process engineers and emissions monitoring professionals, the question is, as always: are our instruments ready?


The shifting regulatory spotlight


Sulphur dioxide (SO₂) and other sulphur oxides (SOx) are already regulated in point-source air permits across the petrochemical sector.


But compliance tends to be based on aggregate emission limits or periodic stack testing, not real-time fuel quality enforcement.


By contrast, the shipping industry’s shift to fuels with ≤0.50% sulphur (and 0.10% in ECAs) was explicitly driven by fuel formulation mandates,


These were verifi ed by a combination of lab analysis and CEMS.


A greater proportion of land-based industry could soon face similar scrutiny.


The EU’s Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) revision now includes provisions that would empower authorities to tighten SOx controls


on combustion installations.


In the US, the EPA is under pressure to revisit NSPS standards for industrial boilers, particularly in communities affected by SO₂ hotspots.


Meanwhile, air quality plans in cities like Houston and Rotterdam are beginning to link sulphur in fuels with local ambient exceedances.


What this means for monitoring strategies


A regulatory pivot from output-based SO₂ limits to input-based sulphur thresholds would transform monitoring practice.


Facilities would need to implement systems not just to measure stack emissions, but to characterise incoming fuels in order to enforce blending or substitution strategies in real time.


This change isn’t trivial. Many plants rely on supplier specifi cations or annual sampling to assess fuel quality.


Portable XRF and lab-based UV fl uorescence analysis dominate here but they’re neither continuous nor easily integrated into automated compliance regimes.


For real-time control, inline sulphur analysers, such as multi-wavelength UV spectrometers, XRF fl ow cells or TDLAS, would need to be adopted and validated.


There are a number of key instrumentation considerations of which users will need to be aware.


For instance, with targets potentially mirroring marine fuel standards (500 ppm), instruments must distinguish sub-0.05% sulphur levels across complex matrices.


Relatedly, gas oils, bunker fuels, recycled oils, and LPGs require different measurement strategies.


No single technique is universally applicable.


Firms need to integrate with process control. For example, sulphur data must inform fuel switching, dilution or combustion adjustment, requiring seamless connectivity with DCS/SCADA systems.


Scrubbers, sensors or substitution?


Another complexity is that sulphur mitigation can be tackled downstream via fl ue gas desulphurisation (FGD) or upstream, through fuel control.


Maritime sectors faced this choice and largely moved toward fuel substitution due to space and maintenance concerns.


Land-based operators, particularly those with ageing assets, may prefer to rely on scrubbers.


However, that doesn’t negate the need for instrumentation.


FGD systems require robust CEMS for SO₂ validation, often using NDIR or pulsed fl uorescence analysers, backed by isokinetic sampling for validation.


But regulators may demand dual-layer compliance: both fuel quality verifi cation and post-combustion SOx tracking.


This raises CAPEX but opens a window for modular, integrated monitoring systems combining pre- and post-combustion analysis.


Learning from the maritime transition


The maritime sulphur transition offers valuable lessons to users.


Looking back on the 2018–2021 rollout, we can observe a number of key trends in instrumentation and methods.


Portable XRF devices (e.g. ASTM D4294- compliant) became widespread for spot- checking fuel deliveries.


Onboard SO₂/CO₂ ratio analysers were deployed to assess scrubber effi ciency.


Blockchain fuel tracing pilots (e.g. BunkerTrace) attempted to prevent adulteration or mislabelling – an idea gaining traction in land-based bunkering.


As land-based enforcement tightens, we can expect that refi neries begin to offer certifi ed low-sulphur blends for industrial clients.


Relatedly, we could see fuel-specifi c sulphur fi ngerprinting to track origin and composition.


Most obviously, there’s likely to be increased demand for cross-calibrated, dual-use sensors (fuel + fl ue gas).


A return to fundamentals


Ultimately, sulphur regulation is a reminder that clean fuel is no longer a shipping-only issue.


As pressure mounts to reduce local air pollution and align industrial practice with decarbonisation targets, sulphur content is coming back into focus.


Instrumentation professionals should prepare for a rebalancing of monitoring from stack-top to tank farm.


WWW.PETRO-ONLINE.COM


31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88