GAS DETECTION & MONITORING
COOKING WITH GAS MONITORING
Stricter EU and UK legislation regarding gas leak detection is welcome but
isn’t necessarily driving a rise in best practice, says Duncan Webb, Condition Monitoring Application Engineer at ERIKS UK & Ireland.
After visiting a number of sites that handle volatile organic compounds (VOCs) each year, our Condition Monitoring team often hear the same questions crop up.
Many teams consider Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) technology to be the perfect solution in gas leak prevention. Without adequate training, however, they risk not only wasting money, but also the endangerment of staff and visitors at the site.
OGI is recommended by the EU for a good reason but only when it’s implemented properly. Otherwise, you might as well have saved the money for something else. What, then, can be done to ensure that a gas leak prevention regime is implemented effectively?
DON’T SAY: “IT’S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THAT” Gas leaks are hard to spot, particularly if only small levels of VOC are released over a number of months or years. If that’s the case, surely the leak can be ignored? No matter the severity, a gas leak is a gas leak. As well as impacting productivity and profitability over the long term, gas leaks of any degree pose health risks to employees, particularly those in direct contact with the leak on a daily basis.
PAY ATTENTION TO EVERY DETAIL Scrutinise everything and overlook nothing. Even if you don’t smell a gas leak, you’ve got nothing to lose by checking. You may be surprised by what you find. Make sure this attention to detail also translates to your auditing and reporting. Specialist reports can provide a fully auditable trail for any health and safety regulations.
Don’t assume that you can use an expensive optical gas imaging camera
A Ferrari is no good to someone without a driving licence, and the same goes for OGI technology. Snazzy cameras provide a false sense of security. Unless an operator knows how to tune them to the correct frequencies, and interpret the images he receives, he won’t get the results he needs. What’s more, with top-line OGI cameras costing upwards of £60,000, it’s usually more cost-effective to outsource this to a specialist anyway.
DON’T STICK TO TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES It’s both amusing and painful to watch as engineers desperately scan the lengths of their plant systems, hoping to catch a glimpse of tell-tale soapy bubbles. As well as dated, time-consuming and wildly inaccurate,
20
methods like this also make providing an audit trail or traceability nigh-on impossible. If a plant manager needs to prove that there are no leaks, even a video of this method would not be sufficient. Save the soapy water for your morning shower.
UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS OF ANY LEAK
DETECTION TECHNOLOGY Whenever we visit a site, we’re often asked how much a gas leak has been costing the business. Some companies claim to offer this exact service, but don’t be fooled: services like these will only be around 30% accurate at best. Quantifying gas leaks is difficult - if not impossible – so make sure that you focus on the potential savings, rather than the previous losses, when pitching a gas monitoring strategy to your boss.
VERIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY REPAIRS Whether you’ve undertaken the repairs yourself, or used a specialist, you need to be sure that any problems have been fixed. Some customers ask the Condition Monitoring team to do a ‘partial audit’ that covers only the areas repaired. Again, it’s about traceability and compliance. If you can go back to any authority and demonstrate incontrovertibly that you have resolved a problem, then your reputation for professionalism stands to increase significantly.
www.eriks.co.uk/en/services-page/monitor/ condition-monitoring/
www.tomorrowshs.com
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
