Vapor Loss From Crude Oil Tankers

VAPOR LOSS FROM CRUDE OIL TANKERS
Influence by design of venting system

Reference document: INTERTANKOs Guidelines for The Control of a Multiphase
Crude Oil Cargo For Cargo Operations and Handling (March 2001) and
INTERTANKOs VOCON on the same subject (undated).

PRES-VAC ENGINEERING A/ S
Guide on minimizing vapor loss by design
and operat ional procedures
Pres-Vac Engineering A/ S
Svanevang 3-5 DK 3450 Allerd Denmark
Phone +45 48 17 40 55 Fax +45 48 17 17 88

V A P O R L O S S M I N I M I Z A T I O N
B Y B A S I C D E S I G N

Page Page Page Page 1 11 1 of of of of 3 33 3
Comment s on how t o
minimize vapor loss by
basic design and re-
t hought procedures

Int roduct ion
In short, the Publication lists two issues, which combined cause the vast majority of vapor
loss during voyage:
A. Apparently what must be termed as distrust in the efficiency and reliability of p/ v
valves, leading to:
B. Procedures involving manual de-pressurization, - as a consequence of A. above, -
with closing pressures below the vapor pressure of the crude oil cargo.

NOTE: The referenced INTERTANKO publications are assumed known to the reader
in advance. In the following, said publications are referred to as the Publication.
ABSTRACT: This paper shows that release of VOC during voyage, causing loss of cargo
and environmental concerns, can be reduced to a fraction of the current level if venting
systems are designed (and used) with these issues in mind. Retrofits are possible without
structural changes at a negligible cost. Further, safety aspects will be improved by
following the views and opinions in this paper.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in t his
paper are ent irely t hose of Pres-Vac Engineering A/S and
are provi ded wi t hout assumi ng any responsi bi l i t y i n any
form, shape, or nat ure what soever.

Thesis & object
The issue of distrust in p/ v valves is historically well founded, for which reason the IMO
recently introduced:
a retroactive and mandatory concept of secondary venting,
1
and
a new ISO standard for marine p/ v valves, which is mandatory for installations
after July 1, 2002 (15364 is sort of semi-retroactive).
This leads to the following:
if the venting system could maintain a constant tank pressure above the pressure
equilibrium of the cargo; and
if the venting system was reliable and offered close to nil maintenance,
the two issues listed above as being the main cause of the loss of vapor would be
eradicated. Thethesisof this memo is that a properly designed venting system using p/ v
valves of a reliable and maintenance friendly design under the auspice of the ISO standard
can make redundant the practice of manual de-pressurization. It is further the thesis that
not only would this conserve enormous volumes of cargo otherwise lost at great expense,
but environmental and safety aspects will be improved considerably, too. The much-
discussed avenue of installing Vapor Control Systems for onboard use could most likely
become obsolete in an instance and great savings achieved economically and safety-wise.
The object of this memo is therefore aimed at providing support for the following
conclusions:
1:
Whether or not the IMO initiative in regard of developing a valve standard is sufficient
in regard to establish a new level of trust and comfort with regard to the reliability of
p/ v valves, and in the affirmative;
2:
Whether or not manual de-pressurization can be completely avoided and what design
parameters would be necessary for the appropriate venting system and equipment for
this to succeed.

1
Equipment which is not taken into consideration in the Publication. However, with good reason
because the p/ v breakers referred to in the Publication have generally been accepted as secondary
venting means according to the new regulations, despite their failing to meet the most basic requirements
of SOLAS II-2, rule 59. The irony is that the specific tanker cited by the Australian DOT as featuring an
inadequate venting system on basis of which SOLAS was revised - has been approved as being in full
compliance with the revised regulations as is. A full report on the SOLAS amendments is available at
www.pres-vac.com


Available means t o reduce vapor loss
Three simple but extremely effective means are available that have potential to significantly
reduce the loss of vapor from crude oil tankers during voyage:
1. Revised operational procedures with regard to the necessity of manual de-
pressurization, if needed at all.
2. Increased opening setting and closing pressure of pressure relief valves - and
corresponding changes to related system components, e.g. alarm settings.
3. Appropriate dynamic flow characteristics of said pressure relief valves.
In the following, the operating procedures onboard crude tankers are assumed to be as
described in the aforementioned INTERTANKO publications
According to the INTERTANKO publication, tank pressure is generally maintained
between 1,000 mm WG and 400 mm WG during voyage. This restriction is adhered to
because of lack of trust with regard to the pressure/ vacuum valves, thus calling for manual
pressure controlling via a central riser.
The report reads:
However, results and observations for the practice aboard tankers
reveal that tanker commands do not generally rely upon P/ V valves
for over pressure control and will release pressure manually through
one of the previously discussed onboard systems when the over
pressure reaches about 1,000 mm WG. This practice, being absolutely
necessary to protect the vessels structure, reflects good seamanship
by preventing abnormal wear to a safety device. The results and
observations from the practice aboard tankers with regard to the
selected pressure for closing of the manually opened release
mechanism seem to show a pressure of approximately 400 mm WG
as the commonly selected. It is the determination of this pressure that
needs to be defined such that unnecessary release of both
hydrocarbon and Inert gases is avoided.

As outlined in the above, we need to consider 1) what the situation
is in regard to availability of reliable p/ v valves and 2) how to
avoid manual de-pressurization. The first issue must be answered
T H E
A P P R O A C H
I N T E R T A N K O
P U B L I C A T I O N
Wher e does t hi s
l eave us?
K E Y
Q U E S T I O N S

satisfactorily in order to deal with the second issue in a proper manner.
According to the VOCON cited in the foregoing, the recommended solution is to establish
the vapor pressure for each cargo and limit the manual de-pressurization to where the boil-
off begins. This, however, would appear a not optimum solution compared to a venting
system that completely eliminates the need to do manual de-pressurization. It is
recommended to stop the de-pressurization at 800 mm WG. With reference to Fig. 5 it
would, however, appear that the loss of vapor would only be reduced by 1/ 3 in volume,
although it must be noted that exact numbers are impossible to give.
In reflecting on the above, a review of current requirements for p/ v valves is necessary
with emphasis on IMO MSC/ Circ. 677/ 1009, cf. ISO 15364.
Is it fair not t o t rust t he
p/v valves?
The answer is definitely affirmative, - p/ v valves cannot be trusted, generally speaking. This
statement, coming from a p/ v valve maker, may appear somewhat strange. However,
reality of the matter is that this kind of safety equipment is generally designed and tested
with no regard whatsoever to the actual working environment. Further, in the complete
absence of internationally accepted quality assessment instruments, the single criterion for
selection and acceptance has been type approvals. In reality, this has left design of p/ v
valves completely at the discretion of each manufacturer with little if any interest paid by
owners, administrations, classes, and other bodies once a valve is type approved. The
criterion for type approval (since 1984) is fire testing in a laboratory, which has absolutely
nothing to do with the reliability issue. Only a tiny fraction of all p/ v valves will be
subjected to a real fire incident, whereas they all are functioning as balancing relief valves in
practice. Design priorities have been upside down.
When commands do not trust the p/ v valves, it is not because they fear a flash-back
incident happening; they fear that the valves will not manage to balance the tank pressure
and therefore they involve themselves and conduct manual pressure adjustments.
Considering the high number of over-pressure incidents reported to the IMO in
connection with recent revisions of SOLAS, the commands lack of trust would appear
fully justified, from a general point of view.
One issue that has been brought up on earlier occasions is the potential misunderstanding
that may occur when breather valves are misunderstood for full flow valves. However, by
now, ISO 15364 leaves the capacity issue at the responsibility of the buying entity when
submitting the mandatory sizing data required by the section of the ISO standard titled
Ordering Information. There should consequently be no misunderstanding possible
when interpreting the Masters loading chart required by IMO MSC/ Circ. 731.

A lot of p/ v valves are prone to mal-function because of insufficient tolerance to clogging
by cargo vapor deposits, IG residue, corrosion, and freezing water. Some valve designs
come with net clearances of less than 1 mm between moving parts and inner walls. It
should be quite obvious that the maintenance required for keeping such devices in good
working order is prohibitive. Some valves have check-lifts that push the discs 1/ 100 of the
full stroke, leaving check-lifting close to being an illusion. Some valves are totally depending
on internal drain holes, which cannot be controlled from the outside and therefore require
gas-freeing and removal. Other valves are so complicated to inspect and dismantle that
time is prohibitive for maintenance. And other designs are so vulnerable to over-icing that
they must be inspected and ice-freed every watch. The list goes on and on.
What is an un-welcomed fact, however, is that these designs are all type approved and
formally - rightfully so. The problem causing this situation is lack of interest, lack of
standards, and overly trust by the various parties involved with regard to the traditional type
approval procedures according to IMO regulations without realizing that they simply do
not cover the many aspects related to practical use of the equipment.
In response to a number of over-pressure incidents, IMO decided to amend SOLAS and
require secondary venting systems and at the same time initiated a new ISO standard
(15364) for marine p/ v valves. Due to the numerous interpretations accepted into the
application of secondary venting systems, the SOLAS amendment has probably had little if
any effect. Especially considering that the not-trusted p/ v valves do not gain
trustworthiness by doubling, cf. page 2, footnote 1.
I nt roduct i on t o I SO st andard 15364
The standard contains some test requirements, but they are few indeed and only for flow
testing. Since regular flow testing according to IMO MSC/ Circ. 677/ 1009 satisfies 15364,
the new test requirements are of interest only with regard to non-SOLAS vessels. 15364 is
mandatory by reference in IMO MSC/ Circ. 1009 for all valve installations on or after July
1, 2002.
The purpose of 15364 is to highlight technical issues of importance to in-service
performance, i.e., issues, which are not covered by type approval testing. The explicit
purpose of IMO having this standard prepared was the number of incidents caused by
malfunctioning p/ v valves, i.e., existing designs are not performing well enough, again
generally speaking, and new designs should be expected.
Due to the endless design approaches available, not to mention different applications,
issues such as reliability and in-service performance cannot be dealt with by means of test
requirements expressing themselves in one-page certificates. The approving body should
therefore issue a Product Review Document (PRD) outlining the design specifics of a
given product, leaving it at the discretion of the user to decide whether or not it will be
suitable for the specific installation using ISO 15364 as an assessment tool. The approving
body and the manufacturer have not determined compliance for a specific application; that
is the responsibility of the person or entity reviewing the PRD, i.e., eventually the owner by
virtue of the ISM code.
By accepting a given design of equipment, thus assuming an obligation to adhere to the
required maintenance level, malfunctioning due to jammed discs and blocked gas passage
ways should in principle be impossible because the equipment has been evaluated and
W H Y V A L V E S
M A L -
F U N C T I O N
S E C O N D A R Y
V E N T I N G
P R O D U C T
R E V I E W D O C
O W N E R I S
R E S P O N S I B L E

found satisfactory by the owner. It may therefore be argued that if the practice still is to
conduct manual de-pressurization, the due diligence of the valve chosen was not
satisfactory.
It should be noted, however, that the wordings applied in type approval certificates are not
necessarily consistent and precise. Some certificates will show ISO 15364 compliance
without further comments, which is obviously a misleading mistake to some degree
because there is no such thing as general ISO 15364 compliance. That would be pure
nonsense. ISO 15364 is a design and descriptive code to be used as a tool for the
concerned owner wanting to scrutinize a valve for suitability. There is no limitation as to
what can be approved and termed ISO 15364 complying. As long as the product is
adequately described as per ISO 15364, the owner has the information needed to assess the
product for suitability, thus, assume responsibility. If an owner is satisfied by, as an
example, net clearances allowing for inside fouling of 0.1 mm, so be it. Everything fits the
requirements of ISO 15364 as far as the maintenance and operational conditions are laid
down and made available to those evaluating and accepting.
All current PRES-VAC valve designs have been described and certified according to ISO
15364. But they are far from equally suitable for all applications. They fall in different price
categories and are designed for different types of vessels. The final responsibility for
selecting the proper piece of equipment for a vessel is not with the manufacturer, but with
the buyer, owner, and user, with whom the maintenance and operational issues are vested.
Responsibilit y dist ribut ion?
As an example of the distribution of responsibility under the auspice of the ISO standard,
please refer to the scanned images of a CE type approval and a USCG type approval in the
following, noting the reservations in regard of suitability, a subject left for the
user/ buyer/ owner to decide.
This is the core of the new approach. Suitability was not a concern in the past when the
existence of a non-descriptive type approval was sufficient. Now, the issues that are
relevant for how the valve will perform in-service, how maintenance is to be carried out,
and how frequently, is all left for the buyer/ user/ ship owner to consider and accept.

L I M I T E D
C E R T I F I C A T E


Figure1
S U M M A R Y O F
C E A N D U S C G
C E R T .

Page Page Page Page 8 88 8 of of of of 10 10 10 10

Figure2

The type approval certificate itself will probably provide close to
nothing. As an example, however, with some element of guidance
to the ship owner, the above scanned images show certificates
with reference to ISO 15364. What is important, however, is the reference to the manual
and the so-called Product Review Document, which the User is obliged to examine to
Wher e t o f i nd t he
nec essar y
i nf or mat i on?

Page Page Page Page 9 99 9 of of of of 11 11 11 11
establish suitability. The mere existence of a type approval certificate is just the first step.
Technical acceptance is depending on a review of the specific product for the specific job.
An owners approach

From an operational point of view, an owner should be
concerned about the following main issues (not listed in
priority and not exhaustive):

ISO 15364 item Ownersrequirement
1 .
N E T - F R E E G A S
P A S S A G E - W A Y S
A N D A L L O W E D
T H I C K N E S S O F
D E P O S I T S
This issue is the most important with regard to
lowering maintenance and avoiding stuck discs. The
distance between discs and inner walls, spindles and
bushings, and configuration of drains are extremely
important. The Buyer can select net clearances from
1.5 to 30 mm from the PRES-VAC range and
with/ without drains. The allowed inside thickness of
deposits vary from 0.1 mm to 5.0 mm in the PRES-
VAC range.
2 .
A C C E S S T O
I N S P E C T I O N
The possibility to inspect the valves complete inside
for fouling and deposits should be easy and convenient
to carry out. Ideally, removing one hood should
suffice.
3 .
A C C E S S T O
R E P L A C E W E A R
P A R T S
Seats and discs should be replaceable by removing the
worn out part without further disassembling. When
seats have been replaced, perfect alignment of the new
seat to the disc should be a feature of the system. Seats
that are held in place by Loctiteor thread or screws
will not allow for adequate alignment unless they are
machined after installing.
3 . 1
M A I N T E N A N C E
All necessary maintenance should be possible to carry
out with the valve in place.
When considering a valve design, the possibility of
inside accumulation of condensate, drains blocking up,
etc. should be considered and accepted.
4 .
C H E C K - L I F T I N G
A N D I C E - L A Y E R
Ideally, this should be done by turning built-in handles
that will work regardless of over-icing. Stroke should
What are t he mai n
i ssues t o l ook f or?

Page Page Page Page 10 10 10 10 of of of of 12 12 12 12
ISO 15364 item Ownersrequirement
be full and the disc positions visually indicated.
The possible ice-layer thickness within the PRES-VAC
range varies from 5 to 20 mm.
5 .
D I S C P O S I T I O N
I N D I C A T I O N
Should be visually indicated on the valve from any
distance and angle of observation.
6 .
F O U L I N G
I N D I C A T I O N
The operator shall be able to check the thickness of
fouling from the outside and determine whether to
continue with inside inspection and possibly cleaning.
7 .
P R E S S U R E D R O P
Should be non-existent over the entire flow range to
reduce pipe costs, increase safety margin in case of
mal-operation, and allow for increased loading rates. It
should be considered that the normal venting rate is
half the required venting rate for VECS, which would
often cause the operation to take place in the zone
where the pressure peak normally is.
8 .
C L O S I N G
P R E S S U R E
Should be above the inert gas replenishing pressure
and above the vapor pressure of the cargo to eliminate
boil-off.

Part conclusion 1
If traditional methods are still applied in the selection process of marine p/ v valves,
nothing will change and vapor loss continue because the operator is justified in his decision
not to rely on the venting equipment, generally speaking.
If the issues listed in ISO 15364 are considered properly, noting that most existing designs
will fall short of meeting reasonable requirements, the valves selected are trustworthy. This
opens a new window for solving the credibility issue, especially considering that the general
purpose of the ISO standard is specifically to improve valve performance, which implicitly
means foregoing existing designs being the very cause of the situation that lead to
redundancy venting being enforced.
It should be recalled that at any time of the selection process - a valve design review is not
conducted by the manufacturer, the yard, the class, or the administration. No, a certificate
listing the relevant documentation describing the valve is supposedly presented to the
owner and the examination hereof is entirely his responsibility. As an example, a given
valve design may be appropriate for a chemical carrier, but not necessarily for use on a
Bitumen or crude oil tanker and vice versa.
O W N E R S
T A S K

In short, if the owners due diligence examination of the valve shows adequate reliability for
extended service, there should be no excuse for not trusting the valves. If trust is not
created, the examination has not been carried out appropriately. It may therefore be argued
that if the procedure of manual de-pressurization continues, the chosen valves are not the
right ones.
What valve charact erist ics are right ?
This issue is of particular interest because of the tremendous impact it has on the amount
of released cargo vapor during voyage.
Basic understanding of how different designs work is necessary for reference. Pressure
relief valves are generally made with the following characteristics:
i. Modulating, i.e., with a rise in pressure above the nominal setting proportional to
the vented volume. These valves are typically vacuum relief valves and
conventional in- or end-of-line valves. However, some high velocity vents are
modulating over part of the flow range, e.g. half the rated capacity. This will take
care of hammering, but not necessarily chattering or fluttering.
ii. Full lifting, i.e., with an instant reduction of pressure drop over the valve to a value
below the nominal setting due the effect of an extra lifting area around the disc.
These valves feature pop-off characteristics and provide huge, instant capacity.
However, for high velocity valves, the efflux velocity will vary and the ability to
arrest flame is seriously endangered when the loading rate is relatively small
and/ or when the valve is under the influence of pressure surges in the piping
causing unstable movement of the disc (known as hammering). Full lifting
valves are typically old designs of high velocity vents, but some are also used as in-
line valves when pressure drop is an issue relevant to the design of the piping
arrangement. A full lifting, weight-loaded high velocity valve will always suffer
from hammering/ chattering/ fluttering, especially bad under the influence of small
bore piping or long piping.
2

iii. Controlledblow-down, i.e., an instant reduction of the pressure drop over the valve by
a value corresponding to the differential between opening and closing pressures,
i.e., the blow-down value. This behaviour will cause the valve to relief over-
pressure and then close at the tank pressure corresponding to the net-closing force
of the valve. These valves are typically magnet-controlled valves, often high
velocity valves or in-line valves used when pressure drop is an issue relevant to the
piping lay-out.
iv. Non-hammeringweight-loadedhighvelocityvalves, i.e., a valve that is modulating until the
gas flow justifies full exposure of the orifice to atmosphere in terms of efflux
velocity, and then transforms into full lifting. These valves typically feature the

2
Hammering was determined a danger for flash-back in high velocity vents when IMO initiated a test
series of type approved equipment. This lead to the requirement for non-hammering valves, which is
refined and elaborated in EN test requirements.
T E R M I N O L O G Y

same sort of action seen in full lifting valves, but differently configured so that the
pop-off does not occur until the gas volume is sufficient. These valves yield a
pressure increase of 10-30% above their nominal setting at most flow volumes
3
.
As the designation indicates, this system is used in high velocity vents only. Until
fully open, probably until half the rated capacity, the design is not stable against
fluttering and chattering
4
. At some pipe configurations, these valves are not able
to maintain adequate efflux, which should be shown in the certification if done
properly.
v. Non-oscillatinghighvelocityvalves, i.e., a valve that shows no pressure surges for a
specified piping configuration. These valves are new comers to marine use and
typically feature a combination of controlled blow-down mechanisms and weight-
loaded non-hammering designs, i.e., a magnet-controlled opening of the valve
dealing with unstable disc movement at small flow rates to eliminate chattering
and fluttering and a delayed pop-off action for high flow rates. These valves will
yield a certain negative pressure drop, i.e., the system pressure will be reduced
10-20% below the valves nominal setting, until the valve is fully open when the
system pressure will stabilize at the valves nominal setting. This performance
allows for the use of less diameter piping and/ or higher venting rates on a
comparable basis. These valves are typically high velocity p/ v valves.
The loss of vapor during voyage, for instance caused by sloshing or thermal variation, is
determined by the valves opening characteristics and its closing pressure. A valve that falls
within the category of non-oscillatinghighvelocityvalvesas described above features a variation
of design adjustments that can be called upon to limit the loss of vapour.
A representative chart would appear as follows next page:

3
Requiring larger pipe bore or reduced loading rate.
4
This can be an issue in regard of VCS operations because the calculated venting rate is often twice the
loading rate, but the vented media is to some extent inert gas more than heavy density gas.
V A P O R L O S S


Pressure
Flow
1
3
2
4
5
6

Figure3
1 Opening setting: 1,800 mm WG Adjustable: 1,600 1,800
2 Closing pressure: 1,500 mm WG Adjustable: 1,400 1,600
3 SOLAS venting capacity @ pressure: 1,000 m
3
/h (=Design point 1)
4 VECS venting capacity @ pressure: 2,000 m
3
/h (=Design point 2)
5 Maximum venting capacity without pressure increase: 2,000 m
3
/h
6
Pressure differential available for increased loading rate or reduced
pipe diameter: 300 mm WG

NUMBERS ABOVE ARE FOR THE EXAMPLE ONLY

By carefully sizing the pressure relief valve, and by using in particular a non-oscillatinghigh
velocityvalvethat has been specifically designed with ISO 15364 in mind, the following
parameters can be considered:
Opening setting: Should be higher than tradition calls for. The operational margin
normally left between the valves opening setting and the alarm
setting, which generally has been reserved for the pressure
increase over the valve, can be waived. And without impairing
safety because this type has no pressure increase over the
setting. As an example, the setting of the valve can be raised
from 1,400 mm WG to 1,800 mm WG with a 100 mm WG
margin to the alarm point. With the subject valve type, the tank

pressure will not exceed 1,800 mm WG, which is no different
than the normal picture.

Traditional weight-loaded non-hammering valve (opening and
closing lines respectively)
in comparison with new non-oscillation combination valve
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 500 1000 1500
Nm/h

Figure4
The crude oils vapour pressure will most often create a tank
pressure approaching 1,400 mm WG, i.e., 16.7 psia according to
the experience gathered at PRES-VAC. According to the
Publication, figures of 800 and 1,000 mm WG are mentioned
and over duration up to 1,400. (The tank pressure in question is
the concept known as equilibriumpressure).
Closing pressure: Should be selected based on the pressure drop conditions of the
vent piping with a view to minimize the valves opening and
closing cycles (hammering or non-oscillation), and at the same
time with consideration to limiting the loss of vapor, i.e.,
contradicting interest. If a setting of 1,800 mm WG is chosen, a
suitable closing pressure for a crude oil tanker would be, say,
1,500 mm WG.
Operating pressure: If the above recommendations and equipment type would be
considered, the tank pressure during voyage would stabilize at all
time between 1,500 and 1,800 mm WG.
Measured pressure: The following chart is from the INTERTANKO publication
and shows pressure peaks over a 50 day period closing in at
around 1,400 mm WG, which is the traditional setting pressure
for valves used onboard crude oil tankers. This is absolutely not
ideal from a cargo conservation point of view.


Figure5
As can be seen, temperature is crucial to the development of
tank pressure, but this can hardly be controlled.
Proposed changes: By increasing the setting and by using valves with controlled
over-pressure and a high closing pressure, refer to Fig. 3 for
reference, the following would be the scenario:

Tank pressure @ full
flow rate

Safety margin to p/v
breaker set @
2,000

ITEM
mm WG m
3
/h mm WG
Traditional set-
pressure
1,400 1,800 1,900 100 - 200
Proposed set-pressure 1,800 1,600 1,800 200 400
Closing pressure Tank differential
Non-hammering
weight-loaded design
600 - 800
Non-oscillating design 1,500 - 300

Figure6


The above numbers can be displayed differently for a better overview:
Tank pressure (save
piping pressure drop)
mm WG
Proposed non-oscillating
type
Traditional non-
hammering type
2000 Alarm/ Liquid breaker setting
1900 Max working pressure
1800 Opening setting
Max working pressure

1700
1600
1500 Closing pressure
1400 Opening setting
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600 Closing pressure

Not e on t he safet y aspect s
The practice of doing manual de-pressurization could raise certain safety aspects to be
considered.
During the de-pressurization, the entire safety of the vessel is to a certain degree
depending on the flame arresting capability of the mast risers end-of-line flame

screen. This kind of equipment is very often in poor working conditions because
of the vulnerability to corrosive attack by the sulphuric acid forming when inert
gas and ambient moist mix.
If the de-pressurization continues down to the pressure where the cargos boil-off
rate is being vented, the situation is in reality becoming non-inerted and no end-
of-line flame screen is capable of functioning as a device to prevent the passage of
flame in such conditions.
The practice of de-pressurization is also a concern in regard of crew exposure to
unhealthy vapour.
Part conclusion 2
Equipment is available now, designed and constructed specifically to the new ISO standard
that should allow the vessel commands to trust the performance, unlike in the past when
many designs have been installed that certainly did not deserve the slightest degree of trust.
However, certification is not a green card. The new ISO standard is vague and merely of a
descriptive nature. However, the owner can and should use it as a tool and agenda for his
product review in order to select equipment that works with a minimum of maintenance
and a high level of insensitivity to deposits and corrosion. It must be recalled as the most
important issue that any valve can be ISO 15364 certified. Certification does not imply that
the use is recommended, only that the valve has been considered and described in
accordance with the ISO standard. Judgment into suitability is entirely at the owners
discretion, not with the yard, class, or manufacturer.
Final conclusion
Equipment is now available in the market, which provides the owner compliance with all
the issues addressed above (1-8). In practice this leaves the crew with much enhanced level
of comfort because maintenance is drastically reduced, inside fouling layer can be checked
from the outside, and all necessary maintenance can be done with the valve mounted,
including replacement of discs and seats. Further, the new equipment will handle the full
venting rate without ever exceeding the nominal setting and the blow-down value can be
considerably higher than in the past. The nominal setting can even be fine-tuned by the
crew without removing the valve from the point of installation.
If this kind of ISO compliant equipment is used, the traditional hesitation in trusting and
depending on the valves can be overcome. Considering the physical properties of the crude
to the increase valve opening setting and closing pressure, there should be no need for
manual de-pressurization.
In practice, the following should be applied:
Operation procedures should call for tank pressures to be as high as the valve setting,
before manual de-pressurization is considered in the first place.
N O G R E E N
C A R D

Pressure setting of the valves should be increased and dynamic valve characteristics
chosen that allow for this without sacrificing safety by eliminating the usual pressure peak
during operation. In other words: a venting system that maintains the tank pressure at no
higher than the valves nominal setting,.
Alarm setting (pressure) can remain as today, i.e., slightly above the increased opening
setting proposed above.
Flow characteristics of the chosen equipment should allow for a limited blow-down
value to conserve the loss of vapor normally associated with sloshing and thermal variation.
--o0o--
New buildings:
If the above 3 issues are adopted, loss of vapor during voyage will be reduced to a fraction
of the levels seen today. There will in principle be no extra cost.
Existing vessels:
New valves will be required at an approximate cost of US$ 2,000 - 4,000 per tank, and the
alarm and liquid p/ v breaker settings may need adjustment. The payback time so small that
it will not be worth mentioning.
--o0o--
It should be noted, however, that without owners examination for ISO 15364 compliance
for the actual application, the sought after reduction of vapor loss is by all likeliness not
achieved. The most important issue, however, is the level of owner effort required when
specifying the equipment configuration and lay-out because the philosophy behind is not
required by regulations, leaving its exploitation at owners initiative for their own benefit.

Copenhagen, November, 2001

_____________________
Eric Aarestrup Srensen
PRES-VAC ENGINEERING A/ S

Vapor Loss From Crude Oil Tankers

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Vapor Loss From Crude Oil Tankers

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

VAPOR LOSS FROM CRUDE OIL TANKERS

Influence by design of venting system

S-ar putea să vă placă și