Invite People

Share 4Engineers with your friends and help them get started!

Emails
Enter multiple email addresses by separating it with a comma.
Back

What moved the needle at our solvent loading rack

In the last year we overhauled our drum/tote and tank-truck loading for aromatics and ketones. Targets: cut VOCs, speed changeovers, and eliminate handoffs that led to small spills.
Changes we made: enclosed fills with hard-piped vapor return to carbon control; switched from PD/volumetric to Coriolis with batch presets; dry-breaks on all transfer points; ground verification interlocked to permissives; independent high-level and rapid-closure valves; standardized hose sets and color coding; added a simple pigging loop on the manifold so we displace product instead of flushing.
Results after six months: drum and tote cycle time down 18%, flush solvent down 42%, custody variance within 0.15% across SKUs, and LEL alarms fell by half. Operators like the ergonomics and we have had zero overfill near-misses.
For those running crude, condensate, or petrochemical terminals, what single change delivered the best ROI for you, mass flow, vapor recovery, pigging, or something else? And how are you handling vapor balance and API RP 1004 practices when third-party carriers show up with less than ideal equipment?

Login to comment

Login
Discussion

1 comment

Collapse this comment
MikeHarlan 2 months ago
Biggest ROI for us was pigging the shared solvent manifold with a low‑pressure nitrogen push and a magnetic pig detector; it cut flush solvent about 50% and shaved roughly 20% off changeovers. With third‑party trucks, we run a one‑minute API RP 1004 check at the gate; if they lack a vapor coupler we hook them to a portable carbon canister with a pressure gauge and cap load rate to keep vent pressure near zero, otherwise we don’t load.
Report content
Reason Description