They have been discussed for over forty years, yet fugitive emissions still remain one of the least understood — and often underestimated — aspects of industrial plant management.
To properly understand what they are, it is useful to start with a fundamental distinction.
To properly understand what they are, it is useful to start with a fundamental distinction.
Airborne industrial emissions can be broadly divided into point source emissions and diffuse emissions. The former are those conveyed through defined outlets — stacks, vents — and can be continuously monitored. The latter include all non-conveyed releases, dispersed within the plant and generated by multiple sources.
Within diffuse emissions, fugitive emissions represent a well-defined and technically relevant subset.
From a technical standpoint, fugitive emissions are localized and unintended releases of process fluids into the environment, originating from sealing components installed on operating equipment and detectable through instrumental techniques. These are therefore losses associated with specific equipment leaks, typically related to valves, pumps, flanges, and other piping components.
From a technical standpoint, fugitive emissions are localized and unintended releases of process fluids into the environment, originating from sealing components installed on operating equipment and detectable through instrumental techniques. These are therefore losses associated with specific equipment leaks, typically related to valves, pumps, flanges, and other piping components.
Their distinctive nature is twofold: on one hand, they are locatable; on the other, they are partially measurable. It is precisely this combination that makes them central to the current regulatory framework.
With the evolution of European regulations — now framed under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) — emission control is no longer limited to conveyed flows, but explicitly includes the management of diffuse losses and, in particular, fugitive emissions.
Best Available Techniques (BAT) define the reference approach, introducing a clear principle: emissions must be prevented, monitored, and reduced through structured and verifiable strategies.
Best Available Techniques (BAT) define the reference approach, introducing a clear principle: emissions must be prevented, monitored, and reduced through structured and verifiable strategies.
In this context, fugitive emissions management is based on two operational pillars.
- The first is the control of existing installations, typically through LDAR (Leak Detection and Repair) programs. These consist of systematic, instrument-based leak detection activities on equipment, aimed at identifying, quantifying, and correcting emission sources over time.
- The second is the introduction of components designed to minimize leakage at the source. Valves, pumps, gaskets, and sealing systems must be selected based on proven performance, verified through standardized and internationally recognized testing. In this field, the concept of low emission is not a claim, but the result of qualification tests demonstrating controlled leakage rates.
It is the integration of these two strategies — the management of existing assets and the quality of newly installed components — that defines the real objective: the structural reduction of fugitive emissions.
Within this scenario, Carrara positions itself with a comprehensive offering on both fronts.
On one side, a wide range of sealing solutions — gaskets and packings — qualified according to international standards and designed for low-emission applications, capable of ensuring documented performance on flanges, valves, and pumps.
On the other, through its FERP division (www.ferp.eu), Carrara operates directly in LDAR activities, supporting operators in the detection, quantification, and management of leaks in operating plants.
This integrated approach allows fugitive emissions to be addressed not as an isolated requirement, but as a continuous process: from measurement to prevention, through to the effective reduction of losses.
Because, beyond regulatory compliance, fugitive emissions remain one of the clearest indicators of how well a plant is truly under control.