Materials Performance

DEC 2014

Materials Performance is the world's most widely circulated magazine dedicated to corrosion prevention and control. MP provides information about the latest corrosion control technologies and practical applications for every industry and environment.

Issue link: https://mp.epubxp.com/i/419826

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 10 of 100

8 DECEMBER 2014 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE THE BLOG NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 53, NO. 12 NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 53, NO. 12 EDITORIAL D I R E C TO R, CO N T E N T D E V E LO P M E N T/ Gretchen A. Jacobson MA N AG I N G E D I TO R T E C H N I C A L E D I TO R John H. Fitzgerald III, FN AC E T E C H N I C A L E D I TO R Norman J. Moriber, Mears Group, Inc. A S S O C I AT E E D I TO R Kathy Riggs Larsen CO N T R I B U TO R Husna Miskinyar GRAPHICS E L E C T R O N I C P U B L I S H I N G Teri J. Gilley CO O R D I N ATO R G R A P H I C S D E S I G N E R Michele S. Jennings ADMINISTRATION C H I E F E X E C U T I V E O F F I C E R Rober t (Bob) H. Chalker G R O U P P U B L I S H E R William (Bill) Wageneck ADVERTISING S A L E S MA N AG E R Diane Gross diane.gross@nace.org, +1 281-228-6446 A S S I S TA N T S A L E S MA N AG E R Teresa Wright t.wright@nace.org, +1 281-228-6472 ACCO U N T E X E C U T I V E S Erica R. Cor tina erica.cor tina@nace.org, +1 281-228-6473 Brian Daley brian.daley@nace.org, +1 281-228-6455 Pam Golias pam.golias@nace.org, +1 281-228-6456 Jody Lovsness jody.lovsness@nace.org, +1 281-228-6257 Leslie Whiteman leslie.whiteman@nace.org, +1 281-228-6248 A DV E RT I S I N G/B O O K S Brenda Nitz CO O R D I N ATO R brenda.nitz@nace.org, +1 281-228-6219 R E G I O N A L A DV E RT I S I N G S A L E S The Kingwill Co. R E P R E S E N TAT I V E S Chicago/Cleveland/ New York Area– jim@kingwillco.com, +1 847-537-9196 NACE International Contact Information Tel: +1 281-228-6200 Fax: +1 281-228-6300 E-mail: Firstser vice@nace.org Web site: nace.org EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD John P. Broomfield, FNACE Broomfield Consultants Raul A. Castillo Consultant Ir vin Cotton Ar thur Freedman Associates, Inc. Ar thur J. Freedman Ar thur Freedman Associates, Inc. David D. He PG&E Orin Hollander Holland Technologies W. Brian Holtsbaum Corsult Associates (1980), Ltd. Russ Kane iCorrosion, LLC Ernest Klechka CITGO Petroleum Corp. Kur t Lawson Mears Group, Inc. Lee Machemer Jonas, Inc. John S. Smar t III John Smar t Consulting Engineer L.D. "Lou" Vincent L.D. "Lou" Vincent PhD LLC Editor: I just read the article, "Eliminating Coating Failures—A Case Study for Achieving Long-Term Cost Savings," in the October 2014 issue of MP. I have a question for the authors, who conclude the system installed will perform for a minimum of 20 years, "doubling the savings" of what I would expect they term "extended " service life. Our experi- ence in tank linings in petrol bulk storage facilities has shown thin f ilm systems often provide 20-year service lives at considerable cost savings. I'm not sure how the "non-visible" contaminants factored into the conclu- sion that the surface preparation was f ine except for their presence. More likely, it was the third-party inspection that produced the desirable results and not the salt removal product. There is no explanation of whether prior tank lining projects were also completed under the watchful eye of third-party inspec- tion. We are seeing a trend for these thick f ilm system installations where the inspector is called upon to detect "non-visible contaminants" which, while present, may not be contributing to premature coating failures. Setting aside that concern, my question for the authors, and MP, is what can an owner expect to pay for removal of 20 to 40 mils dry f ilm thickness (DFT) systems even at the end of the "extended " service life? As a contractor, I surmise they can expect to pay double or triple more than the removal of 10 to 15 mils DFT; and at the escalated costs one would expect to occur naturally at the conclu- sion of those 20 years. Kellie Allen , Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Reply: The tanks in question are oil produc- tion tanks in a steam f lood process. The operating conditions involve temperatures often in excess of 180 °F (82 °C). Large vol- umes of high total dissolved solids water are produced with the oil. Forensic failure analysis of tanks in service prior to the in- stitution of revised specifications (2003) indicated osmotic blistering around weld seams and previously pitted areas. With a prior average coating service life of ap- proximately two years, rigorous changes to the specification included: 1. Closer mapping of tank interiors after pressure washing and solvent cleaning for the removal of accumu- lated debris and residual oil to pinpoint areas where salt testing was to be performed after the white metal abrasive blast. 2. Chloride, sulfate, and nitrate anionic salt species testing with the CHLOR*TEST † replaced conductivity testing, which had not efectively detected the major reason for earlier failures—residual surface salts. Man- dating low salt contamination levels in the abrasives used was also specifed. 3. Incorporation of washing the tanks with the CHLOR*RID † acidic soluble salt remover to decontaminate surfaces prior to relining of tanks. Simple water washing with ultrahigh pressure washing was insufcient. Under the revised regimen of inspec- tion, testing, and decontamination, service life has gone from an average of two years to now achieving over 10 years without a failure. Based on the condition of tanks relined under the new set of specif ications put in practice in 2004, it is expected that the linings will last 20+ years. The single largest variable to achieve the extended life cycle was the testing for and decontamination of surface salts. Applied coating thickness was and is about the same. Overall, it is a holistic approach to project management and execution because the partnership formed between the third-party inspec- tion company, the contractor, and the owners has resulted in a clear under- standing of the requirements for achiev- ing the long-term cost savings as a mutual goal of all parties involved. Projects are handled on a turnkey basis so the direct cost associated with the removal of the remaining lining is not broken out. The nominal direct project cost is outlined without taking into account overhead and lost opportunity costs. We agree that future costs can be in excess of 200% greater given expected increases in environmental impact fees, labor and material costs, and inf lation, to name a few. What is quite clear is the fact that the nominal per tank cost of $170,000 to $250,000, depending on size, every two † Trade name.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Materials Performance - DEC 2014