Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Anti - Corrosion Management, Environment and Quality at the Oil Refining Industry Alec Groysman Oil Refineries Ltd., P.O.Box 4, 31000 Haifa, Israel E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 972-4-8788623; Fax: 972-4-8788371 Abstract Many corrosion problems have occurred with related ecological damage, during the 90 years of the existence of the oil refining industry. Many corrosion problems have been solved. Some of them have not. Why? Sometimes corrosion damages occur at certain facilities, but nor at others. There are many corrosion experts, institutes and laboratories, corrosion magazines, books, standards, and conferences. A lot of companies manufacture different materials and equipment for corrosion control and monitoring. In spite of this, corrosion problems remain the main danger to the oil refining industry and to ecology. The aim of this work is to survey the corrosion situation at the oil refining industry during the past four years, in order to estimate cost of corrosion; to define the reasons for corrosion problems and to find effective measures to solve them, and, as a result, to improve reliability, availability and profitability at the refinery facilities including ecology. Every industry, even every plant, has its own distribution of corrosion phenomena that occur with different frequency. Examples of distribution of corrosion damages that occurred during the last four years as well as the solutions of their prevention are given. About 75% of all corrosion failures happened because of insufficient information and knowledge, as well as inadequate interaction among different groups responsible for the acceptance and approval of anti-corrosion decisions. The human factor was the main reason of corrosion failures. Anti - corrosion management must be designed in such a manner that will increase human potential in performance of correct decisions. Examples of wrong use of corrosion control measures, such as corrosion inhibitors` type and their concentrations, alloys, coats, and technological regimes are given. Insufficient, or sometimes lack of use of corrosion monitoring methods result in a non-controlling corrosion situation. Indirect cost of corrosion is connected with the ecological impact on the environment, loss of expensive chemicals, a contamination of technological streams by corrosion products, loss of efficiency, overdesign and shutdowns. The corrosion risk is related to environmental pollution by hazardous chemicals, fuels, and gases, resulting in possible fires and explosions, damage to people, animals, plants, air, soil and water. The causes of corrosion damage of aboveground storage tanks, pipes, heat exchangers, and other equipment, as well as preventive measures are analyzed. Most corrosion costs can be saved and quality improved by means of control measures, and analysis of failures, dissemination of knowledge, and use of monitoring techniques. A model of interconnections of all groups at the oil refining industry with the aim to diminish corrosion risk was suggested. Anti-corrosion management quality includes design, manufacture, improvement, and control at all stages. Keywords: anti-corrosion management, ecology, corrosion problems, control, monitoring. 1 Introduction The Oil Refining industry exists for about 90 years. All types of corrosion phenomena known to corrosion experts, plus some specific problems (such as naphthenic acid corrosion, sulfide corrosion, and hydrogen induced corrosion), were found at the Units of the Oil Refineries. Many corrosion problems have been solved [1 - 3]. Some of them have not. Why? Sometimes corrosion damages occur at certain facilities, but not at others. There are many corrosion experts, corrosion magazines, books, standards, and conferences, such as ours, etc. A lot of companies manufacture different materials and equipment for corrosion control and corrosion monitoring. Many institutes and laboratories waste much money and time for corrosion researches. In spite of this, corrosion problems remain the main danger to the oil refining industry and to ecology. The aim of this work is to survey the corrosion situation in the refining industry in Israel, during the past four years, in order to estimate the cost of corrosion; to define the reasons for corrosion problems and to find effective measures to solve them, to define correct ways for anti-corrosion management, and, as a result, to improve reliability, availability and profitability at the oil refinery facilities. Analysis of corrosion cases Corrosion cases registered during the last four years at the Oil Refineries showed that they occurred about once or twice a week (Table 1). Table 1. Corrosion cases in 2001 – 2004 Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 Number of Cases 52 41 46 70 How do we define a corrosion case? It is any failure that occurred because one of the following corrosion phenomena: general corrosion, pitting, crevice, galvanic, intergranular, stress corrosion cracking (SCC), microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC), dezincification, erosion-corrosion, cavitation, fatigue corrosion, caustic embrittlement, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen induced corrosion, corrosion under thermal insulation, dew point corrosion, stray current corrosion, under deposit corrosion, over-heating corrosion, chemical cleaning corrosion, and welding corrosion. Failure of one of the corrosion control measures such as incorrect use of protective coatings or corrosion inhibitors, or unsuitability of materials to standards, or plugging because of deposits` (corrosion products) formation is also considered corrosion case. Estimation of the direct corrosion cost gave the value of about 10 million dollars per year at one refinery. We analyzed the reasons in every corrosion case (Table 2). About 75% (average value in 2001 – 2004) of all corrosion failures happened because of insufficient information and knowledge. Thus, the human factor was the main reason for corrosion failures. The human factor was divided into the lack of awareness and knowledge, insufficient control and supervision, unwillingness to improve the situation, wrong operation and design. The importance of human factor in occurring of corrosion failures resulted in development correct anti-corrosion management which must be designed in such a manner that it will increase the human potential in performance of correct decisions. In general human factor diminished from 85% to 65% during the last four years. We can compare this value with human factor of 80 to 90% in chemical, naval and aviation industries [4]. This diminishing is explained by the 2 development of correct anti-corrosion management, and, first of all, introduction of analysis of corrosion failures for technical personnel, and spreading of corrosion monitoring methods at the units. Table 2. Causes of corrosion failures in 2001 – 2004 Factor 2001 2002 2003 2004 Number of cases 52 41 46 70 Human factor (general) 44 30 33 45 Human factor (in per cent) 85 73 72 65 Lack of awareness and knowledge 13 2 15 14 Lack of control and supervision 10 14 8 13 Unwillingness to improve 13 8 6 7 Incorrect operation 4 2 3 5 Incorrect design 4 3 1 4 Human error 1 Un-known 2 2 2 The organization of courses of dissemination of corrosion knowledge and information as part of anti-corrosion management were introduced on three levels: for technicians, engineers and management. Increase of general corrosion cases registered at the units from 46 in 2003 to 70 in 2004 is explained by understanding of importance of analysis of every corrosion event in order to prevent corrosion failures in future. Every industry, every plant, has its own distribution of corrosion phenomena that occur with different frequency. This distribution changes every year at even the same enterprise. We classified real corrosion cases occurring during the last four years according to corrosion forms (Table 3). The distribution of corrosion forms changes every year. The first three forms of corrosion failures, namely, general corrosion, pitting, and erosion – cavitation constitute about 50 to 60% of the 50 to 70 cases reported. We can emphasize that the frequency of general corrosion (30%) and pitting (13 to 25%) is indicative of most industries in general (for example, chemical industry [5]), and is not limited to the Oil Refining industry alone. I have to mention the failures of coatings and polymers (about 8 to 13% of cases) and stress corrosion cracking (8%). Many structures at the Oil Refineries are coated, and polymers are used in the aboveground storage tanks with different media: petroleum distillates, aromatic solvents and oxygenates (MTBE – Methyl-Tert-Butyl-Ether) [6]. There is no ideal polymer which is resistant to all media. Stress corrosion cracking relates to the usage of austenitic stainless steels as a material of construction for many highly corrosive applications in the Oil Refining industry [7 - 10]. Corrosion products as deposits plugged heat exchangers` bundles, filters, tubes, valves, and other equipment in 9 to 14% of cases. Sometimes corrosion products deteriorated petroleum distillates and aromatic solvents manufactured at the units of the oil refineries. It was impossible to determine corrosion type in 5 to 13% of cases because of insufficient communication between various departments and services at the oil refineries. Sometimes specific corrosion phenomena (hydrogen sulfide corrosion, crevice corrosion, corrosion under thermal insulation, welding corrosion, and hydrogen induce corrosion) did not occur several years. This analysis showed that nearly all corrosion phenomena known corrosion science and engineering [11], occurred at the oil refineries` units during four years, but with different frequency, and depended on the age of oil refineries, use of oil crude types, type of materials of units, use of corrosion control and monitoring methods, knowledge and 3 experience of personnel. The last two issues are included in the “anti-corrosion management”, and we shall talk about it later. Table 3. Corrosion phenomena with the equipment at the Oil Refineries in 2001 – 2004 Type of Corrosion 2001 Number 4 13 3 4 % 7.7 25 5.8 7.7 2002 Number % 14 33.3 10 23.8 5 11.9 3 7.1 2003 Number % 14 30.4 6 13.0 5 10.9 5 10.9 2004 Number 20/2* 7/8* 6/1* 9/1* % 29 10 9 13 General Corrosion Pitting Corrosion Erosion - Cavitation Failure of Coatings and Polymers Stress Corrosion Cracking 4 7.7 0 0 4 8.7 0 0 Plugging (Deposit 0 0 0 0 4 8.7 10 14 Formation) 13.5 Un-known Failures 7 3 7.1 2 4.3 4 6 Dezincification 0 0 0 0 2 4.3 0 0 Caustic Embrittlement 1 1.9 0 0 1 2.2 0 0 Under Deposit Corrosion 2 3.8 1 2.4 1 2.2 0 0 Dew Point Corrosion 2 3.8 0 0 1 2.2 1 1 Microbiologically Induced 2 3.8 0 0 1 2.2 2 3 Corrosion Mechanical Failures 3 5.8 1 2.4 0 0 1 1 Galvanic Corrosion 1 1.9 2 4.8 0 0 0 0 Corrosion because of 0 0 2 4.8 0 0 0 0 Water Stagnation Over - Heating Corrosion 0 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0 Corrosion Fatigue 3 5.8 0 0 0 0 1 1 Stray Current Corrosion 2 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chemical Cleaning 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corrosion Hydrogen Sulfide 0 0 0 0 0 0 4/1* 6 Corrosion Unsuitability of Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 to Standards Crevice Corrosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 * Corrosion Under Thermal 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/1 1 Insulation Welding Corrosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 100 100 100 100 52 42 46 70 Note: the denomenator is the number of cases wich occurred simultaneously with other corrosion phemomena; for example, general corrosion occurred with pitting corrosion; hydrogen sulfide corrosion occurred together with general corrosion at the same equipment; etc. 4 Analysis of corrosion cases with different equipment at the units of Oil Refineries in 2004 showed that about 60% of total failures occurred with heat exchangers, condensers, pipelines and tanks (Table 4) [12]. But stacks, coils, pumps, compressors, furnaces, towers, reactors and valves were also subjected corrosion. Table 4. Corrosion failures of equipment at the Oil Refineries` Units in 2004 Equipment Heat exchangers, condensers Pipelines Tanks Coils, screws, and others Stacks Pumps and compressors Furnaces, superheater Accessories in towers Reactors Valves Total Number of cases 20 12 9 7 6 5 4 4 3 2 70 Percent 28 17 13 10 9 7 5 5 4 2 100 Analysis of corrosion failures at different units at the Oil Refineries showed that most corrosion cases occurred at CCR (Continuous Catalytic Cracking) unit, Distillation Crude units, Hydrodesulfurizers, FCC (Fluid Catalytic Cracking) units, with aboveground storage tanks and pipelines (Table 5). It is important to emphasize that no corrosion failures occurred at places where corrosion control (inhibitor and neutralizer injection) and monitoring (periodical with corrosion coupons and on-line continuous) methods were used. This fact confirms existence of efficient control methods and introducing corrosion monitoring in new places where corrosion failures are expected and can occur. Table 5. Number of corrosion failures at different units in 2001 – 2004 Unit Year 2001 2002 Distillation Crude Unit 6 9 Continuous Catalytic Reforming 5 4 Fluid Catalytic Cracking 1 2 Pipelines 19 11 Aboveground Storage Tanks 7 6 Hydrodesulfurizers 8 6 Power Station 0 0 Merox 0 0 Visbraker 2 0 Asphalt 0 1 * Petrochemical Plant 4 3 Total 52 42 * Petrochemical Plant: manufacture of organic solvents. 5 2003 8 4 11 9 2 5 0 0 0 1 6 46 2004 10 12 8 7 9 11 3 1 2 0 7 70 Examples of corrosion cases Here are several examples of correct and wrong use of corrosion control measures, such as use of alloys, coating systems, and technological regime at the refinery units. 1. General corrosion of the bed of the catalyst and pipe in the stripper column at the Continuous Catalytic Reforming Unit (Figure 1). Figure 1. The carbon steel bed for the catalyst and pipe in the stripper column at the Continuous Catalytic Reforming Unit. The medium was the 1% aqueous soda solution containing 1000 ppm of chlorides and 6 ppm of iron. Severe corrosion of carbon steel internals occurred after 8 years of operation. Laboratory examination of corrosiveness of this medium showed corrosion rate of 1 mm/year for carbon steel. It was found in laboratory tests that some kinds of Duplex steels, high molybdenum stainless steel and Monel were resistant to the corrosive medium in the stripper. The human factor was responsible in this case, because carbon steel was wrongly chosen as the material of construction at the project stage. 2. General corrosion and incorrect use of material – corrosion of heat exchanger tubes made of carbon steel after 8 years of operation (Figure 2). Figure 2. Heat exchanger tubes. Inside of tubes – FeS. Crude oil flew inside of the tubes, outside – vacuum bottom. The temperature varied from 280 to 320oC. Sulfur content in crude oil varied from 4.3 to 5.6%. It is well known that carbon 6 steel is not resistant to high sulfur (above 1% weight) crude oil and vacuum bottom at temperatures above 290oC [7]. Insufficient control (that is, the human factor) at the stage of the manufacture of carbon steel heat exchanger tubes was the reason for this corrosion failure. The correct decision is to use a low alloy steel containing 5% Cr. 3. Failure of protective coating systems (Figure 3 and 4). The pipeline was made of carbon steel. Outside the pipeline was the industrial atmosphere of the Oil Refinery. Water from the desalter at 90oC flew inside this pipeline (Figure 3). The coating system resistant to industrial atmosphere at ambient temperature of about 25oC was chosen. This coating failed after several months of use. Temperature is the critical parameter for use of coating systems. Another example is the coating system for the air cooler ventilator (Figure 4). The temperature sometimes rose to 100oC in this area. This coating failed after 2 years of use. Human factor was responsible for the failures in these two failures. Figure 3. Failed coating on the pipeline in the atmosphere of the Oil Refinery. Figure 4. Failed coating on the air cooler ventilator. 7 4. Erosion – corrosion failure relates to the “over-loading of materials” – incorrect process conditions and variables: concentrations of reagents, temperature, pressure, presence of aggressive contaminants and flow rate. The pump made of stainless steel 316 was intended for pumping the light cycle oil at the processing line at the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. Catalyst containing particles of silica and alumina entered the pump suddenly (Figure 5). The pump worked about four years without failure. Erosion – corrosion is usually an unexpected failure and could occur during several months or less. The remedial operation is a prevention of catalyst penetration into the pump. Figure 5. Erosion of inner surface of the pump made pf SS 316. 5. Microbiologically Induced Corrosion (MIC) inside of the bottom of a crude oil storage tank after 18 years of use (Figure 6) [12]. Figure 6. Inside of of the bottom of a crude oil storage tank. The typical pattern on the inner surface of carbon steel bottom could be determined as a result of microbial attack. Usually very dense sludge of the height of 1 to 2 meters is formed at the bottom, and it is impossible to take a sample from the bottom - bottom for the microbial analysis. The results of the microbial analysis of crude oil do not always show the real picture of the microbial contamination at the bottom surface. The only solution is to coat the bottom surface inside the tank and periodical cleaning from the sludge [6]. Sometimes MIC can result in corrosion damage of equipment in contact with water deteriorated by microorganisms even in several weeks [13]. Post-scriptum of corrosion cases analysis. Some results of corrosion failures and determination of their causes at the oil refineries` units were published in literature [14], but did not find the decision for their prevention. 8 Corrosion monitoring methods at the Oil Refineries Units Many problems of correct use of corrosion control measures (for example, injection of chemicals such as inhibitors, neutralizers, biocides and others) may be solved by means of corrosion monitoring methods [15 – 17]. Here are two examples, how we use corrosion monitoring at the process units and in the cooling water systems. Figure 7 shows the atmospheric distillation column with air cooler and condensers (overhead). All pipelines, tubes in the air cooler, naphtha and kero heat exchangers are made of carbon steel. Tubes in condensers were originally made of carbon steel and Admiralty brass CDA 443, but were replaced for titanium (Ti Gr. 2 and Ti Gr.12) 12 years ago because of severe acidic and under deposit corrosion. Hydrocarbons containing water vapors, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen sulfide, leave the distillation column at 130oC. This mixture becomes very corrosive when cooled below the dew point temperature of 100oC. In order to prevent high acidic corrosion in air cooler and condensers, neutralizers and corrosion inhibitor are injected in the overhead of the distillation column. Weight loss coupons and electrical resistance (ER) probes were installed in many places and OM – On-line Monitoring by means of ER-probes. They were also installed in the naphtha pump-around and kero pump-around lines. The electrical resistance probes show the corrosion situation continuously. We change the weight loss coupons every several months, in order to compare with the results of the ER-probes and to examine the danger of chloride attack (pitting corrosion). This is very important, and the more points in the unit that are included for corrosion monitoring, the fuller is the corrosion coverage we receive. Figure 8 shows typical on-line data – dial reading of the ER-probes with time in one of the condensers in the overhead of the distillation column. Figure 7. Corrosion monitoring at the overhead of the atmospheric distillation column. Schematic of setting of corrosion probes. Corrosion rates (mm/year) are shown near the red points with coupons and ER-probes. 9 Figure 8. Dial Reading ER-probe vs Time. One can receive such a picture on the screen of his computer. The sudden rise of corrosion rate of carbon steel is analyzed for every period. The acceptable corrosion rate of 5 mpy (0.11 mm/year) for carbon steel is defined for units at the oil refineries [15]. Therefore any increase above 5 mpy is analyzed and the causes are determined. There were two short periods when the corrosion rate increased above 5 mpy (see Figure 8). Insufficient injection of neutralizer was the reason of a sudden increase of corrosion rate of carbon steel. Thus, we can monitor the anti-corrosion program and as a result the corrosion situation in the overhead of the distillation column. The average corrosion rate for any period can be compared with the results received by means of the weight loss coupons (Figure 9). Usually we receive good correlation between these two methods. Figure 9. Average corrosion rate with ER-probe (0.037 mm/year) and weight loss coupons (0.025 mm/year). Corrosion and deposit monitoring in the cooling water system Three main problems exist in every cooling water system in the Oil Refining Industry: corrosion, inorganic deposits containing carbonate scale, corrosion products of iron, phosphates, silicates and some others, and biofouling (microbial contamination). Two on-line corrosion and deposit monitoring systems are used in the cooling water system at our Refinery [2]. Such systems allow monitoring the general corrosion of carbon steel (or any other alloy) at ambient temperature (non-heated steel surface) and at the drop temperature in 10 the heat exchanger (heated steel surface), pitting tendency also for heated and non-heated surface, and heat transfer resistance – the quantitative value of inorganic and organic deposits (fouling). General corrosion rate is defined by means of the LPR (Linear Polarizarion Resistance) method, and the pitting tendency is based on the Electrochemical Noise Measurements (ENM). The typical change of Heat Transfer Resistance versus Time is presented at Figure 10. One can calculate the cleaning factor in percent according to these data. The drawback of these data is that general fouling is measured: total sum of inorganic and organic deposits. Heat Transfer Resistance vs Time DATS data Heat Transfer Resistance, x1000, o Cm 2/KW 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 27/09/99 17/10/99 06/11/99 26/11/99 16/12/99 05/01/00 25/01/00 14/02/00 Figure 10. Heat Transfer Resistance vs Time (DATS – Deposit Accumulation System data). Figure 11 presents the dial reading data of general corrosion by LPR corrosometers and pitting tendency by ENM. Thus, on-line corrosion infromation is received continuously. On-line Corrosion Rate of Mild Steel vs Time Corr. Rate, m py 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 27/09/99 17/10/99 06/11/99 26/11/99 Heat Surface Corr. Rate Heat Surface Pitting Tendency Linear (Nonheat Surface Corr. Rate) Linear (Heat Surface Pitting Tendency) 16/12/99 05/01/00 25/01/00 14/02/00 Nonheat Surface Corr. Rate Nonheat Surface Pitting Tendency Linear (Nonheat Surface Pitting Tende Linear (Heat Surface Corr. Rate) Figure 11. On-line corrosion rate of mild steel (general corrosion and pitting tendency) in the cooling water system vs Time. Anti-corrosion management at the Oil Refineries We suggest the following scheme of anti-corrosion management at the Oil Refineries (Figure 12). Such a scheme is useful for all industries. Supervision at the design stage for suitability of material choice, protective measures and corrosion control must be carried out. We have to estimate the cost of corrosion in every case, in every corrosion event (Table 6) [18]. Corrosion losses are included in the price of petroleum distillates and all fuels. We have to differentiate and to analyse direct and indirect, avoidable and unavoidable corrosion losses. 11 We developed and continue to develop the procedures, specifications and standards for corrosion prevention, control and supervision. Some of them were introduced into practice. For example, a standard of coating systems for the protection of structures and equipment at the Oil Refineries. Every two years we revise these systems after analysis of experience and new data of study of resistance of coating systems under different conditions at the Oil Refineries. Another example: cathodic protection of underground structures. This document was introduced into practice for all industrial enterprises in the Haifa area 13 years ago. Protection of equipment during storage and material control during purchasing are a very important part of anti-corrosion management. Some kinds of equipment (heat exchangers, tubes, bundles, elbows, valves, etc.) are not used immediately after purchasing. Therefore, anticorrosion measures must be carried out for the temporary protection. We have to find criteria for penalty and prize for anti-corrosive management, computerize the library of corrosion cases, and disseminate information and knowledge about corrosion, corrosion control and corrosion monitoring methods. Supervision at the design stage for suitability of material choice, protective measures and corrosion controll Economical estimation of corrosion losses Direct Indirect Avoidable Developing of procedures, specifications, standards for corrosion prevention, control and supervision: Benefit of usage of corrosion supervision methodss Unavoidable Protection of equipment during storage. Material control during purchasing. Insurance in corrosion damage. 1. Standard for coatings (SP-06-01). 2. Cathodic protection. 3. Corrosion under thermal insulation. Criteria search for penalty and prize for anti-corrosive management. Computerized library of corrosion failures with analysis and solutions. Dissemination of information and knowledge. Figure 12. Anti-Corrosion Management. 12 The cost of corrosion includes two components: corrosion loss and investments in corrosion control (use of preventive anti-corrosion measures plus corrosion monitoring methods) (Tables 6 and 7) [18]. Any study of corrosion cost should include the investigation of places where corrosion costs occur, the size of these costs and their predictability [19]. We suggest the following approach which allows determining the costs of corrosion loss and proper responsibility for these data (Table 6). Table 6. Corrosion loss (cost per year - example) Damage Shutdowns Maintenance Production loss, loss in revenue Contaminants in products Damage to the environment Safety (danger to life) Efficiency decrease of heat exchangers, pumps, pipelines Loss of aesthetic appearance (because of non-pleasant rust, holes and other corrosion damages) The influence of changes: - type of crude oil; - processing; - chemicals; - conditions (temperature, pressure, etc.); - duty (function) of heat exchangers. Cost, $ A B C D E F G Responsible Division Maintenance, Production Maintenance Production, Operations Production, Operations Environmental, Production Environmental Maintenance, Production H Maintenance I Operations, Production, Technical Services Total, $. Note: A, B, C, etc. are the specific cost values. Anti-Corrosion and Quality Management [18] When we are talking about corrosion and quality, we can see in corrosion phenomena and services related to corrosion control and corrosion monitoring similarities to other subjects, namely, delivering anti-corrosion methods and services faster, better, cheaper and newer. This is the quality of anti-corrosion management. But … corrosion as a phenomenon influences the quality of products, quality of service and of course, influences our perception. If corrosion is connected with quality, we may talk about general anti-corrosion management quality which includes design, performance (implementation), changes (improvement), and control at all stages. Both corrosion and quality are connected with reliability, availability and profitability of any industry. Reliability is a broad term that focuses on the ability of a “product” to perform its intended function. The “product” may be a physical product, a manufacturing process, a service, or any other activity. Reliability is the probability that a plant or component will not fail to perform within specified limits while working in a stated environment [20]. Availability is the probability that an item, under the combined influence of its reliability, maintainability and maintenance support, will be able to fulfill its required function over a 13 stated period of time, or at a given point in time [20]. Availability is the quality of being present or ready for immediate use [21]. Profitability is a valuable return, or net income for a given period of time [21]. Certainly, quality is mostly well connected with reliability, both may be interpreted in the values of probabilities. Corrosion influences reliability which is a part of quality. Both quality and reliability are influenced by the human factor. We saw that human error was the primary cause of process corrosion failures: from 65% (our estimation in this work) in the refining industry to 80 - 90% in chemical, naval and aviation fields [4]. While improving anticorrosion management, we can get better quality. The inverse statement is also correct: while improving the quality, we can get better anti-corrosion management. Anti-corrosion management is supervision at the design stage for suitability of material selection, protective anti-corrosion measures (corrosion control) and corrosion monitoring. We can show how investments in corrosion control affect the quality of goods, materials, work, services, profitability, forecasted opportunities, customer satisfaction, safety, and effectiveness (Table 7). Table 7. Investments in corrosion control methods (for a year - an example). Corrosion Control Method or Other Investments Excessive corrosion allowance Coatings Use / Means Investments, $ Responsible Group/Unit Correct Design Z Development, Technical Services Division Maintenance Division Atmospheric corrosion Underground pipelines Aboveground Storage Tanks: - inside; - outside. Metal Coatings Chemicals Demulsifiers Corrosion Inhibitors in Processing: - Overhead distillation column; - Hydrodesulfuriser; - Amine unit. Neutralizers Corrosion Inhibitors in Cooling Water Systems Biocides Dispersants Oxygen scavengers Neutralizers in steam Cathodic Protection Rectifiers Sacrificial anodes for the underground pipelines 14 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 G1 Production Division H1 I1 K1 L1 M1 N1 O1 P1 Q1 R1 Power Station Division Electrical Division Corrosion Control Method or Other Investments Polymeric materials Ceramic materials Composites Corrosion Resistant Alloys Corrosion Monitoring Use / Means Investments, $ Responsible Group/Unit Sacrificial anodes for heat exchangers with cooling water Consultancy S1 Maintenance Division T1 U1 Electrical Division Maintenance Division, and Development Heat exchangers Pumps Pipes and tubes Reactors Other equipment Coupons (Weight Loss Method) Electrical Resistance Probes Linear Polarization Resistance corrosometers On-line monitoring in cooling water systems (Deposit Accumulation Testing System) R&D development Consultancy and outer laboratories` service Research & Development (R&D) Total, $. Note: A1, B1, C1, etc. are the specific cost values. W1 X1 Y1 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2 G2 Maintenance Division, Technical Services Division, and Development R&D Corrosion Laboratory, Maintenance Division, Production Division H2 I2 J2 R&D Division, Plant Inspection Department The role of technical standards Technical standards are a significant part of anti-corrosion management quality. The significant role of technical standards in the prevention of corrosion, corrosion control and corrosion monitoring is well known. We have to emphasize the positive role of ASTM [22, 23], National Association of Corrosion Engineers International (NACE) [24], American Petroleum Institute (API) [25], ISO [26, 27] and national standards, such as British (BS), German (DIN), French (AFNOR), and Russian (GOST). In spite of their activity, the standards related to corrosion are not widely used. Even those that are used, do not always satisfy the requirements of a specific industry and particular conditions. We can give many examples, but we shall restrict ourselves to one. It relates to use of coating systems under various conditions of oil refinery units. Even those that are recommended in the technical standards, do not always contain the up-to-date information. For example, the standard API RP 652 [25] for coating systems does not relate to those based on zinc-rich, silicone-epoxy, polysiloxane, polyurethane and epoxy novolac materials resistant to fuels, and does not relate to the fuels containing oxygenates or aromatic components added to increase the octane number of fuels. We developed our proprietary 15 standard of coating systems for use at oil refineries under various conditions [6, 28]. This standard helps to improve the quality of corrosion control measures. Examples of influence of corrosion on quality We said that corrosion may influence various kinds of quality in different ways: quality of products, quality of manufacture, quality of management, quality of life, quality of environment, etc. We have to emphasize the impact of corrosion on service life of the metallic equipment and construction and as a result on quality of all items. Thus, it was shown that the annual cost of corrosion in maintenance and repair increased by 100% when an aircraft aged by 10 years [29]. This is an excellent reminder of the importance of corrosion prevention, control and monitoring which are so vital to service life and quality. In this case quality is the main parameter and relates to the safety of flights. Here are several examples. All fuels have to meet very strict physico-chemical properties. When corrosion products in the form of rust appear in fuels, the latter may be disqualified. We may mention a case in which several thousand tons of fuel were disqualified and had to be sent for additional treatment at the oil refinery. When some plug, valve or any other control instrument or device is corroded, the result may be stopping the production process or may be a sudden failure, including explosions, fires, and even death of people. Typical mistakes in anti-corrosion management and improving quality It is very important to know where the problem is. Therefore we have to analyse typical mistakes in anti-corrosion management and improving quality. Here is our view of such mistakes. 1. Improper design and selection of metallic materials for attaining the required service life of the equipment. 2. Improper selection of preventive anti-corrosion measures: coating systems, cathodic protection, chemicals (neutralizers, corrosion inhibitors, anti-scalings, dispersants, oxygen scavengers, biocides), operating parameters. 3. Lack or insufficient use of corrosion monitoring methods. 4. Lack of damage assessment, analysis, monitoring of failures and their detection. The lack of corrosion information exchange. 5. Lack or insufficient corrosion education and training. Most engineering and technical personnel, including managers, have little or no education and training in corrosion science and engineering. We see here two levels of corrosion curricula. The first one is for engineering and technical personnel dealing with designing, fabrication, assembly, operation, monitoring, inspection and maintenance. The second level is for management personnel. Our experience shows that usually the problems of corrosion are in the last place of priorities in all industries. 6. Improper use (or not using) the technical standards and other documentation in the field of corrosion control and monitoring. All our efforts should be to overcome the above mentioned mistakes, which will allow improvement of quality in the stages of design, fabrication, assembly, operation, monitoring and maintenance of any equipment and structure, and as a result to minimize corrosion costs and to achieve the planned service life. Anti-corrosion management program requires collaboration of all services and must include funding for developing predictive corrosion models, developing corrosion control methods and implementation of corrosion monitoring techniques. 16 Conclusions 1. The Chinese Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu who lived more than 2600 years ago, said: “Stop thinking, and end your problems”. We saw that human factor was responsible in 65% to 85% of corrosion failures. By the human factor we mean: the absence of awareness and knowledge, of control and supervision, wrong operation and design, and lack of a wish to improve the corrosion situation. 2. Human error potential can be managed. The human factor is of paramount importance in both corrosion events and improving the quality. The scheme of diminishing the corrosion cost and consequently of increasing quality was suggested. It is impossible to reduce corrosion cost to zero, because methods of corrosion control and corrosion monitoring are necessary for preserving quality, but they may be optimised and cost effective. 3. The investments should be at all stages of anti-corrosion management and quality improvement, including design, fabrication, operation, monitoring, maintenance, education, training, research, and policy. Every industry and enterprise should have a program of anti-corrosion management which will allow improving quality. 4. The corrosion cost of each job, of every failure, and of the implementation of specifications and standards should be recorded. Any corrosion cost study must include the analysis where corrosion costs take place, the sizes of these costs, and their predictability. 5. The previous French president George Pompidou said: “The problems are not solved. We live with the problems”. We live with old problems of general and pitting corrosion, erosion – cavitation, coatings failure and SCC. We know them well and can avoid … if we would emphasize the role of a human factor and corrosion monitoring methods. 6. Insufficient, or sometimes lack of use of corrosion monitoring methods result in a noncontrolling corrosion situation. Periodical and on-line corrosion monitoring in the overhead of crude distillation columns and cooling water systems proved its high efficiency. Corrosion failures diminished drastically in these places. Corrosion monitoring methods are universal as they can be used in all industries. The main our task is to install corrosion monitoring systems in all critical places, in order to avoid sudden failures and to reach high reliability, availability and profitability. References 1. A Groysman, Corrosion Cases, Their Analysis and Solutions in the Oil Refinery, Paper No. 335, CORROSION/95, Orlando, USA, 1995, 12 p. 2. A. Groysman, Corrosion Problems and their Solutions in the Refining Industry, The European Corrosion Congress, Proceedings EUROCORR 2004, Nice, 12 – 16 September, 2004, 9 p., EFC event No. 266, Book of Abstracts, p. 223. 3. A. Groysman, Corrosion Problems and Their Solutions in the Oil Refining Industry, Abstracts of the 6th Biannual Conference of the Corrosion Forum NACE Israel, 13 May 2004, p. 34. 4. FAA Research 1989 – 2002. Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance and Inspection/ Strategic Program Plan, 1998. 5. R. J. Landrum, Fundamentals of Designing for Corrosion Control, NACE, Houston, USA, 1989, 352 p. 6. A. Groysman, Anticorrosion Techniques for Aboveground Storage Tanks, Materials Performance, 44, No. 11, 2005. 7. R. A. White, E. F. Ehmke, Materials Selection for Refineries and Associated Facilities, NACE, USA, 1991, 183 p. 8. Corrosion, Vol. 13, ASM International, USA, 1996, pp. 1262 – 1287. 17 9. C.P. Dillon, Corrosion Resistance of Stainless Steels, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1995, 365 p. 10. A. John Sedriks, Corrosion of sainless steels, A Wiley-Interscience Publication John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, 1966, 437 p. 11. Mars G. Fontana, Corrosion Engineering, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, USA, 1986, 555 p. 12. A. Groysman, Corrosion of Aboveground Storage Tanks for Fuels, Materials Performance, 44, No. 9, 2005, p. 44- 48. 13. A. Groysman, Z. Starosvetzky, MIC of Storage Tank Aluminum Floating Roofs During Hydrotest, Materials Performance, Vol. 41, No. 4, April, 2002, p. 50-54. 14. A. Groysman, A. Kaufman, B. Feldman, Y. Man, Cavitation Corrosion in a Continuous Catalytic Reformer Unit, Materials Performance, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2000, p. 62-66. 15. A. Groysman, Corrosion Monitoring and Control in Refinery Process Unit. Paper No. 512, CORROSION/97, New Orleans, USA, 1997, 25 p. 16. A. Groysman, Corrosion Monitoring in the Oil Refinery, Proceedings of the 13th International Corrosion Congress, 25-29 November 1996, Melbourne, Australia. 17. A. Groysman, Corrosion Monitoring in the Oil Refinery, International Conference “Corrosion in natural and industrial environments: problems and solutions” (Italy), Paper No. 07, 23-25 May 1995. 18. A. Groysman, N. Brodsky, Corrosion and Quality, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Israel Society for Quality, November 16-18, 2004, Jerusalem, Israel, p. 223-230. 19. Ashok Kumar, Larry D. Stephenson and Gary Gerdes, Robert Heidersbach, Corrosion Related Costs for Military Facilities, Paper No. 04269, NACE Conference CORROSION 2004, New Orleans, USA, 2004, 13 p. 20. Website: http://www.kwaliteg.co.za, 2004. 21. Meriam Webster On-Line Website, 2004. 22. Corrosion Tests and Standards: Application and Interpretation, Robert Baboian, Editor, ASTM, USA, 1995, 764 p. 23. ASTM, Vol. 03.02, Wear and Erosion; Metal Corrosion, ASTM, USA, 1996, 609 p. 24. Book of Standards, NACE, USA, 1991. 25. API Recommended Practice 652, Lining of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Bottoms, 1991, 10 p. 26. ISO 9223, Corrosion of metals and alloys – Classification of corrosivity of atmospheres, 1992, 13 p. 27. ISO 12944-5, Paints and varnishes – Corrosion protection of steel structures by protective paint systems – Part 5: Protective paint systems, 1998, 28 p. 28. SP 06-01. Standard for use of coating systems at Oil Refineries, Oil Refineries Ltd., Haifa, Israel, 2002, 24 p. (in Hebrew). 29. Vinod S. Agarwala, Control of Corrosion and Service Life, Paper No. 04257, NACE Conference CORROSION2004, New Orleans, USA, 2004, 19 p. 18