A Simple and Effective Approach to Developing and Maintaining

A Maintenance-Painting Program

Kirk Shields, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.

Ernst Toussaint, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc

There are a number of petrochemical plants that experience equipment failure and production
loss due to corrosion. Proper maintenance of their existing equipment greatly reduces a plant’s
down time therefore allowing production to continue. For those facilities that do not have an
existing maintenance-painting program, we have developed a beginners / non-technical program
guide that is easy to understand and implement as it addresses many plant’s existing and future
coating systems.

This program will allow for a consistent approach throughout a plant, versus various systems
that may be operating within one plant and or between operating units. Through the use of the
plants’ coating history, field surveys, decision tree, corporate specifications and a visual pictorial
standard, the owner’s quality control representative will utilize these tools to diagnose current
coating conditions in the plant. They will also be able to select the best coating system for each
asset (equipment, pipe, tank, pumps, motors, etc.) while in service/on-line. In new construction
or off-line maintenance work, a more aggressive surface preparation and coating system will be
utilized to provide for a longer life. This paper will discuss each step; data collecting, navigating
through a decision tree, pictorial standards and creation of a uniform corporate specification.

Introduction

There are numerous computerized Maintenance-Painting Programs that are available to

owners and industrial painting contractors for managing the protection of assets. Not every
corporation is willing or is able to spend the capital and time to learn additional software and
industry specific knowledge necessary with these software packages. This paper discusses a
non-computerized, basic approach that does not require a programmer or extensive knowledge
of surface preparation, paint application, corrosion, and / or industry standards. Regardless of
which approach is selected, computerized or not, the initial steps are typically performed by
someone experienced in the coating industry who will be able to develop these plans.

Instead of focusing on the data/survey/program manipulation, the approach as described in

this paper focuses or places the emphasis on first identifying the various exposures/environment;
thus creating the necessary painting specifications that protect each asset from these exposures.
These can be as easy as contacting Coating Manufactures or creating specifications in-house
with multiple vendors. The decision as to what to paint, when to paint, and what to paint with is
handled by a set of Pictorial Standards & Decision Tree that provides a simple and visual
approach, not requiring any data entry and report generation. The operator must first be able to
visually compare the existing coatings on each asset and judge it against the Pictorial Standards.
Once this is achieved, the operator will be able to specify the surface preparation, and coating
system.
 This simplistic approach involves three (3) main steps and they are as follows:
Specifications, Pictorial Standards and the Decision Tree. The creation of specifications for a
facility may be approached in two different ways. One approach is to prepare stand-alone
documents. If the owner expects to out-source the work, these documents include all of the
necessary quality control procedures and or hold-points necessary to insure a satisfactory
performance. The second approach is to prepare work-orders / work procedures to be followed
by in-house personnel performing the work. This approach would include incorporation of a
Master Specification, much like those used by the Departments of Transportation. This Master
Specification would include all of the standard quality control procedures, available coating
systems, and generic requirements in terms of means and methods acceptable for use within the
plant/site. The project specific work orders/work procedures would be categorized into the
various options available (spot repair, overcoat, & full replacement), exposures, and substrates.

The operator, who is out in the field for the day to day operations, needs a tool that is
unequivocally clear when determining what are the steps needed to specify a particular coating
for an asset. That tool is the decision tree. The decision tree is created to provide a quick and
visual tool to guide the user in their selection process in terms of the option and resulting
specification. The creation of this tool is based on the initial work done, including the
identification of environments and substrates. This simple visual tool is first established or
created by a person knowledgeable in coatings. Once this is in place, an operator can then make
recommendations to coat a specific asset based on the specifications. The Decision Tree
developed for a plant includes some physical testing to be performed by those performing the
regularly scheduled field inspections. The specifics on this testing are discussed later and in
more detail.

Figure 1 – Decision Tree (Partial)

The Pictorial Standards provide a means to compare the existing conditions to a set of
pictures illustrating percentages of corrosion at specific points where corresponding methods or
means of repair are most effective and economical to perform. These are created and intended to
be used in a similar manner to other industry accepted visual standards such as SSPC VIS
standards. The premise of the pictorial standard is to also provide a systematic grading scale for
each asset in the plant. Through the use of these standards, each operator will make the same
methodical coating decisions for similar coating deficiencies.
 Specifications

There are plants that have an existing specification that needs to be updated periodically, but
there are cases where some plants do not have an existing coating specification on file. It is then
best to perform a detailed survey throughout the entire site. Once this is achieved, it is prudent to
prepare the Plant’s coating specification. In order to create a technically correct coating
specification, it is imperative to correctly identify all of the environments and substrates that will
be encountered and addressed within this plant. Upon completion of the initial survey, the
exposures/environments would be reviewed to determine which ones could be grouped together;
therefore, keeping the final determinations to a minimum. Since it is the intent of maintaining
the program from within the organization with non-coating professionals, these specifications
will act as a safety net in the entire decision process. Therefore, this process of creating the
coating specifications is the most critical step in the development of a program.

In creating this safety net set of specifications, compromises may have to be made in regards
to material choices in selected and scattered cases. These may have an impact on life-expectancy
for certain systems on specific substrates and or in selected environments/exposures. These
instances are minimized and typically confined to small surface areas in well-defined locations.

A plant may wish to focus solely on exterior surfaces as part of this work. In that case, all of
the assets that are exposed to the elements are included in the program. Given any outside
parameters by a plant and the field investigation, you can in many instances typically limit the
exposures into two (2) categories; <250°F and 251°- 450°F. These temperatures are measured
on the substrate’s surface through the use of non-contact instruments. In keeping with
minimizing the size and complexity of the program, the assets within the plant are divided into
two primary categories:

• Metal Surfaces
o All Assets
o Small Assets
o Large Assets
• Concrete/Masonry
o Control Buildings
o Small Assets

Initially the categories are divided into; Pumps & Motors, Piping & Valves, Tanks, Misc.
Equipment, Stairs-Ladders-etc., Fire-Related, & Moving Parts. These descriptions are reduced
to those listed above for the Decision Tree only, since the substrate governs the specification
coating decision, not its’ function within the plant. Also included in this detailed field survey is
collecting coating samples and noting colors assigned to assets.

The color scheme used within a plant is not always consistent from one operating unit to
another. These color variations are noted and the specifications would provide for a uniform
color guide to be used throughout the plant. This would provide some additional information
during future studies, indicating if a specific asset had been painted within the new maintenance-
painting program.
 The collection of samples is typically required due to lack of records and more importantly a
lack of inspection records insuring that previous work was done per their specifications. There
may be no records indicating which coating systems were used on the existing assets. In order to
have coating compatibility as well as ease concerns of environmental safety, samples are
randomly taken on the plant’s assets. These samples need to be sent to a laboratory and tested
for the presence of heavy metals, primarily lead, cadmium, chromium and generic coating type.
Their presence would have a considerable effect on the Decision Tree and costs to a plant. It is
important to note that samples are taken based on the asset and color in each operating unit. You
must be careful to insure that you collect samples from each type of asset which had the same
color of coatings applied within any one operating unit. The results of this testing may find that
lead-based paint is present as a primer in the selected locations. In many facilities it has been
used as a primer in selected piping and as the orange-colored material applied to the cover plates
on a motor’s moving parts.

While conducting this initial field survey, discussions within each operating unit are
important to note what activities are permitted while under operation or while “On-Line”, (in
production). This will govern what surface preparation methods can be used. Again, to keep
things simple throughout the program, the non-sparking restrictions that normally exist
throughout a plant require non-sparking/non-aggressive methods for use in all “In-Line” or
repair procedures. When the units can be taken “Off-Line” or out-of-production is the only time
aggressive methods of surface preparation, such as abrasive-blasting can be employed.

The critical decision for any plant is to decide if most of their maintenance-painting will be
performed by in-house personnel or out-sourced to experienced painting contractors. This will
govern if the specification that is be prepared is a stand-alone document, with all of the necessary
QA/QC included or if simplified work procedures (a few pages) are be generated and provided,
with reference to a Master or Standard Specification package that details all of the generic
QA/QC.

Pictorial Standards

The Pictorial Standards are developed with the idea that someone with very little knowledge
of coatings in mind. The plant’s personnel would simply walk the operating unit with this tool
and note the visual condition of each asset. In selected situations, they would be directed to
perform a few simple physical tests, dry film thickness and adhesion. The dry film thickness
readings in combination with the coating system’s adhesion would be the critical step/branch on
the Decision Tree. These tests are simple to perform. Adequate training would be provided to
those personnel expected to perform this service within a plant. Instructions on when and how to
conduct these tests are also included within the Pictorial Standards.

As with any set of pictorial standards, a grading scale must be created. In order to keep things
simple, a three (3) part system has been created; Good, Fair, & Poor. These are based on their
percentage of corrosion. However, to keep things non-technical, the end used only needs to
compare assets to the provided pictures and not know the specific percentages involved.
Sufficient assets have been found representing typical equipment within the plant to create the
standards. The pictures were taken to illustrate a specific asset and not show a system or
process, which may violate a corporate trade secret. The Decision Tree only provides for Metal
and Concrete substrates at this time. The level of detail with these standards includes the
following:

• Structural Steel
• Tanks & Vessels
• Pumps & Motors
• Piping
• Misc. Equipment

The grading scale percentages are as follows:

• Good = <5% Deterioration

• Fair = 5 – 20% Deterioration
• Poor = >20% Deterioration

The physical testing is designed to be required on only those assets that are graded as “Fair”.
The adhesion testing is done in accordance with ASTM D6677-01 “Standard Test Method for
Evaluating Adhesion by Knife”. Besides providing the written definition, photographs of
various scores provided for in the standard are also included in the Pictorial Standards for the
field technician performing the field surveys

Figures 2-4

Examples of the Pictorial Standards

 Decision Tree

The Decision Tree takes all of the information gathered during the periodic field surveys by
the plant’s personnel and provides the necessary information as to what Specification is to be
used for that specific asset. This “Go / No-Go” visual tool requires no coating expertise. All of
the coating expertise has been built into the Specifications and Pictorial Standards created by the
experts. The data gathered in the field, score and physical tests, if required, govern which branch
is followed. The determination of what is a small asset versus a large asset is as follows:

Small Assets = Pump & Motors Assemblies & Piping less than 6” in diameter.
Large Assets = Remaining items (Tanks, Stacks, Equipment, etc.)

Forms necessary to conduct the periodic field surveys and the frequency of surveys are
provided as part of the program’s training. Depending on the exposures within a unit, the
frequency may vary. It was not anticipated that full/complete plant surveys would be required on
a regular basis. Training on the physical testing and the equipment needed would not require
significant time.

This simplified approach to a Maintenance-Painting Program can be an initial step in getting

comfortable with coatings. It can develop into a more sophisticated program or be tweaked and
continued indefinitely. The same principals can be used for incorporation into any industry and
or site. Not every program/project needs to be complicated in terms of knowledge and expertise.
As long as the initial program set-up is developed by a competent person/firm, interruptions in
the process due to corrosion related failures can be greatly reduced.