Corrosion Management and Associated Implementation Issues

The corrosion management implementation process comprises the following three phases:

1. Implementation Phase I: Pre­-Implementation

2. Implementation Phase II: Implementation

3. Implementation Phase III: Post-­Implementation

Accordingly, any possible issue or shortcoming pertaining to the corrosion management implementation process could be associated with any of the above phases. Therefore, implementation issues have similarly been categorized into three separate groups in this article.

The foremost implementation issue currently is not implementing or carrying out the corrosion management process at all.

Issues Associated with Implementation Phase I

Shortcomings Associated with the Scope of Work

Any shortcomings associated with the scope, such as ambiguities or erroneous instructions, specifications, requirements, and prerequisites would produce a defective, inefficient, incomplete, or erroneous corrosion management implementation process and outcome. Typical shortcomings or problematic issues associated with the scope of work could include the following:

• Unclear or vague work or project physical boundary¹

• Unclear system(s) or equipment inclusion or exclusion statements or specifications

• Ambiguous description of the work to be carried out

Any other similar poor and inadequate information, instructions, clarifications, or drawings could also further render the scope of work less transparent, clear, and practical. Thus, it would adversely affect the whole corrosion management implementation process and its outcome.

Lack of or Inadequate Management Support

One of the crucial prerequisites for any successful corrosion management implementation process is the allocation of the appropriate required resources by management. Any shortcomings in the provision of the required resources could lead to an incomplete and ineffective implementation process. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that adequate corrosion management awareness training be provided for the relevant senior management, so they would realize and fully appreciate the significance of the corrosion management implementation process and its potential benefits. Field observation has demonstrated, for various cases, the utter failure of the intended implementation process when management was not engaged from the beginning.

Lack of or Inadequate Site Personnel Training or Competency

The implementation process is always carried out with the help, support, and cooperation of the site personnel. Therefore, prior to any implementation, adequate corrosion management training should be provided to the pertinent site personnel. Any possible shortcomings associated with site personnel (corrosion management) training could simply doom the entire implementation process. Past field experience has shown that when prior training is not provided for the relevant personnel, the implementation process would not go far and would achieve very little, if at all.

Lack of or Unreliable Data

One of the major issues associated with some implementation processes is the lack of sufficient input data or the inclusion of unreliable data and information. Lack of certain crucial data could almost totally stall the implementation process, while the provision of unreliable data could lead to the generation of erroneous outputs (e.g., corrosion rates and risk levels) and subsequent conclusions.

Inadequate Team Structure and Job Descriptions

The corrosion management implementation process is a team exercise where every participating individual should be fully aware of their relevant responsibility within the team. Any possible lack of inadequate team structure and/or job descriptions would often lead to task or activity overlap or partial or total oversight of certain responsibilities, leading to a poor or incomplete implementation process.

Issues Associated with Implementation Phase II

Ignoring Non-Corrosion Engineering-Based Integrity Management Measures

A review of various corrosion management implementation projects did reveal that in most cases only corrosion engineering (CE)-­based integrity management measures were covered during the conducted integrity reviews and the non-CE-­based ones were totally ignored (Figure 1).² Thus, throughout such implementation projects the implementation team failed to highlight the faulty, out-of-­date, ineffective, and even obsolete non­-CE­-based integrity management measures that were the main root cause of the incumbent integrity and corrosion issues.

Ignoring Management Requirements

Although the management requirements in Figure 1 are considered the most crucial of all the non­-CE-­based integrity management measures, very rarely are they included in the associated integrity review and implementation processes. This mostly inadvertent exclusion of the management requirements could be regarded as the main culprit behind failing, unsuccessful, and ineffective corrosion management implementation processes observed or studied worldwide.

Focusing Solely on the Creation of Corrosion Loops

Field visits and corrosion management audits have demonstrated that in many cases, the implementation process was simply limited to the creation of corrosion loops and the carrying out of failure risk assessment (FRA) processes for such loops. What still exacerbated the situation was that those who had created the corrosion loops had used erroneous criteria and definitions. Such discrepancies and mistakes had, in later years, culminated in increasing integrity and corrosion failures, since in some instances, very high corrosion rate areas were placed in the same loop with low corrosion rate areas and the associated inspection interval was adjusted with regards to the latter.

Issues Associated with Implementation Phase III

Not Implementing Recommendations

One of the main outcomes of the corrosion management implementation process is the generation of recommendations that pertain to both CE­-based and non­-CE-based integrity management measures. These measures either don’t originally exist but need to be created or already exist but require revising, updating, or enhancements. Therefore, implementing such recommendations is expected to improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of the incumbent asset integrity and corrosion management systems. However, studying various site reports associated with the post-­implementation phase revealed that almost half of the recommendations were not implemented. That is, the existing corrosion management system was not improved in any way.

Cessation of Performance Monitoring

Unfortunately, there exists a misunderstanding that the process of performance monitoring is mainly limited to the time when the integrity review process is ongoing. Based on this erroneous approach, once the integrity review process is completed, then the performance monitoring process is ceased until the next round of integrity reviews in a few years’ time. This malpractice deprives one from vital data such as ongoing corrosion rate monitoring and fluid sampling data that could identify recurring seasonal, transitory, or short duration events.

Cessation of Effectiveness Assessment

Like the previous point, in many assets, the process of assessing the effectiveness of various integrity management measures is limited to the time when the integrity review process is ongoing, and the performance monitoring is being carried out. Once the integrity review process is over, performance monitoring and the ensuing effectiveness assessment processes are ceased until the next round of integrity reviews. Such practice virtually brings the whole corrosion management implementation process to a standstill and should be avoided.

Cessation of Communication Between Two Parties

Another erroneous practice throughout Phase III is the total cessation of communication between the individual members of the team who had carried out or facilitated the corrosion management implementation process and the site personnel.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The most common implementation issues encountered so far are the exclusion of the non­CE integrity management measures and the management requirements. Ensure that none of the issues highlighted here are going to be present during corrosion management implementation processes.

References

1 A. Morshed, A Complete Guide to Corrosion Management Implementation in the Industry (Houston, TX: International, 2018), ISBN: 978­1­57590­371­2.

2 A. Morshed, “The Evolution of the Corrosion Management Concept,” MP 52, 8 (2013): p. 66.