Diesel corrosion

How's business? What have you done to make it better? All business-related comments go here.
smellslikegas
Head Tech
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:33 pm

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by smellslikegas » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:09 pm

Your right, I tried a pipe nipple and an electrical nipple with no luck. Had to drive back to the shop to get the right nipple. My thought as I was putting the manifold back together was if this thing broke this easy, what would it have done in a few months? Would it just snap off with hydraulic shock from a nozzle clicking off? How much product would fill the sump and run down the driveway before it was noticed?

Scary stuff
I can't fix stupid, But I can sure charge for it.

User avatar
CherokeeUST
Head Tech
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:23 am
Location: Dallas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by CherokeeUST » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:29 am

The opinions expressed here are entirely mine and are not endorsed by my employer.

Robert
www.linkedin.com/in/robertlargent

User avatar
Kperlow
Head Tech
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:50 am

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by Kperlow » Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:42 am

smellslikegas wrote:I removed a diesel filter in an older ovation 2 weeks ago, spun the filter on by hand, had not even put a wrench on it yet when the nipple snapped in two. It was corroded and paper thin.
I had the same issue on a vista. Went to take filter off and threads came with it. Not pretty especially since most diesel shear valves will not hold pressure any longer.
Kevin Perlowski

ZMiller
Head Tech
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:53 am
Location: Atlanta/Phoenix/Sacramento

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by ZMiller » Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:55 am

You know if you have the right tool you can replace the shear valve internal platform without replacing or disconecting the valve.
--- pitches a fit by saying it voids the UL when the valve itself has an illegal or grandfathered UL rating when used on diesel in the first place so who cares? If it isn't safely working as designed and you fix it so it works and is safe when somebody knocks the dispenser off the island with or without a moronic UL rating who's to question the logic.

That's if it's an --- valve of course.
When you are dead it's likely you won't know it. It could be difficult for others. It's the same if you are stupid.
"Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in a way that they will begin looking forward to the trip"

ZMiller
Head Tech
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:53 am
Location: Atlanta/Phoenix/Sacramento

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by ZMiller » Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:13 am

WARNING! WARNING! DANGER! DANGER! LITIGATIONS AHEAD! Will Smith...........Are we all Lost in Space?

Exorsize your shear valve levers people!!!!

Speaking of corroded diesel shear valve platforms rotting away and not closing when they are supposed to. What's going to be the position of API, PEI, CRC, EPA and --- knowing that somebody could get KILLED when a known corrosion issue IS causing a critical safety component to fail under 75% of all diesel dispensers nation wide? You have to wonder what --- is going to do when they know they have a defective product under thousands of diesels dispensers.

The people at --- and EPA for the most part are great people but you would think somebody somewhere at EPA or --- would at lease issue a safety or service advisory to check and replace if a valves shutting off ability under pressure is in question.

I tell the dealer oh by the way your shear valves under your diesel dispensers don't work and they probably need to be replaced. Dealer asks how much is that going to cost? That ----ing much?!! Holly Cow that's way to much! I'll probably just wait until some customer or service tecknition flames out or gets killed.

If problems with shear valves passing gasoline when sheared was the issue hundreds of people would be DEAD by now.
When you are dead it's likely you won't know it. It could be difficult for others. It's the same if you are stupid.
"Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in a way that they will begin looking forward to the trip"


ZMiller
Head Tech
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:53 am
Location: Atlanta/Phoenix/Sacramento

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by ZMiller » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:21 pm

It is hard to beat up on refiners for producing a marginal product when in fact it’s the refiners who warned that stringent fuel reformulation and regulations to meet clean air standards would inevitably create serious issues. Regarding the introduction and use of ULS diesel and now cleaner burning ULS gasolines. The driving public allowed the US Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to rightly choose between driving and or breathing clean air. The lack of sulfur and the effect on diesel fuel again said was well predicted much earlier than today’s corrosion and fuel quality experts might claim. I remember an article in a minor publication Tank Top Magazine published in or around 2003 by the Steel Tank Institute warning that lower sulfur mandated diesel fuels would most likely cause damaging “Cauldron” corrosion effects and containment integrity issues in storage tanks.
Aside from vehicle drivability issues we have a more serious and threating issue now with storage tanks and their potential loss of containment integrity. There are many factors causing and compounding diesel fuel quality and diesel fuel storage issues. In all likelihood it is how we transport, store and dispense fuel, not necessarily the refining or the formulation of the fuel itself.

As idealistic as it might sound there are those in the fuel handling and fuel storage business that would love to blame refiners for issues now becoming critical and concerning. CRC, Battelle and others continue to illusively point where we need further study. Between me and a lamp post some people are beginning to think they are incompetent or just bumbling keep milking the cow idiots. While we sit and wait for our fuel storage infrastructure to rot away treating effects and not solving the problem;
We need to be looking at how below average fuel storage tank volumes after major oil company divestment effects wetting, acidity and corrosion in a tanks empty spaces.
As tank owners when;
• The containment integrity of a less than 7 year old glass or steel tank fails.
• A pump motor rots off its column still running and drills a hole through the bottom of the tank.
• A motor and or fill tube riser rots off.
• A tanks internal compartment separation bulkhead rots away and sets off alarms.
• A dispenser meter gives away obscene amounts of fuel.
• A shear valve doesn’t close when its attached dispenser falls off the island.

You then read the warranty thinking what's happening ? No you read the warranty when you install the tank and from that point on you properly maintain the tank and fueling system components associated.

I could ramble on about the subject but it’s beginning to sound more like a therapy session. There are things about fuels in general that people seem to forget;
• First being that all fuel contains inherent BUGS. The bug manmade or naturally occurring is not Darwinian in nature and survives by the fact
that it is diverse in nature. More simply, BUGS are always changing to survive. BUGS can be controlled but you can rarely kill or eliminate
them. If you kill them they just come back with the next load of fuel.
• Second being that commercial fueling site managers and gas station owners are notoriously lousy when it comes to housekeeping.
• Third being if you ask Exxon, MMLLC, Motiva, Chevron, BP or any other refiner they tell you they have effective and secret control methods in
place and don’t have a problem.
• Forth being if you ask any bulk fuel delivery driver in a right to work state if there was any water in the tank before he dropped fuel the
answer is always no not a drop.
• Water being the problem catalyst causing corrosion and stored fuel degradation we need to scale down the method API 2000 6th and 7th
additions for keeping tanks dry and do Maybe what refineries, bulk fuel terminals and airports do to prevent these nagging issues?

I could well talk further on what diesel root problem resolution paths should be followed but my customers are now seeing the beginnings of more serious rotting away corrosion issues in fuel tanks storing ULS Gasoline.
When you are dead it's likely you won't know it. It could be difficult for others. It's the same if you are stupid.
"Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in a way that they will begin looking forward to the trip"

bugbuster
Head Tech
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by bugbuster » Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:10 am

Diesel Corrosion:
You've done a nice job of covering the waterfront. Fuel system corrosion is not new, but sever hydro-treating and infrastructure changes that have occurred since 1997 (revisions to Clean Air Act) have created a dynamic that has contributed to a combination of increased awareness (although the most recent EPA study suggests that many operators believe with a perfect faith that denial is an effective condition monitoring strategy) and actual corrosion damage.

I wouldn't be too hard on Battelle. They have completed work as specified to them by others. They didn't get to design the studies. A representative sampling of petroleum retail sites would include at least 10,000 sites. No one is about to budget that size investigation. Although is you consider the median cost of repairs and site remediation - including lost revenues during the repair phase - the ROI for preventing 3 or 5 failures would support a
$ million project. Two recent articles in a fuel marketing trade magazine extolled the great work a particular petroleum retail trade association did in pushing back against more thorough condition monitoring that had been proposed in the draft LUST regulations that went into effect in NOV 15. When I read these articles I thought: "Brilliant! this association successfully increased the failure risk to site owner operators!" At any given site, the cost of one LUST event could cover>1,000 years of effective condition monitoring. Instead, we are left with inspections that only detect problems after the damage has been done.

I've been writing about this in my "What's New" blog at https://biodeterioration-control.com/whats-new/; adding a new post approximately every two to three weeks.

ZMiller
Head Tech
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:53 am
Location: Atlanta/Phoenix/Sacramento

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by ZMiller » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:42 am

"denial is an effective condition monitoring strategy" A perfect observation and exactly the mindset having to be dealt with.

"I wouldn't be too hard on Battelle" First of all Battelle and the CRC know exactly how to conduct such surveys. If the survey models are wrong in the first place and you know the survey results with the wrong model used will produce inconclusive or worthless results why do the survey in the first place? The Rodney Dangerfield analogy being a patient when getting critical test results back from a doctor and asking for a second opinion and the doctor says "alright your ugly too"

We are running out of time so solve a very simple but critical problem. We now have more serious corrosion manifestation conditions in ULS gasoline storage tanks.
When you are dead it's likely you won't know it. It could be difficult for others. It's the same if you are stupid.
"Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in a way that they will begin looking forward to the trip"

bugbuster
Head Tech
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by bugbuster » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:30 pm

Zane:

I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. My point about Battelle is that the work they have done on both previous projects was designed by others. Designing the test plan was not part of Battelle's scope of work on either project. In both instances, the first step seems to have been to determine the project budget and only then to decide what to do with the funds available. IMHO, in terms of overall economics, this is wrong headed. I won't reiterate the point I made in my last post, about the economics. I can say that when I suggest that any survey that includes fewer than 10% of all sites is going to yield ungratifying (i.e.: meaningless) results, colleagues tend to hyperventilate.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'd also venture to guess that you'll agree with me when I suggest that beyond having an adequate number of sites tested, it's imperative to include the appropriate test parameters and to collect samples that are most likely to yield relevant data (for example, fuel samples from dispenser nozzles are fine for testing fuel quality, but are worse than worthless for detecting developing problems. To extend your clinic analogy: blood, sputum and urine samples each have value, but that value depends on what you are trying to diagnose.

As I understand it, right now, system components are failing at an unprecedented rate, but UST are not. The former affect component manufacturer and service company margins but don't affect insurance underwriters. I suspect that if the rate of UST failure climbed, we see considerably more money thrown at the issue. As I wrote earlier, insurance payouts on 2 to 4 UST failures would cover the cost of a $1 million to $1.5 million project. Incorporating condition monitoring that detected incipient problems costs a few $'s, but a singled UST failure would pay for >10,000 years of that incremental cost. Choosing to ignore the issue is a petroleum retailer mindset. They are rejoicing that they were able to force US EPA from including condition monitoring practices that could detect incipient problems, before failures occurred. The will have plenty of time to repent later. Just say'n: it's a false economy. I've estimated that the typical retailer in an urban or truck-stop location leaves between $150,000 and $750,000 on the table, in opportunity costs, per dispenser, per year. Yet the same retailer can't justify spending $5,000 to $10,000 per year per site to minimize the opportunity cost. I suppose that's what we call human nature.

smellslikegas
Head Tech
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:33 pm

Re: Diesel corrosion

Post by smellslikegas » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:13 pm

bugbuster wrote: ...
As I understand it, right now, system components are failing at an unprecedented rate, but UST are not. ...
IMO, With the amount of corrosion that is being seen in the field, it is just a matter of time before UST's start failing at an alarming rate. System component failures are just the first symptom.
I can't fix stupid, But I can sure charge for it.

Post Reply