PaintSquare.com


The First Word in Protective & Marine Coatings

A Product of Technology Publishing / PaintSquare
JPCL | PaintSquare News | Durability + Design | Paint BidTracker

Free Download of

Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page


Carboline Named in BP Refinery Suit

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

More items for Coating Application

Comment | More

BP is suing protective coatings giant Carboline and four other companies, alleging that steel they provided and fireproofed for a multibillion-dollar refinery project is defective and causing property damage.

BP Products North America Inc. filed the federal lawsuit Dec. 3 against Carboline Co., of St. Louis, MO; Trinity Steel Fabricators Inc., of Houston, TX; Schuff Steel Co., of Phoenix, AZ; Tecon Services Inc., of Houston; and Alfred Miller Contracting Co., of Lake Charles, LA. The suit involves a modernization project at BP's Whiting Refinery in Whiting, IN.

Trinity Steel Fabricators and Schuff Steel were both contracted to provide the structural steel coated with Carboline’s fireproofing product, Pyrocrete 241. Alfred Miller Contracting and Tecon Services were subcontracted to provide the fireproofing services for the steel.

Bill Moran, the president and CEO of Trinity Steel, declined comment Wednesday (Jan. 2). Representatives of the other companies did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

BP

The lawsuit includes allegations that Carboline's Pyrocrete 241 is contributing to premature degradation of steel at BP's Whiting Refinery.

According to the complaint, BP required thousands of tons of new structural steel for the modernization project. Some of this steel was coated with a protective layer of Pyrocrete 241 fireproofing material, which is now degrading prematurely and causing damage to BP’s property, the suit says.

BP claims that it has suffered damages in excess of $75,000, including costs incurred to investigate, conduct analysis, and perform additional testing; costs incurred to repair and coat the defective Pyrocrete; and property damage, loss of use, and increased future maintenance costs.

BP's Allegations

BP alleges that the coating has degraded prematurely because of defects in the application and preparation of the Pyrocrete to the steel—and possibly because of defects in the Pyrocrete itself.

The complaint states that the product is exhibiting problems and defects that include:

  • Surface softness, crumbling, and rounding of original square corners;
  • Discoloration;
  • Low hardness and compressive strength;
  • Delamination and/or flaking of surface material(s);
  • Cracking, pitting, and splitting; and
  • Loss of material cover (reduced thickness, voids, cracks, and other discontinuities).

“BP is remediating the damage caused by the defective Pyrocrete and defective preparation and application of the Pyrocrete, and BP will have to continue to remediate the defective conditions and property damage at great cost to BP,” the company said in its complaint.

An investigation conducted by BP claims that the subcontractors failed to properly mix, prepare, and apply the Pyrocrete; applied the product with gaps in the underlying lathe in violation of the contract’s plans and specifications; and “overworked” and/or “skim-coated” the Pyrocrete during application.

BP’s investigation also claims that the contractors failed to supply properly prepared structural steel and that the manufacturer’s product is defective.

BP provided “timely notice” of the problems to the defendants, all of which have refused to accept responsibility, the complaint states.

Causes for Action

BP alleges a total of nine counts against the companies. Trinity Steel, Schuff Steel, Alfred Miller, and Carboline each face two counts, and Tecon faces one.

BP

BP claims to have suffered $75,000 in damages related to investigating and replacing the allegedly defective materials.

Trinity Steel and Schuff Steel are accused of breach of contract and breach of express warranty.

Breach-of-contract counts for both companies state that they were, and are, responsible to BP for the work of subcontractors in preparing and applying the Pyrocrete to the structural steel they each supplied. BP alleges that both companies breached the contract when subcontractors failed to prepare and apply the Pyrocrete to the structural steel in accordance with the purchase orders and/or industry standards.

According to the complaint, Trinity Steel and Schuff Steel both breached their warranties when they provided BP with structural steel that, on information and belief, had Pyrocrete that was not prepared and/or applied correctly.

A breach-of-express-warranty count against Alfred Miller states that a contract between Trinity Steel and Alfred Miller included an express warranty that runs from Alfred Miller to BP. The lawsuit alleges that Alfred Miller breached the warranty when it supplied BP with Pyrocrete that was not prepared or applied according to the requirements and when Alfred Miller supplied BP with Pyrocrete precast flange caps that were not manufactured to the requirements of the purchase orders.

Alfred Miller, Tecon, and Carboline each face separate counts of common-law negligence, according to the complaint. BP alleges that Alfred Miller and Tecon both had a duty to BP to prepare and apply Pyrocrete to the structural steel in a “good and workmanlike manner,” and Carboline had a duty to BP to manufacture a product that was not defective.

BP claims that the three companies all had “superior knowledge” about the product, that it was foreseeable to the companies that premature degradation of the Pyrocrete would cause property damage and require replacement, and that the companies “faced a minimal burden to guard against such defects.”

Carboline is also facing a count for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. BP alleges that Carboline breached its implied warranty by selling Pyrocrete that was not merchantable and not fit for the ordinary purposes in which it was used. 

Pyrocrete 241

According to the suit, BP picked Pyrocrete based on recommendations from Carboline and the product’s marketing material.

Carboline Pyrocrete
Carboline

St. Louis-based Carboline Co. calls its Pyrocrete 241 “the preferred cementitious fireproofing material in the marketplace for over 30 years.”

In its product data sheets, Carboline describes Pyrocrete 241 as a single powder component that is recommended for fire protection of structural steel, bulkheads, and upgrading the fire resistance of existing concrete.

Product information from Carboline calls Pyrocrete “the preferred cementitious fireproofing material in the marketplace for over 30 years.”

Carboline said the product does not require an additional coating system, resists cracking and impact damage, prevents disbondment, and requires less material for projects.

Whiting Refinery Modernization Project

BP has invested several billion dollars to modernize its Whiting Refinery to increase its heavy oil processing capability by reconfiguring the largest of three crude distillation units and adding new coking capacity and associated processing units.

The modernization project is the largest, most complex refining project undertaken in BP’s recent history, according to the company. The project includes installing 380 miles of pipe; 1,200 pieces of major equipment; 600 shop-fabricated modules; and 50,000 tons of steel.

Construction began in May 2008; as of August 2012, BP reported that the project was about 70 percent complete.

   

Tagged categories: BP; Carboline; Fire-resistive coatings; Heat-resistive coatings; High-performance coatings; Lawsuits; Structural steel

Comment from william reid, (1/2/2013, 2:20 PM)

Some comments as follows; Was the following; Clients representative in attendance PFP Manufacturer TSR in attendance Applicators quality control in attendance, Did applicator have technical experience with this type of PFP, did personnel have previous experience of applying this PFP materials Did all parties attend Pre-Qualification meetings Was Pre-Qualification application trials carried out prior to starting actual production works, and was all parties technical representatives present Regards Bill Reid NACE / SSPC PCS


Comment from Atanas Cholako, (1/3/2013, 1:42 PM)

In addition to William above, lack of inspection is present. Bad work could have been stop at initial stage. Applicator inspector as well as others need to speak...if they've been there (hired) at all. Carboline can't afford to supply defective coating...Rds,Atanas Cholakov NACE3


Comment from Mohamed Akl, (1/3/2013, 10:44 PM)

The correct way of doing things always wins..regardless what the difficulties always are...sure there was deficiency somewhere in the whole application process...Mohamed Akl....SSPC PCS / NACE III


Comment from william reid, (1/4/2013, 5:11 AM)

The deficiency in the process should have been very visable early in the production works.I have been on past projects which this Pyrocrete 241 has been applied very successfully and still providing protection many years down the line with experienced inspectors checking all stages. Rds W Reid NACE/SSPC PCS. NACE Level III etc


Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (1/4/2013, 8:52 AM)

Cement based coatings are very application sensitive - the amount of water in the coating during cure is absolutely critical. How each batch is mixed, whether the substrate wicks the water away, how dry the air is, how much wind is blowing - these all affect the water in the coating during cure. For example, if you apply a cement based coating over concrete, the concrete (usually) should be "saturated surface dry" condition - the pores of the concrete full of water, but no liquid on the surface. This prevents the water in the cement coating from being wicked into the substrate.


Comment from Robert Pool, (1/4/2013, 1:08 PM)

I have to speak up! All three applicators have 20+ years experience with this material. Mock-ups were done and approved by BP, Fluor, Foster Wheeler & Carboline. BP had inspectors onsite almost full-time (i.e. 3 days a week) and Carboline's TSR was there weekly. Water was measured to the ounce, wet densities were checked every couple hours, and retained samples were taken and checked for dry density and hardness. It was all done "by the book" and met Carboline's application specs for water qty and wet density, yet the material that is failing was done by three seperate contractors at three different locations... A leading material science lab was hired to do a root cause investigation and they did not find any fault with the application or inspection. On the contrary, the lab recreated the phenomenon using Pyrocrete 241 mixed under perfect application conditions. What does that tell you?


Comment from peter gibson, (1/7/2013, 12:08 PM)

Hey Robert You tell us .Solve the mystery.We are dying to know. Fill in the blanks for us. Interesting case.


Comment from Stephen Bothello, (1/10/2013, 6:09 PM)

Guys, a suggestion-for critical applications of this nature, I would recommend to include in the ITP, testing for Hardness, Impact and Adhesion (pull-off)& other physical tests, at random areas on the actual structure of applied coating, for best control & quality assurance. The number of such random reference areas should be decided pre-job, in proportion to the total area. Pre-qualification, mock-up is a representation & many times conducted in close to ideal conditions/ conditions that are closely monitored. The coating applied on the actual structure is the more important, needs to be compliant, and very much so when its PFP. Test Panels are also Ok, can be preserved as evidence, as long as they are applied at same time, similar conditions with the same mix. as the actual structure. However, testing for above said physical properties on actual structure should be imperative and mandatory.


Comment from shane hirvi, (1/12/2013, 12:53 PM)

Sounds like bad news all around. Shane H Hirvi certified waffle technologist and level I syrup technician.


Comment from sean quinlan, (1/14/2013, 9:38 AM)

Interesting case this. Just wonder did anybody have other failures with Carboline intumescent coatings like AD Firefilm 111?


Comment from Chuck Pease, (1/14/2013, 5:33 PM)

How many cases have anyone seen whereby the coating itself was determined to be deficient. As an applicator I can say that 9 x out of 10 it is inadequete surface preparation and application parameters that are at fault.Very rarely is the material from a reputable mfgr such as Carboline to blame.


Comment from Gregory Berg, (1/15/2013, 7:44 AM)

Excellent Comment Shane.


Comment from Donald L Crusan, (1/16/2013, 8:33 AM)

Being as this is one of the more interesting posts of late and that I have shared it with a lot of my NACE certified peers on the Gulf Coast, I would love to see provenance on comments and have the ability to rate answers. Intuition caused me to turn down this assignment 3 or 4 times. Respectfully, Don Crusan


Comment from shane hirvi, (1/18/2013, 1:29 PM)

Don, I agree with being able to rate comments and would love to see some evidence to support the comments made here. I also agree that this is perhaps the most interesting story in the last year. Unfortunately, I don't imagine that any real details will be posted here in any specificity--this is a big case and only an idiot would come on here and post anything of relevance to this case. These things aren't won in the paintsquare arena. I would love to see the technical reports generated by the laboratories when this thing is all said and done but those things very rarely get posted. These things are usually sealed swept under a rug as a part of a settlement agreement--nobody likes admitting they've done wrong. Maybe because no state or federal agency is directly involved there will be more transparency--but I have my doubts. To address your comment regarding intuition on bad jobs--I see bad jobs as an opportunity for success rather than failure. It is hard to grow in this business if everything goes off without a hitch. I have had the opportunity to have been involved in some very bad projects with people and processes that caused millions of dollars in claims and though I regret that these projects went badly I am thankful for the opportunity to help right the ship. I guess I've babbled on long enough.


Comment from Donald L Crusan, (1/21/2013, 8:24 AM)

Thanks for the commnents Shane. Being in the twilight of my career, I pass more jobs up. I did enjoy trying "to put out the fires" during the last 35 years though.


Comment from David Reynolds, (1/22/2013, 10:18 AM)

In response to Seans question, there have been other projects in the Gulf Coast on which the Pyrocrete 241 had the same issues.


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

JPCL Europe
In the NEW issue:

High-solids epoxy systems for protective and marine coatings, waterjetting safety, film galvanising applications, and much more! www.jpcleurope.com


Sherwin-Williams

Sherwin-Williams
Our 3,500 locations give you a level of service that is simply unmatched.


International Paint LLC
Our New Protective Coatings Centers

Our complete range of International and Devoe Coatings products are available at our Protective Coatings Centers, making purchases faster and easier.


Carboline Company
Hyrdrocarbon Fire & Jet Fire Protection

Pyroclad X1 is the latest breakthrough in epoxy based intumescent fireproofing technology


HoldTight Solutions Inc.
NO FLASH RUST -
NO CONTAMINANTS

Our HoldTight®102 salt remover & flash rush inhibitor prevents flash rust by removing surface contaminants.
Contact us for your nearest distributor. (800) 319.8802 sales@holdtight.com


U.S. Zinc

The proven corrosion protection properties of our zinc dust prolong the life of marine coatings. U.S. Zinc – Helping the world work™


Bullard

The Next Generation
of Blasting

• Lightest
• Coolest
• Most Comfortable
• Most Dependable

 
 
 
Technology Publishing

The Technology Publishing Network

The Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings (JPCL) PaintSquare
Durability + Design Paint BidTracker JPCL Europe

 
EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About PaintSquare.com   |   Privacy policy   |   Terms & conditions   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us
 

© Copyright 2000-2014, Technology Publishing / PaintSquare, All rights reserved
2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310, Pittsburgh PA 15203-1951; Tel 1-412-431-8300; Fax 1-412-431-5428; E-mail webmaster@paintsquare.com