Tuesday, November 24, 2009

We have more work to do!

WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO!!!!

As we approach the end of the year please keep in mind there may be a NEW ballot from the TG 360 committee for the NEW SP0169-2007 revision in early January 2010. I am not sure what changes have been or will be made at this time, but we will see. The TG 360 committee would like to have the vote as early as possible next year so they can address any negatives at CORROSION 2010 in San Antonio, TX (next March).

You can log on to the Technical Committees Online Balloting Web page on the NACE.org website to see how many people responded and joined the voting pool as well as the individuals who submitted a vote with comments. Go to the NACE International.org website, then chose “Committees”, then “Online Balloting”, then Log in with your NACE number and Password. Once on this page, go to “TCC Balloting Results” and find the TG 360 group (page 9 when I looked). If you click on results you will get the voting information from the last ballot. A sample is below showing the number of folks who have signed up to vote and the number that actually voted.

Total Eligible Voters Number Voting Percent Voting
All Voters 391 270 69.1 %
STG Voters 313 222 70.9 %

If you click on the “Comments” you will be able to see those who voted to affirm, negative or abstain. You can also see all comments from those who made them. Reading these comments helps you to understand why many voted the way they did, as well as the concern expressed by some voters. These comments may help with your vote and how to make technical comments if your vote is negative. Please make “good” technical comments and arguments if you vote negative. If you vote for affirmation, you do not have to provide comments, but are welcome to do so. Abstaining votes do not count on the final pass/fail criterion, but you can provide comments if you wish.

Those who are on the voting list (391) can vote on the next ballot. You did not have to vote on the first ballot to vote on this one, but you must have signed up on the original voting list. So if you did not sign up on the “Balloting List”, you can not vote on the next ballot. See the Post below from Daniela Matthews at NACE.

If there is a doubt of whether you are on the balloting list, you should be able to contact daniela.matthews@nace.org.

To me there is so much evidence to show that the use of the “ON” -850 mV or more negative criterion (even without IR drop consideration) is valid. I will be posting some reports from the 1990 revision effort discussing many of the test site results for the PRCI report as well as some information from other companies. Basically, they show that if you can achieve a -850 mV “ON” potential (even without IR drop consideration) you can also achieve the 100 mV of polarization. I have also sent this information to Neil Thompson of DNV who is involved in the new PRCI study and report on whether the -850 mV “ON” criterion is valid. If you company is a member of the PRCI, please get involved.

I think we all understand that nothing is 100% and we can still have external corrosion in some cases even if we meet or exceed all criteria. Please pass along any data that may help the PRCI or TG 360 committee on their important missions. You can send it directly to the committee(s) or you can send it to me and I will forward it.

Many countries around the world will be relaxing this time of year because of the various holidays, especially in North America, but we must keep alert and provide the needed information to help this committee provide the industry with the best documents and reports possible. Without your help, they will not achieve that goal.

I am hoping that the changes to this new ballot will be allow us to all feel much more comfortable with what is written. Many are concerned about the regulatory implications in the various countries of the original proposed criteria. We will see what changes, if any, are in the new revision.

We need everyone who signed up to vote to vote! This is a critical document to the pipeline industry. No matter what your vote, please vote. Those who are not on the voting list, but have comments or issues you can pass those along to me and I will post them on the blog. I will also help anyone who is not sure how to word their comments with suggestions if there is a need.

I will pass along my thoughts of the new revision after it comes out for balloting. We also encourage others to make comments, no matter what your vote may be. We need to hear everyone’s opinion! Not just mine. Not just negative voters. Sharing information and concerns is how we are going to learn and make an educated decision.

Again, I will think the committee and all others who have worked so hard on this matter. We all want the same thing, a reasonable, sound document that works to provide the industry with guidance to provide safe, economical and environmentally friendly pipelines for the world’s future energy needs.

Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Kerry Morgan Comments

What happened to NACE?

You may remember “The National Association of Corrosion Engineers?” I wonder what those eleven men, corrosion engineers in the Pipeline Industry, would think of NACE today. A NACE that today finds itself in the position of writing Federal Code. A NACE that is contemplating changes to the core standard that has effectively and safely served the pipeline industry for the past 66 years. Prudent Operators have used the existing standard to protect the public and preserve valuable and critical assets.

I am not against revising the ST0169. I believe all standards should be under constant review with the goal of improving safety and asset preservation. Supporters of the revision argue that the off -.850 has scientific research behind it and contend that the on -.850 as put forth by Peabody has only empirical data to support it. How many leaks or ruptures have been associated with =<-.850 with current applied. The current revision being contemplated raises valid questions as to whether the off potential is a true IR free reading. Other’s who are far more qualified than I am have raised these questions and made convincing arguments and I will leave that to them.

My question is who should be reviewing and revising ST0169? If revised to the current recommendations this standard has the potential to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of operating the country’s underground pipelines, and only bring about questionable improvements to safety. The stakeholders which include: the public whom the standard is designed to protect, the regulators who have the responsibility of codifying the standard, and the operators, who will have to absorb the cost of implementing the revised standard, should be debating, reviewing and revising the standard.

So back to my original question, what happened to NACE? When did we quit being an industry group with the goal of protecting the public and preserving the national asset that is the underground pipeline system? When did we decide that members who will be under no legal obligation nor incur the cost of complying with the standard get to set the standard? A quick glance at the membership roster of STG 35 shows only about 30% of the members are domestic operators. TG 360, about 30% of the members are domestic operators. Definition of Democracy “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”.

Whose fault is this? Mine, I am the corrosion practiconer working for a domestic operator who has decided that with budget pressures, expanding work load and shrinking staff , I am unwilling to dedicate the time to be actively involved in NACE except for the occasional trip to a conference.

I have been in the pipeline industry for over 30 years, and yet I recognize that with all of the scientific and technological advances made in the past 60 years it is time to move forward and take advantage of these tools. With the advent of high resolution ILI tools and the implementation of the IMP we have actual corrosion data for a segment of pipeline. Let’s incorporate this data into our compliance standard. Why expend time and resources to maintain an IR free -.850 or less with current applied to a segment of pipe that has no corrosion? With the baseline assessment nearing completion and reruns starting next year we will have accurate corrosion rates to work with. Give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent running high resolution ILI tools, give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent remediating to ASME B31.8S. Which would better ensure the safety and integrity of a section of pipeline, actual known corrosion data from an ILI or an electrical reading that at best tells us what the potential for corrosion is.

To summarize, if we are going to revise ST0169 then let’s revise it using all of the technological and scientific advances available to us today.





Kerry L. Morgan
Senior Corrosion Technologist 5037
NACE 133125

Comments on Voting for next ballot

I think it’s important to make the distinction between those in the balloting list and those who voted on the ballot. Anyone who responded “yes” to the correspondence that NACE sent out asking if they would like to join the balloting list can vote on the next ballot. The balloting list will remain the same. Not everyone who is on the balloting list voted on the ballot. The next ballot will not be restricted to solely those who voted, but it will be restricted to those who are part of the balloting list.

Daniela Matthews

Program Coordinator

NACE International

Saturday, September 26, 2009

TG 360 Vote Results

The TG 360 committee meeting at CTW presented the status of the SP0169-2007 vote. The results were on the e-mail. The committee did not get the 66 2/3% they needed to pass on the first ballot! For those of us who did not think it was a good document at this point, this is great news.

As you can see there were not that many voters, but enough to stop the revision as written. The committee will now start over on the document. The same committee will stay together, with maybe a change or two. David McQuilling, who has been very vocal and against the revision and is now a committee member. I think this will be a good thing for a better voice and balance. I am not sure who else will remain or be placed on the committee.

The same voting group will be allowed to vote on the next version, but not new voters. I am not sure at this time if that means if you signed up to vote and did not vote that you can vote on the next ballot. Hopefully, that will be explained later. I thought they would have to start over since it is a new document, but apparently not.

Since they are starting over with the revision (actually adjusting it from the negatives) it will take a while, but they are attempting to get another vote before the end of the year. This means that we must stay alert to this vote and to the changes.

Please be aware that there will be another vote. I will try to keep you informed.

Polyguard hopes this blog site has been a help to those of you who do not have time or an opportunity to make all the meetings to speak your mind. Please feel free to comment as needed on the blog site, because NACE and some of the committee members do pay attention to what is being said.

Thanks for all the help and support,

Richard Norsworthy

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Deadline is September 1!

We have one week left to send your vote into NACE for the SP0169-2007 revision. Please let me know if there are any issues or questions. I will help if I can.

We have all worked very hard. There is much more work to do! Even after the first ballot, there will likely be a re-ballot or two, so please stay in tune with the process. If you would to see what I say in my negative vote I will be glad to forward it to you if it helps.

I have strongly defended the use of the -850 mV or more negative “ON” potential. I have found some data that backs up the thing I have been saying for a long time. It is very rare to no meet a 100 mV of polarization if you also have an “ON” -850 mV or more negative. Also, most corrosion we find today has little to do with inadequate CP and more to do with the coatings we have used and are still using in some cases. There is too much proof! Too many years of data! Put it in front of the committee and let them see it.

The issues that we face are many. Please keep in mind that there are several parts of the document, not just criteria. We must look at all parts of the document. I personally think the coatings section has been greatly improved, even though there are some problems, but these can be corrected.

Thanks again for all the support and effort. In the long run, we hope we have a document that will provide the industry with the best possible standard that will provide many more years of guidance to controlling the external corrosion on pipelines.

Richard Norsworthy

Dead Line Reminder!

DEADLINE REMINDER

YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE TG 360 BALLOT AND THE DEADLINE IS FAST APPROACHING. PLEASE READ

THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW AND CAST YOUR VOTE.





NACE International has extended hours for the customer service department from 7:00am to 7:00pm central time (GMT-06:00) to better serve our members! Call +1 281-228-6200 or 1-800-797-6223 for FirstService.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL ONLINE BALLOT ON THE PROPOSED REVISION TO NACE SP0169-2007 (FORMERLY RP0169)

DEADLINE TO RESPOND: September 1, 2009

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Members of STGs 35, 05, 30, and Interested Parties:

Cc: TCC

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Task Group (TG) 360’s proposed revision to NACE SP0169-2007 (formerly RP0169), “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems,” is now on the NACE Web site.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS BELOW:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

STEP 1: Please review the ballot by going to http://web.nace.org/ where you will view the NACE login page. You will be prompted to enter your user name and password. Once you have done so and are logged in, click on the tab in the upper right-hand corner titled “Committees.” Then, click on “Online Balloting” (on the right-hand column on this page). The next page you will see offers you Action Items, Results and a Logout option.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

STEP 2: The next page you will see is TCC Balloting Home.



To respond to ballots, click on the Action Items button. This will take you to a listing of open Ballots, Reballots, Review and Comments, and Canvasses. Find the appropriate TG number and click “Respond.”



STEP 3: To review the document prior to voting, click on the document title link at the top of the TCC Vote Response screen.



The document is in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, which means you will need Acrobat Reader software on your computer. If you do not have it, you may download it FREE from the Adobe Web site,



http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html



STEP 4: After reviewing the document, you may vote by clicking the “Back” button at the top left corner of the screen and casting your vote on the TCC Vote Response page. Add any Editorial or Technical comments in the space provided. If you have no Technical and/or Editorial comments, please check the appropriate “I have no comments” box(es).



Be sure to click on the SUBMIT RESPONSE button at the bottom of the page to submit your vote.



After you have submitted your vote, the TCC Response Confirmation page will appear stating that your vote has been recorded. In addition, you will receive an e-mail confirmation of your vote.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your participation in the online balloting process.

What happened to NACE?

What happened to NACE?

You may remember “The National Association of Corrosion Engineers?” I wonder what those eleven men, corrosion engineers in the Pipeline Industry, would think of NACE today. A NACE that today finds itself in the position of writing Federal Code. A NACE that is contemplating changes to the core standard that has effectively and safely served the pipeline industry for the past 66 years. Prudent Operators have used the existing standard to protect the public and preserve valuable and critical assets.

I am not against revising the ST0169. I believe all standards should be under constant review with the goal of improving safety and asset preservation. Supporters of the revision argue that the off -.850 has scientific research behind it and contend that the on -.850 as put forth by Peabody has only empirical data to support it. How many leaks or ruptures have been associated with =<-.850 with current applied. The current revision being contemplated raises valid questions as to whether the off potential is a true IR free reading. Other’s who are far more qualified than I am have raised these questions and made convincing arguments and I will leave that to them.

My question is who should be reviewing and revising ST0169? If revised to the current recommendations this standard has the potential to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of operating the country’s underground pipelines, and only bring about questionable improvements to safety. The stakeholders which include: the public whom the standard is designed to protect, the regulators who have the responsibility of codifying the standard, and the operators, who will have to absorb the cost of implementing the revised standard, should be debating, reviewing and revising the standard.

So back to my original question, what happened to NACE? When did we quit being an industry group with the goal of protecting the public and preserving the national asset that is the underground pipeline system? When did we decide that members who will be under no legal obligation nor incur the cost of complying with the standard get to set the standard? A quick glance at the membership roster of STG 35 shows only about 30% of the members are domestic operators. TG 360, about 30% of the members are domestic operators. Definition of Democracy “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”.

Whose fault is this? Mine, I am the corrosion practiconer working for a domestic operator who has decided that with budget pressures, expanding work load and shrinking staff , I am unwilling to dedicate the time to be actively involved in NACE except for the occasional trip to a conference.

I have been in the pipeline industry for over 30 years, and yet I recognize that with all of the scientific and technological advances made in the past 60 years it is time to move forward and take advantage of these tools. With the advent of high resolution ILI tools and the implementation of the IMP we have actual corrosion data for a segment of pipeline. Let’s incorporate this data into our compliance standard. Why expend time and resources to maintain an IR free -.850 or less with current applied to a segment of pipe that has no corrosion? With the baseline assessment nearing completion and reruns starting next year we will have accurate corrosion rates to work with. Give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent running high resolution ILI tools, give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent remediating to ASME B31.8S. Which would better ensure the safety and integrity of a section of pipeline, actual known corrosion data from an ILI or an electrical reading that at best tells us what the potential for corrosion is.

To summarize, if we are going to revise ST0169 then let’s revise it using all of the technological and scientific advances available to us today.





Kerry L. Morgan
Senior Corrosion Technologist 5037
NACE 133125

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Joeberth Belarmino comments

Mr. Bash,

I appreciate very much your effort for making this Blog site, I also have a comment regarding the NACE RP0169 they have two criteria for adequate Cathodic Protection, the -850mV instant "off" and the 100mV polarized potential but in the industry they often refer only to the -850mV criteria and mostly forgetting the other reliable criterion which is the 100mV polarized potential, I believed there should only be one criterion if we really want to make a standard, the -850mV instant "off" is a confusion with the 100mV polarized potential

Joeberth Belarmino

REE/CP tech

Thursday, July 2, 2009

We at Polyguard want to thank every one for their support and encouragment to keep this Blog site going. Though I do not always keep it up as often as I would like, We do feel it is an important issue that has not been as well publised as possible by NACE and others in the corrosion control industry.

Whether you agree or disagree with the revision, is not as important as the efforts to provide a format to "freely" discuss the issues involved with this document. At times we did not feel that format was available to many. Some do not have an opportunity nor want to face the committee and try to make their point. Small companies and operators do not always have the expertise to discuss many of the issues, yet know what they have been doing is working.

Please be sure that you get on "Join the Ballot Voting List" if you are a member of the required groups (STG 03, 05, 35 and 62). You may be able to join one of the groups before the dead line and then join the list to vote. I am not sure about this but some one at NACE will help you if needed.

I have held some of my comments about the various reasons why I am going to vote "NO" on the document, but will be glad to discuss with any of you or provide support for anyone or any company that also feels this is not a valid or good document as written.

I would like to thank the TG 360 committee and NACE for the very hard work and extra effort some have put in to get this document to this point. Whether we agree or disagree with where it is, we do all agree with the difficulty of undertaking such an important revision. What we all want is the best possible document for our industry.

Thanks again for the support,

Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.

Instructions for Joining the Ballot Voting List for SP0169

------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOIN THE BALLOT VOTING LIST (RESPOND TO THE CANVASS) FOR PROPOSED REVISION TO NACE SP0169-2007 (FORMERLY RP0169)
DEADLINE TO RESPOND: July 29, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the TCC online balloting system that allows members to join a ballot voting list.

Dear Members:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are contacting members of STGs 35, 05, and 30 regarding their desire to vote on an upcoming ballot of TG 360’s proposed revision to NACE SP0169-2007 (formerly RP0169), “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS BELOW:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 1: Please review the abstract by going to http://web.nace.org/ where you will view the NACE login page. You will be prompted to enter your user name and password. Once you have done so and are logged in, click on the tab in the upper right-hand corner titled “Committees.” Then, click on “Online Balloting” (on the right-hand column on this page). The next page you will see offers you Action Items, Results and a Logout option.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 2: The next page you will see is TCC Balloting Home.

To join a voting list, click on the Action Items button. This will take you to a listing of open Ballots, Reballots, Review and Comments, and voting lists.

Under the heading “Join Ballot Voting Lists,” find the appropriate TG number and click “Respond.”

STEP 3: To review the abstract prior to responding, click on the document title link at the top of the page.

The abstract is in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, which means you will need Acrobat Reader software on your computer. If you do not have it, you may download it FREE from the Adobe Web site,

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html

STEP 4: After reviewing the abstract, you may join the voting list or decline to join by clicking the “Back” button at the top left corner of the screen and choosing “yes” or “no” on the TCC Ballot Response page. Please remember to indicate your classification.

NOTE: The interest classifications have recently been expanded. Previously, there were only three interest classifications (user, producer, general interest), but there are now seven (user/consumer, manufacturer/producer, general interest, contractor, consultant, government/military, and research, development, and testing). Please consider these classifications carefully.

Be sure to click on the SUBMIT RESPONSE button at the bottom of the page to submit your response.

After you have submitted your response, the TCC Response Confirmation page will appear stating that your response has been recorded. In addition, you will receive an e-mail confirmation of your response.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your participation in the online process of forming a voting list.

Roy Bash comments

Richard:



The committee’s second reference under “Criteria for Steel and Cast Iron” by S.P. Ewing is considered to be a classic in literature pertaining to valid research projects for field testing CP criteria.

Dr. Ewing explains that all potentials were measured by interrupting the CP current so that the open circuit (instant-off) potential would be free of IR drop. The reference electrode was always placed on the surface of the soil directly above the buried steel pipe specimen being tested.



On page 415 of Dr. Ewing’s paper covering the test results of his field research project at the four locations in Oklahoma in 1948, outlines what he considered to be the most significant findings of his research as follows:

“The most significant findings of the test will be discussed first .The data obtained indicate that corrosion was stopped in each environment at a specific open circuit potential . These potential values varied about 0.1 volt between the different environments. They were 0.05 to 0.15 volt less (more cathodic) than the usually accepted value of -0.85 volt as measured with reference to the copper/copper sulfate electrode.”



From the above Dr. Ewing found that the open circuit (instant-off) potential criterion for CP of steel ranges from -0.70 to -0.80 volt, CSE. Please note that he considered this to be “the most significant finding of the test.



The committee lists this scientifically sound article as their second reference, supposedly in support of their position that the instant-off potential criterion for CP of steel is -850 mV, CSE.



Listing a scientifically sound article as a reference and then ignoring or outright disputing it leaves a lot to be desired concerning the best professional approach for addressing any issue being debated



The-700 to -800mV, CSE instant-off potential CP criterion for steel can easily be supported by use of long standing basic scientific principles from the textbooks. Conversely, the -850 mV, CSE instant-off potential CP criterion for steel can easily be proven to be at least -50 mV, CSE overly stringent.



As A. W. Peabody wrote in his original book, the maximum potential, CSE that can be expected on a buried

steel pipeline in natural soils and waters is –0.8 volt. This is a scientific fact that is as true today as it was when Peabody wrote it. Quoting from the second edition of the A.W. Peabody book on page 69, “Newly laid , coated steel pipelines may have an average potential in the range of -0.5 to -0.7 V, whereas old , bare steel lines may have an average potential more in the range of -0.1 to 0.3 V (CSE)”.



There just can not be any justification for NACE to produce a standards document based on buried steel pipelines reaching potentials even near -0.8 volt, CSE. In 56 years of CP practice this writer has measured only four potentials above -700 mV ,CSE on buried steel pipelines (-705mV, -706mV, -718mV, and -725mV) and all of these were on the same coated steel pipeline in 200 to 250 ohm-cm tropical rainforest soil in Suriname, South America.



Some members of the committee have noted that steel reaches a potential of 0.8 volt ,CSE or more in high pH alkaline environments, but as Peabody has written in his book, steel does not corrode in high pH environments.

Quoting Peabody from page 43 of his book, “When steel is immersed in a sufficiently caustic solution (around pH 11 and higher) it can be made to discharge current without appreciable metal loss”.



All aspects of an overly stringent CP criterion for steel are negative.



1, It offers no more assurance of corrosion control than an adequate CP criterion.

2. It increases the risk of causing corrosion damage on nearby buried or submerged metallic structures

3.It increases the risk of damaging coatings on coated pipelines.

4.It increases the risk of hydrogen damage to the steel being protected.

5. It unnecessarily increases the cost of CP.

6.It would overtly enrich (monetarily) the CP industry and NACE.



Respectfully Submitted,



L.A. (Roy) Bash, P.E.



L.A. (Roy) Bash

Global Cathodic Protection, Inc.

A CerAnode Company

P.O. Box 571507

Houston, TX 77257

5826 Schumacher Lane

Friday, June 26, 2009

Voting process correction!

Richard I am a long time NACE member and am well versed in the controversy in RP0169 and have decided not to choose sides this time around. It is interesting to see how the draft is evolving. One comment though, I think your mistaken about how you need to vote on the first ballot to vote on subseqnent versions of the document. The RP0169 committee said in Atlanta that they send out a canvas first before they ballot and if you don't respond yes to the canvas then you don't get a vote on any ballots, and that's the way other NACE ballots work. If you vote yes on the canvas then you can vote on any of the ballots.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Comments from Bill Carlson

Richard, my only comment is that I have witnessed people that take readings and place the cell as close to the anode as possible and then record an ON potential in excess of the 850, and just feet away the potential is in the tank. How can we account for this type of behavior? This by the way is not an isolated case. In the real world, we would like to think that everyone does the best job in recording potentials and looking at the effect rather than just getting a reading that makes them and their boss happy. It was not that long ago when the corrosion engineer had to fight for every dollar so he could do a good job. I would not like to see that happen again, for one I am too old and the other is it is counterproductive. I do not have a strong opinion either way, but we should be realistic. I would rather error on more protection than marginal protection. Thanks for your time. Bill



William P. Carlson

Comments from Roy Bash

Richard:



It seems that the committee’s agenda is to word 6.2.3.1.1 in such a way that the only negative 850 Mv cp criterion that will be acceptable to the regulation agencies’ representatives will be the instant-off measurement.

The committee writes that the negative 850 Mv polarized cp criterion may be measured direct. As R.A. gummow ,a member of the committee, explains in his article,” Cathodic Protection Potential Criterion For Underground Steel
Structures”,MP/November,1993 ,Page26, this can only be done by placing the CSE at the structure/electrolyte –interface or using a capillary bridge to measure the polarized potential while the cp current is being applied. The following is quoted from Mr. gummow’s article.

“to determine whether a structure is protected with respect to a potential criterion such as -0.850V,CSE, the reference electrode must either be placed directly at the structure-electrolyte interface or be electrolytically connected to the structure-electrolyte interface by a capillary bridge to determine the polarized potential while the CP current is being applied.”

It has always been accepted that the polarized potential must be measured while the CP current is being applied as Mr. Gummow makes clear in the above quotation.

The instant-off potential can never be the same as the polarized potential. The two potential measurements are close in brine water or similar highly conductive electrolytes, but in natural soils and waters they will never be close. The polarized potential will always be several to many more MV than the instant-off potential.

Respectfully Submitted,

L.A.(Roy)Bash,P.E.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Commentary on SP0169

I want make it very clear to everyone this is NOT A NACE INTERNATIONAL sponsored blog site!

The SP0169.com blog is sponsored by Polyguard Products, Inc. to allow everyone access to the discussion, information and debate about this document. This is one of the most important standard practices that NACE publishes. Therefore it is critical to get the best document possible from this process.

Polyguard has given me the time and provided the expenses and personell to develop this blog in an effort to help the pipeline idustry with this effort. We at Polyguard are very passionate about solving the issues involved with pipeline coatings that shield CP when disbondments occur. Please go to our web site at polyguardproducts.com to get more information about our pipeline coatings as well as our other corrosion control and waterproofing products.

No matter what your position is on the SP0169 revision process, especially on the critieria section, please help us all to learn from you by commenting on the document. Please take time to discuss this with others in the industry and within your company. Pass along this information to all others that may have an interest in this document.

Thank you,

Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.
214-912-9072

Commentary on SP0169

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Commentary on SP0169":

I am an end user/pipeline operator, a CP specialist, and a 20 year NACE member. As a profesional society, we have an obligation to advocate that which is technically correct. Only after that can we make allowances for 'that which works most of the time'.

I support changes to RP0169 that will bring the document to a level of technical correctness supported by state-of-the-art technical understanding about CP. The proposed revisions still allow a great deal of flexibility to use any other criterion demonstrated to work in that environment/situation. The obligation of proof is, however, appropriately delegated to the user wishing to make exceptions to the technical rule.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Other comments on TM0497":

I have worked for a pipeline distribution company since 1988 in the corrosion department. We have both rectified and galvanic CP systems with various test point types. We were taught to keep the half cell as close to the pipe as possible while getting CP reads. Most of our test points were coated, steel risers so we would put the half cell next to the riser when getting reads. This minimizes IR drop, especially in the soil type we have which runs around the 3,000 ohm-cm range. We have always used the -850 mv criteria. While attending NACE courses, the instructors said that the more critical CP reading is around the -800 mv range but they somewhat account for the IR drop factor and used -850 mv. There are coated pipelines in our system that were installed in the early 1950's with CP on it from day one and I have only seen a few corrosion leaks which were due to interference situations. The key is to fix CP system shorts ASAP, have more test points than you think you need and get the readings as close to the structure in damp soil as possible.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Update, June 14, 2009

Too All NACE Members Concerned about the revision of SP0169-2007:

As we travel down the revision path for the SP0169 there are times when we do not know what is happening in the process. I will assume that at this time we are waiting on the final revision from the TG 360 committee to NACE to prepare the document for vote. I have not heard yet from anyone on the progress.

The important thing at this time is to make sure EVERYONE who wants to vote on this document is signed up as a member of the STG 35 group. If they are not signed up on this or other sponsoring committees, then they will not have an opportunity to vote on this critical industry document.

Another critical thing to keep in mind is that you must vote on the first ballot in order to be able to vote on each revision of the document in this particular voting regime. Once the voting begins you must have voted on the original ballot, so please vote and make sure everyone else who may have an interest votes on this document.

When you vote there are some things that are important.

If you vote “YES”, you do not have to provide comments or reasoning. You may make editorial comments, but not technical changes.

If you vote “Abstain”, you do not have to provide comments or reasoning.

If you vote “NO”, you MUST provide technical reasons and provide an alternative to the proposed statement or section. It is not easy to vote “NO”.

You must also provide your “interest classification”.

Below is some of the information from the balloting process that you need to be familiar with before you start the voting. I hope this helps you to better understand the process. Please let me or someone at NACE International know if you are having any problems with understanding the process no matter what document you may be voting on.

Voting information:

Affirmative - The voter may note perceived editorial errors and their corrections.

Negative - Negative votes (1) must be accompanied by a written comment relevant to the portion of the document being balloted, preferably including a technical explanation and justification and (2) must include a suggested revision or action that would serve to resolve the negative.

Abstaining - Abstaining is for persons who are unable to or not prepared to review the document, or who do not feel qualified to vote.

Editorial Comment

Please limit editorial comments entered here to about 10 lines (750 characters). If you want to include a longer comment, please attach a file to an e-mail or click the link "Upload an editorial comment" that will appear after you submit your vote. If sending e-mail, be sure to include your name, NACE number, the ballot's task group number, and the document number if available.

Technical Comment

If a negative vote has been cast on this document, the vote must (1) be accompanied by a written comment relevant to the portion of the document being balloted, preferably including a technical explanation and justification, and (2) include a suggested revision or action that would serve to resolve the negative.

The committee is not required to consider negative votes that are (1) without comments or (2) accompanied by comments not related to the proposal under consideration, i.e., the revisions or draft being balloted. Such votes shall be recorded as "negative without comments" without further notice to the voter. Comments will not be solicited from the voter, and such votes will not be recirculated to the STG(s).

Please limit technical comments entered here to about 20 lines (1500 characters). If you want to include a longer comment, please attach a file to an e-mail or click the link "Upload a technical comment" that will appear after you submit your vote. If sending e-mail, be sure to include your name, NACE number, the ballot's task group number, and the document number if available.

Interest Classification

In relation to the subject matter of this document, please check your classification. You must fit one of these categories. If too many voters (over 50%) are from one interest classification vote then the document will be sent to more voters from other categories to try to get them to vote. Not sure that is the best thing, but those are the rules. I am not the expert on this issue so you should go to the NACE International web site and read the procedures for voting to ensure you understand.

User/Consumer - A person who purchases or uses materials, products, systems, or services addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a User/Consumer provided that he/she could not be classified as a Manufacturer/Producer.
Manufacturer/Producer - A person who produces or sells materials, products, systems, or services addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a Manufacturer/Producer.
General Interest - A person who does not fit the definitions of any of the other interest classifications shall be classified as General Interest.
Consultant - A person who provides consulting services such as the evaluation or specification of materials, products, requirements, methods, or systems addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a Consultant.
Contractor - A person who engineers, applies, or installs, but does not produce materials, products, or systems addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a Contractor.
Government/Military - A person employed by a government agency or by the Military shall be classified as Government/Military.
Research/Development/Testing - A person who conducts research and development or provides testing services related to the content of the proposed publication shall be classified under Research/Development/Testing.


Here are some recent comments from some of the others:

Thank you for doing this Richard! I appreciate it…. Comments from Corrosion Supervisor of a large gas distribution company.

Richard that committee is determined to turn a blind eye to facts. No hope.
Sad Day for NACE
Comments from a large gas transportation company.

Thank you for the information Richard.
Comments for oil and gas transportation company.

Thanks, Richard
Comments from Saudi Arabia.

It is very interesting that the committee seems bound to a few who are not (for the most part) end users of this document. Even though there have been many presentations and considerable information given to the committee, they have not budged from the original attempts starting in about 2002 to revise the criteria section to basically eliminate the “ON” -850 mV criterion. They may as well put it out to ballot and see what happens. Let’s just hope that there is a “fair” process for those who wish to vote negative and not just have the document forced upon the industry with only a few “intelligent” folks providing the guidance to those of us who do not know!
Comments from a concerned NACE member.

One of the bits of information that has not been presented, but is proof that the -850 mV “ON” criterion is adequate with few exceptions is to compare the percentage of times you meet the 100 mV of polarization as well as having an “ON” -850 mV or more negative potential. Please look at your data to compare these potentials. You may be surprised to see the percentage of times you meet the both. From my experience, the number will be close to 100% that if you have a -850 mV or more negative “ON” potential, you will also meet or exceed the 100 mV criterion. If this is true, then this is great evidence that the -850mV “ON” potential is valid in most environments, with few exceptions!

If your company can provide such evidence to the committee, to me or the PRCI committee, it will help resolve this issue. We should be able to define those areas where the polarized potential or 100 mV criteria will be the way to go.

Thank you very much for the interest and comments from each of you! I encourage every one to comment no matter which way you consider is best! If there is ever a way that I or Polyguard Products can help you or your company with these matters or other corrosion control issues, please let me know.

Thank you,

Richard Norsworthy
richnors@flash.net