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

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

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.