Monday, February 22, 2010

Comments from Dale Temple

February 22, 2010
NACE International
Dear Sirs:
Re: NACE Proposed SP0169-2007, Draft #2C
The vote for Dale Temple on the referenced document is negative for the
following reasons: (CP criteria comments to be added before sending).
Section 5: External Coatings
Clause 5.1.2.1
These are mother hood statements and are not a characteristic or property. For
example is FBE really an effective moisture barrier or the fact that it absorbs
water a positive attribute for not shielding cathodic protection. This section
needs to be reviewed and rewritten with realistic clearly defined characteristics.
To date all coatings deteriorate with time and at different rates so we doubt that
any coating in meeting this list of “desirable attributes”.
Clause 5.1.2.2.9
Why are coating costs provided as a factor and cost is not a factor to be taken
into consideration for choosing a CP criteria? This is inconsistent logic between
sections of the document.
Clauses 5.1.3.2.1 & 5.1.3.2.4
There is inconsistency between clause 5.1.2.1 and clause 5.1.3.2. For example
when applying mechanical FBE over a anti-corrosion FBE, why wouldn’t all the
“desirable attributes” of clause 5.1.2.1 be applicable? Clause 5.1.2.2.1 and
5.1.3.2.4 are “desirable attributes” that should be included in clause 5.1.2.1.
Section 5 tables
We do not have all of the referenced standards and wonder why ISO and
Australian and New Zealand standards were not included? We cannot go
through all the standards and the following are errors that we know to exist in
the existing Tables. Based on the following NACE must go through these
COATING INTEGRITY SERVICES INC.
Coating Integrity Services Inc.
1206 4th Street N.W.
Calgary, AB T2M 2Y5
Phone: (403) 230-5597
Email: DaleTemple@nucleus.com
standards and ensure they correctly placed in the right table (s) and table
section(s).
Table 1a
CSA Z245.20 does not provide any practices for liquid-epoxy (tests or
properties).
CSA Z245.21 does not provide any practices for polypropylene (tests or
properties) and is not included in any nature.
CSA Z245.20 does not provide any practices for polyurethane (tests or
properties) and is not included in any nature.
Table 2
Why was CSA Z245.21 not included as it is referenced in Table 1a?
Table 3
Why was CSA Z245.21 not included as it is referenced in Table 1a
Table 4a
CSA Z245.20 does not have any special requirements for application of coating
over the ditch and is limited scope to pipe coated in a mill only.
Why was CSA Z245.21 not included as it is referenced in Table 1a and is Z245.21
for mill applied polyethylene coatings applied to pipe.
Table 4b
Why was CSA Z245.21 not included as it is referenced in Table 1a and is Z245.21
for mill applied polyethylene coatings applied to pipe.
CSA Z245.20 does not have any special requirements for joint coatings and field
repairs and is limited in scope to pipe coated in a mill only.
Table 5
This table is technically incomplete and in error.
Where do you run a cathodic disbondment test on an in-service pipeline?
Other methods include in-line inspections, indirect methods, and direct methods
such as bell holes or “day lighting” the pipe/coating. For example refer to clause
5.3.1.1 and 5.3.1.2 of the draft document.
Clause 5.2.3.6
Now all or a sudden the draft coating section is very specific about rock sizes.
Rock sizes depend on many other issues with coating only being one of the
concerns. Other concerns are stress created by anchoring or backfill size etc.
The rock size (clause 5.2.3.6.1) is not the limiting factor it is the impact energy,
mass of rock and drop height. What about if we have a three layered
polypropylene coating system would it not absorb more energy than a 14 mil
thick FBE coating?
Does NACE have back-up science for this 100 mm distance or is this just some
Companies internal practice?
Yours truly,
COATING INTEGRITY SERVICES INC.
Dale Temple
Per: Dale Temple (President)

No comments: