Criteria in Crisis

CRITERIA IN CRISIS

From all that I can gather from the TG 360 committee, there is apparently a stalemate on the committee. This is very disappointing. From what I have heard, the problem is still the refusal of some on the committee to allow the use of the “ON” -850 mV criterion in the new document. They simply want to completely do away with this criterion, no matter what others have presented, proven or experienced.

The plan was to have another vote before CTW so the results could be discussed, etc. Now it appears this is not going to happen. Why? I am sure Jim will explain it to us and we will know what they are planning for the future.

I feel that there is a movement by some to stall the document in an attempt to force NACE to withdraw the SP0169 altogether and force the use of the ISO standard onto the world. The SP0169 is the first document every published by NACE and it will be an injustice to NACE and NACE membership to allow this to happen! This standard has been and is still used around the world today as the referenced industry standard in nearly all the others that are used. Do we as NACE want to allow this to go away or do we stand up and start the process in a direction to get it resolved?

What is amazing to me is the fact that the straw poll from this summer showed that almost 80% of those who voted in the poll would vote yes for the SP0169 if they would just leave the criterion as stated in the SP0169-2007, yet some on the committee are bound and determined to force their views or else. NACE documents are compromise documents that allow all who want to vote and comment to do so. I do not know of any standards that everyone totally agrees with.

The time has come for all who are interested in this document to take a stance! We have a choice:

1. Let it die and start using the ISO standard ( which I do not agree with and will explain later)
2. Force the committee to bring the document to vote with SP0169-2007 wording for criteria
3. Disband the TG 360 and start over
4. Replace some on the committee and move forward

#1
The problem with the ISO standards is that they are developed by a few folks and voted on and controlled by a select committee. Most of us would never get to voice an opinion or vote on these documents. NACE at least allows anyone to vote (if you sign up on the voting ballot list) and then to provide input and comments to defend your position. As with most things in life, this is not a perfect system, but I think offers a much better way of producing a document that is the best overall for our industry. When only a few select folks (who may have certain agendas) are allowed to produce these standards we are limited to their views and experiences only. If they are elitist in attitude, then the rest of us do not count.

#2
I think we need take the SP0169 – 2007 version of the criteria with most of the other changes and allow it to go to vote. Why did they even do the Straw Poll if they are not going to use the information! Folks have become accustom too this version of the criteria and are willing to move forward. There are those who insist that we no longer have an “ON” criterion in the SP0169, therefore they are right and everyone else is wrong.

#3
Maybe it is time to disband the committee that we now have and start over. Apparently, there are those who will not compromise and refuse to allow the document to go forward unless they get their way. I think most of us have been willing to listen, learn and in some case compromise to move the document forward. I am not the expert on laws of NACE committees, but something must be done to break this stalemate.

#4
Maybe it is time for Jim Chmilar to replace some on the committee to allow the document to go forward. Certainly these folks will vote negative if the document passes with the criteria as in the 2007 version, but if we can get the 66 2/3 vote, then we can at least move forward and address the negatives and try to get these resolved.

I also believe that some are hoping that we get tired and just give up. Please do not do this! This is too critical of a standard for us to allow to die or to not get the best document possible. Keep up the work and the commitment to providing the industry with a NACE document that will for all to us and provide efficient, effective and economical external corrosion control to our pipelines around the world!

I strongly encourage all to who are concerned as I am with this issue to please e-mail those at NACE and those on the committee with your thoughts and concerns. I am providing e-mails for the ones that you should contact. Some of these may not be on the committee any more, but this is the list that is posted on the NACE website. I will also include those at NACE that are important in the resolving this issue.

If you have any say in this process, no matter how you voted or even if you voted, please forward you comments and concerns to the committee and NACE! Pass this along to others in your company, who may need the information, want to comment or have clout to help this document along!

NACE contacts

Linda.Goldberg@nace.org
daniela.matthews@nace.org

Technology Coordinator
Ernest Klechka - eklechka@schiffassociates.com

STG 35 Chair
Steve Biagiotti, Jr. – sbiagiotti@structint.com
STG 35 Vice Chair
Roy Fultineer - rfultineer@eQt.com

If any of you know of others who need to be contacted please pass the information along to the rest of us. I will post this information on SP0169.com blog site for all to have access too.

There are a few of the TG 360 committee members that I do not have e-mail addresses for at this time. If any of you have contact e-mails for these folks please pass these along.

Name Title Member Since
Mark Brogger
Member 9/24/2007
James Chmilar jimchm@telus.net
Chair 10/17/2006
Robert Gummow bgummow@correng.com
Member 10/17/2006
Kimberly-Joy Harris kimberly.harris@enbridge.com
Member 10/18/2006
Gerald Holton Jr jerry@spc-net.com
Member 7/14/2008
Naeem Khan
Member 10/18/2006
David Kroon
Member 10/17/2006
Mark Lauber mlauber@lacledegas.com
Member 10/18/2006
Joseph Mataich joseph.mataich@dot.gov
Member 8/20/2007
Matt Matlas
Member 1/7/2010
David McQuilling David.McQuilling@sug.com
Member 1/7/2010
Richard Mielke, P.E. rmielke@nwpipe.com
Member 12/11/2007
Norman Moriber norm.moriber@mears.net
Member 10/17/2006
Richard Newell rnewell@wsscwater.com
Member 1/7/2010
Paul Nichols paul.r.nichols@shell.com
Member 10/17/2006
Frank Perry
Member 10/18/2006
Marcel Roche marcel.roche@orange.fr
Member 10/18/2006
Travis Sera tsera@semprautilities.com
Vice Chair 7/14/2008
Neil Thompson Neil.Thompson@dnv.com
Member 10/18/2006
Robert Vail
Member 10/17/2006
Brian Wyatt
Member 10/17/2006

This has become an urgent matter that needs to be addressed. Please post your thoughts on the blog site for all to view as well as e-mailing them to those on the committee and NACE. I urge all to do so. We need reasons and comments from all sides so we can arrive at the best overall document possible for our industry and that takes everyone’s input.

Thanks for the participation and time. DO NOT GIVE UP ON THIS PROCESS OR THE DOCUMENT. I hope the committee can move forward with our help and comments.

Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.