William Tessier comments

“The still small voice in your head must be the final arbiter when there is a conflict of duty.” –Mahatmas Gandhi

The recent discussions and debates concerning the -0.850mv “On” or “Instant Off” necessitate the need for additional dialogue among all members of the NACE family. With this brief article, I hope to encourage members throughout NACE, regardless of the position held, to let their thoughts and concerns be known as well as describe my own position.
Over forty years ago, NACE had developed a Standard Practice to offer direction for corrosion professionals around the world in determining the success of their corrosion control efforts. This Practice has also provided guidance to the U.S. federal government and other entities in their rulemaking efforts as well.
I have not aware of any compelling reasons to modify the Practice. It was created, I believe, to offer a guideline, not a de facto law of physics to say corrosion was or was not occurring. Many of us can recite numerous occasions where, despite adequate cathodic protection according to the Practice, corrosion has occurred. Perhaps equally so, narratives are abundant stating the absence of corrosion when these parameters are not met. As with any scientific theory, the status quo needs to be accepted until, and if, unequivocal evidence is given to dispute it.
Regardless of the NACE members’ propensity towards one theory or the other, one point is clear. That point is to investigate thoroughly, and mitigate to the best of their ability, any system or structure under their responsibility. The "letter" of the law must be followed consciously; the “spirit” of the law must be approached with integrity, dignity and personal conviction. This is the reason for the quote above. We need to comply with the laws that govern our industry but it is imperative to rectify any situation that is identified as having a corrosive environ whether that situation does or does not meet the “magic” -0.850 mv “On” or “Off”.
We, as corrosion control professionals and NACE members, have the ethical obligation to determine that if a system or structure is in a corrosive environment, proper prompt remedial action is taken. As leaders in a very challenging field, we must take this occasion presented from NACE and examine the different aspect of this Practice and comment accordingly. Having been acquainted with other industry specific Associations and realizing that it seldom happens; I would like members to take moment to appreciate this gift of empowerment that NACE and the Committee has bestowed upon us. Together, we will remain the principle voice in the continuous struggle to protect our environment, our communities and our assets from the devastating effects of corrosion.
My statements are not intended to discourage debate but to promote a discussion where we, as dedicated corrosion control professionals, can arrive at an acceptable solution. I propose NACE and the associated Committee, according to the established bylaws, to vote among the Committee members for acceptance or rejection of the proposed revision. If, however, the vote does not achieve a two thirds (super) majority, perhaps a vote from all NACE members can be incorporated. The process of the solicitation and receipt of votes should be relatively brief, possibly two months, and any revisions accepted or rejected according to a simple majority. If irrefutable evidence introduced in the future is vetted and accepted by a simple majority of NACE members, then, like the U.S. Constitution, the Standard can, and should be, amended.
I would like to thank everyone for allowing me the opportunity to convey my opinions on this very important topic.
Regards,
William Tessier –NACE Senior Corrosion Technologist
NACE Internal Corrosion Technologist