tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71610872873187494862024-03-18T22:21:46.673-05:00The SP0169 BlogSP0169.com provides updates and a format for discussing the issues with this NACE International Standard. Review and comment on proposed changes, how it may affect your company, community and job, problems that may be solved or created with the proposed changes, best practice for resolving these issues.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-84621946192052968172013-08-07T15:25:00.002-05:002013-08-07T15:25:07.832-05:00
The letter information below was sent from Tom Weber, TCC Chair. This is a cut and paste copy so please refer to the original letter if possible for all those involved in the process.
I think it is important to keep everyone informed on the critical standard and since many of you are not on the voting list, you may not have received this information.
Richard Norsworthy
August 7, 2013
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-16495325509235102542013-08-07T15:00:00.000-05:002013-08-07T15:00:06.975-05:00Arbitration Board Report
Technical Coordination Committee
NACE SP0169-2007 Proposed Revision
“Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping
Systems”
Conclusion and Recommendations
It is the conclusion of the Arbitration Board(AB)that NACE procedures for document preparation and
balloting were followed for SP0169-2007 Revision as outlined in the NACE Technical Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-21921552756778124392013-03-12T09:12:00.001-05:002013-03-12T09:12:31.100-05:00All,
Just wanted to update everyone on what is going to happen at CORROSION 2013. There will be an Arbitration Board meeting on Tuesday (March 19) afternoon with the TG 360 Chair, TG 360 Vice Chair, STG 35 Chair, TMG C2 Technical Coordinator and the four Appellants to discuss the revision process used in the last revision of the SP0169. No one knows what the decision is or what has been Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-17326652036048019522012-10-09T12:15:00.000-05:002012-10-09T12:15:14.251-05:00Update on appeal processJust a quick update on the SP0169-2007 revision. The document is with the three members of the Appeal Panel set up by the TCC Chair. They did meet at CTW, but this of course is a closed meeting. The hope is that there will be decision soon from this Panel. I am not sure who is on the Appeal Panel.
Everyone is hoping for a decision before the end of the year so the TG 360 committee can Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-48934473088725327932012-03-27T15:48:00.000-05:002012-03-27T15:48:31.925-05:00NACE Testing Non-Shielding Properties Rev 5NACE Testing Non-shielding Properties Rev 5Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-76425409367157831622012-03-26T20:36:00.000-05:002012-03-26T20:36:36.698-05:00SP0169 Revision NoticeI just wanted to make a quick report on CORROSION 2012 for those of you could not be there or attend the TG 360 committee.First,It was a great conference in Salt Lake City, Utah last week. NACE International did a very good job with the conference and the weather was great! Make plans for CORROSION 2013 in Orlando, FL.TG-360The TG 360 committee had a meeting on Tuesday morning to Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-54689766313368655462012-03-07T09:07:00.000-06:002012-03-07T09:07:37.464-06:00NACE 2012
CORROSION 2012 AGENDA
TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE GROUP 463x
“Cathodic Protection Shielding and Root Causes of External Corrosion of Cathodically Protected Pipelines”
ASSIGNMENT:&Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-4845173519849564342012-01-09T18:57:00.000-06:002012-01-09T18:57:06.054-06:00Review of CP Criteria in Five StandardsFurther to the discussion of CP criteria there is a very good article in the Pipeline and Gas Journal (December 2011) that discusses the various industry standards and compares one to the other.
This article is written by Fengmei Song and Hui Yu. They have done a very good job of providing the infromation as well as providing so very good comments concerning the criteria contained in each.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-33114252438694935712012-01-09T15:55:00.000-06:002012-01-09T15:55:21.707-06:00Revision UpdateSP0169 – 2007 Revision Update
The TG 360 Committee has been working hard on addressing the negative ballots from the last vote. The most recent information says at this time the changes are being considered as “editorial”. If this turns out to be true, this means that the document would not have to be re-balloted! It will have to be approved and checked for to be sure it meets Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-3729635129555767062011-11-26T17:25:00.000-06:002011-11-26T17:25:30.367-06:00NACE and ISO is this what we want?
NACE AND ISO
There are several concerns related to the issue of NACE International’s adoption of ISO Standards as the representative standard for the industry. There are times when this may be the best way to help the industry, but at this time there is little if any information that has been provided the general public of NACE. If NACE is to continue to pursue this avenue of Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-40046909347953393382011-10-10T15:53:00.000-05:002011-10-10T15:53:54.258-05:00October 2011 updateThe TG 360 committee met at Corrosion Technology Week in Las Vegas to discuss the last vote on the SP0169 revision. As indicated before the document now has a 90.2% approval, so the committee can now move forward with addressing all the negatives and comments.
My feeling from the portion of the meeting that I was able to attend, was that most of the negatives were getting Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-9953095891206753172011-08-01T11:15:00.000-05:002011-08-01T11:15:25.810-05:00Jim Jenkins comments"The -850 mV criterion for cathodic protection of steel is with respect to a copper-copper sulfate reference electrode. As the potential of the reference electrode changes with temperature, it is appropriate to state the reference electrode temperature at which the -850 mV is applicable. This is not explicitly contained in the proposed standard."
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-5915106452824766502011-07-28T17:32:00.000-05:002011-07-28T17:32:27.618-05:00Re-posted commentsComments for SP0169 Re-ballot July 2011
Coating: (1) A liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition that, after application to a surface, is converted into a solid protective, decorative, or functional adherent film; (2) (in a more general sense) a thin layer of solid material on a surface that provides improved protective, decorative, or functional properties. For the purposes of this standard, ―Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-33596990106319989372011-07-28T14:46:00.008-05:002011-10-07T12:27:08.303-05:00Comments on SP0169 Re- Ballot - July 2011Richard Norsworthy's Comments for SP0169 Re-ballot July 2011
Coating: (1) A liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition that, after application to a surface, is converted into a solid protective, decorative, or functional adherent film; (2) (in a more general sense) a thin layer of solid material on a surface that provides improved protective, decorative, or functional properties. For the Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-67626012456097268502011-04-26T21:18:00.000-05:002011-04-26T21:18:14.554-05:00Link to SCC and CP reportBelow is a link to a very good report that gives great information on the potential problems with stress corrosion cracking and cathodic protection levels on higher strength steels. This has been a real concern of some in the industry as we move to more negative potentials to acheive criteria as in the polarized -850 mV criterion.
The move is toward higher strength steels because of the cost Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-24445110264518328602011-03-27T22:01:00.000-05:002011-03-27T22:01:49.430-05:00Udate on CORROSION 2011/SP0169UPDATE ON TG-360 COMMITTEE MEETING - MARCH 15, 2011
NACE SP0169-2007 REVISION
Draft # 3D January 2011
The TG 360 committee meeting on March 15 at CORROSION 2011 presented us with a new version of the document that addressed many of the negatives from the most recent ballot. I like most of the changes made to the document. The committee worked on more changes during the meeting, but hopefullyUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-50246308252135022352011-01-01T21:25:00.000-06:002011-01-01T21:25:18.135-06:00Further comments on Mr. Gummow's articleFurther comments on Mr. Gummow’s article:
As the various comments start coming in concerning Mr. Gummow’s article and my response, I thought a little follow up would be good.
First, I want to acknowledge that Bob has written a very good article that all should read. If you did not get the magazine, you can find the article by going to www.pgjonline.com. It is in the November 2010 issue. EvenUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-62717120626461518572010-12-13T17:05:00.000-06:002010-12-13T17:05:25.530-06:00Response to Gummow ArticleRESPONSE TO BOB GUMMOW ARTICLE IN PIPELINE AND GAS JOURNAL
November 2010
R. A. (Bob) Gummow has written a very good article “Examining The Controversy Surrounding The -850 mV CP Criteria” that is published in the November 2010 Pipeline and Gas Journal. As usual Bob does a very good job of making his points while barely mentioning some well-known “facts” that do not quite fit his theory and Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-76950604475921865942010-10-07T14:45:00.000-05:002010-10-07T14:45:52.784-05:00How Instant is InstantFor thosw of you who are concerned about the process of taking accurate "so called" instnat off potentials, the is a very good article in the Journal of Corrosion Sceince and Engineering that helps to explain the issues surrounding this problem.
Please go to the www.jcse.org and search around until you find a copy. It is a very good paper that should be in stack of references, etc.
Once Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-36414375161044229812010-09-26T20:19:00.000-05:002010-09-26T20:19:42.318-05:00Results of SP0169 vote 9-22-2010For results of the most recent vote results go to the NACE website under committees, then look for the "On Line Balloting" and click on it. It will ask you for your login information and password. Then the TCC Balloting Home screen will be there. Chose the "Results" and go to page 11. Under the TG 360 be sure to take the one that dated 9-22-2010.
There you can see all the information on how Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-4915066504144978032010-09-03T11:10:00.000-05:002010-09-03T11:10:15.204-05:00Comments with Richard's affirmative voteComments to TG 360 Committee – Ballot August 2010
Definitions:
Coating: (1) A liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition that, after application to a surface, is converted into a solid protective, decorative, or functional adherent film; (2) (in a more general sense) a thin layer of solid material on a surface that provides improved protective, decorative, or functional properties. For the Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-19996953173096074272010-09-01T22:40:00.000-05:002010-09-01T22:40:47.881-05:00Richard Norsworthy's comments on August 2010 versionAt this time I believe this is a copy that I will vote affirmative. There are some areas that need help, but this is the most reasonable version I have seen. There are some excellent changes and improvements in the overall document.
Please take time to review the document and vote as you feel neccessary, but please vote. If you vote affirmative, you can provide comments for the areas that Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-59796254478130499902010-09-01T22:31:00.002-05:002010-09-01T22:31:36.149-05:00William 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 Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-65212981286299880802010-08-27T18:08:00.000-05:002010-08-27T18:08:40.368-05:00Removal of the copy of the past SP0169 revisionI was asked by NACE to remove the posted copy of the last version of the SP0169. Apparently, there is some clause that I did not read or pay any attention to. My fault and I gladly removed it.
My feeling was that those who are not on the voting ballot list should be able to see and comment on the document. I think you can go through the NACE web site under committees and eventually see a copyUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7161087287318749486.post-37593418614944591232010-08-27T17:59:00.002-05:002010-08-27T17:59:16.885-05:00Comments from George FernandezRichard,
I have indirectly been involved with the new stance of what criteria we should follow to ensure our pipeline is cathodically protected and safe. I have been in the business for about 26 years and I don’t know everything about corrosion that I should but I do know something about pipelines in general and especially the pipeline I’m in charge of. Our group takes care of about 1900 miles Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0