Either way can have a negative outcome
If we vote negative because of the changes, it can allow NACE to start immediately revising TM0497 based on the current proposed/revised SP0169 (since TM0497 was not reaffirmed), which I believe will completely remove the -850 mV “On” criterion from the picture (both from SP0169 & from TM0497). If we vote affirmative, then the potentially detrimental (weakening) changes will go forward. However, there will be a longer (lag) time, before any further revisions are made to TM0497, while they wait on the results of the SP0169 balloting process. At least reasonable portions of the -850 mV “On” criterion approach will remain in TM0497 for a time.
I haven’t completely thought it all through yet. At first glance at this moment, I would have a tendency to vote affirmative and then send NACE a note/letter stating that I believe the changes and the balloting were inappropriate, noting that I believe part of the changes constituted technical, not editorial, changes and, therefore, the whole voting/balloting process should be nullified/discarded.
Monday, December 8, 2008
More Comment on TM0497
Question:
If we vote "Affirmative", are we agreeing with the changes they are proposing to TM0497?
Should we vote "negative" and try to keep the original document without the proposed changes?
I didn't completely understand the comments on the blog. Is that person saying to vote negative?
I have already submitted my vote, but it appears that it will let you change your vote. I would guess that you can change it until Dec. 9.
If we vote "Affirmative", are we agreeing with the changes they are proposing to TM0497?
Should we vote "negative" and try to keep the original document without the proposed changes?
I didn't completely understand the comments on the blog. Is that person saying to vote negative?
I have already submitted my vote, but it appears that it will let you change your vote. I would guess that you can change it until Dec. 9.
Other comments on TM0497
I couldn’t disagree more.
There are subtle but significant changes to TM0497 that weaken this document and constitute technical not editorial changes. NACE by-laws do not allow reaffirmation of standards if technical changes have been made.
I have requested that NACE suspend balloting and am awaiting a decision on this matter.
Some have requested that NACE postpone any changes to TM0497 until SP0169 is resolved. I support this effort, as the documents are complimentary. If TM0497 is to be reaffirmed, it should be done without changes in the same manner that SP0169 was reaffirmed.
There are subtle but significant changes to TM0497 that weaken this document and constitute technical not editorial changes. NACE by-laws do not allow reaffirmation of standards if technical changes have been made.
I have requested that NACE suspend balloting and am awaiting a decision on this matter.
Some have requested that NACE postpone any changes to TM0497 until SP0169 is resolved. I support this effort, as the documents are complimentary. If TM0497 is to be reaffirmed, it should be done without changes in the same manner that SP0169 was reaffirmed.
Jim Chmilar comments
Richard, IF you do not agree with the “document as is” then I do not understand how you can vote to re-affirm?
I, myself believe the document needs to be improved TODAY and will be voting to not re-affirm it, because it needs additional information on measurement techniques and that does not depend on the state of SP0169.
The present draft version of the revisions to SP0169 (which is still in TG 360 committee draft stage as everyone knows) I believe does expand the criteria to include the new one that some are proposing, ie a potential valve of –850 mV without consideration or correction for IR drop. Please read all of section 6.2.3.1 which includes a listing of FOUR criteria in 6.2.3.1.1 to 6.2.3.1.4 and in particular 6.2.3.1.3 which is proposed to say “Criteria that have been shown to successfully control corrosion on piping systems can continue to be used on those piping systems” and 6.2.3.1.4 “Other criteria that can be demonstrated to achieve the corrosion control objectives of the operator.” Do these two criteria not allow all those who have been using 850 ON without any correction, or 300 Millivolt shift, or E log I to be in-compliance with the standard?? No need to answer this now, I am sure I will be hearing it when the SP0169 ballot comes out.
It is time for well wishes and hope everybody enjoys the coming Christmas Season.
Cheers
Jim Chmilar
I, myself believe the document needs to be improved TODAY and will be voting to not re-affirm it, because it needs additional information on measurement techniques and that does not depend on the state of SP0169.
The present draft version of the revisions to SP0169 (which is still in TG 360 committee draft stage as everyone knows) I believe does expand the criteria to include the new one that some are proposing, ie a potential valve of –850 mV without consideration or correction for IR drop. Please read all of section 6.2.3.1 which includes a listing of FOUR criteria in 6.2.3.1.1 to 6.2.3.1.4 and in particular 6.2.3.1.3 which is proposed to say “Criteria that have been shown to successfully control corrosion on piping systems can continue to be used on those piping systems” and 6.2.3.1.4 “Other criteria that can be demonstrated to achieve the corrosion control objectives of the operator.” Do these two criteria not allow all those who have been using 850 ON without any correction, or 300 Millivolt shift, or E log I to be in-compliance with the standard?? No need to answer this now, I am sure I will be hearing it when the SP0169 ballot comes out.
It is time for well wishes and hope everybody enjoys the coming Christmas Season.
Cheers
Jim Chmilar
Friday, December 5, 2008
TM0497 and SP0169 comments
It would seem that Jim Chmilar (TG-360 Chairman) intends to go out for ballot on the proposed/revised SP0169, before CORROSION 2009. There are many who do not believe in Jim’s version of what the “FOUR criteria” will allow. Those individuals believe the facts remain that the -850 mV “On” criterion has been removed, only the -850 mV “polarized” (actually instant-off) and the 100 mV polarization criteria remain in black and white, the regulators and other auditors will only want to deal with black and white, and other wording (and lack of wording) within the proposed/revised SP0169, as well as the yet-to-be-created proposed/revised TM0497, along with the most likely perceived ambiguity of the 3rd and 4th “criteria” in the proposed/revised SP0169, will almost certainly make it virtually impossible to ever utilize the -850 mV “On” criterion or any other alternative criterion. In other words, there are many who believe that only the -850 mV “polarized” and the 100 mV polarization criteria will end up being allowed.
Everyone does need to read the proposed/revised SP0169 very, very carefully. It is the belief of a number of individuals that everyone needs to formally insist the PRCI studies be completed, fully reviewed and incorporated, before the proposed/revised SP0169 goes to ballot. In addition, they believe that everyone should formally insist that the proposed/revised SP0169 and proposed/revised TM0497 go to ballot simultaneously, once both of these proposed revisions have been completed and appropriate changes/incorporations have been made to both based on the PRCI studies, as well as the consensus determinations of the industries most affected by these documents. These are both supposed to be consensus documents. It appears there are many who believe that objective is not truly being achieved.
Everyone does need to read the proposed/revised SP0169 very, very carefully. It is the belief of a number of individuals that everyone needs to formally insist the PRCI studies be completed, fully reviewed and incorporated, before the proposed/revised SP0169 goes to ballot. In addition, they believe that everyone should formally insist that the proposed/revised SP0169 and proposed/revised TM0497 go to ballot simultaneously, once both of these proposed revisions have been completed and appropriate changes/incorporations have been made to both based on the PRCI studies, as well as the consensus determinations of the industries most affected by these documents. These are both supposed to be consensus documents. It appears there are many who believe that objective is not truly being achieved.
TM0497-Reaffirmation
I strongly disagree with your position that proposed changes discussed in my original correspondence do not constitute technical changes to TM0497.
If the procedure to assess the adequacy of cathodic protection using the 850 mV Current Applied Criterion (Method 1) is modified as proposed, the tone / intent of TM0497 changes. In light of the ongoing debate within NACE over the 850 mV Current Applied Criterion and the omission of this verbiage from the working draft of SP0169, these changes would be proclaimed by some as a clear message that NACE no longer considers these techniques to be valid.
I agree with the proposal from Mark Brogger – let the dust settle on SP0169 and then let’s work on TM-0497. Until then, reaffirm as written.
Additional instances of technical changes are as follows.
· Section 8.6.3 (b) has been changed, but this change is not highlighted in the document. This omission is reason enough to pull the ballot, as members are only asked to review changes. It also raises the question as to how many other changes were not highlighted in the document.
The proposed text is as follows:
8.6.3 Cathodic protection shall be judged adequate at the test site if: (a) The pipe-to-electrolyte potential measurement is negative 850 mV, or more negative, with respect to a CSE; and (b) The significance of voltage drops has been considered by applying the principles described in Paragraphs 8.6.1 (reference Paragraph 1.3 for exceptions).
The current text is as follows:
8.6.3 Cathodic protection shall be judged adequate at the test site if: (a) The pipe-to-electrolyte potential measurement is negative 850 mV, or more negative, with respect to a CSE; and (b) The significance of voltage drops has been considered by applying the principles described in Paragraphs 8.6.1 or 8.6.2.
Paragraph 8.6.2 discusses physical evidence of corrosion which relates to Item (d) Determining whether there is physical evidence of corrosion contained in the Note in Section 8.1 and also in SP0169. Deletion of both is a major technical change to TM0497.
The most widespread impact of this change would relate to the use of ILI data to consider the significance of voltage drops in accordance with 8.6.2 (c). Section 8.6.3 of TM0497 currently allows an operator to judge CP as adequate when current applied potentials are more negative than 850 mV and the significance of voltage drops has been considered by verification of ILI metal loss indications in accordance with 8.6.2(c). The proposed technical changes would require additional steps to consider the significance of voltage drops.
· The addition of “Ductile Iron Pipe” throughout the document.
This was never a simple omission (and thus an editorial change).
· The addition of “non-mandatory” to Appendices B and C
TM0497 is a test method which by definition provides description of techniques to determine whether a specific criterion has been complied with at a test site. As the methods described in Appendices B and C are contained within SP0169, I can’t understand how a technically correct procedure that has been recognized by NACE for years could now be reclassified as non-mandatory.
Again, I request that NACE immediately stop balloting on TM0497. We can discuss the path forward in Atlanta .
As you can see, this individual and his company are very concerned. For those who “signed up” to vote, they may want to consider the possibility of sending NACE a similar note. They also need to remember that the voting deadline is December 9, 2008.
Thanks
If the procedure to assess the adequacy of cathodic protection using the 850 mV Current Applied Criterion (Method 1) is modified as proposed, the tone / intent of TM0497 changes. In light of the ongoing debate within NACE over the 850 mV Current Applied Criterion and the omission of this verbiage from the working draft of SP0169, these changes would be proclaimed by some as a clear message that NACE no longer considers these techniques to be valid.
I agree with the proposal from Mark Brogger – let the dust settle on SP0169 and then let’s work on TM-0497. Until then, reaffirm as written.
Additional instances of technical changes are as follows.
· Section 8.6.3 (b) has been changed, but this change is not highlighted in the document. This omission is reason enough to pull the ballot, as members are only asked to review changes. It also raises the question as to how many other changes were not highlighted in the document.
The proposed text is as follows:
8.6.3 Cathodic protection shall be judged adequate at the test site if: (a) The pipe-to-electrolyte potential measurement is negative 850 mV, or more negative, with respect to a CSE; and (b) The significance of voltage drops has been considered by applying the principles described in Paragraphs 8.6.1 (reference Paragraph 1.3 for exceptions).
The current text is as follows:
8.6.3 Cathodic protection shall be judged adequate at the test site if: (a) The pipe-to-electrolyte potential measurement is negative 850 mV, or more negative, with respect to a CSE; and (b) The significance of voltage drops has been considered by applying the principles described in Paragraphs 8.6.1 or 8.6.2.
Paragraph 8.6.2 discusses physical evidence of corrosion which relates to Item (d) Determining whether there is physical evidence of corrosion contained in the Note in Section 8.1 and also in SP0169. Deletion of both is a major technical change to TM0497.
The most widespread impact of this change would relate to the use of ILI data to consider the significance of voltage drops in accordance with 8.6.2 (c). Section 8.6.3 of TM0497 currently allows an operator to judge CP as adequate when current applied potentials are more negative than 850 mV and the significance of voltage drops has been considered by verification of ILI metal loss indications in accordance with 8.6.2(c). The proposed technical changes would require additional steps to consider the significance of voltage drops.
· The addition of “Ductile Iron Pipe” throughout the document.
This was never a simple omission (and thus an editorial change).
· The addition of “non-mandatory” to Appendices B and C
TM0497 is a test method which by definition provides description of techniques to determine whether a specific criterion has been complied with at a test site. As the methods described in Appendices B and C are contained within SP0169, I can’t understand how a technically correct procedure that has been recognized by NACE for years could now be reclassified as non-mandatory.
Again, I request that NACE immediately stop balloting on TM0497. We can discuss the path forward in Atlanta .
As you can see, this individual and his company are very concerned. For those who “signed up” to vote, they may want to consider the possibility of sending NACE a similar note. They also need to remember that the voting deadline is December 9, 2008.
Thanks
Monday, November 3, 2008
Reminder to Ballot
Reminder to Ballot TMO497-2002:
Just a reminder that there is a ballot being sent out soon for the reaffirmation of the TMO497-2002, “Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems”. If you are interested in voting on this TG 020 document you must go to the NACE Website and follow the instructions as shown below. This will have to be done by November 7, 2008.
This will be good practice for the SP0169-2002 revision when it comes out for vote (maybe later this year). You must first join the STG 05 or 35 committee, then sign up to vote (as shown below). Then you wait for NACE to send the revised or reaffirmation document to vote on. Again, there is a need for voters that are not in the “user/consumer” classification, so if possible sign up in another group of voters.
STEP 1: Please review the abstract by going to http://web.nace.org/ where you will view the NACE login page. You will be prompted to enter your user name and password. Once you have done so and are logged in, click on the tab in the upper right-hand corner titled “Committees.” Then, click on “Online Balloting” (on the right-hand column on this page). The next page you will see offers you Action Items, Results and a Logout option.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 2: The next page you will see is TCC Balloting Home.
To join a voting list, click on the Action Items button. This will take you to a listing of open Ballots, Reballots, Review and Comments, and voting lists.
Under the heading “Join Ballot Voting Lists,” find the appropriate TG number and click “Respond.”
STEP 3: To review the abstract prior to responding, click on the document title link at the top of the page.
The abstract is in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, which means you will need Acrobat Reader software on your computer. If you do not have it, you may download it FREE from the Adobe Web site,
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html
STEP 4: After reviewing the abstract, you may join the voting list or decline to join by clicking the “Back” button at the top left corner of the screen and choosing “yes” or “no” on the TCC Ballot Response page. Please remember to indicate your classification.
Be sure to click on the SUBMIT RESPONSE button at the bottom of the page to submit your response.
After you have submitted your response, the TCC Response Confirmation page will appear stating that your response has been recorded. In addition, you will receive an e-mail confirmation of your response.
Contact Daniela with any questions or problems with getting signed up to vote on this document.
Daniela Matthews
Technical Liaison/Editor
NACE International
Toll Free 1-800 797 NACE (6223)
Direct Tel: (281) 228-6287
Fax: (281) 228-6387
email: daniela.matthews@nace.org
Thank you for help and attention to this matter. Please pass this information on to others!! Also we need comments on the SP0169.com blog site from all sides of the issue so we can all learn and challenge each other to be sure we get the best document possible!
Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.
214-912-9072
Just a reminder that there is a ballot being sent out soon for the reaffirmation of the TMO497-2002, “Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems”. If you are interested in voting on this TG 020 document you must go to the NACE Website and follow the instructions as shown below. This will have to be done by November 7, 2008.
This will be good practice for the SP0169-2002 revision when it comes out for vote (maybe later this year). You must first join the STG 05 or 35 committee, then sign up to vote (as shown below). Then you wait for NACE to send the revised or reaffirmation document to vote on. Again, there is a need for voters that are not in the “user/consumer” classification, so if possible sign up in another group of voters.
STEP 1: Please review the abstract by going to http://web.nace.org/ where you will view the NACE login page. You will be prompted to enter your user name and password. Once you have done so and are logged in, click on the tab in the upper right-hand corner titled “Committees.” Then, click on “Online Balloting” (on the right-hand column on this page). The next page you will see offers you Action Items, Results and a Logout option.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 2: The next page you will see is TCC Balloting Home.
To join a voting list, click on the Action Items button. This will take you to a listing of open Ballots, Reballots, Review and Comments, and voting lists.
Under the heading “Join Ballot Voting Lists,” find the appropriate TG number and click “Respond.”
STEP 3: To review the abstract prior to responding, click on the document title link at the top of the page.
The abstract is in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, which means you will need Acrobat Reader software on your computer. If you do not have it, you may download it FREE from the Adobe Web site,
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html
STEP 4: After reviewing the abstract, you may join the voting list or decline to join by clicking the “Back” button at the top left corner of the screen and choosing “yes” or “no” on the TCC Ballot Response page. Please remember to indicate your classification.
Be sure to click on the SUBMIT RESPONSE button at the bottom of the page to submit your response.
After you have submitted your response, the TCC Response Confirmation page will appear stating that your response has been recorded. In addition, you will receive an e-mail confirmation of your response.
Contact Daniela with any questions or problems with getting signed up to vote on this document.
Daniela Matthews
Technical Liaison/Editor
NACE International
Toll Free 1-800 797 NACE (6223)
Direct Tel: (281) 228-6287
Fax: (281) 228-6387
email: daniela.matthews@nace.org
Thank you for help and attention to this matter. Please pass this information on to others!! Also we need comments on the SP0169.com blog site from all sides of the issue so we can all learn and challenge each other to be sure we get the best document possible!
Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.
214-912-9072
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)