Review of CP Criteria in Five Standards

Further 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.  You can contact Fengmei (Frank) Song at fsong@swri.org for more information.

One of the best quotes I like is "It was found that none of the CP criteria or even their combinations sufficiently guaranteed adequate protection of a pipeline in all field conditions, such as pitting under a shielding coating disbonded from the pipe surface."

This, of course, is what I have been writing about for many years.  As the industry starts using more coatings that are proven to be non-shielding to CP when disbondments occur, there will be less external corrosion and SCC!  I will be presenting a paper at CORROSION 2012 that discusses the use of EMAT technology to find disbonded coatings on pipelines.  See you there!

Richard Norsworthy

Revision Update

SP0169 – 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 all the NACE required wording and format, then can be published as the SP0169 – 2012 version.

I think this is great!  Hopefully, that will get us moving forward for a few years without this document being such a focus.  No standard will ever be perfect, but I do think the new version (if adopted) will provide the industry with a much better document than it has ever had before for the control of external corrosion on buried and submersed pipelines.  Each section has changes and overall improvements.  Maybe the new will be out by CORROSION 2012.  If something changes, I will let you know, since this is the most important standard (I think) that NACE International has ever published.

The next challenge will be to revise the “Test Method” (TM0497) to meet the newly revised (assuming it will be) SP0169!  I will keep you informed and please get on the balloting list when asked if you have input, experiences and knowledge to help the committee with this revision!

NACE and ISO

The issues surrounding NACE/ISO standards and adoption process has been answered by NACE as mentioned in an earlier e-mail.  I hope that each of you who had or have concerns about this have read the information provided by NACE and the TCC group.  I am a strong believer in NACE International staying heavily involved in the ISO process, but also strongly believe we should keep our documents as NACE International while letting ISO use our documents as needed to develop future corrosion control ISO standards.  This allows NACE members to maintain control of our standards while providing input and expertise to the ISO documents. 

Please read the information provided by NACE if you have not already done so and form your own opinion about the direction they are proposing, then provide comments and questions if you have any.  I will post if you like or you can send them directly to those who are controlling these committees.  We as NACE members must provide input into, as well as stay informed about the process to make sure we are taking the path that is best for NACE International.

Again, I want to thank Bob Chalker and all the others at NACE who have provided the below information for our members in an effort to provide understanding of the process and direction/role NACE International intends to proceed regarding ISO standard.  Please stay informed and question things as needed.  To make sure everyone has the information I have included it below for your consideration and comments on this very critical future path for NACE International. 

Let us all work together to this process the best it can be for our industry.

Thank you,

Richard Norsworthy

December 8, 2011 TCC Chair, Brian Saldanha

December 8, 2011

Dear NACE members,

Several NACE members have expressed concerns related to NACE’s collaborative work on standards development with the International Standards Organization (ISO). One of the concerns is associated with the adoption of NACE standards by ISO, and the perception that once they are adopted by ISO, NACE would lose control of these standards. As Chair of the NACE Technical Coordination Committee (TCC), it is my intent to try and alleviate some of these concerns as well as share with the NACE membership the Association’s and TCC’s overall strategy for collaborating with ISO. The TCC is an administrative committee of the Technical and Research Activities Committee (TRAC), a Board standing committee that oversees standards development.

In a recent letter to the Board and to TCC, Jim Feather, Chair of TRAC and a past TCC Chair, emphasized that “the Board continues to strongly support the submission of selected NACE International standards to ISO in support of the Association’s strategic objective to grow our presence and influence internationally.” In line with this objective, TCC has incorporated several initiatives in its 2010-2020 Tactical Plan. Some of these include fostering the development and applicability of NACE standards internationally, more involvement of international membership in TCC’s technical activities, expanding NACE’s collaboration with other international technical organizations e.g., ISO, etc.

We certainly recognize that there has been a dramatic expansion of ISO standards use throughout the world, and many countries already recognize ISO standards and reference them in regulations. Further, independent of what NACE has done or is doing in standards development, ISO has authored approximately 200 corrosion-related standards in about 50 committees. Clearly, NACE is the premier Corrosion Society in the world and has more experience and expertise in corrosion than any other organization. While ISO can and has already adopted some NACE standards, we believe because of NACE’s stature that it is also more strategic on a global basis for NACE to have input into ISO work, rather than ISO independently developing standards that compete with NACE. NACE’s influence in this work would definitely benefit industry and users by fostering higher-quality ISO standards that have international impact. The real question is one of NACE being able to sustain and grow its relevance globally in an environment where many countries default to ISO for direction on standards. The World Trade Organization (WTO) considers ISO very relevant to ensuring that countries do not create barriers to trade based on local standards; consequently, many industries specify ISO. Outside the U.S., regulatory bodies are also most likely to use ISO standards.

There appears to be some misconceptions about what TCC’s intent is with respect to collaborating with ISO. It has never been the intention of TCC to stop writing NACE standards, or to lose control of our standards, or to shift our complete focus either now or in the future to ISO activity. We have heard some circulating comments to this effect and it is completely at odds with our goals in TCC. In fact, it should be pointed out that our strategy is to strive to maximize the impact of NACE on ISO corrosion-related standards, and not to reduce it. NACE’s standards development program will not be dictated by ISO; rather, NACE will continue to use its own procedures to develop high-quality technical standards by its membership through the TCC structure. While NACE will always have control over its own documents, it can also have a strong influence on the work of ISO as demonstrated by its members’ representation in ISO TAG activities for more than 20 years.

With the issues cited above, we have two very clear choices with respect to how we may contend with the growth of ISO. One is to continue as a primarily North American based standards-writing organization independent of ISO with the hope that other countries find our corrosion-related standards to be the best in the world. The other option is to try to inject our influence into the relevant corrosion-related ISO standards-development arena. This option would be accomplished by either adopting targeted ISO standards as dual NACE/ISO standards through the NACE technical committee process, and/or submitting certain, not all, strategically-targeted NACE standards that have global impact to the appropriate ISO committees for consideration by ISO to adopt them. These two options, described in detail below, strategically strengthen NACE’s position in influencing the standards work of ISO internationally.

 Adopting targeted ISO standards would require the appropriate NACE TCC Task Group membership that corresponds to the standard to review the ISO standard, modify it if needed, ballot it, address negatives etc., just like any other NACE standard. If the standard is approved, the modified adoption process allows this standard to be published as a jointly named NACE/ISO standard just as is done for NACE MR0175/ISO 15156. On the other hand, NACE does not have to adopt an ISO standard if it does not want to.

 Submitting strategically-targeted NACE standards to the appropriate ISO committees for possible adoption by ISO is another very positive opportunity. However, it is extremely important to note that NACE will NOT submit a standard without first bringing it to the attention of TCC and the appropriate technical committees. The selected standards would either have global impact, and/or fill in the gaps for weak or non-existent international standards on an important subject area. Further, this does not erase the existing NACE standard, whether it is adopted by ISO in full, or is modified. As ISO does not have dual standards it would simply be an ISO standard with NACE content. This approach would allow us to proactively lead an ISO initiative instead of following one, as well as strengthen the quality of standards used internationally.

I would like to stress that any ballot procedures on standards, whether they are NACE modified adoptions of ISO standards or regular NACE member developed standards, follow the same process as outlined in TCC’s Technical Committee Publications Manual (TCPM). The TCPM contains procedures for developing NACE standards, reports, and other technical committee publications. Further, TCC has developed a written procedure for submitting NACE standards to ISO (Section 3.16 of TCPM), as well as for adopting ISO standards as NACE standards (Section 3.17 of TCPM). These procedures were approved by the TCC and the Technical and Research Activities Committee (TRAC), the designated approval bodies for the TCPM.

So, how does NACE go about adopting ISO standards? Once an ISO standard has been identified for possible adoption by NACE, the standard would go through the normal NACE technical committee voting process before being accepted as a NACE nationally adopted standard. Members of the appropriate STG(s) would then be asked if they wish to vote on the adoption, and then the same process would be followed as for a NACE-generated standard. Decisions on what standards will be submitted are based on the procedure developed by the TCC as outlined in the TCPM.

Likewise, how can NACE influence existing ISO standards, and/or convince ISO to adopt NACE Standards or a modification thereof? Members can have a voice in the adoption and revision of ISO standards, but this requires the member to take the initiative to join the appropriate U.S. TAG in the U.S. or TAG in another country where the NACE member resides, or has a corporate interest. As a TAG member the NACE representative would have the ability to comment and vote on ISO standards. Because of the voting stipulations in ISO of one vote per country (for those countries holding a Participating (P) membership), the key to influencing the technical content of ISO standards is having appropriate involvement of NACE members in the various countries who can represent NACE’s position on that standard and accordingly influence the ISO voting delegation for that country. Hence, as Chair of TCC, I strongly encourage you to contact me, NACE staff, or any of the technical committee leaders if you know of any NACE members who are willing to be more involved in their countries’ participation in ISO efforts.

I must emphasize that the ISO process may in fact change the content of the submitted NACE standard, and this could either weaken or strengthen it. If the NACE committee members wish to maintain the submitted document as close to the original NACE standard as possible they need to participate in the appropriate TAG, attend the WG (Work Group) meetings where the standard will be discussed, and vote for their interests. To the extent that a NACE member participates actively in the ISO process they will have a voice and a vote. It is also important that if such a document is being discussed, and participation is needed by a NACE member, then it should be brought to the attention of the TCC leadership who will make every attempt to identify appropriate representation, and provide necessary support.

The selection of who represents NACE on specific NACE-originated NWI (New Work Items) proposals are made by TCC in conjunction with the leadership of the various NACE technical committees. This is determined by the individual’s interest, ability to travel to foreign meeting venues, subject mastery, and any other intangible factors which may produce a positive result for NACE’s effort.

We realize that some may feel their interests may be threatened or diluted by broadening our international influence and obtaining more input into our standards by the processes defined above. However, we in TCC and the Board feel it is important to maintain NACE’s legitimacy as an international standards organization and its respect as a premier corrosion technical society by incorporating all of the latest worldwide technology and practices whenever possible. For NACE International to remain a North American based organization without reaching out to the international community, I would think it would be less strategic to NACE’s existence than anything we do with ISO. As you may already be aware, NACE International’s mission statement is to “protect people, assets and the environment from corrosion.” “Losing control” of a standard by limiting input to mainly North American interests would not serve us well as an international organization. It should be noted that the NACE Board of Directors agrees with the TCC’s approach to collaborating with ISO, and the Board has certainly endorsed TCC’s initiatives in driving the development, applicability and influence of NACE standards internationally.

These strategies with respect to ISO have been no secret. Over the past three years they have been discussed openly at various TCC technical committee meetings, adopted by TCC with the endorsement of the leadership of the TCC Technology Management Groups (TMG), communicated in the NACE TCC e-newsletters, published in Materials Performance, etc. We have heard suggestions from people that we should disseminate more of this information to the NACE community in general and I am sure you will see this becoming a reality in the very near future.

We feel that broadening our global outreach in various ways, including efforts with ISO, successfully helps NACE further legitimize its stature and influence in the international community. With NACE “International” membership outside of North America constituting one third of overall membership, it is of prime importance that NACE maintains this initiative as one of its highest priorities and strategies, which indeed it is continuing to pursue.

I hope I have addressed some of the central concerns that have been raised by some members regarding NACE involvement in ISO, and I thank you for the opportunity to be able to provide this communication to you. If members would like to be better informed about how the ISO committee system operates I would encourage them to access numerous sources on the internet including the ISO and ANSI Web sites. Further, if you would like to raise any issues or have additional questions, feel free to submit them to me at tcc-chair@nace.org or to Linda Goldberg, NACE Technical Activities Director, at linda.goldberg@nace.org.

Sincerely,

Brian J. Saldanha

Chair, NACE Technical Coordination Committee (TCC)

FURTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED FROM NACE INTERNATIONAL

What is the process for NACE member input on standards submitted to ISO for collaboration?

In mid-2011 the NACE Board of Directors asked the NACE Technical Coordination Committee (TCC), the volunteer group that manages standards development within NACE, to develop a procedure ensuring communication and membership feedback into the selection of NACE standards that will be the subject of collaboration with ISO. The procedure provides for discussion and input on collaboration at the Specific Technology Group (STG) level. The primary responsibility lies with the TCC, but proposals will be discussed with and input requested from the STGs via the Technology Coordinators. Any member can join NACE technical committees and be part of STG meetings, and all STG meetings are open.

The TCC developed a written procedure for submitting NACE standards to ISO and for adopting ISO standards as NACE standards. These procedures were approved by the TCC and the Technical and Research Activities Committee (TRAC), the designated approval bodies for the Technical Committee Publications Manual, which contains procedures for developing NACE standards, reports, and other technical committee publications. These procedures can be viewed here.

Decisions on what standards will be submitted are based on the procedure developed by the TCC.

How does the ISO process work? How do NACE members work within that process?

NACE is a standards development organization (SDO) that is centered on individual voting. ISO is an SDO that develops standards in a similar manner as NACE – but the hallmark of ISO is its one country, one vote structure. Because NACE International Headquarters is physically located in the USA, most official NACE input to ISO will be through the USA country vote.

Just like with NACE committee and balloting requirements for standards, ISO selects a convener for its work groups or subcommittees who is expected to act impartially on a standard. The convener should not have an agenda, or represent a particular country’s or company’s interests. In the case of standards submitted to ISO via the USA, the U.S. would normally propose the name of the convener with the proposal for the standard. The USA activity is usually led by a standards development organization like NACE, and includes participants from other USA organizations relevant to the subject matter.

Because ISO voting is by country, NACE members outside the U.S. also can organize their countries’ ISO votes with subject matter expertise gleaned in NACE activities. Also, because of the growing global composition of NACE technical committees, the NACE position, even if submitted via the USA country vote to ISO, will naturally include an international perspective.

When an ISO working group develops a standard that is based on another SDO’s existing standard, the ISO process can result in changes that strengthen or weaken the original standard. If NACE members want to maintain the submitted document as close to the original NACE standard as possible they need to participate in the appropriate TAG, attend the ISO WG meetings where the standard will be discussed, and vote for their interests. To the extent that a NACE member participates actively in the ISO process, they will have a voice and a vote and much influence.

NACE has many standards approved as ANS without ever submitting them to ISO. The ANS designation indicates that the process used to develop the standard conforms to ANSI Essential Requirements. It is also possible for other countries to adopt ISO standards and many do. The European community adopts many ISO standards as CEN standards.

If NACE publishes a standard, then ISO publishes a standard that is based on a NACE standard, is the ISO standard the new NACE standard?

ISO standards adopted by NACE would go through the normal NACE technical committee voting process before being accepted as a NACE nationally adopted standard. Members of the appropriate STG(s) are asked if they wish to vote on the adoption, and the same process is followed as for a NACE-generated standard.

Members can also have a voice in the development and revision of ISO standards. A member must join the appropriate TAG in the U.S. or in another country where the NACE member resides or has a corporate interest. As a TAG member, the NACE representative has the ability to comment and vote on ISO standards.

The standard is developed by NACE or adopted by NACE. No other country can adopt the ISO standard and call it a NACE standard. NACE owns that trademark. If countries do a national adoption of an ISO standard, they are responsible for maintenance, not NACE. These standards would be identified as BSI/ISO xxxx or DIN/ISO xxxx, for example. NACE does not have to keep up with modifications made by other countries for their adoptions because NACE is only responsible for the NACE standard.

If NACE adopts a standard, it will have a dual NACE/ISO number. The standards might be identical or slightly different depending on whether the NACE STG voting on the adoption makes changes in the ISO standard. If more than just small editorial changes are made, it will be a “modified” adoption and changes will be shown in the NACE-adopted version. It is likely that in each country the document to use will be specified as is done today by the parties involved in the business arrangements and contracts.

General information on NACE collaboration with ISO:

NACE has more experience and expertise in setting corrosion standards than any other organization. ISO can adopt NACE standards and has already done so. ISO has published, without NACE collaboration, approximately 200 corrosion-related standards in about 50 committees.

NACE and most standards users who work in the global marketplace prefer that ISO not independently develop standards that compete with those developed by groups like NACE who focus on a single expertise. However, much of the rest of the world recognizes ISO standards and references them in regulations. Global companies, including many that are active in NACE, prefer, in some instances, single global standards and cooperation. NACE influence in ISO’s corrosion committees benefits industry and users by generating high-quality ISO standards. NACE’s TCC likely would not decide that NACE should collaborate with ISO on a NACE standard that is not viewed as valuable to the global corrosion control community.

ISO is much larger than NACE with upwards of 18,500 standards and 1,100 new standards published each year. Only about 200 published ISO standards are related to corrosion, but the global impact of the work of ISO cannot be diminished; its large body of work gives it credibility. ISO has 162 countries participating and 3,300 technical bodies.

ISO sometimes adopts NACE standards that we propose to them. Our international membership is an advantage in dealing with ISO committees. NACE must remain relevant globally in an environment where many countries default to ISO for direction on standards. The World Trade Organization considers ISO very relevant to ensuring that countries do not create barriers to trade based on local standards, and many industries specify ISO. Outside the U.S., regulatory bodies are most likely to use ISO standards.

Many companies and individuals have invested much time and effort in the various NACE standards and do not feel there is a need to allow another organization to dictate what we do and how we do it. NACE’s standards program will not be dictated by ISO. NACE will continue to use its own procedures to develop standards by its membership. NACE will always have control over its own documents and can have a strong influence on the work of ISO. Additionally, many global companies in NACE do see the need for NACE collaboration with ISO, to help deter development of competing – and confusing – global standards.

At this point in time, three NACE standards have been submitted to ISO for collaboration. All submissions have followed extensive discussions among the volunteer leadership at different levels in the organization. Recently there was some debate on the merits of submitting a particular standard to ISO, which led to the development of the official process for decision-making in 2011.

If you have additional questions, please send them to tcc-chair@nace.org

NACE 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 standard adoption, there must be a written and well publicized procedure that is voted on by the general membership in order to get the required support for this very critical move in policy.

Here are some of the concerns that have been expressed by me and other NACE members:

1. Why not have ISO adopt NACE International documents instead of the other way around?  Are we not “The Corrosion Society”?  The last time I looked, ISO was not.

2. Where is the detailed written procedure for this effort?  If there is one, has it been offered for comment from membership before it was approved?

3. If NACE is truly to remain an international organization, why do we need to do this?  The comment has been made that some of the NACE Standards, Test Methods and other such documents are not being downloaded by those in the industry so they must not be a viable document.  Has anyone checked to see how many similar ISO documents have been downloaded?

4. ISO documents cost a considerable amount of money. The understanding is that NACE members will not have to pay if these become ISO adopted by NACE documents, but will this change?

5. How do we select our ONE vote/ONE country representative or the “project leader” for a New Work Item?  This is a critical part of the process.  If a particular person who has an agenda to make sure certain technologies or products are not included, then who controls this person?

6. Since ISO is a ONE vote/ONE country process, how do we know who will be the countries that are represented on these committees?  Again, certain agendas may come into play, especially if one country that produces a product does not want to allow other products or technology to affect their production.

7. NACE will lose control of our standards once they become adopted.  Our membership will no longer have a democrat vote in the process of writing and revising these documents.  At this time any member that wishes to vote has a voice that is heard and responded to.  Members must be alerted to this process change if a document becomes an ISO document that is adopted by NACE.  This has not been made clear to the general membership.

8. In order for these documents to become adopted, there will usually be changes from the NACE standard and some of these can be significant.  Another words these will no longer be NACE documents voted on by NACE members, but ISO documents that are not controlled by NACE members!

9. You say there are a “few” select standards that will be submitted as New Work Items to ISO.  Who decides which ones are to be submitted?  There seems to be a push for some of the “major” NACE standards to become ISO and then adopted by NACE.  One was SP0169 as was mentioned at CTW.  This is the most valuable, worked on, controversial standard NACE probably has, yet we want to lose control of our hard earned prize?  Again, if ISO wants to adopt what NACE International has developed, most do not see a problem, but the other way around, does not set well with many.

10. Once the decision is made to submit a standard, then and only then is the general public of NACE alerted to this fact and the STG or STGs then vote on whether to go forward with this or not as an ISO document.  This is my understanding.  Yet the FBE document that we proposed to send to be a NWI at ISO was only voted on by the small group at CTW.  Is this correct or will it be balloted to those who want to join the voting pool in a letter ballot such as approval of a standard?

11. The comment was made that once ISO approves their version of the standard, NACE can adopt it through ANSI.  Once adopted, the standard can then be “modified” by NACE to add or delete certain parts as needed, but this has to be done by NACE members of each individual country, not by NACE International.  How does this help NACE International?  We will become NACE USA, NACE France, NACE Russia, NACE whatever country and not NACE International! 

12. If NACE groups from several countries “modify” the same document, now NACE has to keep up with each of these modifications, revisions, etc. Sounds like a tremendous amount of work, if these are to truly be NACE International documents!

13. How will NACE interface with each of these countries that are “modifying” these documents?  What is the approval process for these?  Whose process do they use to modify a document?  Who votes on and approves the modifications?  Will a NACE representative be at these meetings in each country to be sure all is proper as per the ISO/NACE requirements?

14. Since these “modified” ISO documents are also NACE documents how will they be numbered, etc.?  If someone goes to another country to work and wants to use an ISO/NACE standard, how would they know which one to choose?

15. Does NACE have the personnel and space to handle all these different documents?  (I do understand we are only talking about a few [maybe] select documents, but at this time there is no real indication how many will actually be proposed.)

16. Why does NACE not take the approach of being THE CORROSION standards organization for the world and let ISO adopt what we do?  If as indicated over 40% of NACE members are international, why do we need ISO?

17. Is not the ISO organization much smaller than NACE?  Why let them have control?

18. Many companies and individuals have invested much time and effort in the various NACE standards and do not feel there is a need to allow another organization to dictate what we do and how we do it.  We will lose control of some of NACE’s most valuable assets and the reason we volunteer to work on these documents.

19. ISO gets involved in so many different aspects of industry beyond that of corrosion control, so how will our one and only vote be promoted by someone who may not even know what we are promoting?

20. Who selects the “project leader” for a NWI?  If this person has an agenda to only promote certain issues or products, etc., what control do we have?  Will this be a NACE person who can make knowledgeable decisions at meeting concerning that particular document?

21. Has anyone from NACE actually gone to the general public of NACE and discussed this issue with members and asked for comments, concerns or approval before starting this process?

22. The NACE members who have been active on these ISO committees were not appointed by NACE, NACE membership or committees, yet we are going to take their direction on this very important issue.  They are there because their companies saw an opportunity and had the finances to increase their presences in European countries.  Now they will use this experience to move NACE away from over 60 years of standard development to an organization that has much less experience and knowledge of the corrosion control industry.  

Personally, I feel that we need to be very cautious about this process and I am not sure it is the path that is best for NACE International.  We should be the leader, not adopting what another group, whose members may not even be NACE members, has produced.

We do understand the process of working with ISO from an international prospective and providing them with NACE documents for them to adopt or as a resource for them to develop standards.  Members who participate in the development of these documents do not want their work dismantled and in some cases “watered down”.

The NACE process is not perfect, but everyone who wants to participate can.  We all have the opportunity to comment, vote and work to balance these standards to get the best overall document possible through compromise and hard work!  We lose this with ISO documents.  No longer will NACE and its members have control of these adopted documents. 

NACE International is the world’s leader in corrosion control.  Let’s keep it that way!

Thank you,

Richard Norsworthy

Below is the procedure presently in the TCC Manual for NACE/ISO standards. 

3.16 PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION OF NACE STANDARDS TO ISO:

3.16.1        Anyone may submit to TCC a formal written recommendation for consideration of a NACE standard to be submitted as a New Work Item to ISO.  Standards to be considered should support NACE’s international objectives.

3.16.2        The proposal shall be forwarded to the responsible Technology Coordinator for circulation to the appropriate STG Steering Committees(s) for discussion, review and feedback to the TCC.

3.16.3        The TCC shall review the information provided and vote on whether to submit the NWI for the standard in question.  The TCC may approve or reject the proposal or request more information or modification of the proposal.

3.16.4        If the proposal is approved, ISO procedures for completing and submitting a New Work Item shall be followed by NACE staff in accordance with ISO document Part 1 Procedures for the Technical Work of the ISO/IEC Directives, and Supplement – Procedures Specific to ISO for detailed instructions.

3.17     PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTION OF ISO STANDARDS

     3.17.1         Anyone may submit to TCC a formal written recommendation for adoption of an ISO standard as American National Standard (ANS).  Standards to be considered should support NACE’s international objectives.

    3.17.2          The TCC shall review the information provided and vote on whether to submit the proposed national adoption to the appropriate STG(s) for processing through NACE standards development procedures.  If the TCC approves, procedures for forming a Total Balloting List shall be followed and the proposal for national adoption of the standard shall be distributed for ballot.  If the technical changes are made as a result of the negative votes and comments, the adoption may be a Modified Adoption as described in the ANSI Essential Requirements and the ANSI Procedures for the National Adoption of ISO or IEC Standards as American National Standards.

October 2011 update

The 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 resolved or were over ridden by a vote of the committee.  The few changes that were made (to me) were not technical in nature.  That of course is up to the TG 360 and the TCC group. 

If it is decided that the changes are editoral and not technical, then the corrections can be made and the document reviewed by the TCC or who ever does it.  If they have any corrections, then those will be made and the document can be published.

If it is decided that the changes are technical in nature, then these parts of the document will be re-balloted.  If that happens, only the parts that have been changed will be voted on, not the entire document.  Then any negatives will be addressed again, etc., etc., and etc.!

We should know more soon.  The committee is as ready as anyone to get this document out to the industry.

One thing that does concen me is the movement to make these ISO documents that NACE adopts.  I am not sure this is the way to go.  We need to keep an eye on this movement to ensure NACE and all the hard work we do is not lost.  This will be a discussion for future posts.

Thanks for all your support and interest in this very important document!

Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.

We believe in Non-Shielding Pipeline Coatings!

Jim 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."


Jim Jenkins

Re-posted comments

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 purposes of this standard, ―Coating‖ is defined as an electrically insulating material applied to the surface of a metallic structure that provides an adherent film that isolates a metallic structure from the surrounding electrolyte.

Why did we remove the last statement? The first part is not a true definition of a coating used with CP. I would suggest leaving it in.
6.1.1 [Last sentence] A commonly used benchmark for demonstrating effective external corrosion control is 0.025 mm per year (1 mil per year) or less.

This statement is still an issue because there is not a reasonable way to measure this on a pipeline. Coupons can be measured, but not pipelines. Why do we need this?

Delete this sentence.

6.2.1.1 Criteria that have been documented through empirical evidence to accurately indicate corrosion control effectiveness on specific piping systems may be used on those piping systems or others with the same characteristics.

Remove the word “accurately”. How do we define accurately? The sentence works just fine without it. The same for 6.2.5.1, 6.2.6.1, and 6.2.7.1 statements.

6.2.1.3.1.1 Measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s) to establish whether a –850 mV potential across the structure-to-electrolyte boundary has been achieved, or;

This statement needs to be changed to read “…to establish whether a -850 mV potential or more negative potential across the structure-to-electrolyte …”
Reasoning for change: We do not want to restrict the potential to just -850 mV. There is no way to hold the potential at a certain level. The question is do we restrict the upper limit of the polarized potential?

6.2.1.4.7 When operating pressure and conditions are conducive to high pH stress corrosion cracking, polarized potentials in the cracking range relative to the temperature indicated in Figure 1 should be avoided.

One of the issues with this statement and the table is that it does not take into consideration that SCC on pipelines almost always, if not always, develops under disbonded and CP shielding pipeline coatings. How are we to measure the polarized potential of the pipe in this case? I do not doubt that the information given is correct for the potential ranges and temperatures given, but there is just no way to determine this in the field under disbonded CP shielding coatings. Most the studies and research are performed on uncoated steel pieces, not under disbonded coatings.

I would suggest that we leave this information as a precaution without the table. There needs to be a separate SP0 for SCC that explains all the information. The pH levels are critical as well as the stress level and whether the stress is residual or applied. This is an important issue, but not sure this is the way to cover it.

Suggested replacement statement:

6.2.1.4.7 When operating pressure and conditions are conducive to high pH stress corrosion cracking, polarized potentials and temperatures in the cracking range should be avoided. Pipelines that have or have the potential for disbonded CP shielding coatings should be monitored for SCC through the use of ILI with Electro Magnetic Acoustical Transducer (EMAT) technology or ECDA methods to determine if SCC exists. Certain types of EMAT technology will also detect disbonded coating as well as SCC. Existing disbonded coatings and potentially CP shielding coatings should be removed and where practical replaced with a non-shielding coating system.

Comments on SP0169 Re- Ballot - July 2011

Richard 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 purposes of this standard, ―Coating‖ is defined as an electrically insulating material applied to the surface of a metallic structure that provides an adherent film that isolates a metallic structure from the surrounding electrolyte.
Why did we remove the last statement? The first part is not a true definition of a coating used with CP. I would suggest leaving it in.

6.1.1 [Last sentence] A commonly used benchmark for demonstrating effective external corrosion control is 0.025 mm per year (1 mil per year) or less.

This statement is still an issue because there is not a reasonable way to measure this on a pipeline. Coupons can be measured, but not pipelines. Why do we need this?

Delete this sentence.

6.2.1.1 Criteria that have been documented through empirical evidence to accurately indicate corrosion control effectiveness on specific piping systems may be used on those piping systems or others with the same characteristics.

Remove the word “accurately”. How do we define accurately? The sentence works just fine without it. The same for 6.2.5.1, 6.2.6.1, and 6.2.7.1 statements.

6.2.1.3.1.1 Measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s) to establish whether a –850 mV potential across the structure-to-electrolyte boundary has been achieved, or;

This statement needs to be changed to read “…to establish whether a -850 mV potential or more negative potential across the structure-to-electrolyte …”

Reasoning for change: We do not want to restrict the potential to just -850 mV. There is no way to hold the potential at a certain level. The question is do we restrict the upper limit of the polarized potential?

6.2.1.4.7 When operating pressure and conditions are conducive to high pH stress corrosion cracking, polarized potentials in the cracking range relative to the temperature indicated in Figure 1 should be avoided.

One of the issues with this statement and the table is that it does not take into consideration that SCC on pipelines almost always, if not always, develops under disbonded and CP shielding pipeline coatings. How are we to measure the polarized potential of the pipe in this case? I do not doubt that the information given is correct for the potential ranges and temperatures given, but there is just no way to determine this in the field under disbonded CP shielding coatings. Most the studies and research are performed on uncoated steel pieces, not under disbonded coatings.

I would suggest that we leave this information as a precaution without the table. There needs to be a separate SP0 for SCC that explains all the information. The pH levels are critical as well as the stress level and whether the stress is residual or applied. This is an important issue, but not sure this is the way to cover it.

Suggested replacement statement:

6.2.1.4.7 When operating pressure and conditions are conducive to high pH stress corrosion cracking, polarized potentials and temperatures in the cracking range should be avoided. Pipelines that have or have the potential for disbonded CP shielding coatings should be monitored for SCC through the use of ILI with Electro Magnetic Acoustical Transducer (EMAT) technology or ECDA methods to determine if SCC exists. Certain types of EMAT technology will also detect disbonded coating as well as SCC. Existing disbonded coatings and potentially CP shielding coatings should be removed and where practical replaced with a non-shielding coating system.

These are my comments at this time. Please forward yours!

Thanks very much!

Richard