Richard,
Very interesting...I especially find the comment in #4 about members on the committee being mistreated. When I attended one of the meetings in Atlanta, I found the committee just as guilty about mistreating (speaking rudely) to members of NACE. I think it worked both ways at times....I also find this survey a bit bias.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Comments from Tom Hamilton
Hi Daniela:
I agree with Richard’s message below. The original poll would have benefitted from the addition of the questions that Richard has suggested.
The bias in the original line of questioning is obvious, and Richards questions would help.
This whole voting process has become exceedingly tedious.
It seems that the committee has made up its mind and will continue flogging the same old horse until they get their way.
Efforts to get their own way through wordsmithing and tweaking the language to hide its true intent will not work.
Science must have its day in the sun.
Politics must not win over science.
RP 0169 is being turned into a joke by the committee/voting process.
As a Recommended Practice it has merit.
As a Standard, the science must match the requirements.
Until that fundamental situation has been dealt with, no amount of voting and re-voting will lead to the creation of a successful consensus document.
Tom
I agree with Richard’s message below. The original poll would have benefitted from the addition of the questions that Richard has suggested.
The bias in the original line of questioning is obvious, and Richards questions would help.
This whole voting process has become exceedingly tedious.
It seems that the committee has made up its mind and will continue flogging the same old horse until they get their way.
Efforts to get their own way through wordsmithing and tweaking the language to hide its true intent will not work.
Science must have its day in the sun.
Politics must not win over science.
RP 0169 is being turned into a joke by the committee/voting process.
As a Recommended Practice it has merit.
As a Standard, the science must match the requirements.
Until that fundamental situation has been dealt with, no amount of voting and re-voting will lead to the creation of a successful consensus document.
Tom
Comments from Anonymous - email to Daniela
I was sent a copy of an email NACE sent out wanting to know why a lot of people didn’t vote on the revised SPO169 document. I guess I have a couple of question I would like to ask you.
Why do people that vote YES for the document not have to also say why they are voting for the document?
Why did so many of the people that did vote for the document note in their comments that there were changes that needed to be made. It looks to me that if you are voting for it “ NO” changes need to be made or those changes might make others not like the changes and want to change their votes.
I have also talked to several NACE members that were not able to vote NO again this time because they were also busy or getting tired of the way the vendors are trying to make them a living out of the changes they are trying to making to SPO169.
Where the NACE members that voted No that did not leave comments votes count? If so I would have thought this should have been one of the questions you sent out. I know several that said they did really know about a comment to be counted.
To me that’s like the stimulus and health care programs that have been passed and no one has really read them.
Being a NACE member that works in the field every day I don’t understand why the original RPO169 is not put up to vote with out any changes. I would think we would have a SPO169 if they did.
Why do people that vote YES for the document not have to also say why they are voting for the document?
Why did so many of the people that did vote for the document note in their comments that there were changes that needed to be made. It looks to me that if you are voting for it “ NO” changes need to be made or those changes might make others not like the changes and want to change their votes.
I have also talked to several NACE members that were not able to vote NO again this time because they were also busy or getting tired of the way the vendors are trying to make them a living out of the changes they are trying to making to SPO169.
Where the NACE members that voted No that did not leave comments votes count? If so I would have thought this should have been one of the questions you sent out. I know several that said they did really know about a comment to be counted.
To me that’s like the stimulus and health care programs that have been passed and no one has really read them.
Being a NACE member that works in the field every day I don’t understand why the original RPO169 is not put up to vote with out any changes. I would think we would have a SPO169 if they did.
Monday, April 26, 2010
NACE survey of TG 360 non-voters
To All;
Below is a survey that was sent out to those eligible to vote on the TG 360 committee’s recent effort to revise the SP0169-2007 document. Those who voted on the document may not have gotten this e-mail. If you are not on the original July 2009 voting ballot list you would (probably) have not gotten the message. I did not get the message since I did vote. Someone else who did vote actually got this message by mistake or I would not have a copy.
It is interesting as to how the survey is phrased. Personally, I think there should have been a few more questions, such as:
___ I thought my Negative vote from the September 2009 ballot would still count.
___ I am tired of the whole debate.
___ I did not vote because I wanted to vote Negative, but was not sure how much information was required to prove my Negative to the committee.
___ I have seen some of the members of the committee mistreated because they did not agree with some of the “experts” on the committee, therefore I feel intimidated trying to explain my Negative to some on this committee.
___ My Company does not want me to get involved in a document this controversial since it may reflect on our business if some do not agree with my stance.
Yes, I know there is an “other” column, but asking the wrong questions can lead to a false sense of what the problems really are. We as NACE need to have a better understanding of how to better serve our membership as a whole, not a select group that has the most influence.
Not sure how much response NACE got back, but I hope they publish the results so we can all see what those who did respond had to say.
NACE International is our organization and we need to participate. I hope they got a great response from this survey that will help on this and other documents and votes in the future. I am sure they would even like to hear from you if you would like to answer any of the questions above. You can send those to Daniela Matthews at daniela.matthews@nace.org so they can be passed along to the committee.
I am not NACE International, so this is not a formal request from NACE! I just want to keep everyone informed as to what is going on with this very important document. Please stay up with the process and I encourage you to send your comments on this survey to NACE even if it is late. Also, continue to gather your information to prove your position (for or against) any future revisions and upcoming votes.
Again, if this information is not valuable to you or you wish to be deleted from the list, please let me know at richnors@flash.net. If you know someone who would like to be added to the list of contacts for the blog, please let me know.
Thanks to all of you for your support, not only of the SP0169.com Blog site, but also to the committee for all the hard work and commitment to completing this document.
Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.
“We believe” in non-shielding coatings used with CP!
NACE INTERNATIONAL SURVEY
Dear Members,
In July 2009, you indicated that you would like to join the balloting list for TG 360’s proposed revision to NACE SP0169-2007, “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems.”
NACE records indicate that you did not reply to the ballot that was recently sent out to provide you with the opportunity to review the document and vote between February 12, 2010 and March 12, 2010.
We only received a response from 53% of members who are eligible to vote on this document. This message is being sent to you as a follow-up, and it is extremely important that you respond and let us know why you did not reply to the ballot so that we can work to maximize the participation of those who have joined the ballot list. Please check all that apply:
___ I was traveling during this period.
___ My workload was very heavy during this period, and I did not have time.
___ I meant to cast my vote, but forgot.
___ I did not understand what I was supposed to do (i.e., the instructions on how to respond were unclear).
___ I thought my affirmative vote with no comment from the September 2009 ballot would still count.
___ Other (please specify):_________________________________________
Please reply back and let us know by April 16, 2010.
Thank you,
Daniela
Below is a survey that was sent out to those eligible to vote on the TG 360 committee’s recent effort to revise the SP0169-2007 document. Those who voted on the document may not have gotten this e-mail. If you are not on the original July 2009 voting ballot list you would (probably) have not gotten the message. I did not get the message since I did vote. Someone else who did vote actually got this message by mistake or I would not have a copy.
It is interesting as to how the survey is phrased. Personally, I think there should have been a few more questions, such as:
___ I thought my Negative vote from the September 2009 ballot would still count.
___ I am tired of the whole debate.
___ I did not vote because I wanted to vote Negative, but was not sure how much information was required to prove my Negative to the committee.
___ I have seen some of the members of the committee mistreated because they did not agree with some of the “experts” on the committee, therefore I feel intimidated trying to explain my Negative to some on this committee.
___ My Company does not want me to get involved in a document this controversial since it may reflect on our business if some do not agree with my stance.
Yes, I know there is an “other” column, but asking the wrong questions can lead to a false sense of what the problems really are. We as NACE need to have a better understanding of how to better serve our membership as a whole, not a select group that has the most influence.
Not sure how much response NACE got back, but I hope they publish the results so we can all see what those who did respond had to say.
NACE International is our organization and we need to participate. I hope they got a great response from this survey that will help on this and other documents and votes in the future. I am sure they would even like to hear from you if you would like to answer any of the questions above. You can send those to Daniela Matthews at daniela.matthews@nace.org so they can be passed along to the committee.
I am not NACE International, so this is not a formal request from NACE! I just want to keep everyone informed as to what is going on with this very important document. Please stay up with the process and I encourage you to send your comments on this survey to NACE even if it is late. Also, continue to gather your information to prove your position (for or against) any future revisions and upcoming votes.
Again, if this information is not valuable to you or you wish to be deleted from the list, please let me know at richnors@flash.net. If you know someone who would like to be added to the list of contacts for the blog, please let me know.
Thanks to all of you for your support, not only of the SP0169.com Blog site, but also to the committee for all the hard work and commitment to completing this document.
Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.
“We believe” in non-shielding coatings used with CP!
NACE INTERNATIONAL SURVEY
Dear Members,
In July 2009, you indicated that you would like to join the balloting list for TG 360’s proposed revision to NACE SP0169-2007, “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems.”
NACE records indicate that you did not reply to the ballot that was recently sent out to provide you with the opportunity to review the document and vote between February 12, 2010 and March 12, 2010.
We only received a response from 53% of members who are eligible to vote on this document. This message is being sent to you as a follow-up, and it is extremely important that you respond and let us know why you did not reply to the ballot so that we can work to maximize the participation of those who have joined the ballot list. Please check all that apply:
___ I was traveling during this period.
___ My workload was very heavy during this period, and I did not have time.
___ I meant to cast my vote, but forgot.
___ I did not understand what I was supposed to do (i.e., the instructions on how to respond were unclear).
___ I thought my affirmative vote with no comment from the September 2009 ballot would still count.
___ Other (please specify):_________________________________________
Please reply back and let us know by April 16, 2010.
Thank you,
Daniela
Monday, April 19, 2010
This blog has moved
This blog is now located at http://sp0169.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://sp0169.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
CORROSION 2010 DISCUSSION OF VOTE ON SP0169
CORROSION 2010 DISCUSSION OF VOTE ON SP0169
For those who were not at CORROSION 2010, the vote on the last revision of the SP0169 by the TG 360 committee did not get the required 66 2/3 % to move forward with this document version. The vote was 99 for the revision, 88 against and 21 abstain.
The vote was about 53% for and 47% against, which means the committee has a choice of disbanding the committee or starting over. If the committee is disbanded and another not formed then the committee can just let the document die. This would mean that NACE would not longer have a Standard Practice for external corrosion control. Some want this to happen so they can now use the ISO document, which would be a disaster for most in the pipeline industry.
If the committee continues to work on the revision then it will not die. I think this is the decision that was made. Also, many of us voiced our opinion to continue the process, but go back to some basic guidance instead of trying to cover everything in one document. The document is now 66 pages or so. Much of this is information that should be referenced and not put into this document.
Of course the most controversial section is still the on covering criterion. Section 6 has become a series of statements that are trying to appease the various comments presented in the past. The problem is that this part document has gotten more complicated instead of being a simple guide for the end user.
One of the big hang ups with some on the committee is the use of the word “consider” in the present document. This is actually the reason why we have been revising the SP0169 since around 2000. There are those who fear that an end user can not define “consider” and will abuse the use of this word in the criterion. Why has this become a problem with a criterion that has had “consider” in it since 1969? Most everyone I know seems to have a definition of “consider” that works just fine. The use of the words “corrected for” were substituted for “consider” in latest versions.
When asked by the committee how I would define “consider”, I said; “Each company should be responsible for defining how they are going to consider voltage drop, not the committee. This definition and process for considering voltage drop should be up to the end user, not the TG 360 committee.
Hopefully, the TG 360 committee will go back to the at least the existing criteria and leave it up to the end user to determine how to use each criterion effectively in their corrosion control program. The committee even says this in the third sentence in section 6.2; “The use of any approach to achieve corrosion control through CP is the
responsibility of the user.”
There have been some very good changes in the latest revision that I hope we can keep. Many of the affirmative voters also had concerns and comments in some sections. The negative voters also had many very good comments and concerns about the document. If the committee will take these and actually go back to one of the earlier versions of the criteria part of section 6, then I think we will have a much improved document that we can vote for. What ever this committee and the voters finally agree on, has to be something that can be used by those in the field in an economical, safe, and efficient manner to provide external corrosion control to pipelines around the world.
This is an invitation to each of you to provide guidance to the committee through your comments and concerns. I also encourage the committee to post ideas on the SP0169.com blog to get feed back before the next vote. Since the blog is open to all, why not use it for spring board to get this document finished? There must be compromise and simplification for the document to go forward. Lets all work on providing guidance to the committee and hopefully their will be enough on the committee that will actually appreciate our efforts and include us in the process, not after the fact.
Stay tuned and I will try to update the SP0169.com blog site when there is any change in the status or news that may affect the revision. Keep passing any information and comments along to the blog and I will post them for all to review no matter if I agree or not.
Thank you,
Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.
For those who were not at CORROSION 2010, the vote on the last revision of the SP0169 by the TG 360 committee did not get the required 66 2/3 % to move forward with this document version. The vote was 99 for the revision, 88 against and 21 abstain.
The vote was about 53% for and 47% against, which means the committee has a choice of disbanding the committee or starting over. If the committee is disbanded and another not formed then the committee can just let the document die. This would mean that NACE would not longer have a Standard Practice for external corrosion control. Some want this to happen so they can now use the ISO document, which would be a disaster for most in the pipeline industry.
If the committee continues to work on the revision then it will not die. I think this is the decision that was made. Also, many of us voiced our opinion to continue the process, but go back to some basic guidance instead of trying to cover everything in one document. The document is now 66 pages or so. Much of this is information that should be referenced and not put into this document.
Of course the most controversial section is still the on covering criterion. Section 6 has become a series of statements that are trying to appease the various comments presented in the past. The problem is that this part document has gotten more complicated instead of being a simple guide for the end user.
One of the big hang ups with some on the committee is the use of the word “consider” in the present document. This is actually the reason why we have been revising the SP0169 since around 2000. There are those who fear that an end user can not define “consider” and will abuse the use of this word in the criterion. Why has this become a problem with a criterion that has had “consider” in it since 1969? Most everyone I know seems to have a definition of “consider” that works just fine. The use of the words “corrected for” were substituted for “consider” in latest versions.
When asked by the committee how I would define “consider”, I said; “Each company should be responsible for defining how they are going to consider voltage drop, not the committee. This definition and process for considering voltage drop should be up to the end user, not the TG 360 committee.
Hopefully, the TG 360 committee will go back to the at least the existing criteria and leave it up to the end user to determine how to use each criterion effectively in their corrosion control program. The committee even says this in the third sentence in section 6.2; “The use of any approach to achieve corrosion control through CP is the
responsibility of the user.”
There have been some very good changes in the latest revision that I hope we can keep. Many of the affirmative voters also had concerns and comments in some sections. The negative voters also had many very good comments and concerns about the document. If the committee will take these and actually go back to one of the earlier versions of the criteria part of section 6, then I think we will have a much improved document that we can vote for. What ever this committee and the voters finally agree on, has to be something that can be used by those in the field in an economical, safe, and efficient manner to provide external corrosion control to pipelines around the world.
This is an invitation to each of you to provide guidance to the committee through your comments and concerns. I also encourage the committee to post ideas on the SP0169.com blog to get feed back before the next vote. Since the blog is open to all, why not use it for spring board to get this document finished? There must be compromise and simplification for the document to go forward. Lets all work on providing guidance to the committee and hopefully their will be enough on the committee that will actually appreciate our efforts and include us in the process, not after the fact.
Stay tuned and I will try to update the SP0169.com blog site when there is any change in the status or news that may affect the revision. Keep passing any information and comments along to the blog and I will post them for all to review no matter if I agree or not.
Thank you,
Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Anonymous comments
My fear is the committee is going to be looking for any reason to pass TG 360 without getting it right. When reviewing the comments made from members voting in favor of SPO169 in 2009 I have to ask WHY would you vote for something that you thought needed to be changed? Approximately 30 of the 41 members who voted in favor of SPO169 in 2009 left comments were requesting some kind of changes or corrections be made.
In over 25 years I have never found location that I had a -.850mV that would not also pass the 100Mv criteria. I have to ask WHAT scientific documentation did you use to come up with the -.850 mV ON or Polarize and you like to call it criteria??
I have to ask does it not look funny to have 2 different criteria we can use but BOTH with the same -.850 mV number?
I am also not in favor of the 1 MPY corrosion rate we would be required to show. I personally feel this need to be removed.
The only way I could do an interrupted survey in my tank Farms in Cushing, OK is to interrupt the local power company
In over 25 years I have never found location that I had a -.850mV that would not also pass the 100Mv criteria. I have to ask WHAT scientific documentation did you use to come up with the -.850 mV ON or Polarize and you like to call it criteria??
I have to ask does it not look funny to have 2 different criteria we can use but BOTH with the same -.850 mV number?
I am also not in favor of the 1 MPY corrosion rate we would be required to show. I personally feel this need to be removed.
The only way I could do an interrupted survey in my tank Farms in Cushing, OK is to interrupt the local power company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)