I, like many others, are weary of the battle between those for and against the -0.850V "ON" criteria (yes yes with reference to a CuCuSO4 reference cell).
I do lean towards the science side of the debate, but also recognize that a lab is not the same as in the field, and practical measures are required in the field.
IMHO, a -0.85V "ON" criteria specifically for galvanic anode CP systems in soils above some soil resistivity (pick a number based on science 2000? 5000? ohm-cm)will protect the pipe. The amount of current an anode can generate would not be able to produce a significant IR drop, hence by default "considers" those drops other than those across the electrolye boundary.
Providing a sound basis that allows the operator to use the -0.85V "ON" criteria addresses the concerns I hear at the meetings. It provides the operator a safe criteria, supported by sound science, and give a valid/supported stance to take with a regulator. Most importantly, it provides for a procedure that can be performed cost effectively, repeatably, correlates with the historical data.
This is no different than what I hear others say they do. It just documents the process, brings some consensus and consistancy to the approach, and moves us forward on this standard.
Why is this important to some many operators? The practical issue, as I see it, are associated with trying to measure an "instant off" value on a pipeline that is protected by galvanic anodes that are cad welded to the pipeline. This is very imparactical to interrupt. Even if they the anodes came up into a test station, just the vast numbers of anodes involved make it an impractical test procedure to perform (how many interrupters would it take?). In many cases, we wouldn't even be allowed to dig down just to break the anode wire connection.
Besides the impractical nature, it is not warranted in these low current situations.
I propose a study to establish some norms for when the -0.85 ON criteria would be acceptable. Tables could be generated that might correlate soil resistivity, "typical" anode current flow, and "expected" IR drops associated with those currents. This should meet the concerns of most folks. Guidance could be provided if an operators system were outside of those norms.
Of course this is not 100% iron clad. There could be scenarios where interference could be involved, thus the "ON" reading might not be real, but this is no less true of any CP system, even with "instant off" readings. No criteria eliminates the need for knowledgeable CP personnel to monitor and interpret the results.
Standards of any kind do not lend themselves to performing a task in the most precise way, but takes complicated processes and builds in enough of a safety factor that it becomes a practical rule book to use in most cases. We always depend on knowledgeable folks to know when the "rules" or standards are applicable for a given situation.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Straw Poll
Comments on Straw Poll concering criteria for SP0169
The recent straw poll sent by the TG 360 committee gives you a chance to provide the committee with your thoughts and potential compromises. They have provided 5 versions to choose. Also, you are to rank each one as to whether you strongly agree to strongly disagree. Then you are asked if you would vote yes or no on each version.
The 100 mV polarization criterion would be common to each version so is not included.
Here is what I think:
Version 1
A cathodic voltage of -850 mV or more negative across the structure to electrolyte boundary as measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate (CSE) reference electrode.
MY COMMENTS: (Disagree)
The major problem with this version is that there is no “real” way to perform this in the field. Theoretically, this is what we are trying to accomplish, but in the real world, I do not think we can do it with enough consistent accuracy to be viable. The cost of performing these type surveys can be high and the extra cost does not provide much value for amount it could cost. Therefore, I could not agree with this being the only criterion besides the 100 mV.
Interpretation of the way to measure the potentials in this criterion would lead to much confusion and possible problems that could be a major issue for those trying to use such a criterion. The test method committee for TM-0497 would have to come up the ways to measure this version and that may take longer than revising the SP0169!
Version 2
(1) A structure-to-electrolyte potential measured with the cathodic protection current applied. The current-applied potential criterion value shall be established by the owner through sound engineering practice and support by empirical evidence that demonstrates the corrosion control objective of the owner is achieved.
(2) A negative polarized potential of at least 850 mV relative to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode.
MY COMMENTS: (Has potential, but needs some re-wording)
I like much about this version, but am concerned about the definitions of “empirical evidence” and “objective of the owner”. If these are defined satisfactorily in the document, then possibly I could “strongly agree” with this version. At this time I would say it is a definite “maybe”.
This would leave it up to the owner to determine what “ON” potential they will use at each test site. This could be determined by several methods that should be spelled out in the test method document.
Also, why is it important to establish “by the owner through sound engineering practice and support by empirical evidence that demonstrates the corrosion control objective of the owner is achieved” for the “ON” potential, but if you take an “instant off” you do not have to meet the owner’s objective? Seems like every criterion should meet the owner’s objectives and if we mention it in one we need to mention it in all or make a generic statement as such in the document and not apply it to each separate criterion.
Version 3
(1) A negative (cathodic) voltage of at least 0.85 volt as measured between the structure surface and a saturated copper-copper sulfate half cell contacting the electrolyte. Determination of this voltage is to be made with the protective current applied. The Corrosion Engineer shall consider voltage (IR) drops other than those across the structure-electrolyte boundary for valid interpretation of the voltage drop.
(2) A negative polarized potential of at least 850 mV relative to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode.
MY COMMENTS (Disagree at this time)
This was almost good. Had they not included the wording “Corrosion Engineer” and “shall consider”. Not sure how we define a corrosion engineer these days. Not even sure we can get a corrosion engineering degree as such in most places around the world. There are “degreed engineers” that work in the discipline of corrosion, but not many who actually have a degree in corrosion. There are also more of us working corrosion that do not have an engineering degree than those with one. So how do we define that?
I know “must” is used in Version 4, but at least they allow for some ways of considering the voltage drops.
Version 4
(1) A negative (cathodic) potential of at least 850 mV with the CP applied. This potential is measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. Voltage drops other than those across the structure to-electrolyte boundary must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.
NOTE: Consideration is understood to mean the application of sound engineering practice in determining the significance of voltage drops by methods such as:
- Measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s);
- Reviewing the historical performance of the CP system;
- Evaluating the physical and electrical characteristics of the pipe and its environment; and
- Determining whether or not there is physical evidence of corrosion.
(2) A negative polarized potential of at least 850 mV relative to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode.
MY COMMENTS (Agree overall)
These are the same two criterion in the SP-0169 – 2007 and is the same as has been used since 1992 (I believe). We have been able to make this work and I can vote for the document (if a few other areas are corrected) with the criteria as is at present.
I personally could do without the “must” before “be considered” and would prefer “should”, but can live with “must” as a compromise.
Version 5
A cathodic voltage of – 850 mV or more negative as measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate (CSE) reference electrode. This potential may be either a direct measurement of the instant off potentials, or a current applied potential. Interpretation of a current applied measurement requires correction for voltage drops in the earth or metallic paths.
Note: Correction is understood to mean the application of sound engineering practice in the determination of the magnitude and significance of the voltage drops by methods such as:
- Measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s); or
- Determining whether or not there is physical evidence of corrosion.
MY COMMENTS: (Strongly disagree)
This is the same criterion that was in the most recent revision. The term “correction” concerns many because it means you must determine the “instant off” for each reading when using an “ON” reading. The term “with current applied” is useless, because you have to “correct” for voltage drop by doing an “instant off”. Even though it does give some help with “evidence of corrosion” statement, I could not support this criterion.
FINAL COMMENTS:
Only those on the voting list got the opportunity to vote in this straw poll, but I encourage all those who have interest and want to express their opinion please do so through contacting the TG 360 committee or you can voice it through the blog site. You may have the best wording of the criteria so let us know.
I do hope the committee will take our words and comments as constructive and work to get us a document that gives the industry a valuable tool that can be used reasonably in the field to provide us with the data needed to determine when we have achieved the goal of providing adequate external corrosion control to the industries pipelines around the world. We will never reach 100%, but we can get very close and keep the effort affordable and reasonable. There have been many improvements and updates in the document, now let us compromise and move forward.
Again, I want to thank the committee and everyone else for hard work and effort. Though we may disagree at times, we all want the same thing. This is a critical document to the industry and we all want the best standard possible to provides guidance to the pipeline industry around the world.
I think this is a great opportunity to provide input to the committee. Please respond to best of your knowledge. You do not have to agree or disagree with me or the committee, but we do need to resolve this standard and get it out.
Thanks for your help and time,
Richard Norsworthy
The recent straw poll sent by the TG 360 committee gives you a chance to provide the committee with your thoughts and potential compromises. They have provided 5 versions to choose. Also, you are to rank each one as to whether you strongly agree to strongly disagree. Then you are asked if you would vote yes or no on each version.
The 100 mV polarization criterion would be common to each version so is not included.
Here is what I think:
Version 1
A cathodic voltage of -850 mV or more negative across the structure to electrolyte boundary as measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate (CSE) reference electrode.
MY COMMENTS: (Disagree)
The major problem with this version is that there is no “real” way to perform this in the field. Theoretically, this is what we are trying to accomplish, but in the real world, I do not think we can do it with enough consistent accuracy to be viable. The cost of performing these type surveys can be high and the extra cost does not provide much value for amount it could cost. Therefore, I could not agree with this being the only criterion besides the 100 mV.
Interpretation of the way to measure the potentials in this criterion would lead to much confusion and possible problems that could be a major issue for those trying to use such a criterion. The test method committee for TM-0497 would have to come up the ways to measure this version and that may take longer than revising the SP0169!
Version 2
(1) A structure-to-electrolyte potential measured with the cathodic protection current applied. The current-applied potential criterion value shall be established by the owner through sound engineering practice and support by empirical evidence that demonstrates the corrosion control objective of the owner is achieved.
(2) A negative polarized potential of at least 850 mV relative to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode.
MY COMMENTS: (Has potential, but needs some re-wording)
I like much about this version, but am concerned about the definitions of “empirical evidence” and “objective of the owner”. If these are defined satisfactorily in the document, then possibly I could “strongly agree” with this version. At this time I would say it is a definite “maybe”.
This would leave it up to the owner to determine what “ON” potential they will use at each test site. This could be determined by several methods that should be spelled out in the test method document.
Also, why is it important to establish “by the owner through sound engineering practice and support by empirical evidence that demonstrates the corrosion control objective of the owner is achieved” for the “ON” potential, but if you take an “instant off” you do not have to meet the owner’s objective? Seems like every criterion should meet the owner’s objectives and if we mention it in one we need to mention it in all or make a generic statement as such in the document and not apply it to each separate criterion.
Version 3
(1) A negative (cathodic) voltage of at least 0.85 volt as measured between the structure surface and a saturated copper-copper sulfate half cell contacting the electrolyte. Determination of this voltage is to be made with the protective current applied. The Corrosion Engineer shall consider voltage (IR) drops other than those across the structure-electrolyte boundary for valid interpretation of the voltage drop.
(2) A negative polarized potential of at least 850 mV relative to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode.
MY COMMENTS (Disagree at this time)
This was almost good. Had they not included the wording “Corrosion Engineer” and “shall consider”. Not sure how we define a corrosion engineer these days. Not even sure we can get a corrosion engineering degree as such in most places around the world. There are “degreed engineers” that work in the discipline of corrosion, but not many who actually have a degree in corrosion. There are also more of us working corrosion that do not have an engineering degree than those with one. So how do we define that?
I know “must” is used in Version 4, but at least they allow for some ways of considering the voltage drops.
Version 4
(1) A negative (cathodic) potential of at least 850 mV with the CP applied. This potential is measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. Voltage drops other than those across the structure to-electrolyte boundary must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.
NOTE: Consideration is understood to mean the application of sound engineering practice in determining the significance of voltage drops by methods such as:
- Measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s);
- Reviewing the historical performance of the CP system;
- Evaluating the physical and electrical characteristics of the pipe and its environment; and
- Determining whether or not there is physical evidence of corrosion.
(2) A negative polarized potential of at least 850 mV relative to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode.
MY COMMENTS (Agree overall)
These are the same two criterion in the SP-0169 – 2007 and is the same as has been used since 1992 (I believe). We have been able to make this work and I can vote for the document (if a few other areas are corrected) with the criteria as is at present.
I personally could do without the “must” before “be considered” and would prefer “should”, but can live with “must” as a compromise.
Version 5
A cathodic voltage of – 850 mV or more negative as measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate (CSE) reference electrode. This potential may be either a direct measurement of the instant off potentials, or a current applied potential. Interpretation of a current applied measurement requires correction for voltage drops in the earth or metallic paths.
Note: Correction is understood to mean the application of sound engineering practice in the determination of the magnitude and significance of the voltage drops by methods such as:
- Measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s); or
- Determining whether or not there is physical evidence of corrosion.
MY COMMENTS: (Strongly disagree)
This is the same criterion that was in the most recent revision. The term “correction” concerns many because it means you must determine the “instant off” for each reading when using an “ON” reading. The term “with current applied” is useless, because you have to “correct” for voltage drop by doing an “instant off”. Even though it does give some help with “evidence of corrosion” statement, I could not support this criterion.
FINAL COMMENTS:
Only those on the voting list got the opportunity to vote in this straw poll, but I encourage all those who have interest and want to express their opinion please do so through contacting the TG 360 committee or you can voice it through the blog site. You may have the best wording of the criteria so let us know.
I do hope the committee will take our words and comments as constructive and work to get us a document that gives the industry a valuable tool that can be used reasonably in the field to provide us with the data needed to determine when we have achieved the goal of providing adequate external corrosion control to the industries pipelines around the world. We will never reach 100%, but we can get very close and keep the effort affordable and reasonable. There have been many improvements and updates in the document, now let us compromise and move forward.
Again, I want to thank the committee and everyone else for hard work and effort. Though we may disagree at times, we all want the same thing. This is a critical document to the industry and we all want the best standard possible to provides guidance to the pipeline industry around the world.
I think this is a great opportunity to provide input to the committee. Please respond to best of your knowledge. You do not have to agree or disagree with me or the committee, but we do need to resolve this standard and get it out.
Thanks for your help and time,
Richard Norsworthy
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Comments to the TG 360 committee
Comments to the TG 360 committee:
As the struggle continues to revise this document we must work together and respect each persons experience, knowledge and education. Each of us has formed different opinions of what we think should be in the document. Since the main problem is with the CP criteria, I will focus on that today.
Norm Moriber has an article in May addition of Materials Performance that discusses some of the issues surrounding the revision of the SP0169. I do agree with Norm on many of the topics he has discussed in this article. First, I know that the committee and many other NACE members have worked very hard to resolve these problems. There have been some significant changes in the last revision that updates many of the references. Significant information has been added about pipeline coatings and mechanical damage protection (rock shields, etc.). I personally think they have too many references that confuse the coating tables, etc.
Most of the concern is with the fact that the document no longer has a separate criterion that states the use of an “ON” -850 mV or more negative potential as a viable option. The word “consider” is the word that is at issue with the committee in the 2007 and earlier versions. “Consider” can be defined in different ways and this seems to be the road block.
Yet the committee still uses “consideration” throughout the most recent document. Here are a few areas where “consideration” is still used in last revision:
6.2.3.1.3 Criteria that have been shown to successfully control corrosion through empirical
evidence on specific piping systems may continue to be used on those piping systems or others
with the same characteristics. These criteria include –850 mV on with consideration for
voltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte boundary, other current applied
criteria, net current flow, 300 mV shift, or E log I.
6.2.3.2 Special Conditions
6.2.3.2.1 The amount of cathodic polarization maintained on a metallic surface may be affected
by changes in electrolyte conditions, CP system or structure configuration changes, and changes
in influencing sources of AC or DC currents. These factors should be considered when tests are
performed to verify compliance with the CP criteria.
6.2.3.2.5 In uniformly high-resistivity well-drained soil, instant-off potentials less negative than
–850 mV CSE may be sufficient. Note: ISO 15589-1 offers the following for consideration:
–750 mV where soil resistivity is between 10,000 Ω.cm and 100,000 Ω.cm, and –650 mV where soil resistivity is greater than 100,000 Ωm.
6.3 Other Considerations
It is interesting that most on the committee does not think we should use “consider” or its derivatives, yet the committee has chosen to use it several times in Section 6! In 6.2.3.1.3 it is used similar to the use in SP0169 – 2007 version. Why can we not just use it in the criteria section as in the 2007 version and move on?
I and others think that if the committee would simply leave the 6.2.2.1.1 as written in the 2007 version, the document would pass (with some cleaning up and elimination of so much extra stuff). Here is the wording in the 2007 version:
6.2.2.1.1 A negative (cathodic) potential of at least 850 mV with the CP applied. This potential is measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. Voltage drops other than those across the structure to-electrolyte boundary must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.
NOTE: Consideration is understood to mean the application of sound engineering practice in determining the significance of voltage drops by methods such as:
6.2.2.1.1.1 Measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s);
6.2.2.1.1.2 Reviewing the historical performance of the CP system;
6.2.2.1.1.3 Evaluating the physical and electrical characteristics of the pipe and its environment; and
6.2.2.1.1.4 Determining whether or not there is physical evidence of corrosion.
In this version the document has provided some guidance in to what they mean by “consider” which most folks can interpret without a problem. The way a company interprets “consider” should be clearly spelled out in each company’s procedure manual. It is their responsibility. The SP0169 is a standard to guide them, not dictate to them.
The referenced article mentions the potential of the STG 35 committee recommending the withdrawal of the SP0169 from NACE Standard Practices. This would be a great miss-justice to the membership of NACE. This was the first recommended practice NACE every published. We are the experts! Some on the committee would prefer this since most companies would then resort to the ISO standard for CP, which would give them what they want. For those of you who do not understand the ISO process, these documents are not voted on by members as in NACE. These are decided by a committee of folks from various countries that are given direction by those in that discipline, therefore not everyone has an opportunity to vote or even voice an opinion in all cases.
Whether this is a scare tactic by some on the committee or not, I am not sure, but it seems there are some who think these tactics will result in members voting for the standard whether it is correct or not just to be sure we keep the SP0169 in NACE.
We, the voting pool, the committee and NACE membership, must work together to complete this document in a manner that gives us the best document for the world’s corrosion control industry. As we move forward with this critical document, as with all NACE Standards, there must be compromise on both sides of the controversy.
I am asking the committee to please consider the keeping the 6.2.2.1.1 as stated in the SP0169-2007. This would likely resolve the issue and allow the document to move forward. Since the committee has used the term “consideration and considered” in basically the same manner in the last attempted revision, there is no reason not to use it again. This is a compromise that we should all be able to live with!
As Norm points out, PLEASE VOTE if you are on the balloting list. Also, do not vote for or against any NACE document without studying, questioning and understanding the various parts as much as possible before making your decision. Never feel intimidated by those in the industry that “know” more than you. Each person has a different level of expertise and knowledge. Yours is as valuable in the process as everyone else’s. Ask for help and clarification when needed. This is the way we all learn and helps us to produce the best SP0169 document ever published!
Any comments are welcome to the blog site. Even Norm’s! I will be fair and print all suggestions to the committee that are constructive comments and information. This is not a forum to bash anyone, but is one to allow free expression and ideas, especially for those who feel intimidated in front of the committee.
I want to thank every one who has supported the SP0169.com blog site. Polyguard Products, Inc. has allowed me time and provided the resources to support this process. Please let me or some one at Polyguard know if there is any way we can help you with any pipeline coating or corrosion control issues. Please visit our website at polyguardproducts.com.
Thank you,
Richard Norsworthy
NACE Corrosion Specialist # 4037
As the struggle continues to revise this document we must work together and respect each persons experience, knowledge and education. Each of us has formed different opinions of what we think should be in the document. Since the main problem is with the CP criteria, I will focus on that today.
Norm Moriber has an article in May addition of Materials Performance that discusses some of the issues surrounding the revision of the SP0169. I do agree with Norm on many of the topics he has discussed in this article. First, I know that the committee and many other NACE members have worked very hard to resolve these problems. There have been some significant changes in the last revision that updates many of the references. Significant information has been added about pipeline coatings and mechanical damage protection (rock shields, etc.). I personally think they have too many references that confuse the coating tables, etc.
Most of the concern is with the fact that the document no longer has a separate criterion that states the use of an “ON” -850 mV or more negative potential as a viable option. The word “consider” is the word that is at issue with the committee in the 2007 and earlier versions. “Consider” can be defined in different ways and this seems to be the road block.
Yet the committee still uses “consideration” throughout the most recent document. Here are a few areas where “consideration” is still used in last revision:
6.2.3.1.3 Criteria that have been shown to successfully control corrosion through empirical
evidence on specific piping systems may continue to be used on those piping systems or others
with the same characteristics. These criteria include –850 mV on with consideration for
voltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte boundary, other current applied
criteria, net current flow, 300 mV shift, or E log I.
6.2.3.2 Special Conditions
6.2.3.2.1 The amount of cathodic polarization maintained on a metallic surface may be affected
by changes in electrolyte conditions, CP system or structure configuration changes, and changes
in influencing sources of AC or DC currents. These factors should be considered when tests are
performed to verify compliance with the CP criteria.
6.2.3.2.5 In uniformly high-resistivity well-drained soil, instant-off potentials less negative than
–850 mV CSE may be sufficient. Note: ISO 15589-1 offers the following for consideration:
–750 mV where soil resistivity is between 10,000 Ω.cm and 100,000 Ω.cm, and –650 mV where soil resistivity is greater than 100,000 Ωm.
6.3 Other Considerations
It is interesting that most on the committee does not think we should use “consider” or its derivatives, yet the committee has chosen to use it several times in Section 6! In 6.2.3.1.3 it is used similar to the use in SP0169 – 2007 version. Why can we not just use it in the criteria section as in the 2007 version and move on?
I and others think that if the committee would simply leave the 6.2.2.1.1 as written in the 2007 version, the document would pass (with some cleaning up and elimination of so much extra stuff). Here is the wording in the 2007 version:
6.2.2.1.1 A negative (cathodic) potential of at least 850 mV with the CP applied. This potential is measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. Voltage drops other than those across the structure to-electrolyte boundary must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.
NOTE: Consideration is understood to mean the application of sound engineering practice in determining the significance of voltage drops by methods such as:
6.2.2.1.1.1 Measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s);
6.2.2.1.1.2 Reviewing the historical performance of the CP system;
6.2.2.1.1.3 Evaluating the physical and electrical characteristics of the pipe and its environment; and
6.2.2.1.1.4 Determining whether or not there is physical evidence of corrosion.
In this version the document has provided some guidance in to what they mean by “consider” which most folks can interpret without a problem. The way a company interprets “consider” should be clearly spelled out in each company’s procedure manual. It is their responsibility. The SP0169 is a standard to guide them, not dictate to them.
The referenced article mentions the potential of the STG 35 committee recommending the withdrawal of the SP0169 from NACE Standard Practices. This would be a great miss-justice to the membership of NACE. This was the first recommended practice NACE every published. We are the experts! Some on the committee would prefer this since most companies would then resort to the ISO standard for CP, which would give them what they want. For those of you who do not understand the ISO process, these documents are not voted on by members as in NACE. These are decided by a committee of folks from various countries that are given direction by those in that discipline, therefore not everyone has an opportunity to vote or even voice an opinion in all cases.
Whether this is a scare tactic by some on the committee or not, I am not sure, but it seems there are some who think these tactics will result in members voting for the standard whether it is correct or not just to be sure we keep the SP0169 in NACE.
We, the voting pool, the committee and NACE membership, must work together to complete this document in a manner that gives us the best document for the world’s corrosion control industry. As we move forward with this critical document, as with all NACE Standards, there must be compromise on both sides of the controversy.
I am asking the committee to please consider the keeping the 6.2.2.1.1 as stated in the SP0169-2007. This would likely resolve the issue and allow the document to move forward. Since the committee has used the term “consideration and considered” in basically the same manner in the last attempted revision, there is no reason not to use it again. This is a compromise that we should all be able to live with!
As Norm points out, PLEASE VOTE if you are on the balloting list. Also, do not vote for or against any NACE document without studying, questioning and understanding the various parts as much as possible before making your decision. Never feel intimidated by those in the industry that “know” more than you. Each person has a different level of expertise and knowledge. Yours is as valuable in the process as everyone else’s. Ask for help and clarification when needed. This is the way we all learn and helps us to produce the best SP0169 document ever published!
Any comments are welcome to the blog site. Even Norm’s! I will be fair and print all suggestions to the committee that are constructive comments and information. This is not a forum to bash anyone, but is one to allow free expression and ideas, especially for those who feel intimidated in front of the committee.
I want to thank every one who has supported the SP0169.com blog site. Polyguard Products, Inc. has allowed me time and provided the resources to support this process. Please let me or some one at Polyguard know if there is any way we can help you with any pipeline coating or corrosion control issues. Please visit our website at polyguardproducts.com.
Thank you,
Richard Norsworthy
NACE Corrosion Specialist # 4037
Comments from Anonymous
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)