Wednesday, August 7, 2013

The letter information below was sent from Tom Weber, TCC Chair. This is a cut and paste copy so please refer to the original letter if possible for all those involved in the process. I think it is important to keep everyone informed on the critical standard and since many of you are not on the voting list, you may not have received this information. Richard Norsworthy August 7, 2013 Dear Members of the Voting Pool for TG 360’s Proposed Revision to NACE SP0169, We have received the report from the Arbitration Board (AB) appointed to review the appeals on the proposed revision to SP0169-2007: The AB concluded that NACE technical committee procedures were properly followed through the revision, balloting, and appeals process. The AB included some recommendations following its conclusions in the report, and the TCC is reviewing these and will address them as appropriate through the proper NACE committees. Thank you for your participation and your patience through this process. Sincerely, Tom Weber TCC Chair
Arbitration Board Report Technical Coordination Committee NACE SP0169-2007 Proposed Revision “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems” Conclusion and Recommendations  It is the conclusion of the Arbitration Board(AB)that NACE procedures for document preparation and balloting were followed for SP0169-2007 Revision as outlined in the NACE Technical Committee Publications Manual.  The AB, upon a thorough examination of the extensive documentation provided by NACE headquarters,determined that the procedures and responsibilities of each party were fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of the NACE Technical Committee Publications Manual.  Balloting was conducted in accordance with Section 3 of the Technical Committee Publications Manual.  Appeals process was conducted in accordance with Section 12 of the Technical Committee Publications Manual.  The AB recommends that the NACE Standard TM0497review/reaffirmation/revision process be synchronized with that for SP0169; to facilitate the synergy of the content in the two documents. This process should commence at the earliest possible date. The AB further recommends that the NACE Board and/or the Technical Coordination Committee delay publication of the revised SP0169-2007 document so that this synchronized process can function as desired.  The AB recommends the NACE Board of Directors (through the Technical Coordination Committee) consider appointment of a panel of technical experts to examine the two different technical approaches represented with this revision balloting processand the potential impact on national pipeline security.  The AB recommends the NACE Board of Directors and/or the Technical Coordination Committee consider whether NACE Standards related to public health and safety should be handled with a specialized work process; with perhaps stronger input from regulatory agencies and scientific bodies. Items for Consideration  The AB feels it is incumbent with our review of this work process to make the following comments that are understood to be outside of our assignment.  The AB is concerned that the NACE Technical Committee Publications Manualhas no requirement for resolution of technical issues. While it does have provision for an appeal due to “alleged procedural infractions”; there is no provision for dealing with alleged technical errors.  The technical veracity of a Standard is reliant on the individual members in the voting pool.  Standards development and revision are a consensus process of those involved in voting. NACE standards and other international standards do not claim technical correctness, just a representation of a consensus of the voters.  The NACE Technical Committee Publications Manual states in Section that “NACE SPs shall be methods of selection, design, installation, or operation of a material or system when corrosion is a factor... applying rules or procedures to achieve a scientific and engineering approach to a specific activity...”  How can NACE be assured that a Standard is consistent with appropriate science and engineering practices?  How can NACE be assured that the voting pool has a balanced representation from all industry segments? Perhaps there should be enhanced confirmation of voting member industry segments –user, supplier, etc. This may be particularly crucial in standards that affect public health and safety, and are used by regulatory agencies. Assignment  The TCC chair, in consultation with the Technology Coordinator, appointed a three-member AB comprised of technical committee members who were not members of the parent committee of the SP0169 task group. The TCC chair chose persons who have not been directly involved with the item under dispute, and who they believed to be fair, reasonable, and knowledgeable about procedures.  The TCC Chair advised the AB the Appeals process was to be directed only to alleged procedural infractions of the SP0169-2007 revision. The assignment was to focus solely on the allegations of procedural infractions submitted to the TCC Chair in written appeal letters.  The AB was to define the work process to be used in their deliberations.  AB work process was to include O Review NACE Guidelines for preparation of this document. O Review document preparation steps O Review document balloting and results steps O Review document appeals to TCC and NACE Board. O Interview STG and TG officers and appellants to better understand and validate the work processes of preparation, balloting, and appeals. O Arbitration Board was to prepare a report with conclusions and recommendations. Work Process  Details of the work process are contained in the Appendices. Following are the highlights.  Process for the proposed revision of SP0169-2007 started in March 2007 by Task Group (TG) 360.  Voting pool established via canvas in July 2009.  TG 360 canvass sent to Specific Technology Group (STG) 35/05/30 members.  Articles were published in Materials Performance regarding SP0169-2007 review process.  First ballot with proposed revisions executed in August-September 2009 with less than 2/3 approval.  Second ballot with proposed revisions executed in February - March 2010 with less than 2/3 approval.  Third ballot with proposed revisions executed in September 2010 with 86.7% approval and 24 negatives. Appropriate communication was executed to all negative voters. Seven negatives were resolved; but not enough to allow for publication.  Fourth ballot with proposed technical revisions executed in July-August 2011 with 90.2% approval and 17 negatives. Appropriate communication was executed to all negative voters.  Decision by TCC in February-May 2012 to publish the SP0169-2007 revision.  Four unresolved negative respondents appealed the TCC decision in February 2012.  Meeting with four appellants and relevant committee officers at CORROSION 2012.  NACE staff researched information from other standards organizations and ANSI and TCC chair provided a response to the appellants, but this did not resolve the appeals.  Proposed revision of SP0169 was on the NACE Board agenda in June 2012.  Four negative respondents appealed approval of the SP0169 revision to NACE Board in June 2012 based on alleged procedural violation of TCC Publications Manual; specifically Paragraphs,, and  AB appointed in July 2012 to determine if NACE procedures were followed or violated in the SP0169 proposed revision. Meetings  The AB met at CTW/2012 to begin the review of procedures used to develop the proposed SP0169-2007 revised document.  The AB received a copy of all the documentation relative to the revision process; including appellant objections and the results of the balloting process.  The AB met with one appellant and the TG360 Chair for a short meeting at CTW/2012.  The AB met via teleconference on two occasions during the 4th quarter of 2012; additional communication occurred via e-mail within the AB.  The AB had communication with the appellants either directly or through NACE headquarters regarding our review process and the possibility of meeting with them.  The AB met with all appellants in one meeting at CORR/2013 in Orlando for discussion of their appeals; for confirmation of the substance of the appeals.  The AB met with the related TG officers, STG officers, and Technical Coordinator in a separate meeting at CORR/2013 for confirmation of the document review and balloting process. Respectfully Submitted, Arbitration Board Members Dannie Clarida Dannie Clarida – Chair Benjamin Chang Kenneth Tator

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

All, Just wanted to update everyone on what is going to happen at CORROSION 2013. There will be an Arbitration Board meeting on Tuesday (March 19) afternoon with the TG 360 Chair, TG 360 Vice Chair, STG 35 Chair, TMG C2 Technical Coordinator and the four Appellants to discuss the revision process used in the last revision of the SP0169. No one knows what the decision is or what has been discussed. The TG 360 meeting will be Wednesday (March 20) from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm. You can look up the location and room for the meeting on the CORROSION 2013 website or in the program at Orlando. Hopefully, we will find out the status of the revision at this time and whether it will go forward or be further delayed. My hope is that it will be allowed to go forward as it is written. If not it may require further revision and re-balloting. I hope many of you will get to come to CORROSION 2013. It should be a very good event with many great papers and committee meetings. There are so many committees and meeting now, that it is difficult to attend all that are valuable. I would like to invite you to Pipeline Coatings, Corrosion Control and Cathodic Protection symposium. I will be involved two presentations that will be given on Wednesday (March 20) in room 230A in the . One is "Understanding Mesh Backed Coating Systems and Non-Shielding". As many of you know this has been a hot topic for many in the industry who do not fully understand the process by which such a coating could have adequate dielectric strength and be non-shielding to CP at the same time. This paper will explain the process by which the mesh backed coating system is non-shielding to CP when disbondments occur and electrolyte is present between the coating and the substrate. Many have rejected tape type products as a rule because of the many CP shielding issues in the 70's and 80's because of disbonded solid film backed tapes and have thrown the mesh backed coating systems into this same category. This paper and presentation will give the evidence and testing that shows these products have proven track record of 25 years in service with no reported cases of measurable corrosion under the rare disbondments that have occurred when adequate CP is available. Hopefully, this will answer many questions and concerns about these types of coatings and maybe lead to industry testing to better determine the CP shielding characteristics of the various types of pipeline coatings. Hope you can make it and bring your questions and comments either at the meeting or come to the Polyguard booth and I will answer them there! The other paper that I am involved with is Rosen and is titled "EMAT, Pipe Coatings, Corrosion Control and CP Shielding". It will also discuss many of the issues surrounding disbonded coatings and the problems with CP shielding that can lead to external corrosion and stress corrosion cracking on cathodically protected pipelines. This paper will also be in room 230A and will be at 3:15 pm to 3:40 pm. This one may have been left off of the schedule, but it should be on the final program. This paper will address the use of the EMAT tool that not only finds SCC, but also finds disbonded coating and can for the most part distinguish the type of coating being used. This is some great information that will allow companies to be proactive instead of reactive to these problems. Once they know they have disbonded coating, they can correct the problem before SCC of external corrosion becomes a problem unless they know the coating is Non-shielding to CP. I think this is one of the greatest new technologies on the market. Hope to see everyone there and please come by the TG 360 committee meeting to see what is going on. Also, come by the Polyguard booth and visit. We now have a great two-part epoxy for those who refuse to use the RD-6 coating system or want to coat irregular shaped components like valves, fitting, girth welds or re-hab. Thanks for your time and effort through the years and let me know if I can help with your coatings and CP issues. Richard Norsworthy Polygaurd Products, Inc. NACE International Corrosion Specialist

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Update on appeal process

Just a quick update on the SP0169-2007 revision. The document is with the three members of the Appeal Panel set up by the TCC Chair. They did meet at CTW, but this of course is a closed meeting. The hope is that there will be decision soon from this Panel. I am not sure who is on the Appeal Panel. Everyone is hoping for a decision before the end of the year so the TG 360 committee can complete the document and get it out to the industry. I believe that it is a much stronger and better document than in the past and will truly help the industry. No such standard will ever be perfect or meet every ones needs, but this one if allowed to go forward is (I think) the best one so far. There will be two articles coming out in Materials Performance (October and November) about the Electro Magnetic Acoustic Transducer technology that I helped to author with some wonderful folks from Rosen. Unlike some of the other EMAT tools that only find SCC this one can also find disbonded coating and identify the type of coating on the line because of the number of sensors they use in their tools. As with any relatively new technology, it is improving each day, but now offers a great opportunity for companies to locate disbonded coatings before they become a problem. Remember, most of the external corrosion problems we have on pipelines occur under disbonded coatings that shield CP. SCC is nearly always (if not always) found under disbonded coatings that shield CP. Most MIC problems on external surfaces of pipelines are under disbonded coatings that shield CP. These articles are short version of the paper C2012-0001673 we presented at CORROSION 2012. We are writing a follow up paper for CORROSION 2013. There will also be an article in the October edition World Pipelines that will discuss the importance of understanding the pipeline coatings that we use and how they work with CP if disbondments occur. The industry is finally paying more attention to this serious problem. If something changes on SP0169 I will alert you as soon as I know anything further. Hope all is well with everyone and let me know if I can help in any way by giving advice on pipeline coatings, etc. Polyguard and I want to thank all of you for the support and effort over these years of struggling to complete the SP0169 revision. We have a much better document, if it is allowed to go forward. If not we will just continue to make it the best we can for the world's pipeline and related industries! Richard Norsworthy We believe in using non-shielding pipeline coatings! Go the website for more information about shielding and non-shielding pipeline coatings.

Monday, March 26, 2012

SP0169 Revision Notice

I just wanted to make a quick report on CORROSION 2012 for those of you could not be there or attend the TG 360 committee.
It was a great conference in Salt Lake City, Utah last week.  NACE International did a very good job with the conference and the weather was great!  Make plans for CORROSION 2013 in Orlando, FL.
The TG 360 committee had a meeting on Tuesday morning to update everyone on the status of the last revision of the SP0169.  Basically, the document is awaiting the approval of the Board-of Directors in June.  The problem is that there were four appeals that had to be reviewed by the TCC to determine if they were valid or not.   This delayed the opportunity for the BOD to have the chance to for approval.  Appeals can still be presented to BOD, so there is still some chance these appeals can delay the process further if the BOD, decides the appeals are valid.
The appeals can only be procedural, not technical.  The appeals we made by Bob Gummow, James Bushman, Joseph Mataich and Bill Lowry.  Section 12 of the NACE International Technical Committee Publications Manual describes the appeals process, in which persons who have directly and materially affected interest and who have been or may be adversely affected by a substantive or procedural action or inaction of NACE have the right to appeal.   A summary of the appeals is being prepared because some of them are very lengthy, and NACE will probably share the summary at some point (according to Daniela).
I am not sure when Draft #4c will be posted on the NACE International website.  Jim Chmlir (chairman of the 360 committee) said it will be posted with the minutes of the meeting.  I did get a hard copy at the meeting.  There are some changes from the version that was voted on last summer, but the TCC said all changes were editorial only, so no re-ballot at this time!
TEG 463X
The TEG 463X, titled "Cathodic Protection Shielding and Root Causes of External Corrosion of Cathodically Protected Pipelines" was very well attended!  Thanks to Frank Song and Joe Pikas for chairing the committee. There were close to 100 folks present and we had to bring in several extra chairs and we still had some standing.  This only points out the importance of this issue! 
Joe Pikas provided a very good presentation called “Typical Coating Characteristics” that provided information about various properties that a good pipeline coating should have.   You can contact Joe at   I also made a presentation on pipeline shielding problems.   We will post this presentation on the website soon.
As expected there was some controversy, especially when the Canusa representative made a presentation that basically was a direct attack on Polyguard’s RD-6 (which we have already seen).  But the worst issue was that he presented data from the recent GTI testing that was not to be presented without permission from GTI.  The GTI part of the presentation was not approved by the chair or vice-chair of the group.  Mr. Bob Buchanan made the presentation and did not leave a full copy with the chair.
I am still very concerned about the effort by some in NACE that are still promoting the idea that NACE standards be adopted by ISO.  There are still MANY questions that have not been answered.  I will be sending more information on this at a later date.  I was able to discuss this with many different folks while at CORROSION 2012.   Many of these were international or worked on international projects.  They have many concerns about this process that will be offered later.  The more I hear, the less I like it. 
I will provide more comment later.  We as NACE International “The Corrosion Society” need to make sure we kept it that way.  ISO is not a corrosion only organization so I am in favor of NACE working with them to develop standards, but not allow our standards becoming ISO/NACE since we lose nearly all control of revisions.  I will keep you posted on any further information.
We had standing room only (some were turned away) for our presentation with Rosen –
 Importance of Locating Disbonded Coatings with Electro-Magnetic Acoustic Transducer Technology”
You can find a copy of it on the NACE website.  The paper number is C2012-0001673.  It proves the importance of this topic and issues surrounding it.
We are finally getting more companies paying attention to the fact that this is a critical issue for the pipeline industry.

There will be a symposium call "Pipe Coatings, Corrosion Control, and Cathodic Protection Shielding".  This symposium will be a great opportunity to bring more light to this problem from all around the world.  Please provide an abstract by the required deadline if you have some case histories, testing or other relevant information concerning CP shielding pipeline coatings or good experiences with coatings that are non-shielding to CP when disbondments occur.  There were many questions and discussion of three layer coatings and how much corrosion or SCC has been found under the three layer coatings coated in the last 20 years or so.
There will also be another TEG similar to the one held this year with emphasis on the CP shielding problems end users are seeing on pipelines that are coated and cathodically protected when the coating disbonds and water migrates between the coating and the pipe.  This TEG is titled "Cathodic Protection Shielding and Root Causes of External Corrosion of Cathodically Protected Pipelines".
I want to thank everyone for a great response to our booth at CORROSION 2012.  We had many international folks come by.  This is very exciting time as we get more and more companies involved in the idea that there are options in pipeline coatings that have been proven to allow CP to work even when coating disbond and water migrates between the coating and the pipe.  Some coating types have been well documented to be CP shielding when disbondments occur.  As mentioned above, there will be a couple of great opportunities to make presentations next year at CORROSION 2013.
Let me know if I can help with any of the above topics or any other way in the future!
Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.

March 26, 2012

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

NACE 2012


                                      TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE GROUP 463x

“Cathodic Protection Shielding and Root Causes of External Corrosion of Cathodically Protected Pipelines”

ASSIGNMENT:  STG 35 (03 05)

SUNDAY, MARCH 11, 2012

1:30-5:00 pm



Chair:  Frank Song
Vice Chair: Joe Pikas

1.0        Call to order by Frank Song

2.0        Introduction of meeting attendees

3.0        Old Business (N/A)

            This is the first committee meeting.

4.0        New Business

Three presentations from leading industry experts and open discussion

Joe Pikas, HDR/SHIFF, “Typical Coating Characteristics”

Richard Norsworthy, Polyguard Products, Inc., “Pipeline Coating and CP Shielding”

Bob Buchanan, Canusa-CPS, “Dielectric Coatings and Properties for Performance, or Shielding – Good, Bad or Simply a Design Principle?”

5.0        Announcement of next meeting.  (Corrosion Technology Week, September 16-20 in New Orleans)

6.0        Adjournment

ASSIGNMENT: Review and revise as necessary NACE SP0169-2007 (formerly RP0169), "Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems," including Section 6, Criteria.
9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Chair: Jim Chmilar
Vice Chair: Travis Sera
1.0 Call to order by Jim Chmilar
2.0 Introduction of meeting attendees
3.0 Approval of most recent meeting minutes at CTW on September 20, 2011
4.0 Old Business
4.1 Status of document
The reballot was sent out on July 26, 2011 and the close date was August 23, 2011. The reballot results were reviewed at CTW and the document was modified based
on discussion of the submitted comments. The TG group concluded revisions and the document was forwarded to RPC to determine whether the revisions made to the draft are editorial or technical. If RPC determines technical changes were made then we would be in reballot (of those changes made) during February 2012
5.0 New Business
6.0 Work on document/discuss ballot results / future activity
6.1 If the draft has been sent out for reballot prior to CORROSION 2012, the TG will review the reballot results. If the draft has not yet been sent out for reballot, the TG will discuss future activity.
7.0 Announcement of next meeting. (Corrosion Technology Week 2012 is September 16-20, 2011 in New Orleans, Louisiana)

8.0 Adjournment

Mon. 3:20 - 3:45pm
Salt Palace Convention Center - 155 E
Symposia: Pipeline Integrity
Importance of Locating Disbonded Coatings with Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer Technology
Authors: Richard Norsworthy, Claus Doescher, Carsten Heinks, Matthias Jurgk
TEG 267X [35]