I want make it very clear to everyone this is NOT A NACE INTERNATIONAL sponsored blog site!
The SP0169.com blog is sponsored by Polyguard Products, Inc. to allow everyone access to the discussion, information and debate about this document. This is one of the most important standard practices that NACE publishes. Therefore it is critical to get the best document possible from this process.
Polyguard has given me the time and provided the expenses and personell to develop this blog in an effort to help the pipeline idustry with this effort. We at Polyguard are very passionate about solving the issues involved with pipeline coatings that shield CP when disbondments occur. Please go to our web site at polyguardproducts.com to get more information about our pipeline coatings as well as our other corrosion control and waterproofing products.
No matter what your position is on the SP0169 revision process, especially on the critieria section, please help us all to learn from you by commenting on the document. Please take time to discuss this with others in the industry and within your company. Pass along this information to all others that may have an interest in this document.
Thank you,
Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.
214-912-9072
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Commentary on SP0169
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Commentary on SP0169":
I am an end user/pipeline operator, a CP specialist, and a 20 year NACE member. As a profesional society, we have an obligation to advocate that which is technically correct. Only after that can we make allowances for 'that which works most of the time'.
I support changes to RP0169 that will bring the document to a level of technical correctness supported by state-of-the-art technical understanding about CP. The proposed revisions still allow a great deal of flexibility to use any other criterion demonstrated to work in that environment/situation. The obligation of proof is, however, appropriately delegated to the user wishing to make exceptions to the technical rule.
I am an end user/pipeline operator, a CP specialist, and a 20 year NACE member. As a profesional society, we have an obligation to advocate that which is technically correct. Only after that can we make allowances for 'that which works most of the time'.
I support changes to RP0169 that will bring the document to a level of technical correctness supported by state-of-the-art technical understanding about CP. The proposed revisions still allow a great deal of flexibility to use any other criterion demonstrated to work in that environment/situation. The obligation of proof is, however, appropriately delegated to the user wishing to make exceptions to the technical rule.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Other comments on TM0497":
I have worked for a pipeline distribution company since 1988 in the corrosion department. We have both rectified and galvanic CP systems with various test point types. We were taught to keep the half cell as close to the pipe as possible while getting CP reads. Most of our test points were coated, steel risers so we would put the half cell next to the riser when getting reads. This minimizes IR drop, especially in the soil type we have which runs around the 3,000 ohm-cm range. We have always used the -850 mv criteria. While attending NACE courses, the instructors said that the more critical CP reading is around the -800 mv range but they somewhat account for the IR drop factor and used -850 mv. There are coated pipelines in our system that were installed in the early 1950's with CP on it from day one and I have only seen a few corrosion leaks which were due to interference situations. The key is to fix CP system shorts ASAP, have more test points than you think you need and get the readings as close to the structure in damp soil as possible.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Update, June 14, 2009
Too All NACE Members Concerned about the revision of SP0169-2007:
As we travel down the revision path for the SP0169 there are times when we do not know what is happening in the process. I will assume that at this time we are waiting on the final revision from the TG 360 committee to NACE to prepare the document for vote. I have not heard yet from anyone on the progress.
The important thing at this time is to make sure EVERYONE who wants to vote on this document is signed up as a member of the STG 35 group. If they are not signed up on this or other sponsoring committees, then they will not have an opportunity to vote on this critical industry document.
Another critical thing to keep in mind is that you must vote on the first ballot in order to be able to vote on each revision of the document in this particular voting regime. Once the voting begins you must have voted on the original ballot, so please vote and make sure everyone else who may have an interest votes on this document.
When you vote there are some things that are important.
If you vote “YES”, you do not have to provide comments or reasoning. You may make editorial comments, but not technical changes.
If you vote “Abstain”, you do not have to provide comments or reasoning.
If you vote “NO”, you MUST provide technical reasons and provide an alternative to the proposed statement or section. It is not easy to vote “NO”.
You must also provide your “interest classification”.
Below is some of the information from the balloting process that you need to be familiar with before you start the voting. I hope this helps you to better understand the process. Please let me or someone at NACE International know if you are having any problems with understanding the process no matter what document you may be voting on.
Voting information:
Affirmative - The voter may note perceived editorial errors and their corrections.
Negative - Negative votes (1) must be accompanied by a written comment relevant to the portion of the document being balloted, preferably including a technical explanation and justification and (2) must include a suggested revision or action that would serve to resolve the negative.
Abstaining - Abstaining is for persons who are unable to or not prepared to review the document, or who do not feel qualified to vote.
Editorial Comment
Please limit editorial comments entered here to about 10 lines (750 characters). If you want to include a longer comment, please attach a file to an e-mail or click the link "Upload an editorial comment" that will appear after you submit your vote. If sending e-mail, be sure to include your name, NACE number, the ballot's task group number, and the document number if available.
Technical Comment
If a negative vote has been cast on this document, the vote must (1) be accompanied by a written comment relevant to the portion of the document being balloted, preferably including a technical explanation and justification, and (2) include a suggested revision or action that would serve to resolve the negative.
The committee is not required to consider negative votes that are (1) without comments or (2) accompanied by comments not related to the proposal under consideration, i.e., the revisions or draft being balloted. Such votes shall be recorded as "negative without comments" without further notice to the voter. Comments will not be solicited from the voter, and such votes will not be recirculated to the STG(s).
Please limit technical comments entered here to about 20 lines (1500 characters). If you want to include a longer comment, please attach a file to an e-mail or click the link "Upload a technical comment" that will appear after you submit your vote. If sending e-mail, be sure to include your name, NACE number, the ballot's task group number, and the document number if available.
Interest Classification
In relation to the subject matter of this document, please check your classification. You must fit one of these categories. If too many voters (over 50%) are from one interest classification vote then the document will be sent to more voters from other categories to try to get them to vote. Not sure that is the best thing, but those are the rules. I am not the expert on this issue so you should go to the NACE International web site and read the procedures for voting to ensure you understand.
User/Consumer - A person who purchases or uses materials, products, systems, or services addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a User/Consumer provided that he/she could not be classified as a Manufacturer/Producer.
Manufacturer/Producer - A person who produces or sells materials, products, systems, or services addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a Manufacturer/Producer.
General Interest - A person who does not fit the definitions of any of the other interest classifications shall be classified as General Interest.
Consultant - A person who provides consulting services such as the evaluation or specification of materials, products, requirements, methods, or systems addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a Consultant.
Contractor - A person who engineers, applies, or installs, but does not produce materials, products, or systems addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a Contractor.
Government/Military - A person employed by a government agency or by the Military shall be classified as Government/Military.
Research/Development/Testing - A person who conducts research and development or provides testing services related to the content of the proposed publication shall be classified under Research/Development/Testing.
Here are some recent comments from some of the others:
Thank you for doing this Richard! I appreciate it…. Comments from Corrosion Supervisor of a large gas distribution company.
Richard that committee is determined to turn a blind eye to facts. No hope.
Sad Day for NACE
Comments from a large gas transportation company.
Thank you for the information Richard.
Comments for oil and gas transportation company.
Thanks, Richard
Comments from Saudi Arabia.
It is very interesting that the committee seems bound to a few who are not (for the most part) end users of this document. Even though there have been many presentations and considerable information given to the committee, they have not budged from the original attempts starting in about 2002 to revise the criteria section to basically eliminate the “ON” -850 mV criterion. They may as well put it out to ballot and see what happens. Let’s just hope that there is a “fair” process for those who wish to vote negative and not just have the document forced upon the industry with only a few “intelligent” folks providing the guidance to those of us who do not know!
Comments from a concerned NACE member.
One of the bits of information that has not been presented, but is proof that the -850 mV “ON” criterion is adequate with few exceptions is to compare the percentage of times you meet the 100 mV of polarization as well as having an “ON” -850 mV or more negative potential. Please look at your data to compare these potentials. You may be surprised to see the percentage of times you meet the both. From my experience, the number will be close to 100% that if you have a -850 mV or more negative “ON” potential, you will also meet or exceed the 100 mV criterion. If this is true, then this is great evidence that the -850mV “ON” potential is valid in most environments, with few exceptions!
If your company can provide such evidence to the committee, to me or the PRCI committee, it will help resolve this issue. We should be able to define those areas where the polarized potential or 100 mV criteria will be the way to go.
Thank you very much for the interest and comments from each of you! I encourage every one to comment no matter which way you consider is best! If there is ever a way that I or Polyguard Products can help you or your company with these matters or other corrosion control issues, please let me know.
Thank you,
Richard Norsworthy
richnors@flash.net
As we travel down the revision path for the SP0169 there are times when we do not know what is happening in the process. I will assume that at this time we are waiting on the final revision from the TG 360 committee to NACE to prepare the document for vote. I have not heard yet from anyone on the progress.
The important thing at this time is to make sure EVERYONE who wants to vote on this document is signed up as a member of the STG 35 group. If they are not signed up on this or other sponsoring committees, then they will not have an opportunity to vote on this critical industry document.
Another critical thing to keep in mind is that you must vote on the first ballot in order to be able to vote on each revision of the document in this particular voting regime. Once the voting begins you must have voted on the original ballot, so please vote and make sure everyone else who may have an interest votes on this document.
When you vote there are some things that are important.
If you vote “YES”, you do not have to provide comments or reasoning. You may make editorial comments, but not technical changes.
If you vote “Abstain”, you do not have to provide comments or reasoning.
If you vote “NO”, you MUST provide technical reasons and provide an alternative to the proposed statement or section. It is not easy to vote “NO”.
You must also provide your “interest classification”.
Below is some of the information from the balloting process that you need to be familiar with before you start the voting. I hope this helps you to better understand the process. Please let me or someone at NACE International know if you are having any problems with understanding the process no matter what document you may be voting on.
Voting information:
Affirmative - The voter may note perceived editorial errors and their corrections.
Negative - Negative votes (1) must be accompanied by a written comment relevant to the portion of the document being balloted, preferably including a technical explanation and justification and (2) must include a suggested revision or action that would serve to resolve the negative.
Abstaining - Abstaining is for persons who are unable to or not prepared to review the document, or who do not feel qualified to vote.
Editorial Comment
Please limit editorial comments entered here to about 10 lines (750 characters). If you want to include a longer comment, please attach a file to an e-mail or click the link "Upload an editorial comment" that will appear after you submit your vote. If sending e-mail, be sure to include your name, NACE number, the ballot's task group number, and the document number if available.
Technical Comment
If a negative vote has been cast on this document, the vote must (1) be accompanied by a written comment relevant to the portion of the document being balloted, preferably including a technical explanation and justification, and (2) include a suggested revision or action that would serve to resolve the negative.
The committee is not required to consider negative votes that are (1) without comments or (2) accompanied by comments not related to the proposal under consideration, i.e., the revisions or draft being balloted. Such votes shall be recorded as "negative without comments" without further notice to the voter. Comments will not be solicited from the voter, and such votes will not be recirculated to the STG(s).
Please limit technical comments entered here to about 20 lines (1500 characters). If you want to include a longer comment, please attach a file to an e-mail or click the link "Upload a technical comment" that will appear after you submit your vote. If sending e-mail, be sure to include your name, NACE number, the ballot's task group number, and the document number if available.
Interest Classification
In relation to the subject matter of this document, please check your classification. You must fit one of these categories. If too many voters (over 50%) are from one interest classification vote then the document will be sent to more voters from other categories to try to get them to vote. Not sure that is the best thing, but those are the rules. I am not the expert on this issue so you should go to the NACE International web site and read the procedures for voting to ensure you understand.
User/Consumer - A person who purchases or uses materials, products, systems, or services addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a User/Consumer provided that he/she could not be classified as a Manufacturer/Producer.
Manufacturer/Producer - A person who produces or sells materials, products, systems, or services addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a Manufacturer/Producer.
General Interest - A person who does not fit the definitions of any of the other interest classifications shall be classified as General Interest.
Consultant - A person who provides consulting services such as the evaluation or specification of materials, products, requirements, methods, or systems addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a Consultant.
Contractor - A person who engineers, applies, or installs, but does not produce materials, products, or systems addressed in the proposed publication shall be classified as a Contractor.
Government/Military - A person employed by a government agency or by the Military shall be classified as Government/Military.
Research/Development/Testing - A person who conducts research and development or provides testing services related to the content of the proposed publication shall be classified under Research/Development/Testing.
Here are some recent comments from some of the others:
Thank you for doing this Richard! I appreciate it…. Comments from Corrosion Supervisor of a large gas distribution company.
Richard that committee is determined to turn a blind eye to facts. No hope.
Sad Day for NACE
Comments from a large gas transportation company.
Thank you for the information Richard.
Comments for oil and gas transportation company.
Thanks, Richard
Comments from Saudi Arabia.
It is very interesting that the committee seems bound to a few who are not (for the most part) end users of this document. Even though there have been many presentations and considerable information given to the committee, they have not budged from the original attempts starting in about 2002 to revise the criteria section to basically eliminate the “ON” -850 mV criterion. They may as well put it out to ballot and see what happens. Let’s just hope that there is a “fair” process for those who wish to vote negative and not just have the document forced upon the industry with only a few “intelligent” folks providing the guidance to those of us who do not know!
Comments from a concerned NACE member.
One of the bits of information that has not been presented, but is proof that the -850 mV “ON” criterion is adequate with few exceptions is to compare the percentage of times you meet the 100 mV of polarization as well as having an “ON” -850 mV or more negative potential. Please look at your data to compare these potentials. You may be surprised to see the percentage of times you meet the both. From my experience, the number will be close to 100% that if you have a -850 mV or more negative “ON” potential, you will also meet or exceed the 100 mV criterion. If this is true, then this is great evidence that the -850mV “ON” potential is valid in most environments, with few exceptions!
If your company can provide such evidence to the committee, to me or the PRCI committee, it will help resolve this issue. We should be able to define those areas where the polarized potential or 100 mV criteria will be the way to go.
Thank you very much for the interest and comments from each of you! I encourage every one to comment no matter which way you consider is best! If there is ever a way that I or Polyguard Products can help you or your company with these matters or other corrosion control issues, please let me know.
Thank you,
Richard Norsworthy
richnors@flash.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
