Thursday, July 2, 2009

We at Polyguard want to thank every one for their support and encouragment to keep this Blog site going. Though I do not always keep it up as often as I would like, We do feel it is an important issue that has not been as well publised as possible by NACE and others in the corrosion control industry.

Whether you agree or disagree with the revision, is not as important as the efforts to provide a format to "freely" discuss the issues involved with this document. At times we did not feel that format was available to many. Some do not have an opportunity nor want to face the committee and try to make their point. Small companies and operators do not always have the expertise to discuss many of the issues, yet know what they have been doing is working.

Please be sure that you get on "Join the Ballot Voting List" if you are a member of the required groups (STG 03, 05, 35 and 62). You may be able to join one of the groups before the dead line and then join the list to vote. I am not sure about this but some one at NACE will help you if needed.

I have held some of my comments about the various reasons why I am going to vote "NO" on the document, but will be glad to discuss with any of you or provide support for anyone or any company that also feels this is not a valid or good document as written.

I would like to thank the TG 360 committee and NACE for the very hard work and extra effort some have put in to get this document to this point. Whether we agree or disagree with where it is, we do all agree with the difficulty of undertaking such an important revision. What we all want is the best possible document for our industry.

Thanks again for the support,

Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.

Instructions for Joining the Ballot Voting List for SP0169

Welcome to the TCC online balloting system that allows members to join a ballot voting list.

Dear Members:
We are contacting members of STGs 35, 05, and 30 regarding their desire to vote on an upcoming ballot of TG 360’s proposed revision to NACE SP0169-2007 (formerly RP0169), “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems.”
STEP 1: Please review the abstract by going to where you will view the NACE login page. You will be prompted to enter your user name and password. Once you have done so and are logged in, click on the tab in the upper right-hand corner titled “Committees.” Then, click on “Online Balloting” (on the right-hand column on this page). The next page you will see offers you Action Items, Results and a Logout option.
STEP 2: The next page you will see is TCC Balloting Home.

To join a voting list, click on the Action Items button. This will take you to a listing of open Ballots, Reballots, Review and Comments, and voting lists.

Under the heading “Join Ballot Voting Lists,” find the appropriate TG number and click “Respond.”

STEP 3: To review the abstract prior to responding, click on the document title link at the top of the page.

The abstract is in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, which means you will need Acrobat Reader software on your computer. If you do not have it, you may download it FREE from the Adobe Web site,

STEP 4: After reviewing the abstract, you may join the voting list or decline to join by clicking the “Back” button at the top left corner of the screen and choosing “yes” or “no” on the TCC Ballot Response page. Please remember to indicate your classification.

NOTE: The interest classifications have recently been expanded. Previously, there were only three interest classifications (user, producer, general interest), but there are now seven (user/consumer, manufacturer/producer, general interest, contractor, consultant, government/military, and research, development, and testing). Please consider these classifications carefully.

Be sure to click on the SUBMIT RESPONSE button at the bottom of the page to submit your response.

After you have submitted your response, the TCC Response Confirmation page will appear stating that your response has been recorded. In addition, you will receive an e-mail confirmation of your response.
Thank you for your participation in the online process of forming a voting list.

Roy Bash comments


The committee’s second reference under “Criteria for Steel and Cast Iron” by S.P. Ewing is considered to be a classic in literature pertaining to valid research projects for field testing CP criteria.

Dr. Ewing explains that all potentials were measured by interrupting the CP current so that the open circuit (instant-off) potential would be free of IR drop. The reference electrode was always placed on the surface of the soil directly above the buried steel pipe specimen being tested.

On page 415 of Dr. Ewing’s paper covering the test results of his field research project at the four locations in Oklahoma in 1948, outlines what he considered to be the most significant findings of his research as follows:

“The most significant findings of the test will be discussed first .The data obtained indicate that corrosion was stopped in each environment at a specific open circuit potential . These potential values varied about 0.1 volt between the different environments. They were 0.05 to 0.15 volt less (more cathodic) than the usually accepted value of -0.85 volt as measured with reference to the copper/copper sulfate electrode.”

From the above Dr. Ewing found that the open circuit (instant-off) potential criterion for CP of steel ranges from -0.70 to -0.80 volt, CSE. Please note that he considered this to be “the most significant finding of the test.

The committee lists this scientifically sound article as their second reference, supposedly in support of their position that the instant-off potential criterion for CP of steel is -850 mV, CSE.

Listing a scientifically sound article as a reference and then ignoring or outright disputing it leaves a lot to be desired concerning the best professional approach for addressing any issue being debated

The-700 to -800mV, CSE instant-off potential CP criterion for steel can easily be supported by use of long standing basic scientific principles from the textbooks. Conversely, the -850 mV, CSE instant-off potential CP criterion for steel can easily be proven to be at least -50 mV, CSE overly stringent.

As A. W. Peabody wrote in his original book, the maximum potential, CSE that can be expected on a buried

steel pipeline in natural soils and waters is –0.8 volt. This is a scientific fact that is as true today as it was when Peabody wrote it. Quoting from the second edition of the A.W. Peabody book on page 69, “Newly laid , coated steel pipelines may have an average potential in the range of -0.5 to -0.7 V, whereas old , bare steel lines may have an average potential more in the range of -0.1 to 0.3 V (CSE)”.

There just can not be any justification for NACE to produce a standards document based on buried steel pipelines reaching potentials even near -0.8 volt, CSE. In 56 years of CP practice this writer has measured only four potentials above -700 mV ,CSE on buried steel pipelines (-705mV, -706mV, -718mV, and -725mV) and all of these were on the same coated steel pipeline in 200 to 250 ohm-cm tropical rainforest soil in Suriname, South America.

Some members of the committee have noted that steel reaches a potential of 0.8 volt ,CSE or more in high pH alkaline environments, but as Peabody has written in his book, steel does not corrode in high pH environments.

Quoting Peabody from page 43 of his book, “When steel is immersed in a sufficiently caustic solution (around pH 11 and higher) it can be made to discharge current without appreciable metal loss”.

All aspects of an overly stringent CP criterion for steel are negative.

1, It offers no more assurance of corrosion control than an adequate CP criterion.

2. It increases the risk of causing corrosion damage on nearby buried or submerged metallic structures

3.It increases the risk of damaging coatings on coated pipelines.

4.It increases the risk of hydrogen damage to the steel being protected.

5. It unnecessarily increases the cost of CP.

6.It would overtly enrich (monetarily) the CP industry and NACE.

Respectfully Submitted,

L.A. (Roy) Bash, P.E.

L.A. (Roy) Bash

Global Cathodic Protection, Inc.

A CerAnode Company

P.O. Box 571507

Houston, TX 77257

5826 Schumacher Lane