Sunday, March 21, 2010



For those who were not at CORROSION 2010, the vote on the last revision of the SP0169 by the TG 360 committee did not get the required 66 2/3 % to move forward with this document version. The vote was 99 for the revision, 88 against and 21 abstain.

The vote was about 53% for and 47% against, which means the committee has a choice of disbanding the committee or starting over. If the committee is disbanded and another not formed then the committee can just let the document die. This would mean that NACE would not longer have a Standard Practice for external corrosion control. Some want this to happen so they can now use the ISO document, which would be a disaster for most in the pipeline industry.

If the committee continues to work on the revision then it will not die. I think this is the decision that was made. Also, many of us voiced our opinion to continue the process, but go back to some basic guidance instead of trying to cover everything in one document. The document is now 66 pages or so. Much of this is information that should be referenced and not put into this document.

Of course the most controversial section is still the on covering criterion. Section 6 has become a series of statements that are trying to appease the various comments presented in the past. The problem is that this part document has gotten more complicated instead of being a simple guide for the end user.

One of the big hang ups with some on the committee is the use of the word “consider” in the present document. This is actually the reason why we have been revising the SP0169 since around 2000. There are those who fear that an end user can not define “consider” and will abuse the use of this word in the criterion. Why has this become a problem with a criterion that has had “consider” in it since 1969? Most everyone I know seems to have a definition of “consider” that works just fine. The use of the words “corrected for” were substituted for “consider” in latest versions.

When asked by the committee how I would define “consider”, I said; “Each company should be responsible for defining how they are going to consider voltage drop, not the committee. This definition and process for considering voltage drop should be up to the end user, not the TG 360 committee.

Hopefully, the TG 360 committee will go back to the at least the existing criteria and leave it up to the end user to determine how to use each criterion effectively in their corrosion control program. The committee even says this in the third sentence in section 6.2; “The use of any approach to achieve corrosion control through CP is the
responsibility of the user.”

There have been some very good changes in the latest revision that I hope we can keep. Many of the affirmative voters also had concerns and comments in some sections. The negative voters also had many very good comments and concerns about the document. If the committee will take these and actually go back to one of the earlier versions of the criteria part of section 6, then I think we will have a much improved document that we can vote for. What ever this committee and the voters finally agree on, has to be something that can be used by those in the field in an economical, safe, and efficient manner to provide external corrosion control to pipelines around the world.

This is an invitation to each of you to provide guidance to the committee through your comments and concerns. I also encourage the committee to post ideas on the blog to get feed back before the next vote. Since the blog is open to all, why not use it for spring board to get this document finished? There must be compromise and simplification for the document to go forward. Lets all work on providing guidance to the committee and hopefully their will be enough on the committee that will actually appreciate our efforts and include us in the process, not after the fact.

Stay tuned and I will try to update the blog site when there is any change in the status or news that may affect the revision. Keep passing any information and comments along to the blog and I will post them for all to review no matter if I agree or not.

Thank you,

Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.