Friday, September 3, 2010

Comments with Richard's affirmative vote

Comments to TG 360 Committee – Ballot August 2010


Coating: (1) A liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition that, after application to a surface, is converted into a solid protective, decorative, or functional adherent film; (2) (in a more general sense) a thin layer of solid material on a surface that provides improved protective, decorative, or functional properties. For the purposes of this standard, “Coating” is defined as an electrically insulating material applied to the surface of a metallic structure that provides an adherent film which protects a metallic structure from the surrounding electrolyte.

Reason for change: Not all coatings are “thin”. Not sure how you would define “thin”. When operating pressure and conditions are conducive to high pH stress corrosion cracking, the use of polarized potentials in the cracking range relative to the temperature indicated in Figure 1 is not advised.56

This table concerns me since many times the SCC happens under disbonded coatings and that is not affected by the polarized potential measurements outside of the coating. Could there be precautionary statement to cover these situations?

6.4.3 In situations in which the temperature of the reference electrode is below 15 °C (59 °F) and above 35 °C (95 °F), refer to Table 2.

This table is very confusing to most folks and will cause many problems. Why is there not a difference when the temperature is between 15º C and 35º C? Now when you are out of these ranges we have to calculate these differences. We have already thoroughly confused the industry with reference cell conversions that change continually according to which course they are taking at the time. Is this really a serious problem? If so, why has it not been in the document before? Do we really need this?

Thanks for all the hard work and effort!

Richard Norsworthy
Polyguard Products, Inc.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Richard Norsworthy's comments on August 2010 version

At this time I believe this is a copy that I will vote affirmative. There are some areas that need help, but this is the most reasonable version I have seen. There are some excellent changes and improvements in the overall document.

Please take time to review the document and vote as you feel neccessary, but please vote. If you vote affirmative, you can provide comments for the areas that still need some improvements or changes. This does not force the committee to change anything, but they should and I believe will address any comments.

I have not had time to provide my comments yet, but will later.

Even if this version passes, we will continue the blog because the TM0497 now has to begin the revision to accomodate this revision.


Polyguard Products, Inc.

William Tessier comments

“The still small voice in your head must be the final arbiter when there is a conflict of duty.” –Mahatmas Gandhi

The recent discussions and debates concerning the -0.850mv “On” or “Instant Off” necessitate the need for additional dialogue among all members of the NACE family. With this brief article, I hope to encourage members throughout NACE, regardless of the position held, to let their thoughts and concerns be known as well as describe my own position.
Over forty years ago, NACE had developed a Standard Practice to offer direction for corrosion professionals around the world in determining the success of their corrosion control efforts. This Practice has also provided guidance to the U.S. federal government and other entities in their rulemaking efforts as well.
I have not aware of any compelling reasons to modify the Practice. It was created, I believe, to offer a guideline, not a de facto law of physics to say corrosion was or was not occurring. Many of us can recite numerous occasions where, despite adequate cathodic protection according to the Practice, corrosion has occurred. Perhaps equally so, narratives are abundant stating the absence of corrosion when these parameters are not met. As with any scientific theory, the status quo needs to be accepted until, and if, unequivocal evidence is given to dispute it.
Regardless of the NACE members’ propensity towards one theory or the other, one point is clear. That point is to investigate thoroughly, and mitigate to the best of their ability, any system or structure under their responsibility. The "letter" of the law must be followed consciously; the “spirit” of the law must be approached with integrity, dignity and personal conviction. This is the reason for the quote above. We need to comply with the laws that govern our industry but it is imperative to rectify any situation that is identified as having a corrosive environ whether that situation does or does not meet the “magic” -0.850 mv “On” or “Off”.
We, as corrosion control professionals and NACE members, have the ethical obligation to determine that if a system or structure is in a corrosive environment, proper prompt remedial action is taken. As leaders in a very challenging field, we must take this occasion presented from NACE and examine the different aspect of this Practice and comment accordingly. Having been acquainted with other industry specific Associations and realizing that it seldom happens; I would like members to take moment to appreciate this gift of empowerment that NACE and the Committee has bestowed upon us. Together, we will remain the principle voice in the continuous struggle to protect our environment, our communities and our assets from the devastating effects of corrosion.
My statements are not intended to discourage debate but to promote a discussion where we, as dedicated corrosion control professionals, can arrive at an acceptable solution. I propose NACE and the associated Committee, according to the established bylaws, to vote among the Committee members for acceptance or rejection of the proposed revision. If, however, the vote does not achieve a two thirds (super) majority, perhaps a vote from all NACE members can be incorporated. The process of the solicitation and receipt of votes should be relatively brief, possibly two months, and any revisions accepted or rejected according to a simple majority. If irrefutable evidence introduced in the future is vetted and accepted by a simple majority of NACE members, then, like the U.S. Constitution, the Standard can, and should be, amended.
I would like to thank everyone for allowing me the opportunity to convey my opinions on this very important topic.
William Tessier –NACE Senior Corrosion Technologist
NACE Internal Corrosion Technologist