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 Polyguardproducts.com 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 joseph.pikas@hdrinc.com.   I also made a presentation on pipeline shielding problems.   We will post this presentation on the polyguardproducts.com 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]

Monday, January 9, 2012

Review of CP Criteria in Five Standards

Further to the discussion of CP criteria there is a very good article in the Pipeline and Gas Journal (December 2011) that discusses the various industry standards and compares one to the other.

This article is written by Fengmei Song and Hui Yu.  They have done a very good job of providing the infromation as well as providing so very good comments concerning the criteria contained in each.  You can contact Fengmei (Frank) Song at fsong@swri.org for more information.

One of the best quotes I like is "It was found that none of the CP criteria or even their combinations sufficiently guaranteed adequate protection of a pipeline in all field conditions, such as pitting under a shielding coating disbonded from the pipe surface."

This, of course, is what I have been writing about for many years.  As the industry starts using more coatings that are proven to be non-shielding to CP when disbondments occur, there will be less external corrosion and SCC!  I will be presenting a paper at CORROSION 2012 that discusses the use of EMAT technology to find disbonded coatings on pipelines.  See you there!

Richard Norsworthy

Revision Update

SP0169 – 2007 Revision Update

The TG 360 Committee has been working hard on addressing the negative ballots from the last vote.  The most recent information says at this time the changes are being considered as “editorial”.  If this turns out to be true, this means that the document would not have to be re-balloted!  It will have to be approved and checked for to be sure it meets all the NACE required wording and format, then can be published as the SP0169 – 2012 version.

I think this is great!  Hopefully, that will get us moving forward for a few years without this document being such a focus.  No standard will ever be perfect, but I do think the new version (if adopted) will provide the industry with a much better document than it has ever had before for the control of external corrosion on buried and submersed pipelines.  Each section has changes and overall improvements.  Maybe the new will be out by CORROSION 2012.  If something changes, I will let you know, since this is the most important standard (I think) that NACE International has ever published.

The next challenge will be to revise the “Test Method” (TM0497) to meet the newly revised (assuming it will be) SP0169!  I will keep you informed and please get on the balloting list when asked if you have input, experiences and knowledge to help the committee with this revision!


The issues surrounding NACE/ISO standards and adoption process has been answered by NACE as mentioned in an earlier e-mail.  I hope that each of you who had or have concerns about this have read the information provided by NACE and the TCC group.  I am a strong believer in NACE International staying heavily involved in the ISO process, but also strongly believe we should keep our documents as NACE International while letting ISO use our documents as needed to develop future corrosion control ISO standards.  This allows NACE members to maintain control of our standards while providing input and expertise to the ISO documents. 

Please read the information provided by NACE if you have not already done so and form your own opinion about the direction they are proposing, then provide comments and questions if you have any.  I will post if you like or you can send them directly to those who are controlling these committees.  We as NACE members must provide input into, as well as stay informed about the process to make sure we are taking the path that is best for NACE International.

Again, I want to thank Bob Chalker and all the others at NACE who have provided the below information for our members in an effort to provide understanding of the process and direction/role NACE International intends to proceed regarding ISO standard.  Please stay informed and question things as needed.  To make sure everyone has the information I have included it below for your consideration and comments on this very critical future path for NACE International. 
Let us all work together to this process the best it can be for our industry.
Thank you,
Richard Norsworthy

 December 8, 2011 TCC Chair, Brian Saldanha

December 8, 2011

Dear NACE members,

Several NACE members have expressed concerns related to NACE’s collaborative work on standards development with the International Standards Organization (ISO). One of the concerns is associated with the adoption of NACE standards by ISO, and the perception that once they are adopted by ISO, NACE would lose control of these standards. As Chair of the NACE Technical Coordination Committee (TCC), it is my intent to try and alleviate some of these concerns as well as share with the NACE membership the Association’s and TCC’s overall strategy for collaborating with ISO. The TCC is an administrative committee of the Technical and Research Activities Committee (TRAC), a Board standing committee that oversees standards development.

In a recent letter to the Board and to TCC, Jim Feather, Chair of TRAC and a past TCC Chair, emphasized that “the Board continues to strongly support the submission of selected NACE International standards to ISO in support of the Association’s strategic objective to grow our presence and influence internationally.” In line with this objective, TCC has incorporated several initiatives in its 2010-2020 Tactical Plan. Some of these include fostering the development and applicability of NACE standards internationally, more involvement of international membership in TCC’s technical activities, expanding NACE’s collaboration with other international technical organizations e.g., ISO, etc.

We certainly recognize that there has been a dramatic expansion of ISO standards use throughout the world, and many countries already recognize ISO standards and reference them in regulations. Further, independent of what NACE has done or is doing in standards development, ISO has authored approximately 200 corrosion-related standards in about 50 committees. Clearly, NACE is the premier Corrosion Society in the world and has more experience and expertise in corrosion than any other organization. While ISO can and has already adopted some NACE standards, we believe because of NACE’s stature that it is also more strategic on a global basis for NACE to have input into ISO work, rather than ISO independently developing standards that compete with NACE. NACE’s influence in this work would definitely benefit industry and users by fostering higher-quality ISO standards that have international impact. The real question is one of NACE being able to sustain and grow its relevance globally in an environment where many countries default to ISO for direction on standards. The World Trade Organization (WTO) considers ISO very relevant to ensuring that countries do not create barriers to trade based on local standards; consequently, many industries specify ISO. Outside the U.S., regulatory bodies are also most likely to use ISO standards.

There appears to be some misconceptions about what TCC’s intent is with respect to collaborating with ISO. It has never been the intention of TCC to stop writing NACE standards, or to lose control of our standards, or to shift our complete focus either now or in the future to ISO activity. We have heard some circulating comments to this effect and it is completely at odds with our goals in TCC. In fact, it should be pointed out that our strategy is to strive to maximize the impact of NACE on ISO corrosion-related standards, and not to reduce it. NACE’s standards development program will not be dictated by ISO; rather, NACE will continue to use its own procedures to develop high-quality technical standards by its membership through the TCC structure. While NACE will always have control over its own documents, it can also have a strong influence on the work of ISO as demonstrated by its members’ representation in ISO TAG activities for more than 20 years.

With the issues cited above, we have two very clear choices with respect to how we may contend with the growth of ISO. One is to continue as a primarily North American based standards-writing organization independent of ISO with the hope that other countries find our corrosion-related standards to be the best in the world. The other option is to try to inject our influence into the relevant corrosion-related ISO standards-development arena. This option would be accomplished by either adopting targeted ISO standards as dual NACE/ISO standards through the NACE technical committee process, and/or submitting certain, not all, strategically-targeted NACE standards that have global impact to the appropriate ISO committees for consideration by ISO to adopt them. These two options, described in detail below, strategically strengthen NACE’s position in influencing the standards work of ISO internationally.

 Adopting targeted ISO standards would require the appropriate NACE TCC Task Group membership that corresponds to the standard to review the ISO standard, modify it if needed, ballot it, address negatives etc., just like any other NACE standard. If the standard is approved, the modified adoption process allows this standard to be published as a jointly named NACE/ISO standard just as is done for NACE MR0175/ISO 15156. On the other hand, NACE does not have to adopt an ISO standard if it does not want to.

 Submitting strategically-targeted NACE standards to the appropriate ISO committees for possible adoption by ISO is another very positive opportunity. However, it is extremely important to note that NACE will NOT submit a standard without first bringing it to the attention of TCC and the appropriate technical committees. The selected standards would either have global impact, and/or fill in the gaps for weak or non-existent international standards on an important subject area. Further, this does not erase the existing NACE standard, whether it is adopted by ISO in full, or is modified. As ISO does not have dual standards it would simply be an ISO standard with NACE content. This approach would allow us to proactively lead an ISO initiative instead of following one, as well as strengthen the quality of standards used internationally.

I would like to stress that any ballot procedures on standards, whether they are NACE modified adoptions of ISO standards or regular NACE member developed standards, follow the same process as outlined in TCC’s Technical Committee Publications Manual (TCPM). The TCPM contains procedures for developing NACE standards, reports, and other technical committee publications. Further, TCC has developed a written procedure for submitting NACE standards to ISO (Section 3.16 of TCPM), as well as for adopting ISO standards as NACE standards (Section 3.17 of TCPM). These procedures were approved by the TCC and the Technical and Research Activities Committee (TRAC), the designated approval bodies for the TCPM.

So, how does NACE go about adopting ISO standards? Once an ISO standard has been identified for possible adoption by NACE, the standard would go through the normal NACE technical committee voting process before being accepted as a NACE nationally adopted standard. Members of the appropriate STG(s) would then be asked if they wish to vote on the adoption, and then the same process would be followed as for a NACE-generated standard. Decisions on what standards will be submitted are based on the procedure developed by the TCC as outlined in the TCPM.

Likewise, how can NACE influence existing ISO standards, and/or convince ISO to adopt NACE Standards or a modification thereof? Members can have a voice in the adoption and revision of ISO standards, but this requires the member to take the initiative to join the appropriate U.S. TAG in the U.S. or TAG in another country where the NACE member resides, or has a corporate interest. As a TAG member the NACE representative would have the ability to comment and vote on ISO standards. Because of the voting stipulations in ISO of one vote per country (for those countries holding a Participating (P) membership), the key to influencing the technical content of ISO standards is having appropriate involvement of NACE members in the various countries who can represent NACE’s position on that standard and accordingly influence the ISO voting delegation for that country. Hence, as Chair of TCC, I strongly encourage you to contact me, NACE staff, or any of the technical committee leaders if you know of any NACE members who are willing to be more involved in their countries’ participation in ISO efforts.

I must emphasize that the ISO process may in fact change the content of the submitted NACE standard, and this could either weaken or strengthen it. If the NACE committee members wish to maintain the submitted document as close to the original NACE standard as possible they need to participate in the appropriate TAG, attend the WG (Work Group) meetings where the standard will be discussed, and vote for their interests. To the extent that a NACE member participates actively in the ISO process they will have a voice and a vote. It is also important that if such a document is being discussed, and participation is needed by a NACE member, then it should be brought to the attention of the TCC leadership who will make every attempt to identify appropriate representation, and provide necessary support.

The selection of who represents NACE on specific NACE-originated NWI (New Work Items) proposals are made by TCC in conjunction with the leadership of the various NACE technical committees. This is determined by the individual’s interest, ability to travel to foreign meeting venues, subject mastery, and any other intangible factors which may produce a positive result for NACE’s effort.

We realize that some may feel their interests may be threatened or diluted by broadening our international influence and obtaining more input into our standards by the processes defined above. However, we in TCC and the Board feel it is important to maintain NACE’s legitimacy as an international standards organization and its respect as a premier corrosion technical society by incorporating all of the latest worldwide technology and practices whenever possible. For NACE International to remain a North American based organization without reaching out to the international community, I would think it would be less strategic to NACE’s existence than anything we do with ISO. As you may already be aware, NACE International’s mission statement is to “protect people, assets and the environment from corrosion.” “Losing control” of a standard by limiting input to mainly North American interests would not serve us well as an international organization. It should be noted that the NACE Board of Directors agrees with the TCC’s approach to collaborating with ISO, and the Board has certainly endorsed TCC’s initiatives in driving the development, applicability and influence of NACE standards internationally.

These strategies with respect to ISO have been no secret. Over the past three years they have been discussed openly at various TCC technical committee meetings, adopted by TCC with the endorsement of the leadership of the TCC Technology Management Groups (TMG), communicated in the NACE TCC e-newsletters, published in Materials Performance, etc. We have heard suggestions from people that we should disseminate more of this information to the NACE community in general and I am sure you will see this becoming a reality in the very near future.

We feel that broadening our global outreach in various ways, including efforts with ISO, successfully helps NACE further legitimize its stature and influence in the international community. With NACE “International” membership outside of North America constituting one third of overall membership, it is of prime importance that NACE maintains this initiative as one of its highest priorities and strategies, which indeed it is continuing to pursue.

I hope I have addressed some of the central concerns that have been raised by some members regarding NACE involvement in ISO, and I thank you for the opportunity to be able to provide this communication to you. If members would like to be better informed about how the ISO committee system operates I would encourage them to access numerous sources on the internet including the ISO and ANSI Web sites. Further, if you would like to raise any issues or have additional questions, feel free to submit them to me at tcc-chair@nace.org or to Linda Goldberg, NACE Technical Activities Director, at linda.goldberg@nace.org.


Brian J. Saldanha

Chair, NACE Technical Coordination Committee (TCC)

What is the process for NACE member input on standards submitted to ISO for collaboration?
In mid-2011 the NACE Board of Directors asked the NACE Technical Coordination Committee (TCC), the volunteer group that manages standards development within NACE, to develop a procedure ensuring communication and membership feedback into the selection of NACE standards that will be the subject of collaboration with ISO. The procedure provides for discussion and input on collaboration at the Specific Technology Group (STG) level. The primary responsibility lies with the TCC, but proposals will be discussed with and input requested from the STGs via the Technology Coordinators. Any member can join NACE technical committees and be part of STG meetings, and all STG meetings are open.
The TCC developed a written procedure for submitting NACE standards to ISO and for adopting ISO standards as NACE standards. These procedures were approved by the TCC and the Technical and Research Activities Committee (TRAC), the designated approval bodies for the Technical Committee Publications Manual, which contains procedures for developing NACE standards, reports, and other technical committee publications. These procedures can be viewed here.
Decisions on what standards will be submitted are based on the procedure developed by the TCC.
How does the ISO process work? How do NACE members work within that process?
NACE is a standards development organization (SDO) that is centered on individual voting. ISO is an SDO that develops standards in a similar manner as NACE – but the hallmark of ISO is its one country, one vote structure. Because NACE International Headquarters is physically located in the USA, most official NACE input to ISO will be through the USA country vote.
Just like with NACE committee and balloting requirements for standards, ISO selects a convener for its work groups or subcommittees who is expected to act impartially on a standard. The convener should not have an agenda, or represent a particular country’s or company’s interests. In the case of standards submitted to ISO via the USA, the U.S. would normally propose the name of the convener with the proposal for the standard. The USA activity is usually led by a standards development organization like NACE, and includes participants from other USA organizations relevant to the subject matter.
Because ISO voting is by country, NACE members outside the U.S. also can organize their countries’ ISO votes with subject matter expertise gleaned in NACE activities. Also, because of the growing global composition of NACE technical committees, the NACE position, even if submitted via the USA country vote to ISO, will naturally include an international perspective.
When an ISO working group develops a standard that is based on another SDO’s existing standard, the ISO process can result in changes that strengthen or weaken the original standard. If NACE members want to maintain the submitted document as close to the original NACE standard as possible they need to participate in the appropriate TAG, attend the ISO WG meetings where the standard will be discussed, and vote for their interests. To the extent that a NACE member participates actively in the ISO process, they will have a voice and a vote and much influence.
NACE has many standards approved as ANS without ever submitting them to ISO. The ANS designation indicates that the process used to develop the standard conforms to ANSI Essential Requirements. It is also possible for other countries to adopt ISO standards and many do. The European community adopts many ISO standards as CEN standards.
If NACE publishes a standard, then ISO publishes a standard that is based on a NACE standard, is the ISO standard the new NACE standard?
ISO standards adopted by NACE would go through the normal NACE technical committee voting process before being accepted as a NACE nationally adopted standard. Members of the appropriate STG(s) are asked if they wish to vote on the adoption, and the same process is followed as for a NACE-generated standard.
Members can also have a voice in the development and revision of ISO standards. A member must join the appropriate TAG in the U.S. or in another country where the NACE member resides or has a corporate interest. As a TAG member, the NACE representative has the ability to comment and vote on ISO standards.
The standard is developed by NACE or adopted by NACE. No other country can adopt the ISO standard and call it a NACE standard. NACE owns that trademark. If countries do a national adoption of an ISO standard, they are responsible for maintenance, not NACE. These standards would be identified as BSI/ISO xxxx or DIN/ISO xxxx, for example. NACE does not have to keep up with modifications made by other countries for their adoptions because NACE is only responsible for the NACE standard.
If NACE adopts a standard, it will have a dual NACE/ISO number. The standards might be identical or slightly different depending on whether the NACE STG voting on the adoption makes changes in the ISO standard. If more than just small editorial changes are made, it will be a “modified” adoption and changes will be shown in the NACE-adopted version. It is likely that in each country the document to use will be specified as is done today by the parties involved in the business arrangements and contracts.
General information on NACE collaboration with ISO:
NACE has more experience and expertise in setting corrosion standards than any other organization. ISO can adopt NACE standards and has already done so. ISO has published, without NACE collaboration, approximately 200 corrosion-related standards in about 50 committees.
NACE and most standards users who work in the global marketplace prefer that ISO not independently develop standards that compete with those developed by groups like NACE who focus on a single expertise. However, much of the rest of the world recognizes ISO standards and references them in regulations. Global companies, including many that are active in NACE, prefer, in some instances, single global standards and cooperation. NACE influence in ISO’s corrosion committees benefits industry and users by generating high-quality ISO standards. NACE’s TCC likely would not decide that NACE should collaborate with ISO on a NACE standard that is not viewed as valuable to the global corrosion control community.
ISO is much larger than NACE with upwards of 18,500 standards and 1,100 new standards published each year. Only about 200 published ISO standards are related to corrosion, but the global impact of the work of ISO cannot be diminished; its large body of work gives it credibility. ISO has 162 countries participating and 3,300 technical bodies.
ISO sometimes adopts NACE standards that we propose to them. Our international membership is an advantage in dealing with ISO committees. NACE must remain relevant globally in an environment where many countries default to ISO for direction on standards. The World Trade Organization considers ISO very relevant to ensuring that countries do not create barriers to trade based on local standards, and many industries specify ISO. Outside the U.S., regulatory bodies are most likely to use ISO standards.
Many companies and individuals have invested much time and effort in the various NACE standards and do not feel there is a need to allow another organization to dictate what we do and how we do it. NACE’s standards program will not be dictated by ISO. NACE will continue to use its own procedures to develop standards by its membership. NACE will always have control over its own documents and can have a strong influence on the work of ISO. Additionally, many global companies in NACE do see the need for NACE collaboration with ISO, to help deter development of competing – and confusing – global standards.
At this point in time, three NACE standards have been submitted to ISO for collaboration. All submissions have followed extensive discussions among the volunteer leadership at different levels in the organization. Recently there was some debate on the merits of submitting a particular standard to ISO, which led to the development of the official process for decision-making in 2011.
If you have additional questions, please send them to tcc-chair@nace.org