What happened to NACE?
You may remember “The National Association of Corrosion Engineers?” I wonder what those eleven men, corrosion engineers in the Pipeline Industry, would think of NACE today. A NACE that today finds itself in the position of writing Federal Code. A NACE that is contemplating changes to the core standard that has effectively and safely served the pipeline industry for the past 66 years. Prudent Operators have used the existing standard to protect the public and preserve valuable and critical assets.
I am not against revising the ST0169. I believe all standards should be under constant review with the goal of improving safety and asset preservation. Supporters of the revision argue that the off -.850 has scientific research behind it and contend that the on -.850 as put forth by Peabody has only empirical data to support it. How many leaks or ruptures have been associated with =<-.850 with current applied. The current revision being contemplated raises valid questions as to whether the off potential is a true IR free reading. Other’s who are far more qualified than I am have raised these questions and made convincing arguments and I will leave that to them.
My question is who should be reviewing and revising ST0169? If revised to the current recommendations this standard has the potential to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of operating the country’s underground pipelines, and only bring about questionable improvements to safety. The stakeholders which include: the public whom the standard is designed to protect, the regulators who have the responsibility of codifying the standard, and the operators, who will have to absorb the cost of implementing the revised standard, should be debating, reviewing and revising the standard.
So back to my original question, what happened to NACE? When did we quit being an industry group with the goal of protecting the public and preserving the national asset that is the underground pipeline system? When did we decide that members who will be under no legal obligation nor incur the cost of complying with the standard get to set the standard? A quick glance at the membership roster of STG 35 shows only about 30% of the members are domestic operators. TG 360, about 30% of the members are domestic operators. Definition of Democracy “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”.
Whose fault is this? Mine, I am the corrosion practiconer working for a domestic operator who has decided that with budget pressures, expanding work load and shrinking staff , I am unwilling to dedicate the time to be actively involved in NACE except for the occasional trip to a conference.
I have been in the pipeline industry for over 30 years, and yet I recognize that with all of the scientific and technological advances made in the past 60 years it is time to move forward and take advantage of these tools. With the advent of high resolution ILI tools and the implementation of the IMP we have actual corrosion data for a segment of pipeline. Let’s incorporate this data into our compliance standard. Why expend time and resources to maintain an IR free -.850 or less with current applied to a segment of pipe that has no corrosion? With the baseline assessment nearing completion and reruns starting next year we will have accurate corrosion rates to work with. Give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent running high resolution ILI tools, give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent remediating to ASME B31.8S. Which would better ensure the safety and integrity of a section of pipeline, actual known corrosion data from an ILI or an electrical reading that at best tells us what the potential for corrosion is.
To summarize, if we are going to revise ST0169 then let’s revise it using all of the technological and scientific advances available to us today.
Kerry L. Morgan
Senior Corrosion Technologist 5037
NACE 133125
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Comments on Voting for next ballot
I think it’s important to make the distinction between those in the balloting list and those who voted on the ballot. Anyone who responded “yes” to the correspondence that NACE sent out asking if they would like to join the balloting list can vote on the next ballot. The balloting list will remain the same. Not everyone who is on the balloting list voted on the ballot. The next ballot will not be restricted to solely those who voted, but it will be restricted to those who are part of the balloting list.
Daniela Matthews
Program Coordinator
NACE International
Daniela Matthews
Program Coordinator
NACE International
Saturday, September 26, 2009
TG 360 Vote Results
The TG 360 committee meeting at CTW presented the status of the SP0169-2007 vote. The results were on the e-mail. The committee did not get the 66 2/3% they needed to pass on the first ballot! For those of us who did not think it was a good document at this point, this is great news.
As you can see there were not that many voters, but enough to stop the revision as written. The committee will now start over on the document. The same committee will stay together, with maybe a change or two. David McQuilling, who has been very vocal and against the revision and is now a committee member. I think this will be a good thing for a better voice and balance. I am not sure who else will remain or be placed on the committee.
The same voting group will be allowed to vote on the next version, but not new voters. I am not sure at this time if that means if you signed up to vote and did not vote that you can vote on the next ballot. Hopefully, that will be explained later. I thought they would have to start over since it is a new document, but apparently not.
Since they are starting over with the revision (actually adjusting it from the negatives) it will take a while, but they are attempting to get another vote before the end of the year. This means that we must stay alert to this vote and to the changes.
Please be aware that there will be another vote. I will try to keep you informed.
Polyguard hopes this blog site has been a help to those of you who do not have time or an opportunity to make all the meetings to speak your mind. Please feel free to comment as needed on the blog site, because NACE and some of the committee members do pay attention to what is being said.
Thanks for all the help and support,
Richard Norsworthy
As you can see there were not that many voters, but enough to stop the revision as written. The committee will now start over on the document. The same committee will stay together, with maybe a change or two. David McQuilling, who has been very vocal and against the revision and is now a committee member. I think this will be a good thing for a better voice and balance. I am not sure who else will remain or be placed on the committee.
The same voting group will be allowed to vote on the next version, but not new voters. I am not sure at this time if that means if you signed up to vote and did not vote that you can vote on the next ballot. Hopefully, that will be explained later. I thought they would have to start over since it is a new document, but apparently not.
Since they are starting over with the revision (actually adjusting it from the negatives) it will take a while, but they are attempting to get another vote before the end of the year. This means that we must stay alert to this vote and to the changes.
Please be aware that there will be another vote. I will try to keep you informed.
Polyguard hopes this blog site has been a help to those of you who do not have time or an opportunity to make all the meetings to speak your mind. Please feel free to comment as needed on the blog site, because NACE and some of the committee members do pay attention to what is being said.
Thanks for all the help and support,
Richard Norsworthy
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Deadline is September 1!
We have one week left to send your vote into NACE for the SP0169-2007 revision. Please let me know if there are any issues or questions. I will help if I can.
We have all worked very hard. There is much more work to do! Even after the first ballot, there will likely be a re-ballot or two, so please stay in tune with the process. If you would to see what I say in my negative vote I will be glad to forward it to you if it helps.
I have strongly defended the use of the -850 mV or more negative “ON” potential. I have found some data that backs up the thing I have been saying for a long time. It is very rare to no meet a 100 mV of polarization if you also have an “ON” -850 mV or more negative. Also, most corrosion we find today has little to do with inadequate CP and more to do with the coatings we have used and are still using in some cases. There is too much proof! Too many years of data! Put it in front of the committee and let them see it.
The issues that we face are many. Please keep in mind that there are several parts of the document, not just criteria. We must look at all parts of the document. I personally think the coatings section has been greatly improved, even though there are some problems, but these can be corrected.
Thanks again for all the support and effort. In the long run, we hope we have a document that will provide the industry with the best possible standard that will provide many more years of guidance to controlling the external corrosion on pipelines.
Richard Norsworthy
We have all worked very hard. There is much more work to do! Even after the first ballot, there will likely be a re-ballot or two, so please stay in tune with the process. If you would to see what I say in my negative vote I will be glad to forward it to you if it helps.
I have strongly defended the use of the -850 mV or more negative “ON” potential. I have found some data that backs up the thing I have been saying for a long time. It is very rare to no meet a 100 mV of polarization if you also have an “ON” -850 mV or more negative. Also, most corrosion we find today has little to do with inadequate CP and more to do with the coatings we have used and are still using in some cases. There is too much proof! Too many years of data! Put it in front of the committee and let them see it.
The issues that we face are many. Please keep in mind that there are several parts of the document, not just criteria. We must look at all parts of the document. I personally think the coatings section has been greatly improved, even though there are some problems, but these can be corrected.
Thanks again for all the support and effort. In the long run, we hope we have a document that will provide the industry with the best possible standard that will provide many more years of guidance to controlling the external corrosion on pipelines.
Richard Norsworthy
Dead Line Reminder!
DEADLINE REMINDER
YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE TG 360 BALLOT AND THE DEADLINE IS FAST APPROACHING. PLEASE READ
THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW AND CAST YOUR VOTE.
NACE International has extended hours for the customer service department from 7:00am to 7:00pm central time (GMT-06:00) to better serve our members! Call +1 281-228-6200 or 1-800-797-6223 for FirstService.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL ONLINE BALLOT ON THE PROPOSED REVISION TO NACE SP0169-2007 (FORMERLY RP0169)
DEADLINE TO RESPOND: September 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Members of STGs 35, 05, 30, and Interested Parties:
Cc: TCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task Group (TG) 360’s proposed revision to NACE SP0169-2007 (formerly RP0169), “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems,” is now on the NACE Web site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS BELOW:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 1: Please review the ballot by going to http://web.nace.org/ 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 respond to ballots, click on the Action Items button. This will take you to a listing of open Ballots, Reballots, Review and Comments, and Canvasses. Find the appropriate TG number and click “Respond.”
STEP 3: To review the document prior to voting, click on the document title link at the top of the TCC Vote Response screen.
The document 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,
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html
STEP 4: After reviewing the document, you may vote by clicking the “Back” button at the top left corner of the screen and casting your vote on the TCC Vote Response page. Add any Editorial or Technical comments in the space provided. If you have no Technical and/or Editorial comments, please check the appropriate “I have no comments” box(es).
Be sure to click on the SUBMIT RESPONSE button at the bottom of the page to submit your vote.
After you have submitted your vote, the TCC Response Confirmation page will appear stating that your vote has been recorded. In addition, you will receive an e-mail confirmation of your vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your participation in the online balloting process.
YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE TG 360 BALLOT AND THE DEADLINE IS FAST APPROACHING. PLEASE READ
THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW AND CAST YOUR VOTE.
NACE International has extended hours for the customer service department from 7:00am to 7:00pm central time (GMT-06:00) to better serve our members! Call +1 281-228-6200 or 1-800-797-6223 for FirstService.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL ONLINE BALLOT ON THE PROPOSED REVISION TO NACE SP0169-2007 (FORMERLY RP0169)
DEADLINE TO RESPOND: September 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Members of STGs 35, 05, 30, and Interested Parties:
Cc: TCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task Group (TG) 360’s proposed revision to NACE SP0169-2007 (formerly RP0169), “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems,” is now on the NACE Web site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS BELOW:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 1: Please review the ballot by going to http://web.nace.org/ 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 respond to ballots, click on the Action Items button. This will take you to a listing of open Ballots, Reballots, Review and Comments, and Canvasses. Find the appropriate TG number and click “Respond.”
STEP 3: To review the document prior to voting, click on the document title link at the top of the TCC Vote Response screen.
The document 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,
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html
STEP 4: After reviewing the document, you may vote by clicking the “Back” button at the top left corner of the screen and casting your vote on the TCC Vote Response page. Add any Editorial or Technical comments in the space provided. If you have no Technical and/or Editorial comments, please check the appropriate “I have no comments” box(es).
Be sure to click on the SUBMIT RESPONSE button at the bottom of the page to submit your vote.
After you have submitted your vote, the TCC Response Confirmation page will appear stating that your vote has been recorded. In addition, you will receive an e-mail confirmation of your vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your participation in the online balloting process.
What happened to NACE?
What happened to NACE?
You may remember “The National Association of Corrosion Engineers?” I wonder what those eleven men, corrosion engineers in the Pipeline Industry, would think of NACE today. A NACE that today finds itself in the position of writing Federal Code. A NACE that is contemplating changes to the core standard that has effectively and safely served the pipeline industry for the past 66 years. Prudent Operators have used the existing standard to protect the public and preserve valuable and critical assets.
I am not against revising the ST0169. I believe all standards should be under constant review with the goal of improving safety and asset preservation. Supporters of the revision argue that the off -.850 has scientific research behind it and contend that the on -.850 as put forth by Peabody has only empirical data to support it. How many leaks or ruptures have been associated with =<-.850 with current applied. The current revision being contemplated raises valid questions as to whether the off potential is a true IR free reading. Other’s who are far more qualified than I am have raised these questions and made convincing arguments and I will leave that to them.
My question is who should be reviewing and revising ST0169? If revised to the current recommendations this standard has the potential to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of operating the country’s underground pipelines, and only bring about questionable improvements to safety. The stakeholders which include: the public whom the standard is designed to protect, the regulators who have the responsibility of codifying the standard, and the operators, who will have to absorb the cost of implementing the revised standard, should be debating, reviewing and revising the standard.
So back to my original question, what happened to NACE? When did we quit being an industry group with the goal of protecting the public and preserving the national asset that is the underground pipeline system? When did we decide that members who will be under no legal obligation nor incur the cost of complying with the standard get to set the standard? A quick glance at the membership roster of STG 35 shows only about 30% of the members are domestic operators. TG 360, about 30% of the members are domestic operators. Definition of Democracy “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”.
Whose fault is this? Mine, I am the corrosion practiconer working for a domestic operator who has decided that with budget pressures, expanding work load and shrinking staff , I am unwilling to dedicate the time to be actively involved in NACE except for the occasional trip to a conference.
I have been in the pipeline industry for over 30 years, and yet I recognize that with all of the scientific and technological advances made in the past 60 years it is time to move forward and take advantage of these tools. With the advent of high resolution ILI tools and the implementation of the IMP we have actual corrosion data for a segment of pipeline. Let’s incorporate this data into our compliance standard. Why expend time and resources to maintain an IR free -.850 or less with current applied to a segment of pipe that has no corrosion? With the baseline assessment nearing completion and reruns starting next year we will have accurate corrosion rates to work with. Give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent running high resolution ILI tools, give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent remediating to ASME B31.8S. Which would better ensure the safety and integrity of a section of pipeline, actual known corrosion data from an ILI or an electrical reading that at best tells us what the potential for corrosion is.
To summarize, if we are going to revise ST0169 then let’s revise it using all of the technological and scientific advances available to us today.
Kerry L. Morgan
Senior Corrosion Technologist 5037
NACE 133125
You may remember “The National Association of Corrosion Engineers?” I wonder what those eleven men, corrosion engineers in the Pipeline Industry, would think of NACE today. A NACE that today finds itself in the position of writing Federal Code. A NACE that is contemplating changes to the core standard that has effectively and safely served the pipeline industry for the past 66 years. Prudent Operators have used the existing standard to protect the public and preserve valuable and critical assets.
I am not against revising the ST0169. I believe all standards should be under constant review with the goal of improving safety and asset preservation. Supporters of the revision argue that the off -.850 has scientific research behind it and contend that the on -.850 as put forth by Peabody has only empirical data to support it. How many leaks or ruptures have been associated with =<-.850 with current applied. The current revision being contemplated raises valid questions as to whether the off potential is a true IR free reading. Other’s who are far more qualified than I am have raised these questions and made convincing arguments and I will leave that to them.
My question is who should be reviewing and revising ST0169? If revised to the current recommendations this standard has the potential to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of operating the country’s underground pipelines, and only bring about questionable improvements to safety. The stakeholders which include: the public whom the standard is designed to protect, the regulators who have the responsibility of codifying the standard, and the operators, who will have to absorb the cost of implementing the revised standard, should be debating, reviewing and revising the standard.
So back to my original question, what happened to NACE? When did we quit being an industry group with the goal of protecting the public and preserving the national asset that is the underground pipeline system? When did we decide that members who will be under no legal obligation nor incur the cost of complying with the standard get to set the standard? A quick glance at the membership roster of STG 35 shows only about 30% of the members are domestic operators. TG 360, about 30% of the members are domestic operators. Definition of Democracy “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”.
Whose fault is this? Mine, I am the corrosion practiconer working for a domestic operator who has decided that with budget pressures, expanding work load and shrinking staff , I am unwilling to dedicate the time to be actively involved in NACE except for the occasional trip to a conference.
I have been in the pipeline industry for over 30 years, and yet I recognize that with all of the scientific and technological advances made in the past 60 years it is time to move forward and take advantage of these tools. With the advent of high resolution ILI tools and the implementation of the IMP we have actual corrosion data for a segment of pipeline. Let’s incorporate this data into our compliance standard. Why expend time and resources to maintain an IR free -.850 or less with current applied to a segment of pipe that has no corrosion? With the baseline assessment nearing completion and reruns starting next year we will have accurate corrosion rates to work with. Give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent running high resolution ILI tools, give us credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent remediating to ASME B31.8S. Which would better ensure the safety and integrity of a section of pipeline, actual known corrosion data from an ILI or an electrical reading that at best tells us what the potential for corrosion is.
To summarize, if we are going to revise ST0169 then let’s revise it using all of the technological and scientific advances available to us today.
Kerry L. Morgan
Senior Corrosion Technologist 5037
NACE 133125
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Joeberth Belarmino comments
Mr. Bash,
I appreciate very much your effort for making this Blog site, I also have a comment regarding the NACE RP0169 they have two criteria for adequate Cathodic Protection, the -850mV instant "off" and the 100mV polarized potential but in the industry they often refer only to the -850mV criteria and mostly forgetting the other reliable criterion which is the 100mV polarized potential, I believed there should only be one criterion if we really want to make a standard, the -850mV instant "off" is a confusion with the 100mV polarized potential
Joeberth Belarmino
REE/CP tech
I appreciate very much your effort for making this Blog site, I also have a comment regarding the NACE RP0169 they have two criteria for adequate Cathodic Protection, the -850mV instant "off" and the 100mV polarized potential but in the industry they often refer only to the -850mV criteria and mostly forgetting the other reliable criterion which is the 100mV polarized potential, I believed there should only be one criterion if we really want to make a standard, the -850mV instant "off" is a confusion with the 100mV polarized potential
Joeberth Belarmino
REE/CP tech
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
