NACE Direct Assessment Standards

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) Public Meeting

November 4, 2003

NACE International• Has been developing industry consensus

standards for over 30 years.

• In 2002, corrosion was the leading cause of failure for pipelines in the U.S.

• NACE has been working with the Office of Pipeline Safety to incorporate by reference NACE standards.

• NACE is working with industry and government to provide guidance on direct assessment.

External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)

• The NACE ECDA process helps to locate areas where defects can form in the future, not just areas where defects have already formed, thereby helping to prevent future external corrosion damage. This standard covers the 4 components of ECDA: Pre-Assessment, Indirect Inspections, Direct Examinations, and Post Assessment.

• NACE Standard RP0502 completed 2002

Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment

• There are two standards under development for internal corrosion direct assessment (ICDA)– Gas Transmission Pipeline Internal

Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology [for Dry Gas Pipelines]

– Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for Wet Gas Pipelines

Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA)

• ICDA for dry gas transmission systems is described in terms of a four-step process analogous to the external corrosion direct assessment (ECDA) approach. Detailed examination of locations along a pipeline where an electrolyte such as water would first accumulate provides information about the remaining length of pipe.

• Task Group 293 (Projected completion 2004—will be RP0104-2004)

Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA)

• Also based on the ECDA approach, this standard for ICDA in wet gas systems will address the gap in standards for the upcoming rulemaking on pipeline integrity for high-consequence areas and account for the differences between wet gas and dry gas systems.

• Task Group 305 (Projected completion 2005)

External Stress Corrosion CrackingDirect Assessment (SSCDA)

• SCCDA is a structured process for assessing and reducing the impact of external SCC on pipeline integrity. A pipeline company identifies a portion of its pipeline appropriate for direct assessment, and the standard provides guidance for selecting dig sites and for inspecting the pipe and collecting data during the dig.

• Task Group 273 (Projected completion 2004)

NACE Technical Committees

• 30 Specific Technology Groups (STGs)– Task Groups (TGs) – Technology Exchange Groups (TEGs)

• Task Groups write standards

• Anyone who has an interest may participate

• Is a standard needed?

Formation of Standards Committees

• Anyone May Propose a New Standard

• Complete Form

• Scope of Standard

• Need for Standard

• Consequence if Standard Not Produced

• Timeline for Completion

• STG Steering Committee Votes; Majority Approval Required

Task Group

• Task Group writes standard • Members may volunteer; chair

approves• Task Group small—10-12 people• May have outside advisers• Normally meet at NACE annual

conference and Corrosion Technology Week

• Much work done by e-mail

Preparation of Draft

• Written by one person or several people

• Task Group reaches consensus– Review in meetings

– Circulate by e-mail

– May or may not have formal ballot

• Draft submitted to NACE Headquarters

Consensus Process

• NACE staff edits

• Canvass sent to Specific Technology Group (STG) members

• Ballot distributed to those who respond and others who have requested it

• Simultaneous NACE member editorial committee review

Consensus Process

• Ballot period 6 weeks

• 50% response from STG List required

• All comments and negative votes sent to committee officers

• Task group must address all negatives and comments

• Consensus is NOT unanimity

Consensus Process

• Task group resolves negative votes by– making changes requested

– persuading voter of TG’s point of view

• Written withdrawal of negatives required

• Negative(s) not withdrawn or technical changes reballot

• Negatives, task group’s rationale attached

• Vote only on changes

• 90% affirmative to pass

Final Approval and Publication

• Final editorial review

• Procedural approval by Specific Technology Group (STG) chair, Technology Coordinator, Technical Coordination Committee (TCC) chair

• Ratification by NACE Board of Directors

• Printed and available on Web site, CD-ROM

Opportunities for Input

• Attend committee meetings– Drafting stage– Open Review

• Join committees• Ask for a ballot and comment• Announcements in Materials

Performance, NACE News, and on NACE Web site—Technical Committees page

Types of NACE Standards

• Standard Recommended Practice• Standard Test Method• Standard Material Requirements

• ALL have some mandatory language and some recommending language

Wording in Standards

• “Shall” and “must”—mandatory requirements

• “Should”—recommended but not mandatory

• “May”—optional

• Words defined in Foreword of every standard

• Careful evaluation of wording encouraged

• Engineering judgment used in some cases

Wording in Standards

• Member editorial committee reviews wording

• OPS can adopt standards with “should” wording

• OPS can use mandatory language in regulation to supersede language in standard

Resources for Committees• Operating manual

• Balloting and publication manual

• Style Manual

• Officer Handbook

• All information on Web site

Have an Impact on Standards

• Join technical committees

• Any NACE member may join

• Visit Technical Committees portion of NACE Web site, www.nace.org

• Join on-line via Members Only

• Send e-mail to tcc@mail.nace.org, or call Technical Activities at 281-228-6264

Questions?

• Call Linda Goldberg at 281-228-6221or

• e-mail linda.goldberg@mail.nace.org