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 Cracking
Direct 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 281-228-6221
or
• e-mail linda.goldberg@mail.nace.org