Invest in Prevention

With the economy in an uproar, it can be difficult to focus on investing in long term maintenance and prevention of infrastructure failure. And yet, those investments are crucial to America’s infrastructure and our ability to recover from recession. Prevention and mitigation of corrosion in bridges, pipelines, power plants, liquid natural gas storage facilities and ports saves millions of dollars in future repairs, but even more importantly, prevents major disasters that disrupt commerce—something America cannot afford.

We only have to look back at the tragic loss of the I-35W Bridge in Minnesota last year to see the disruption caused by the collapse and 12 month repair. (Corroded gusset plates were part of the reason for the failure.) The Minnesota Commercial Railway was blocked, along with numerous auto and truck routes. The Federal Aviation Administration restricted pilots in the vicinity for a period. Thirty five people lost their jobs when Aggregate Industries, a company that delivered construction materials by barge, cut production in the area. Many businesses, large and small, near the collapse site reported losses of 25% to 50% of their income. Ultimately, the state increased the fuel tax by $0.055 per gallon to fund Mn/DOT maintenance. The new bridge cost $234 million. The cost in loss of life was immeasurable.

And, we can learn from an incident across the ocean: on June 3, 2008, a natural gas pipeline exploded in Western Australia. Reports say the explosion cut that nation’s fuel supply by a third and drained between $2.4 billion and $4.5 billion from Australia’s economy. The investigating body, Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority, reported that the rupture occurred because of thinning of the pipe wall and corrosion of the external surface.

Proven technology exists to prevent these disasters. In the United States, cathodic protection is required on energy-carrying pipelines. Other structures, such as bridges, tunnels, power plants, piers and ports can also be protected from corrosion by involving certified corrosion engineers in planning new structures and maintaining existing structures. The cost of including the right people and the right technology in America’s infrastructure is minimal in comparison to the cost of corrosion, which is $276 billion or 3.1% of the GDP.

We’ve learned that we can’t put blinders on and hope the worst won’t happen. It’s time to be realistic and invest in our future.

William R. Schutt
President and CEO
MATCOR, Inc.
Doylestown PA
www.matcor.com

Note to self: Language is important

Today was a day of drama for our crew. I, for one, was feeling under the weather. After taking care of some things in the morning, I spent the rest of the day in bed.

But I got off lucky. Someone else in our group was sent to the hospital with a rather nasty-looking elbow. Turns out it was infected.

As for conference news, Joe Pikas of our Houston office moderated the (ECDA), one of Corrosion/2007's most popular forums. The forum focuses on External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)). This direct assessment process uses sophisticated above ground tools, called Indirect Inspection Tools (Indirect Inspection Tools), to find areas along a buried pipeline that are corroded or are at risk for corrosion. Gas pipeline operators generally use this process.

The forum spent the bulk of the day discussing changing the language on a footnote to an appendix chart in RP 0502. The footnote says (and I'm paraphrasing here) these tools shouldn't be used without special consideration. Unfortunately, these considerations aren't detailed, and the Department of Transportation (DOT), which regulates pipelines, focuses on the “not to be used” language.

The writers of the regulation, many of whom were at the meeting, didn't intend to preclude these tools from being used. They merely wanted to note that special considerations might be warranted.

After two hours of discussion, the members decided to change the language to “these tools may be used with special considerations.” Another hour was spent deciding how to implement a change within NACE’s standards process.

Where's efficiency when you need it?