Spotlight on I-95 signals corrosion problem

It’s been a busy few weeks for us at MATCOR, and I’m just getting the chance to breathe and share a few things with all of you.

The biggest event lately was the NACE 2008 show in New Orleans. As you all know, NACE is the international organization for corrosion engineers, and our annual trade show and conference was a lot of fun.

Being in New Orleans, I got the chance to share two of my biggest passions with the crowd. Not only did we talk about my favorite topic, corrosion, but I had the chance to play sax with a couple of friends at our booth. We even had a mime walking the show floor.

More so than in past years, I saw that our industry has grown, and methods for treating or preventing corrosion have advanced significantly over the past several years. However, events outside of the show point to the overwhelming challenge of overcoming our crumbling infrastructure.

While I was at the NACE show, a portion of I-95 was shut down here in Philadelphia. It turned out that a pillar supporting a raised section of the highway showed significant spalling, referred to by the media as a crack two to three inches wide and six feet long, threatening the integrity of the structure and the safety of commuters.

Spalling in concrete is almost always caused by corrosion of the reinforcing steel in the concrete. Regardless of the nomenclature, the result is an unsafe condition. Not only is this another example of our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, but these pictures show that this wasn’t an isolated incident.

PennDoT reacted quickly to ensure public safety, but other supporting structures in the area make it obvious that corrosion is a serious problem along I-95. Surprisingly, PennDoT doesn’t really think corrosion is an issue. I even visited a nearby support structure to check it out first hand.

This week marks the 20th anniversary that the Williamsburg Bridge in New York City was closed after the discovery of a 6-foot crack caused by severe corrosion. Eerily similar, I’d say. The connection between these two events makes it obvious to me that we are in trouble.

Why small operators need CP consultants

For some customers, staying on top of changing regulations in CP can be confusing and difficult. Pipeline operators who aren’t aware of the changes, and don’t communicate with industry standard setters, are likely to get burned.

But knowing when regulations change isn't easy. Often, new regulations come to our attention simply by talking with industry peers at conferences and meetings. These conversations open up good dialogue of how to approach CP in regard to changing regulations.

Case in point: I recently received a call from the owner of a small pipeline company in East Texas. He was concerned with the new PHMSA/state regulations, and how they would affect integrity-related issues. He was also trying to get a handle on state mandates, and how they synchronize with existing federal regulations.

It turned out he needed more than a good CP program to comply with these new regulations. He also needed a CP consultant who knew what regulations were about to be approved, so he could maximize his investment.

I advised him to find a consultant with the credentials to perform the integrity-related tasks new regulations require. Such credentials should include a wide range of services, professional affiliations such as NACE, and insurance that includes errors and omissions policies.

But here was my most important tip for the business owner: Find a consultant capable of handling the needs of smaller pipeline companies. To me, this meant a consultant who understands daily challenges small entities face, such as weighing business expansion with the necessity of industry standard compliance.

It might mean more upfront costs for small operators, but it will save headaches on the back-end. And that's a balance any business owner would be happy to strike.

Waiting for disaster to strike

That sounds terrible, doesn't it? After all, we are in the business of preventing disaster. We use proven technologies to ward off catastrophic failures of metallic structures.

On the outside, we're the good guys who get to wear white hats. Yet, it is up to us to react with immediacy to spectacular failures that validate our existence as corrosion engineers.

Without them, nobody would be interested in corrosion prevention. The press would never show any interest in our work. And local state and the federal government would have no incentive to create regulations requiring corrosion control.

It would be great to prevent corrosion without the disaster. But that is not how we react as humans.

A great case in point is the power industry, a critical sector for the health of any country. The United States just finished a boom period that saw thousands of gas-fired power plants built over the past 20 years. Each one supplied their natural gas feed stocks from buried transmission pipelines, heavily regulated by the Department of Transportation and other local agencies.

And why are they heavily regulated? You guessed it -- disasters. Really nasty ones where gas pipelines explode, kill school children, and catch the attention of communities and politicians.

Every gas-fired power plant has a metering station, similar to a home's. At a power plant, the metering station is the boundary for ownership of the natural gas product and for responsibility for corrosion control.

Yet it's also the boundary for the regulations. Power plants are not bound to the same regulations that apply to gas pipeline companies. That means metering points outside the power plant undergo frequent corrosion testing and inspecting, while metering points within do not -- hence the existence of gas-fired plants with buried gas pipelines feeding their turbines.

Worse, power-plant personnel are blissfully unaware of the life-threatening risks below them. The corrosion control system that power plant designers often put in are contractor-grade, vanilla CP systems. These systems may work, but require frequent testing, and are easily knocked off line.

Designers often don’t care if the systems are not reliable because they only have a one-year plant warranty. After that, it is up to the operator to keep them online. And since operators are only concerned with producing energy, they don’t understand what CP system they have, what they need to make it work, or how to test it.

There are some exceptions -- plants that have well-designed, robust CP systems maintained and tested by qualified NACE CP Certified technicians. But they are few and far between.

If we have a catastrophic gas explosion at a power plant -- and in my opinion, that will happen soon -- perhaps the disaster would open the Power industry’s eyes. Because right now, their eyes are wide shut.

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?

NACE conference a go in Nashville

If it's the middle of March, it must mean I'm -- no, not filling out my basketball bracket (TCU's not in it this year) -- in Nashville attending the annual NACE conference.

Since arriving on Sunday, I've caught up with a number of familiar faces in the industry. It looks like it will be an interesting week.

Today, I'm attending my first technical conference of the week with the Cathodic Protection Technical Evaluation Group (TEG). When the group met last year, it delved deeply into the critical and sometimes contentious topic of Cathodic Protection Criteria.

This will likely be the focus of the conference this time around, too. The definition of Cathodic Protection Criteria is a fundamental issue that could affect how owners and operators under legislative/regulatory requirements meet NACE Criteria. It's also a critical topic for NACE as it tries to get the criteria accepted internationally.

Poorly established criteria could adversely affect companies that work in good faith to satisfy regulatory requirements and protect their assets and public safety. Criteria that are too confining can undermine NACE initiatives.

This means that pipeline and infrastructure owners and operators who aren't under regulatory requirements might choose not to spend the money on cathodic protection. So while -850 mV on potential versus -850 mV off potential might not seem like a big difference, it does have consequences.

The one time you don't want to travel to the future

The switch to daylight saving time three weeks early might have thrown some people for a loop. I, however, made sure I paid attention. Today I was traveling to Nashville for the NACE Convention, and had to make sure I made my flight.

While there's little impact if you show up an hour late for a movie because you forgot to turn the clock ahead, having your plane leave without you and missing key appointments just won't wash.

Thankfully, I sprung forward before going to bed, and made my flight in plenty of time. I think next year I'll leave a day early.