Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Committee on the Review of the Bureau of Reclamationâs Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron Pipe National Materials Advisory Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESSâ 500 Fifth Street, N.W.â Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. 08CS811405 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Bureau of Reclamation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organiza- tions or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-13163-6 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-13163-4 This report is available in limited quantities from National Materials Advisory Board 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 email@example.com http://www.nationalacademies.edu/nmab Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet: http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern- ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of further- ing knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATIONâS CORROSION PREVENTION STANDARDS FOR DUCTILE IRON PIPE DAVID W. JOHNSON, JR., Stevens Institute of Technology, Chair RONALD BIANCHETTI, Blackstone Group, Ltd. RICHARD J. FIELDS, KT Consulting CAROL A. HANDWERKER, Purdue University JOHN OâBRIEN, Water and Wastewater Division, Genesee County, Michigan MATTHEW OâKEEFE, Missouri University of Science and Technology JOHN R. PLATTSMIER, HDR Engineering ALBERTO A. SAGÃÃS, University of South Florida WILLIAM S. SPICKELMIRE, RUSTNOT Corrosion Control Services, Inc. DAVID TREJO, Texas A&M University Staff EMILY ANN MEYER, Program Officer TERI G. THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator
NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD KATHARINE G. FRASE, IBM, Chair LYLE H. SCHWARTZ, Consultant, Chevy Chase, Maryland, Vice Chair PAUL BECHER, Oak Ridge National Laboratory EVERETT E. BLOOM, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired) BARBARA D. BOYAN, Georgia Institute of Technology PETER R. BRIDENBAUGH, Alcoa, Inc. (retired) L. CATHERINE BRINSON, Northwestern University JOHN W. CAHN, University of Washington DIANNE CHONG, The Boeing Company PAUL CITRON, Medtronic, Inc. (retired) GEORGE T. GRAY III, Los Alamos National Laboratory SOSSINA M. HAILE, California Institute of Technology CAROL A. HANDWERKER, Purdue University ELIZABETH HOLM, Sandia National Laboratories DAVID W. JOHNSON, JR., Stevens Institute of Technology ROBERT H. LATIFF, SAIC KENNETH H. SANDHAGE, Georgia Institute of Technology LINDA SCHADLER, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ROBERT E. SCHAFRIK, GE Aircraft Engines JAMES C. SEFERIS, GloCal University STEVEN WAX, Strategic Analysis, Inc. Staff GARY FISCHMAN, Director MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Senior Program Officer EMILY ANN MEYER, Program Officer TERI G. THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate LAURA TOTH, Senior Project Assistant vi
Preface Water is a resource that is often not fully appreciated until its supply becomes diminished or interrupted. In the western United States, where water is not always readily available, it is often transported large distances in pipelines that may serve large populations. If these transmission pipelines fail, the interruption of the water supply can have severe economic and public health impacts. In some cases a cata- strophic failure can even lead to the potential loss of life, which became undeni- ably clear just as the committee was completing a final stage in the preparation of this report: On the morning of December 23, 2008, a 66-inch water main broke in Montgomery County, Maryland, and 150,000 gallons of water per minute gushed from the 44-year-old ruptured pipe, leaving cars with their occupants trapped in the torrent. Some of these individuals had to be rescued by helicopter, and there was concern that some cars might have been swept away. Beyond the immediate problem of rescuing people caught in the floodwaters, other problems quickly developed: the need for people to deal with no water, contaminated water, and destruction of the local landscape. Although the Bureau of Reclamation in the U.S. Department of the Interior does not have oversight of water in the Washington, D.C., area and although the pipe involved in the break was of a material different from that studied in this report, early indications are that the failure may have been caused by corrosion, which underscores the importance of corrosion control and the extent of damage that corrosion can createâwell beyond an interruption in service. It is in the western United States where the Bureau of Reclamation has some jurisdiction over the water supply. Recognizing the potential consequences of a vii
viii Preface disruption in that supply, the bureau publishes technical memorandums directed toward minimizing, if not preventing, malfunctions on its projects. One such tech- nical memorandum, TM 8140-CC-2004-1, âCorrosion Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe,â and Table 2, entitled âCorrosion Prevention Criteria and Minimum Requirements,â in that document, specify corrosion control measures for buried underground water pipe. One aspect of these specificationsâthat con- cerning corrosion control for ductile iron pipe (DIP) in highly corrosive soilsâis the subject of this report. The report was prepared by the Committee on the Review of the Bureau of Reclamationâs Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron Pipe, which was established by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to the request for the review from the Bureau of Reclamation. The charge to the committee is discussed in detail in Chapter 1 of the report. The committee was asked to address the appropriateness of Table 2 in TM 8140-CC-2004-1. On its surface this appears to be a very straightforward ques- tion of materials science, metallurgy, and electrochemistry. The reality was that the question was much more controversial than one might have expected, with stakeholders both obvious (the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association) and less obvious (the steel pipe industry as a primary competitor to DIP, and the coatings industry because the ready availability of its product is impacted in part by the DIP industryâs unwillingness to use that product) stepping forward to provide their opinions and competing analyses of the available data. In addition to the highly charged nature of the study, the time frame within which the committee did its work was unusually condensed. The committeeâs first meeting was on July 28-30, 2008, in Washington, D.C.; its second and final meet- ing was held on September 24-28, 2008, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts; its charge was to provide a final report to the sponsor by the end of 2008, so it was necessary to supplement the meetings with numerous conference calls and other methods of virtual meeting. This tight deadline was at the sponsorâs request, and for this reason, the committee had to operate within the time frame given. The committee believes that, considering the time allowed, this report pro- vides the best possible response to the charge given. It must be recognized that the limited and diverse data available on pipeline corrosion rates and failure rates do not support a rigorous statistical analysis. Therefore, the committee could not always differentiate between a corrosion mitigation system that provided a desired level of reliability and one that would not. In such cases, the committee used its collective professional acumen to make the best recommendation possible based on the evidence available. I thank the committee members for their dedicated efforts in carrying out the âBureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Memorandum 8140-CC-2004-1, âCorrosion Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe,â Washington, D.C., July 2004.
Preface ix study and preparing this report, giving freely of their time despite the demanding schedule. The committee was fortunate to have represented among its members a broad spectrum of skills and areas of expertise relating to metal pipeline corrosion and corrosion control, including experience in pipeline design, installation, and corrosion control as well as metallurgy and corrosion research. In spite of their diverse backgrounds and, at times, differing opinions regarding the validity of data or their proper interpretation, the committee members successfully shared their expertise and experience in carrying out their charge and were able to arrive at positions of reasoned consensus for all major conclusions and recommendations. For all of this, I offer my deepest gratitude. This committee was supported in its work by a highly competent and dedicated NRC staff. Program officer Emily Ann Meyer capably coordinated this study and the work of the committee from the studyâs inception to the publication of this report. Because of the controversial nature of the study subject, responsibility for contacting pipeline users for information fell almost exclusively to NRC staff, and Ms. Meyer used her legal skills, innate ability, and experience to assemble an unbi- ased set of data, again under demanding time constraints. Her exceptional skills in quickly constructing and modifying drafts of a complex report using information supplied by the various committee members were critical to the successful comple- tion of this report. The committee also expresses its gratitude to Gary Fischman, director of the National Materials Advisory Board, for his efforts on behalf of the committee and staff. He was unfailingly available for consultation, and both his presence and his voice in meetings imparted a steadying influence. The committee also recognizes the capable support of NRC staff members Teri Thorowgood and Laura Toth, who efficiently organized the affairs of the committee, thus ensuring its smooth functioning. The committee thanks Dennis Chamot, deputy executive officer of the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, for his able assistance on questions of process both routine and unique. William Colglazier, National Research Council executive officer, and James Hinchman, National Academiesâ counsel, deserve acknowledgment and thanks for assisting in an unusually complex committee composition and balance process. Finally, the committee acknowledges Shelly Wolfe in the National Academiesâ Office of News and Public Information for her capable handling of the frequent public inquiries regarding this project. David W. Johnson, Jr., Chair Committee on the Review of the Bureau of Reclamationâs Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron Pipe âOne such differing opinion on the interpretation of the data appears in Appendix B.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Councilâs Report Review Committee. The pur- pose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Graham E.C. Bell, Schiff Associates, Gerald R. Frankel, Ohio State University, Robert P. Frankenthal, Bell Laboratories (retired), Katherine G. Frase, IBM (NAE), Paolo Gardoni, Texas A&M University, Balvant Rajani, National Research Council of Canada, Shari Rosenbloom, Exponent Corporation, and Michael Szeliga, Russell Corrosion Consultants. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom- mendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Elsa Garmire, Dartmouth College. Appointed xi
xii Acknowledgment of Reviewers by the NRC, she was responsible for making certain that an independent exami- nation of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 10 The Bureau of Reclamationâs Technical Memorandum 8140-CC-2004-1: History and Development, 10 Current Implementation, 12 Reclamationâs Request, 16 Meetings, 20 Structure of the Report, 21 2 DUCTILE IRON AND CORROSION 22 Ductile Iron Pipe, 22 Corrosion Mechanisms, 25 Soil Corrosivity, 29 Definition of Highly Corrosive Soils, 31 Methods of Corrosion Protection for Ductile Iron Pipe, 32 3 CORROSION PERFORMANCE OF DUCTILE IRON PIPE: 43 CASE HISTORIES AND DATA Overview of Presentations to the Committee, 46 Data Comparisons of Interest, 49 Bare and As-Manufactured Iron Pipe Without Cathodic Protection, 53 Polyethylene-Encased Ductile Iron Pipe Without Cathodic Protection, 58 xiii
xiv Contents Intact Polyethylene Encasement, 62 Field Cases, 64 Cathodically Protected Polyethylene-Encased Ductile Iron Pipelines, 80 Summary of Known Cathodically Protected Polyethylene-Encased Pipelines, 84 Summary of Bare, As-Manufactured, and Polyethylene-Encased Ductile Iron Pipe Corrosion Rates, 92 4 FAILURE CRITERIA 99 Objective and Approach, 99 Variations of Gas Pipeline Threshold Values, 102 Summary, 115 5 EVALUATION OF OTHER CORROSION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES 116 Bonded Dielectric Coatings on Steel Pipelines with Cathodic Protection, 116 Bonded Dielectric-Coated Ductile Iron Pipelines with Cathodic Protection, 120 Other Corrosion Mitigation Methods, 129 6 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 131 APPENDIXES A Biographies of Committee Members 145 B Dissenting Statement 151 C Definitions 155 D Other Considerations for Corrosion Control 159 E Acronyms 171