Inspecting Water Tank Linings:

The Importance of the

First Anniversary
by Tracy Owen Dubcak, PE
Water and Wastewater Utility, City of Austin, TX

I n the life of a tank lining system, the

first anniversary inspection is an im-
portant milestone because most lining
failures can be identified at this in-
spection and subsequently corrected.
This article will emphasize the impor-
tance of the anniversary inspection of steel
water storage tanks and review the proce-
dures described for it in section 9 of
water and oxygen. For protection against
corrosion, the steel surface can be lined.
Lining systems, however, are subject to
many types of failures. For a water tank lin-
ing system to last its expected 10- to 15-
year service life, thorough inspections of
the lining system, including anniversary in-
spections, are necessary. The anniversary
inspection allows for the detection and
ANSI/AWWA D 102-78, Standard for Paint- correction of lining system failures that
ing Steel Water-Storage Tanks, hereafter re- occur within the first year of the life of the
ferred to as AWWA D 102-78. The article lining system.
will also describe the anniversary inspec- The AWWA painting standard for steel
tion program of the City of Austin, TX, and water tanks was originally developed in the
discuss examples of lining system failures 1950s. It was approved as an official stan-
and remedial actions taken during anniver- dard on February 11, 1964. The objective of
sary inspections. the standard is to provide an outline of rec-
ommended steps that should be followed
when painting steel water storage tanks. It
was not until the 1978 version of the stan-
History of AWWA D 102-78
dard that the anniversary inspection was in-
The importance of the anniversary inspec- cluded. Even in this version, the require-
tion for lined steel water storage tanks is ments for performing an anniversary
based on the need for linings to protect inspection are limited to 1 page, and the
steel surfaces. Structurally, steel is a good decision to perform the first anniversary in-
material for water storage tanks, but it is spection is left to the owner of the tank.
susceptible to corrosion when exposed to According to AWWA D 102-78, the
owner must first specify the anniversary
Editor’s Note: This article was first presented inspection in the contract documents for
as a paper at the American Water Works the painting or repainting of a steel water
Association (AWWA) 1994 Annual tank. The owner must schedule the an-
Conference. Reprinted from 1994 Annual niversary inspection within 13 months of
Conference Proceedings, Engineering & completion of the lining work. The owner
Operations, by permission. Copyright 1994, is required to notify the contractor of the
American Water Works Association. anniversary inspection date at least 30 days

60 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

Copyright ©1995, Technology Publishing Company
 Inspecting Tank Linings

Fig. 1 - The 2 Four Points Reservoirs

Courtesy of the City of Austin, TX

Fig. 2 - The lining on both of the Four Points Reservoirs

appeared to be blistering between the shop-primed coat
and the field-applied coats.
Courtesy of Trinity Engineering Testing Corporation (TETCO)
for the City of Austin, TX

in advance. If the owner fails to establish a the entire area, the lining should be re-
date within the 13-month time frame, the moved completely and re-applied. Accord-
owner has waived the right to an anniver- ing to AWWA D 102-78, an “area” is defined
sary inspection. as the inside roof, the shell of the tank, or
It is also the owner’s responsibility to tank floor.1
prepare the tank for the anniversary inspec-
tion. That is, the tank must be clean, dry,
suitably lighted, and appropriately ventilat-
City of Austin Anniversary
ed. The contractor and the owner will
Inspection Program
inspect the tank to determine the extent
of the necessary repair work. The contrac- Municipal water tanks are usually con-
tor will prepare a written inspection report structed with voter-approved funds. Thus, it
detailing the coating system failures is only prudent for a city to ensure the
observed and recommending a method of longevity of the steel water storage tank
repair and a time frame for those repairs. and its lining system.
Unless the failures result from the owner’s The City of Austin operates 28 city-
negligence, the repairs will typically be and district-owned water reservoirs. Of
made at the contractor’s expense, in accor- these, 22 are lined or galvanized steel,
dance with the one-year contractor painting while 6 are constructed of concrete. Of the
warranty of the tank. Repairs will be made 22 steel reservoirs, 11 were constructed
where paint has peeled off, bubbled, or within the last 8 years. The City exercised
cracked, or where rust is evident. If a its option for anniversary inspection on all
failure area is greater than 25 percent of 11. The anniversary inspections resulted in

Copyright ©1995, Technology Publishing Company

SEPTEMBER 1995 / 61
Inspecting Tank Linings

Fig. 3 - Slaughter Lane Reservoir

Courtesy of TETCO for the
City of Austin, TX

Fig. 4 - View of the chalking of the epoxy on the

roof of Slaughter Lane Reservoir.
Courtesy of the City of Austin, TX

Fig. 5 - LaCrosse elevated reservoir

Courtesy of the City of Austin, TX

Fig. 6 - Cathodic protection failure of lining in the

interior of LaCrosse Reservoir.
Courtesy of TETCO for the City of Austin, TX

repairs to 8 of these tanks, saving the Case Histories of

City approximately $4,000,000, a figure Anniversary Inspections
based on the amount the city budgets an-
nually for repairing tanks with coating fail- Between 1988 and 1992, many types of
ures, $500,000 per tank. The City of Austin tank lining failures were observed: blister-
Water and Wastewater Utility established ing due to solvent entrapment, cathodic
its anniversary inspection program for its protection system problems, and structural
steel water tanks in 1988 in accordance steel problems. The most common prob-
with AWWA D 102-78. Initially, city lems were related to the lining system.
officials did not know what to expect. Case histories of 5 tanks will be examined.
Although the standard for anniversary in-
spections had existed for years, not many Four Points Ground and
cities or utilities had taken advantage Elevated Storage Tanks
of it, probably because of the difficulty The 2 tanks shown in Fig. 1 were con-
of taking tanks out of service for inspec- structed in 1989. An anniversary inspection
tions. One steel tank construction firm esti- of both tanks revealed common coating
mates that only one quarter of the tanks failure problems. Original surface prepara-
painted in the late 1980s had received tion was an SSPC-SP 10, Near White. The
anniversary inspections. systems for both tanks were an epoxy lin-

62 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

Copyright ©1995, Technology Publishing Company
 Inspecting Tank Linings

ing system on the inside and an epoxy/ure- testing with a wet sponge low voltage holi-
thane coating system on the outside. The day detector would also be performed 7
exteriors were in good condition. The lin- days after the final coat was applied to de-
ing on both tanks, however, appeared to tect holidays caused by lining shrinkage.
be blistering between the shop-primed coat The manufacturer recommended a curing
and the subsequent field coats (Fig. 2). Fur- time of less than 7 days. The holiday test Chalk used
ther examination indicated the presence of was performed twice: at the end of the
chalk similar to that used to mark shop- manufacturer’s recommended cure time to mark
primed pieces. The chalk was detected on and at the end of 7 days. The first test re-
a shop-primed area where blistering of the vealed few holidays. However, the test at
shop-primed
topcoat had occurred. The chalk should the end of 7 days indicated that holidays
pieces
have been removed from the coating once had developed on the same plates that had
the shop-primed steel plates had reached been previously tested.4 The contractor re- was found
the job site. If shop-primed steel is exposed paired the holidays.
to weather for 60 days or longer, blast beneath
cleaning is recommended before topcoat- Slaughter Lane Ground Tank
ing to ensure good paint adhesion.2 The This tank (Fig. 3) had coating failures on blistered
presence of marking chalk indicated that the inside and the outside surfaces. The in-
portions of the shop-primed steel had not terior lining was an epoxy system, and the topcoat.
been properly blasted in the field. exterior coating was an epoxy/urethane
In addition, the majority of blisters on system. During the anniversary inspection,
the ground tank appeared to be near the DFTs were measured on the interior and
bottom of the tank. Blistering above the exterior. The exterior surface included
water line was virtually non-existent. The areas with coating thicknesses both above
lining manufacturer analyzed samples of and below the specified DFT.
the fluid behind the blisters with a gas The urethane and epoxy were, unfor-
chromatograph. The fluid was approxi- tunately, the same color. But engineers
mately 99.8 to 99.9 percent water with a could tell where the urethane did not cover
pH of 9 to 10.3 The cathodic protection the primer by the presence of chalking.
system was also checked and appeared to Once epoxy is exposed to sunlight, chalk-
be operating properly. ing occurs. The chalking is evident in the
The tank manufacturer and the lining inspection photograph of this tank (Fig. 4).
supplier recommended preparation of the Thus, failure to apply the urethane over the
tank in accordance with SSPC-SP 6, Com- entire surface allowed the exposed epoxy
mercial Blast, to remove all of the poorly to chalk. The mud cracking occurred
adhering paint. In addition, for all bare only where the urethane/epoxy had
steel, SSPC-SP 10, Near White, was speci- been applied at a thickness above the
fied before recoating. The paint manufac- specified DFT.
turer recommended returning with the orig- The epoxy lining in the tank had nu-
inal paint product to match existing dry merous problems. The floor and lower
film thicknesses (DFT). Application and shell of the tank were covered with many
curing times between coats would be in ac- blisters ranging from 0.25 to 2 in. (6 to 50
cordance with the paint manufacturer’s rec- mm) in diameter. The blisters, when punc-
ommendations. The blistered areas were tured contained a clear fluid that smelled
then blasted and relined. like solvent. Austin analyzed the fluid in its
The City of Austin also placed the fol- lab. It contained the aromatic volatile or-
lowing stipulation on the project: holiday ganic compounds toluene and ethyl ben-

Copyright ©1995, Technology Publishing Company

SEPTEMBER 1995 / 63
Inspecting Tank Linings

zene.5 Toluene and ethyl benzene are aro- ish discoloration on the bottom sides of
matic hydrocarbon solvents used with many of the paint fragments. Many of the
epoxies and urethanes.6 The presence of smaller blisters contained liquid. Analysis
these organic compounds indicated a prob- showed that this fluid did not appear to
lem with the curing of the lining. In addi- contain more than trace amounts of sol-
The tion, when the tank was blast cleaned to an vents. The pH of the fluid ranged between
SSPC-SP 6, Commercial Blast, to remove 12.73 and 12.86. A gas chromatograph anal-
thinning poorly adhering lining, the lining came off ysis of the fluid showed the presence of
in large chunks, and the intact edges could hydrated calcium carbonate, calcium sili-
solvent not be feathered for easier recoating. It ap- cate, and a carboxylic acid.
appeared pears that the thinning solvent was incom- These data were analyzed by a con-
patible with the lining system and caused sultant who reported evidence of “disbond-
to be problems with surface preparation. The in- ment of the coating and...degradation due
terior and exterior lining systems were re- to alkalinity arising from the application of
incompatible paired in accordance with the lining manu- excessive cathodic protection potentials.”7
facturer’s recommendations. The original Electric potentials inside the tank
with the paint product was applied to match the were measured to confirm this analysis. At
original DFT. (Again, an SSPC-SP 6 blast the main cathodic protection controller
lining. was specified to remove poorly adhering box, the readings were -0.90 mV, with cur-
paint; and SSPC-SP 10 was specified to pre- rent readings of nearly 4.0 mA. While the
pare any areas of exposed steel. The origi- potential reading was within an acceptable
nal paint product was re-applied as part of range, the current reading appeared to be
standard protocol for these lining systems.) higher than expected for a new water tank.
Readings were taken inside the tank by
La Crosse Elevated Tank using a copper/copper sulfate (Cu/CuSO4)
This tank, shown in Fig. 5, was first in- reference electrode and a volt meter. The
spected in 1990. The inspection revealed a highest reading in the tank was -2.7 mV,
few unusually large blisters (Fig. 6). The di- measured near the water surface at the side
ameter of the blisters ranged from 2 to 5 in. of the tank. According to the British Ship
(50 to 125 mm). In addition, the blisters ap- Research Association in its Recommended
peared to be filled with air or another gas. Practice for Protection and Painting of
Because of other work, anniversary repairs Ships, potential readings higher than -2.0
of this tank were delayed until 1992. At that mV will disbond epoxy coatings.8
time, Austin found an even more disturbing ANSI/AWWA D 104-91, Standard for Auto-
situation: not only had the number of blis- matically Controlled Impressed Current Ca-
ters increased, but also many blisters were thodic Protection for the Interior of Steel
now as large as 6 to 8 in. (150 to 200 mm) Water Tanks, states that the cathodic
in diameter. protection system shall maintain tank-to-
These larger blisters were symmetri- water potentials from -0.85 mV to -1.05 mV
cal. Many were surrounded by a series of relative to a Cu/CuSO4 reference
smaller blisters. Once the blisters were electrode.9 Only the readings in the water
opened, inspectors saw that the steel sur- tank directly adjacent to the reference elec-
face beneath was very shiny. In fact, the trode were close to -0.90 mV.
original anchor pattern was visible in most From an examination of the tank’s
of the blisters, thus indicating a good sur- shop drawings, city engineers learned that
face blast. The lining, however, was very the reference electrode was in a well sepa-
brittle, and there appeared to be a brown- rate from the ring of anodes. Thus, the ref-

64 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

Copyright ©1995, Technology Publishing Company
 Inspecting Tank Linings

Fig. 7 - Davis Lane ground tank (reservoir)

Courtesy of TETCO for the City of Austin, TX

Fig. 8 - Construction workers repairing roof rafters in the

Davis Lane Reservoir.
Courtesy of City of Austin, Tx

erence electrode appeared to be shielded ed by a series of rafters, columns, and

from the anodes. Engineers suspected that beams. A center column supported the roof
for the reference electrode to receive rafters and transferred part of the weight of
enough current to maintain a potential the roof to base plates at the bottom of the
of -0.9 mV, the anodes were required to center column. It appears that as the sand
produce potentials as high as -2.7 mV in under the bottom shell settled, the center
portions of the rest of the tank because of column also settled, twisting the roof
the shielding efforts. To test this theory, en- rafters. The gusset plates at the center col-
gineers raised the reference electrode out umn base plate were not adequate to trans-
of the well and hung it in the same reser- fer the roof loads to the floor. Most of the
voir belly area with the anodes. When this rafters appeared to be deflected by as
occurred, the current required dropped to much as 5 in. (125 mm).10 According to the
near zero at the automatic control box. In American Institute of Steel Construction, for
addition, a follow-up survey of potential the length of the rafter, a deflection of no
readings showed that the values in all parts more than 1 to 2 in. (25 to 50 mm) is al-
of the tank were below -1.0 mV. lowable.11 Thus, the contractor needed to
Again, areas of poorly adhering lining find a way to reduce the rafter deflections.
were removed by commercial blast clean- Initially, the contractor attempted to
ing to SSPC-SP 6. These areas were then re- use hydraulic jacks to raise the center col-
coated in accordance with the lining manu- umn. The contractor then proposed weld-
facturer’s directions. Once the anniversary ing additional shims under the column and
repairs were completed, the tank was put adding additional angle iron stiffeners to
back in service for 1 year without the ca- the free edges of each gusset plate. Unfor-
thodic protection system on. After a year, tunately, the hydraulic jacks jacked the bot-
the cathodic protection system was turned tom of the shell down into the sand. Final-
on, this time with the reference electrode in ly, the contractor agreed to cut all of the
the same common area as the anodes. To rafters loose at the center column, and
date, no additional disbondment of this reweld them with tack welds within the al-
paint system has occurred. lowable deflection tolerances for that type
of member (Fig. 8).
Davis Lane Ground Tank The bottom of the shell was covered
This tank, shown in Fig. 7, contained not by numerous small blisters containing a
only blistered linings but also a structural fluid that smelled like paint solvent. The
steel problem. The tank roof was support- contractor used a commercial blast to re-

Copyright ©1995, Technology Publishing Company

SEPTEMBER 1995 / 65
Inspecting Tank Linings

move the poorly adherent lining and re- It should be noted that the condition
lined the bottom with the same system up of the steel surface is a factor for new as
to the specified DFT. All exposed steel sur- well as old steel. Since most steel is
faces were cleaned to an SSPC-SP 10. shipped to the job site on trucks or boats,
new beams can have rusting and salt de-
The posits. Salt deposits can cause the paint
system to fail. Also, salt deposits cannot be
clearer the Discussion and removed simply by blasting.
Recommendations Service life of a coating system can
specifications,
The case histories of City of Austin anniver- range from 3 to 12 years, depending on the
the clearer sary inspections illustrate their importance system and the type of immersion service.
to the water tank painting specification. The specification writer should be careful
the AWWA has a good set of guidelines for the to specify a coating system appropriate for
construction, painting, and inspection of the type of service involved and the ex-
expectations painted water tanks. However, this should pected life.12
not preclude the owners of steel water Although it is usually safe to refer-
for the tanks from having their own detailed speci- ence the paint manufacturer’s recommen-
fications with a complete painting specifica- dations, the owner should also be aware of
project. tion and requirements for the anniversary any special circumstances that may affect
inspection. A thorough specification allows the paint application. For instance, it has
the contractor to know the owner’s expec- been Austin’s experience that a manufactur-
tations. The clearer the specification, the er’s recommended cure time of less than 7
clearer the expectations and the fewer the days is not necessarily long enough for the
questions during the project. Austin climate. Therefore, the Austin speci-
The specification should reference all fications stipulate a minimum cure time of
applicable standards and specifications for 7 days (or longer if the manufacturer rec-
painting and structural steel construction. ommends it). The specifications should also
Both the general painting specification and make note of limitations on time between
the section on the anniversary inspection coats. If a recoat window is exceeded, pro-
should cover the following issues: visions should address the problem.
• reference specifications, Many utilities, including East Bay Mu-
• coating selection, nicipal Utility District (East Bay MUD) in
• shop priming of steel plates, California, require that coating manufactur-
• coating and lining application, ers submit their products to a series of me-
• cathodic protection, chanical and bacterial tests. The latter are
• inspection equipment, to determine the possibility of the product
• testing, and leaching into the water supply. East Bay
• acceptance. MUD recommends testing coatings and lin-
One of the most important considera- ings for adhesion, coating strength, hard-
tions in the selection of a coating or lining ness, bacterial growth support potential,
system is cost. Many factors affect initial volatile organic compounds, and taste and
coating costs. These include the use of odor. Pretesting products reduces the po-
shop priming, the type and amount of tential for future health problems.13
cleaning and field preparation likely to be In the AWWA D 102-78 section on an-
required, the condition of the steel surface, niversary repairs, no reference is made to
the size and complexity of the job, and the inspecting and accepting the repair work.
coating and lining selected. Although one could assume that all appli-

66 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

Copyright ©1995, Technology Publishing Company
 Inspecting Tank Linings

cable AWWA references on inspection and tively affect the life of the tank coating.
acceptance would apply, the owners Shop-primed sections can become contami-
should stipulate the tests, such as holiday nated or damaged during shipping, storing,
testing, that they think are necessary. Also, or erection.
the owner should clearly identify the party For example, if the shop-primed tank
that will perform the testing of the repairs. sections are transported near a marine envi- If cathodic
The owner of a tank should acquire ronment, salt contamination could occur. If
all tools necessary to inspect the tank or to the shop primer is not topcoated within the
protection
spot-check the contractor’s work. These in- required time frame, the paint may not
is used, the
clude DFT gauges, NACE International and achieve a good mechanical bond. Accord-
SSPC standards for welding and cleaning ing to W.J. Dixon, under most circum- specification
quality, and syringes to remove blister stances, shop priming should be avoided.
fluid. SSPC and NACE visual standards for He says, “Shop primer should not be ap- should have
surface preparation can be used during the plied because it is destroyed during erec-
construction and repair of a tank. They re- tion. It has been our experience that of the provisions
move the subjectivity from the written new tanks inspected during erection, at
specifications for surface preparation.14 least 50 percent of each tank required ex- for testing it.
Before it is painted, the steel surface tensive cleaning or blast-cleaning.”2
should be free of salts, chemicals, and If cathodic protection is to be used on
other contaminants. Soluble salts, such as the tank, the specification should make
sulfates and chlorides, can be transferred to provisions for testing the system. Cathodic
the steel surface through abrasives. They protection is an excellent way to maintain
can accumulate on the steel surface from steel under immersion service. However, an
exposure to a marine environment, or improperly operating cathodic protection
they can leach out of salt-contaminated system can reduce the life of a lining or de-
pigments. Soluble salts can affect the rela- stroy it.18 Potential readings should be
tionship between the recommended appli- taken at different locations within the tank
cation temperature and the dew point. after lining is completed and the tank is
Salts can also accelerate the corrosion pro- filled with water. This will assure that the
cess. Salt contamination can ultimately re- system is installed properly. Also, periodic
sult in lining failure by osmotic blistering. potential readings should be taken in the
Field testing should be done on the steel tank to ensure that the cathodic protection
surface to determine if soluble salt contami- system continues to function properly.
nation exists. Soluble salts can then be re-
moved by wet abrasive blasting or pressure
washing followed by a light blast clean-
Conclusion
ing.15,16 NACE Publication 6G186, entitled,
“Surface Preparation of Contaminated It is estimated that Austin saved nearly $4
Steel Surfaces,” is a good reference for million in repair work by performing an-
contaminant removal.17 niversary inspections for 11 tanks. As a re-
Specifications should also state the sult of these inspections, the City devel-
owner’s preferences for shop priming (i.e., oped a detailed specification for coating
is it allowed or not?). From Austin’s experi- and lining steel water storage tanks that in-
ence, shop priming will probably not be al- cludes the provision for an anniversary in-
lowed in the future. Although shop priming spection on the completed tank.
is advantageous to the steel tank fabricator, It is the opinion of the author that
there are too many variables that can nega- many of the anniversary repairs completed

Copyright ©1995, Technology Publishing Company

SEPTEMBER 1995 / 67
Inspecting Tank Linings

on the Austin tanks could have been avoid- 6. Clive H. Hare, “Solvent Families I: Hydro-
ed by the use of a good specification and carbons,” JPCL (April 1991): 45-53.
by following quality inspection procedures 7. Geoffrey B. Byrnes, “Laboratory Exami-
on each job. However, the anniversary in- nation of Failed Coating: La Crosse Ele-
spection is an excellent tool to correct coat- vated Reservoir,” June 17, 1991, City of
ing system deficiencies. Austin Texas Water and Wastewater Utili-
ty files.
8. C. Malcolm Hendry, “Problem Solving
Forum,” JPCL (July 1987): 18-19.
Tracy Dubcak, PE, is Acknowledgments 9. “AWWA Standard for Automatically Con-
a senior engineer
responsible for water The following persons provided invaluable trolled, Impressed-Current Cathodic Pro-
treatment plant
engineering for the assistance with the City of Austin water tection for the Interior of Steel Water
City of Austin, TX. reservoir anniversary program: City of Tanks,” ANSI/AWWA D 104-91, American
A registered engineer
in the State of Texas, Austin personnel: James Brady, Jerry Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Dubcak received her Aguirre, Tim Haynie, Catherine Salls, James 10. Trinity Engineering Testing Corporation,
BS in Architectural
Engineering from the Knox, David Manchaca, Rajendra Bhattarai, Davis Lane Reservoir Inspections, April
University of Texas Hani Michel, M. Ray Dunlap, and the Utility 23, 1990-May 7, 1990, City of Austin
at Austin and her
MBA from Southwest
Water Distribution Crews Fred Hartman, Texas Water and Wastewater Utility files.
Texas State University. Ken Yoder, of Trinity Engineering and Test- 11. Rick Herring, Tank Builders, Inc., letter to
She is a member of ing Corporation; the late Carroll Steely of Tracy Owen, March 27, 1990, City of
the American Water
Works Association ACRO; Robert Hengst of Espry, Huston and Austin Texas Water and Wastewater
Standards Council Associates; and Geoffrey Byrnes of The Utility files.
and has authored
several technical Coatings Laboratory. JPCL 12. Gordon Brevoort, “The Coatings Con-
papers. She can be sumer: Understanding Initial and Long-
reached at City of
AustinWater and Term Painting Costs,” JPCL (December
Wastewater Engineering 1993): 52-59.
Program, Municipal Notes 13. Arthur E. Maronek, “Evaluating
Building, Eighth at
Colorado, P.O. Box 1. “AWWA Standard for Painting Steel Acceptability of Potable Water
1088, Austin, TX 78767; Water-Storage Tanks,” ANSI/AWWA D Tank Coatings,” JPCL (July 1988): 40-45.
fax: 512/322-2734.
102-78, American Water Works Associa- 14. Harold E. Hower, “Vis 3: New SSPC Aids
tion, Denver, CO. in Judging Surface Preparation,” JPCL
2. William J. Dixon, “On Field vs Shop (March 1994): 68-74.
Reader Painting for Steel Water Storage Tanks,”
JPCL (April 1988): 25-27.
15. Bernard R. Appleman, “Painting Over
Soluble Salts: A Perspective,” JPCL (Octo-
Response 3. Mike Bauer, Tnemec, letter to Tracy ber 1987): 68-82.
Reader Response Owen, December 13, 1990, City of Austin 16. S. Flores, J. Simancas, and M. Morcillo,
To This Article Texas Water and Wastewater Utility files. “Methods for Sampling and Analyzing
Appears In The 4. Trinity Engineering Testing Corporation, Soluble Salts on Steel Surfaces: A Compar-
February, 1996 Four Points Reservoir Inspections, April 4, ative Study,” JPCL (March 1994): 76-83.
Issue. pp 130- 1990 and April 25, 1990, City of Austin 17. NACE Task Group T-6G-22, “Surface
133 Texas Water and Wastewater Utility files. Preparation of Contaminated Steel
5. City of Austin Instrument Laboratory Surfaces,” NACE Publication 6G186,
Group, Regulatory Affairs and Quality Houston, TX: NACE International, 1986.
Control Division, Slaughter Lane 18. Geoffrey B. Byrnes, “Blistering of Im-
Reservoir Volatile Organic Compound mersed Coatings Under Cathodic Protec-
Analysis, March 2, 1990, City of Austin tion,” Materials Performance, (September
Texas Water and Wastewater Utility files. 1989): 31-32.

68 / Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings

Copyright ©1995, Technology Publishing Company