The Australian Electrolysis Committee (A.E.C.):
Its Origins and Development

Pre History

By the beginning of the 20th Century in Australia the effects of stray direct currents flowing in accordance with Kirchhoff’s and Faraday’s Laws were well enough realised to result in the destruction of metallic service lines and pipelines.  Neatly manuscripted reports of 1908 vintage have been archived.  Control of this situation was ad hoc for a few decades but over 1927 - 1932 1920-1930 (Vic first in 1927, then SA then NSW in 1932), State or Regional Electrolysis Committees arose in the eastern States and later in South Australia, to negotiate solutions.  Commonwealth legislation gave rise to several regulations - left in the hands of the Postmaster-General’s Department - the most effective of which was “Statutory Rule 130 of 1934”.  This provided quite rigid electrical limits of d.c. traction rail currents effects, voltages across joints and the like, which served as a fall back for Electrolysis Committees.  These latter committees were formed from Water, Gas, Telecommunications, Tramways and (D.C.) Railways representatives, chaired by Electricity Commission personnel from the various States.  An exception was in South Australia where a rather more parochial arrangement (there was, and is, only one Tram route) had the chair from a commercial company for many years.  The Sydney and Melbourne committees were (and still are) financed by substantial payments from the member organisations.  Other committees, such as the Brisbane committee, had member’s organisations funding them.

The Impact of Cathodic Protection

By 1940, a few, true Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Systems had arrived, though described by other titles.  The data on at least two of these is extant.  As the protected structures were the property of instrumentalities on the local electrolysis committee, and the systems were to protect from stray DC traction current, the designs were logically the agreement province of that committee.  [It was not for some fourteen years that CP systems began to proliferate, slowly at first].

Naturally enough they were processed through that committee as a matter of courtesy and convenience.  Fairly nominal interference checks were made in the manner of equating such checks to the detection of stray traction current.

The scene was now set in the late 1960s for the next phase in this activity.  A small number of additional interests had been added to some of the electrolysis committees and consultants in C.P. design appeared from somewhere or other, as a new commercial activity.

An Input from the Australasian Corrosion Association

At the 1974(*) Council meeting of the ACA the writer (then a councillor) observed in General Business that the rules governing interference mitigation for Cathodic Protection Installations were different in the three eastern States, as administered by the several State Electrolysis Committees.  As quick as a wink, the renowned Victorian Councillor, Peter Thorpe, moved that the writer “be appointed Electrolysis Co-Ordinator with a charter to monitor these differences, and, if possible, to effect activities to achieve uniformity.”  (There are times when it pays to keep one’s mouth shut?).  This was carried unanimously, and this function was retained year by year for 8 to 10 years.  The title more or less changed itself to “Electrolysis Officer” to align with other office bearers.

The A.E.C. (Phase 1)

At the Cathodic Protection Legislation Symposium in May 1977* 1976 (or Brisbane ACA conference in November?), the ACA Electrolysis Officer, still wondering how to carry out his charter, thought an opportunity of sorts offered to do something.  Among the conference delegates were  -

(i) N.S.W. Technical Committee Chairman, Bill Woodberry
(as far as the writer can remember) (Main committees existed in NSW and Victoria together with a Technical Committee.  Queensland has only run with a Technical Committee – likewise S.A.);

and

(ii) Jack Dunn, the Victorian Technical Committee Secretary – a sort of Executive Officer.

In consequence it was only a phone call away to arrange a meeting of these two with the Queensland Electrolysis Committee chairman – Roy Staples, and with a couple of Queensland Committee Members at the conference – Bob Thomson and the writer.  Done.

The foregoing five met in Roy Stables’ office and consumed tea and biscuits, courtesy of the State Electricity Commission.  It was agreed that there was considerable merit in having annual (or thereabouts) meetings of the various Chairmen and members of the several Electrolysis Committees to improve uniformity and transparency of the processing of C.P. installation applications.  Jack Dunn suggested the combined group be titled the Australian Electrolysis Committee.  [No sooner said than Dunn!]  Incidentally, this was the same Jack Dunn who suggested after a Victorian 1954 (*) seminar on Corrosion that an association termed “The Australian Association for Corrosion Prevention” should be formed.  [Again, it was Dunn!].

The very informal A.E.C. was thus set up, with the following guidelines:

• Membership to be limited to members of any State or Territory Electrolysis Committee.
• The chairman to be rotated and filled by the State Chairman in whose area the Committee was convened.
• Membership to be at no cost.
• Meetings to coincide with A.C.A. conference venues – either con-jointly or concurrently – to conserve travel costs.
• No formal meeting minutes would be produced, but if decisions were taken on any matter, the Chairman would confirm these.

Success!  For a few years [until the Adelaide Conference in 1980 (*)].

Quite an improvement in uniformity was achieved, though not all aspects were fully rationalised.  All the State/Territory committees were empowered, very briefly, by Statutory Regulation, and Queensland operated by regulated guides and limits, listed under its Electricity Act.  This last Act meant that the Queensland Electrolysis Committee was more or less extinct.  It was however convened a couple of times to consider some proposed changes to the Regulations – for example when such a request came from C.P. designers.  As far as is known, no A.E.C. proposal has given rise to such committee recall.

A rather curious proposal during this short era was proposed by Sydney A.E.C. members to change the A.E.C. name to “Australian Electrolysis Forum” [or to a couple of other alternatives].  There was seen, by Sydney members, to be a conflict in the word “Committee”.  In the absence of the then Chairman ( Bill Woodbury) (the writer substituted), the matter was debated vigorously, and the motion lost by one vote (about 20 members were present).

The Big Bang! Adelaide 1980 (*)
The A.E.C. (Phase 2)

By arrangement with the A.C.A. Adelaide conference organisers, a time slot of about two hours was made available for technical like-interest groups.  One of these was the A.E.C.

When the time came for the foregoing, the announcement was made that the several group meetings, by name, were about to begin.  No membership or other qualification was mentioned, and an army of 50 odd descended to the A.E.C. meeting.  The eligible Chairman was not present, so this vast crowd of C.P. operators, designers, consultants and technical interest people appointed itself a chairman and secretary, and found it had a committee name, but nothing to resolve.  This was never a problem to C.P. people who are renowned at filling in available time with discussion, rebuttal and other forms of noise.  In any case a number of points were moved, debated and carried.  In substance, these were:

• The A.E.C. would have a constitution (project allotted)
• The Secretary and President would be elected annually (not related to State E.C. locations)
• Membership was open to any C.P. “Aficionado”.
• Initially no fee but this was added subsequently at $5 (It is currently $15).
• Meetings annually concurrently with the A.C.A. Conferences.  (This was changed soon after to two per year, with the mid year meeting to be concurrent where it could be arranged, with Standards Sub-Committee MT 14/3 – Cathodic Protection of Metals).
• The format of meetings to be verbal presentation of perhaps half a dozen topics, each with a topic leader, with minimum formality.

A few other minor variations have occurred, but the A.E.C. Phase 2 process seems to be self perpetuating.

A point of interest is the long term nature of its “executive”.  Soon after Phase 2 eventuated, Geoff Cope became President and Brian Martin Secretary.  After several years these two reversed functions and Brian Martin continued as President with Geoff Cope as Secretary.

Now, with meeting No. 50 coming up, it does seem with hindsight that the Sydney title change proposal might well have been more apt.

Note:   The several dates marked with an asterisk (*) denote where either corrosion of memory cells has occurred, or that at that time there did not seem any special reason to mark the date in question in memory.  The sequence of events is however substantially correct.

SAEC Constitution

Download a copy of the SAEC constitution