The Case for Independent Corrosion Control Inspection

By: Chandler Aguillard, P.E.

January 2025

In 2001, the Federal Highway Administration conducted a study¹ titled Corrosion Costs and Preventative Strategies in the United States and estimated the annual cost of corrosion in the U.S. to be $276 billion. Conservatively adjusted for inflation², this equates to a national cost of at least $500 billion per year. Other metrics of inflation³ yield the annual cost in today’s dollars as high as $1.5 trillion. Measuring the cost of corrosion worldwide, NACE International’s International Measures of Prevention, Application and Economics of Corrosion Technologies (IMPACT) study published in 2016 estimated the global annual cost of corrosion to be a staggering $2.5 trillion, or $4.75 trillion adjusted for inflation at the time of writing⁴. Regardless of the exact price tag of corrosion damage, it is clear why a huge incentive exists for corrosion control. The key takeaway in this exposition, however, is not just that corrosion control is necessary for reducing unwanted costs, but that lack of adequate inspection can undermine all efforts taken to mitigate such costly corrosion. Quality Assurance via inspection is therefore arguably just as critical as the corrosion control itself and is best left in the hands of a specialized third party dedicated to the impartial performance and documentation of Quality Control.

By far the most prevalent form of corrosion control is the use of protective coatings. The application of protective coatings is a delicate, multi-step process and comprises over 90% of all corrosion prevention expenditures⁵. According to the Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP), an estimated 70% of premature coating failures are attributable to improper preparation of the surface to be coated⁶. This comes as no surprise as there are simply too many opportunities during the surface preparation stage in which errors may be introduced. Unfortunately, this rather tedious and multi-step process also gives rise to several temptations for cutting corners, whether purposefully or inadvertently on the part of the preparer. In the face of ample room for error, the presence of qualified third-party oversight can better assure the stakeholders that all necessary surface preparation tasks have taken place, and all relevant parameters are within specification.

Essential to any Quality Assurance program across all industries is the practice of hold-point inspections. Their purpose in a corrosion control installation is not only to confirm progress according to schedule, but also verify that key parameters are within specification necessary to allow successful completion and future performance of the corrosion control system. Stated differently, a nonconformity created early in the project can compromise the integrity of the whole system even if all subsequent stages are performed perfectly within specified limits. Such is the case especially for protective coating systems when, as a common example, multi-component coatings are not mixed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Improperly mixed epoxy, for example, may appear visually functional with no signs of issue upon application. If the error is not caught or prevented early, however, adhesive properties and/or other key coating characteristics that presuppose proper mixing could be compromised and premature failure may ensue. An independent set of eyes witnessing the mixing process, or any other prescribed hold-point, could be the difference between long-term success and a costly waste of resources.

The significance of a thorough final inspection cannot be overstated. It is far more desirable for everyone involved to spot and correct deficiencies before concluding the project while all parties are still present. At a time when the stakes are high for all, it is even more critical to have an impartial determiner of conformance and arbiter of disputes.

There is no Quality Assurance without thorough documentation of inspection activities and their results. As the old adage goes, “if it isn’t written, it didn’t happen.” Not only does documentation provide assurance to the owner that work was done within specification, but also enables continuity of project phases in the midst of changing personnel. As explained earlier, the steps of corrosion control installation build upon each other and are predicated on their success. Should disputes arise, either during the project or well afterwards, documentation is an absolute necessity for mediating disagreements, including those that are brought to litigation. Independence of the documenter greatly increases the credibility of the records in such situations.

Properly designed corrosion control is rendered impotent without adequate inspection ensuring its efficacy. Consequences of premature failure could be great, on the order of tens of thousands or even millions of dollars in cost depending on the asset. Conversely, the cost of reliable inspection is comparatively far less, with its return-on-investment manifesting in the form of avoided costs. In fact, according to the same 2001 study by the Federal Highway Administration regarding the total cost of corrosion cited in the report, approximately 30% of the $276 billion figure was categorized as avoidable if proper corrosion control methods had been implemented⁷. Therefore, a great deal of responsibility and trust is given to the inspection team to deliver reliable and accurate data to the key stakeholders. It is worth noting that inaccurate inspection data is just as undesirable as, if not more so than, its complete absence. At C3, we strive to preserve the integrity of such data through honest practice, impartial judgment and independent operation. The stakes are simply too high not to have independent inspection of your corrosion control endeavors.

___________________________________

  1. Corrosion Cost and Preventative Strategies in the United States, Federal Highway Administration Report Sep. 2001

  2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 2.5% between 2001 and 2025. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

  3. One often cited pitfall of the CPI is its inability to capture price inflation of goods not found in the “representative basket of consumer goods” such as steel and other materials related to this discussion on corrosion. Rather than tracking the price changes of a particular collection of goods, an alternative approach to quantifying inflation is to measure the rate at which the total money supply increases each year. Doing so results in an average dollar supply growth rate of 7.4% per year in the U.S. since 1960. See the work of author and economist Dr. Saifedean Ammous for a derivation of this rate based on yearly growth rate of the broad money supply between the years 1960 and 2020. Ammous, Saifedean, The Fiat Standard: The Debt Slavery Alternative to Human Civilization, Saif House, 2021, p. 48.

  4. Ibid.

  5. Association for Materials Protection and Performance, Basic Corrosion, Chapter 7: Corrosion Control Methods, AMPP, Oct. 2024, p. 11

  6. Association for Materials Protection and Performance, Coating Inspector Program Level 1 Theory, Chapter 15: Measurement and Monitoring, AMPP, Apr. 2023, p. 2

  7. Corrosion Cost and Preventative Strategies in the United States, Federal Highway Administration Report Sep. 2001

Footnotes