+

jpcl
PAINTSQUARE.COM

JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS

A JPCL eResource

QUALITY CONTROL

Courtesy of KTA-Tator

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

Quality Control
A JPCL eBook

Copyright 2005 by
Technology Publishing Company
2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310
Pittsburgh, PA 15203
All Rights Reserved

This eBook may not be copied or redistributed

without the written permission of the publisher.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

ii

SPONSORED BY

Inspection Instruments

Contents
iv Introduction
1 Inspection and Quality: How Far Have We Come in 45 Years?

by Kenneth A. Trimber, KTA-Tator, Inc.

by Charles Lange and Brian Goldie, JPCL

by David Beamish, DeFelsko Corporation

by Warren Brand, Chicago Coatings Group, LLC.

by Alison B. Kaelin

by William D. Corbett, PCS, KTA-Tator, Inc.,

Richard Burgess, Series Editor, KTA-Tator, Inc.

8 Quality Control Equipment and Practice Trends: 2009-Today

10 Quality Measures: A Cure for Fear of Failure
13 QA/QC: Some Things Are Old; Some Are New
18 Quality Control and Quality Assurance
26 Can in-process QC prevent premature coating failures?

30 Weighing Your Options: What Specifiers and Contractors Should Know about
Alternate Dispute Resolution Clauses in Contracts

by George MacDonald, QC, McInnes Cooper.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

PosiTector Inspection

Corporations custom adaptation to thr WIFI symbol

WiFi

Unrivaled probe interchangeability

for all of your inspection needs.
Coating Thickness Probes

Ferrous Non-Ferrous Combination Ultrasonic

Surface Profile Probes

Depth Micrometer Replica Tape Reader

Environmental Conditions Probes

Built-in Separate Magnetic Probe

Ultrasonic Wall Thickness Probes

Corrosion Multiple Echo Thru-Paint

Customized Inspection Kits...

Build your own kit from a selection of gage
bodies and probes to suit your needs.

Coating Thickness

Surface Profile

Environmental
Conditions

Ultrasonic
Wall Thickness

QUICK CONNECT

Award Winning Compatibility!

The PosiTector gage accepts ALL coating thickness (6000/200),

environmental (DPM), surface profile (SPG/RTR), and ultrasonic wall thickness (UTG) probes.

DeFelsko Corporation Ogdensburg, New York USA

Tel: +1-315-393-4450 Email: [email protected]

1-800-448-3835 www.DeFelsko.com

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

iv

Introduction
This eBook features articles from the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings (JPCL) about
quality control and is designed to provide general guidance on the use and maintenance of
the associated equipment.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

SSPC-SP 4, Flame
Cleaning, was among
the surface preparation
standards in the 1963
edition of SSPC Volume
2, Systems and Specifications. Flame cleaning
(right) was followed by
wire brushing (center)
and painting (left) while
the surface was still
warm. Not used in decades, SSPC-SP 4 was
withdrawn in 1982. The
photo of an old flame
cleaning operation
appears in the 1996 edition of SSPC Volume 1.
Photo courtesy of SSPC

Inspection and QualityHow Far Have We Come in 45 Years?

By Kenneth A. Trimber, KTA-Tator, Inc.

have been involved with the coatings industry for almost

45 years, having started on a part-time basis in 1968,
when the company was actually called Kenneth Tator Associates. One of my first duties was sandblasting test panels (yes, I mean sandblastingusing Ottawa silica sand)
and helping to apply different types of industrial paints for
testing (yes, we tested paint). When JPCL asked me to prepare
a special article for 2012, several topics came to mind, but I
kept returning to the same theme. How much progress has our
industry truly made in quality over the past 40+ years?
This article compares some of the inspection practices,
equipment, and standards that were available in the mid- to
late-1960s with those of todayto see how the industry has
developed since that time. Have we addressed the problems
that were identified by coatings professionals 45 years ago?
Have we created new ones? Are we better off?

1960s Technology as Reflected in SSPC Volumes 1 and 2

When I started in this business, the go-to resource for technical information and standards was SSPC (Steel Structures
Painting Council at the time). The most recent edition of SSPC
Volume 1, Good Painting Practice (Fig. 1, p. 16), had been published in 1966. It provided educational information on various
methods of cleaning and painting, the types of paint to use in
different industries, comparative costs for the work (based on
labor rates of $1.60/hour), and guidance on inspection. The
most recent edition of SSPC Volume 2, Systems and Specifications, had been published in 1964. It provided specifi-

Editors Note: This article by Ken Trimber is part

of the series of Top Thinker articles appearing
in JPCL throughout 2012. Mr. Trimber is one of
24 recipients of JPCLs 2012 Top Thinkers:
The Clive Hare Honors, given for significant
contributions to the protective coatings industry over the past decade. The award is named
for Clive Hare, a 20-year contributor to JPCL who shared his
encyclopedic knowledge of coatings in many forums. Professional profiles of all of the award winners, as well as an article
by Clive Hare, were published in a supplement to the August
2012 JPCL and in JPCL in December 2012.
Airless spraying
in 1966. While
airless technology
remains the same
today, the industry
has seen a lot of
other changes
since that time,
including improvements in worker
protection. How far
have we come?
Photo courtesy of
KTA

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

Fig. 1: SSPC Volumes 1 and 2 from 1966 and 1964, respectively.

Photo courtesy of KTA

cations for various grades of surface preparation and paint

materials (Fig. 1).
Volume 2 included 18 different paint material specifications.
Seven of the materials were based on red lead, and three were
vinyl. The remainder consisted of alkyds, phenolics, and a
cold-applied asphalt mastic. In addition, several paint system
specifications had been developed. These specifications packaged all of the requirements for doing a job into a single document (e.g., surface preparation, methods of application, the
individual coats required, and the thickness of each). The SSPC
paint system specifications were primarily based on oil, alkyd,
phenolic, vinyl, and asphaltic materials. Interestingly, three paint
systems were designated as in preparation. One was coal tar
epoxy, a great performer that has gone out of favor since that
time because of health effects. The two others were epoxy and
zinc (inorganic and organic), and unlike most of the other materials and systems in the 1964 SSPC Volume, both have passed
the test of time and are still widely used today.
The specifications for hand and power tool cleaning and
abrasive blast cleaning were originally developed by SSPC in
1952. They were given a complete overhaul in 1963, and NearWhite Blast Cleaning was added to them. The primary specifications for cleaning were SSPC-SP 1, Solvent Cleaning; SP
2, Hand Tool Cleaning; SP 3, Power Tool Cleaning; SP 4, Flame
Cleaning; SP 5, White Metal Blast Cleaning; SP 6, Commercial
Blast Cleaning; SP 7, Brush-Off Blast Cleaning; and SP 10,
Near-White Blast Cleaning.
Similar to the paint material specifications, not all of the
cleaning specifications survived the test of time. SSPC-SP 4,
Flame Cleaning of New Steel, hasnt been used for decades.
SSPC-SP 4 required solvent cleaning in accordance with
SSPC-SP 1-63, followed by passing an oxy-acetylene flame
across the surface to dehydrate it and release dirt, rust, loose
mill scale, and foreign matter. Immediately after the flame was
applied, the surface was scraped and wire brushed to remove
all loose material, and primed while it was still warm (see p. 14).

The first visual depictions of wire brushing cleanliness and

the grades of blast cleaning (except for Near-White) were
made available in 1963. The SSPC visual standard had actually
been published by the Swedish Standards Association in 1962
(SIS 05 59 00-1962), and adopted by SSPC in 1963 as Pictorial
Surface Preparation Standards for Painting Steel Surfaces,
SSPC-Vis 1-63T. It was updated in 1967 to include photographs consistent with a Near-White degree of cleaning and
identified as SSPC-Vis 1-67T (Fig. 2).
SSPC began to develop its own visual standards in the
1980s with a new SSPC version of VIS 1 published in 1989 as
SSPC-VIS 1-89 (Fig. 3). The Swedish Standards were subsequently adopted by ISO as ISO 8501-1. SSPC went on to
publish photographs of hand and power tool cleaning, water
jetting, and wet abrasive blast cleaning, but SSPC changed
the designations from Standards to Guides and Reference
Photographs.
The importance of surface profile was recognized, but the
profile was typically controlled by the selection of the size of
the abrasive rather than by being measured because of the
complex measurement process required. The method of mea-

Fig. 2: Swedish Standards in 1967, adopted by SSPC as SSPC-Vis

1-67T. Photo courtesy of KTA
Fig. 3: First publication of
SSPCs self-prepared visual
standard, SSPC-VIS 1-89,
Visual Standard for Abrasive Blast Cleaned Steel.
Photo courtesy of KTA

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

3
surement recommended by SSPC in 1963 was to grind a spot
to the bottoms of the valleys and use a depth micrometer to
measure the distance from that point to the tops of the peaks.
In 1970, the recommendation was changed to a non-destructive method of measurement with the development of a visual
surface profile comparator. The roughness of the profile segments on the comparator disc was visually compared, under
5x magnification, to the roughness of the prepared surface.
Today, more precise methods for measuring both surface
profile and peak density are available.
Its not feasible in a single article to walk through all of the
advances in knowledge and technology since the 1960s.
Obviously, the industry has made great strides in many areas,
but how far have we really come with respect to inspection
and quality? To try to answer that question, I dusted off Chapter Five, Inspection, of the 1966 edition of SSPC Volume
2. Fletcher W. Shanks and J.L. Rohwedder, who at the time
worked at the Rock Island District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, wrote the chapter. Below are a few things said in
Volume 2 over 45 years ago, and where I see the industry in
each of the same areas today.
1. 1966, Need for Inspection: The general need for competent inspection of painting work stems from the many
variables involved, each of which may have an overwhelming
effect on the quality of the job as a whole. The paint itself,
surface preparation, mixing and thinning, weather conditions,
thickness of coats, and handling of the coated surfaces are
a few of the variables which must be carefully controlled if a
durable coating is to be obtained. Unfortunately for the buyer,
the final appearance of a poor paint job may be about the
same as the appearance of one which was accomplished with
the maximum of care.
Today: The statement is as true today as it was in 1966,
especially the point that you cannot rely on final appearance
to determine the suitability of the work. In-process checks are
the only way to confirm the quality of the entire system. While
specialized paint inspections are still not a standard requirement on most painting projects today, the use of paint inspectors on project sites has increased since 1966.
2. 1966, Need for Qualified Inspection Personnel: The
need for qualified personnel for paint inspection work is obvious if one considers the complexity and multiplicity of modern
protective coatings and the considerable number of operations involved in obtaining a satisfactory paint job.
Today: The concern for qualified inspection personnel is
even more relevant today because the number and types of
modern coating materials have increased significantly, and
the many environmental issues associated with cleaning and
painting today dwarf the concerns of 1966.
3. 1966, Inspector and Painter Qualifications and Experience: The contrast between the desired and actual qualifications of painting inspectors is usually rather painful

When one passes into the realm of surface preparation,

where experience and judgment are particularly important, the
competence of most inspectors is even more questionable
it springs, in part at least, from the rather general disinclination
of supervisors and management to attach much importance to
paintingand this despite the fact that painting is probably the
greatest single item of maintenance cost with respect to most
steel structures. Hence, management does not make much of
an effort to secure or train competent paint inspectors.
The painting inspectors problems will often be magnified
by incompetence and lack of knowledge on the part of the
painters themselves. Very rarely do painters have much detailed knowledge concerning the materials they use.
Today: SSPC, NACE, and private companies have inspector
training and certification courses that find widespread acceptance in the industry. While there are many opportunities to
receive book knowledge, a weakness pointed out in 1966
still existsexperience. As experienced inspectors retire,
they are being replaced with new inspectors who are long on
book knowledge but short on practical experience. In an industry where much of the work involves shades of gray rather
than black and white, there is no substitute for hands-on field
experience. It is no different from learning to drive a caryou
wont be able to parallel park by simply watching a video and
reading about it. You need to do it and experience itover
and over again.
The knowledge and skills of professional painters have also
improved as a result of training programs available such as
ANSI/NACE No. 13/SSPC-ACS-1, Industrial Coating and Lining
Application Specialist Qualification and Certification, and
the SSPC Coating Application Specialist (CAS) Certification
Program. The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
(IUPAT) and Finishing Trades Institute (FTI) have an impressive
long-term apprenticeship training program in place to improve
the knowledge and skills of their workers.
While the general quality and skill of the inspectors and
painters have improved, the skills are of value only if they are
actually required on the job. Unfortunately, just as in 1966,
there is still a lack of appreciation for the intricacies of painting. Despite the validity of the 1966 statement, painting is
probably the greatest single item of maintenance cost with
respect to most steel structures, many owners still base their
inspection and contractor selection decisions on price alone
because they cant shake the its just paint mentality. Improvements are still needed in this area.
4. 1966, Surface Preparation Standards, Guides, and
Inspection to the Letter of the Specification: The standards,
guides, inspection tools, and other aids available to the person
who inspects the surface preparation of structural steel are
notable by their absence.
The 1966 writings also make some interesting points about
the letter and spirit of the specification. For example, slight
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

4
traces of rust might remain in pits when a White Metal Blast
was specified, and an additional 30% to 50% in effort would
be required to get the surface perfectly clean and uniform in
those areas. Some contractors may maintain that the removal
of these final traces of rust down in the deep pits is an unreasonable imposition and need not be accomplished to comply
with the intent of the specifications. In view of the wording of
the specification the inspector can in good conscience insist
that nothing less than a completely uniform surface can be
accepted. The resolution of such a conflict of interests must
be worked out for each specific case, but it may be suggested
here that unyielding insistence that the letter of the specification be adhered to may not always be to the long-range
interests of the purchaser. If the purchaser can satisfy himself
that a slight relaxation in surface cleaning will not appreciably
affect the anticipated paint performance, he should seriously
question the advisability of adhering to the letter of the specifications. As a guide in this matter, the purchaser should ask
himself what degree of surface cleanliness would be insisted
upon if his own organization was accomplishing the work and
the cost was borne directly.
Today: Through the work of SSPC and NACE, standards,
guides and other educational materials regarding the inspection of surface preparation are readily available. A number
of different instruments and visual reference photographs
address the degree of cleaning, surface profile, contamination
such as soluble salts, and ambient conditions. While improvements can always be made, most of the concerns regarding
a lack of instruments and standards expressed in 1966 have
been resolved.
Despite great improvement in the availability of standards
and instrumentation, one major problem still existsthe
subjectivity of the visual assessments of cleaning quality.
The reference photographs are helpful, but they are not
absolute because they never look identical to the prepared
steel. Furthermore, the written words, rather than the photographs, are the standard. While the photographs are of value
in calibrating the eye, the actual inspection is not black and
white; it is subjective and involves interpretation. For example,
how is a stain of mill scale distinguished from mill scale, and
how is the allowable percentage of staining estimated when
inspecting a Near-White blast on a large surface? This is where
long-term, hands-on experience of the inspector, supervisory
personnel, and the company become invaluable. The preparation of jobsite standards to address these issues can also be
of benefit.
The above questions are in keeping with the 1966 comments about inspection to the letter of the specification. The
inspector must be as objective as possible when making
inspections and not arbitrarily accept, for example, traces
of rust in the bottoms of pits when White Metal is specified.
However, there will be instances where it makes sense for the

inspector to raise the flag on very real problems with achieving 100% compliance. In those cases, the purchaser, contractor, manufacturer, and engineer should collectively decide if
the spirit of the specification, rather than the letter, should
be applied. If a decision to allow a deviation in select areas is
agreed upon, it needs to be documented through the specification change process, and the contractor and inspector can
then proceed accordingly. The time to raise such questions is
early in a project when it appears that 100% compliance will
be a problem, rather than after multiple rejections of the work,
and productive time and energy are diverted into developing
and defending claims. Having all parties work together for the
common good of the project still needs improvement today.
5. 1966, Paint Mixing and Application: Simple though the
mixing and thinning of paints may be, the paint inspector
should put the observation of these operations high on his
priority list. Once he has assured himself that those who mix
and thin paints are conscientious and competent he may relax his inspection of these operations somewhat. Until such
relaxation is justified, however, the inspector should watch
the mixing and thinning of every batch of paint which goes
on the surface.
The use of dry film thickness requirements in paint
specifications is excellent, but caution must be exercised
to prevent application of paint in unduly thick coats to meet
a thickness specification with a minimum number of operations. The appearance of an excessive number of skins,
holidays, runs, and sags is an indication that the paint is not
being properly applied.
The authors also discuss monitoring surface and air
temperature; minimum and maximum drying times between
coats; cleanliness between coats including salt contamination; spray technique; the use of stripe coats, and the need
for special attention to crevices, corners, welds, bolts, rivets,
and sharp edges.
Today: Confirmation of proper mixing remains a key concern today, and many manufacturers and specifiers allow for
the mixing only of complete kits to minimize the possibility of
blending improper ratios of the components. The advent of
plural-component spray equipment adds another dimension
to mixing concernsverification that the equipment is feeding
the components to the spray gun in proper proportions.
More specific guidance is provided today on the acceptability of runs, sags, and coating discontinuities, rather than simply stating that their presence is an indication that the paint is
not being applied properly.
Finally, all of the concerns regarding cleanliness between
coats, drying times, stripe coats, and special attention to difficult configurations apply today, with a wealth of information
and studies now available regarding the importance of monitoring these conditions. It is interesting to note that concerns
with salt contamination were addressed in the Inspection
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

Fig. 4: This magnetic flux gage was a common

instrument at the time.
Photo courtesy of KTA

chapter in 1966 as well as in a chapter on Painting of Highway

Bridges and Structures. Despite this long history of concern
associated with soluble salts, the detection and remediation of
salts is a controversial topic today, especially the thresholds
at which soluble salts are of concern when painting a structure
intended for atmospheric service.
6. 1966, Paint Application Inspection Equipment: Although
visual observation is the most important part of paint inspection, there are some instruments and mechanical aids which
will be of considerable aid to the inspector. From the standpoint that they make the painter aware that his work can be
checked during progress and even after it is completedas
in the case of film thickness measurementsthese inspection aids can be very helpful. The following instruments are
discussed.
Consistency cup (e.g., Zahn cup)
Wet film thickness gage (wheel configuration that is rolled
across the surface)
Dry film thickness gage. For field use, a magnetic flux gage
based on a horseshoe magnet is discussed in the 1966 SSPC
volume (Fig. 4). Magnetic pull-off (banana) gages were also
used. Although standards like SSPC-PA 2 did not exist for the
adjustment and use of the gages, the importance of calibrating the gage on the blast-cleaned substrate and the measurement of the thickness above the peaks of the blast profile
were addressed.
Wet sponge and high voltage holiday detectors
Tube thermometers for air temperature, material tempera-

ture, and surface temperature. It was suggested that a tube

thermometer could be used to measure surface temperature
by laying it on the surface, covering the end of the thermometer with putty to seal it to the surface and shield it from drafts,
and taking a reading after it had time to stabilize.
Dry bulb/wet bulb thermometers are mentioned to calculate
relative humidity, but there was no mention of dew point and
its relationship to surface temperature. Note that one practice
done at the time, although not addressed in the chapter, was
to wipe a damp rag on the surface. If the water evaporated
within a minute or two, the assumption was that the moisture
conditions were acceptable and all that had to be monitored
were the air and surface temperatures.
Recording hygrothermographs for relative humidity
Penetrometer for examining bituminous materials per ASTM
D5, Standard Test Method for Penetration of Bituminous Materials
A sharp knife for subjective assessment of adhesion/flexibility of coal tar enamel
A 5x to 10x magnifying glass and white tissue for determining the amount of contamination on a surface
Today: The same categories of instruments exist today, but
there have been significant improvements in the technology,
with electronic data collection and statistical analysis, and
electronic reporting being among the latest advances. Instruments are available to inspect every aspect of the application
process, which is good. A downside to the instrumentation,
though, is that there is a general tendency to rely on digital
outputs without consideration of the reasonableness of the
results, especially when the results are displayed in tenths of
a mil. The instruments appear to be so precise that total sampling error isnt even considered when taking measurements
(e.g., accuracy, precision, human error, random error, etc.). As a
result, careful use and calibration of the instruments (or verification of accuracy) are more critical than ever.

Conclusions
These are just a few comparisons of coatings work performed
over 45 years ago with work performed today, but lets revisit
the original question. Are we better off?
Certainly there have been significant advances in coatings
technology. In most cases, the coating materials today outperform their predecessors, and the products are certainly safer
for the workers and the environment. There have also been
advances in surface preparation equipment and productivity of
the operations. While brush, roll, and conventional and airless
spray remain the same, new spray equipment has been developed to keep pace with the technology (plural-component) and
to increase transfer efficiency (high-volume low-pressure). And
without question, our industry is much more attuned to safety,
for the painters themselves and adjacent workers, as well as for
the public that may be near the worksite.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

Fig. 5: The instrument used in 1966 shows a reading on a current pipe

coating that would have been accepted as meeting a 16-mil minimum
requirement. Photo courtesy of KTA

Fig. 6: A reading with a

modern instrument on the
same coating measured
in Fig. 5 shows 15.8 mils.
While the reading shown in
Figure 5 (with the 1966 instrument) indicates that the
coating would comply with
a 16-mil minimum thickness
requirement, is the same
conclusion reached when
the coating is measured
with a modern instrument?
Photo courtesy of KTA

Training opportunities for inspectors and painters have

increased, and a wealth of research and educational materials has been published to improve the understanding of
how coatings work and the steps needed to optimize performance. The number and types of inspection instruments have
increased to the point that essentially any step of the process can be monitored. Attempts have been made to reduce
subjectivity in the assessments. But has the drive to turn the
critical aspects of our work into black and white decisions
created new problems for us? Have we unintentionally pushed
common sense and reason aside? Has the precision of the
instruments, or at least how the results are being interpreted,
created additional problems for us today?
For example, a common system used in 1966 involved two
coats of coal tar epoxy with a total minimum thickness of 16
mils. With the instruments available at the time, you could
quickly confirm that the coating was about 16 mils or more.
Today, the instruments provide readings in tenths of a mil
across the entire range of measurement. This suggests a very
high degree of precision for the measurements. Assume in
the coal tar epoxy example that the readings in a given area
are 15.8 to 15.9 mils. Is that range acceptable? (Note that I am
not muddying the water with a discussion of total sampling
error or SSPC-PA 2, because even with PA 2, the question is
still valid, although perhaps assigned to decisions at the 80%
thickness threshold instead.) The old gages would not have
even seen the few tenths of a mil, and the surface would
have been accepted, but what about today? See Figs. 5 and 6.
Many will reject the 15.8 mils of coating, but is that the right
decision? First, the accuracy of both the instrument and the
standards used for calibration or verification of accuracy
must be taken into consideration. The surface profile can also

affect the measurements from point to point on the structure.

But even assuming that all of the variables associated with
sampling error are taken into consideration, and the measurements in an area are deemed to be 15.8 to 15.9 mils, should
they be accepted? Most would argue that there is no difference in performance between 15.8 mils and 16 mils, but would
also agree that boundaries must be set. So from the perspective of needing to have absolute boundaries, it becomes easy
to reject 15.8 mils because it isnt 16 mils. I am not offering an
answer to this question but am simply pointing out that the
precision of our instruments today has created controversy
in areas that did not exist 45 years ago, and because of the
advances in precision, one could question if we are we now
unnecessarily removing and replacing coatings due to tenths
of a mil, or if we are increasing project costs by adding material to an intermediate coat that appears to be slightly light,
without a corresponding increase in performance?
The same holds true with the measurement of surface profile. When requirements for surface profile shifted from simply
specifying a mesh size of the abrasive to determining the
profile depth with a visual comparator, the profile was typically
determined within to 1 mil. Today, instruments for measuring surface profile also provide readings in tenths of a mil. So
if a specification requires the profile to be no greater than 2
mils and instrument readings range from 1.9 to 2.2 mils, is the
profile acceptable? In the past, when the visual comparator
was used, the profile would have been recorded as 2 mils and
accepted, but what about today? See Figs. 7 and 8.
First, it needs to be recognized that the surface profile is
not uniform and it will vary across the surface, so accepting
or rejecting a surface profile based on tenths of a mil in a
given area is suspect. Further, it is unlikely that any coating
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

7
manufacturer has data demonstrating that a coating system
that performs over a 2-mil profile will fail at 2.1 or 2.2 mils. It is
again recognized that thresholds need to be established; otherwise, there is no control, but should the readings be rounded
to the nearest half mil, at least for some coatings?
Assume that a Near-White blast is specified for a structure
in atmospheric service and thousands of square feet of steel

have been satisfactorily blast cleaned, except that 25 islands

of intact mill scale are found scattered across the surface. The
islands measure 18 inch in diameter and therefore cover less
than square inch when combined. This is a clear violation of
the written requirements of the specification because no mill
scale is allowed to remain, but does this condition warrant the
cost and time to re-blast clean the surface to address each of
the small islands? Is there any room for compromise?
Have we tried to become so precise in the design and
implementation of painting work that our specifications and
inspections are outpacing the ability of the work to comply,
even under ideal circumstances? And more importantly, has
fear of litigation, rather than concern for the technical aspects
of the work, shaped our industry to such a point that the
answer in most any dispute is to hide behind the specification
and say, It doesnt comply, do it over. Ill leave you with this
comment from the authors in 1966 that I quoted earlier. It was
written at a time before litigation became such a sport in our
industry: As a guide in this matter, the purchaser should ask
himself what degree of surface cleanliness would be insisted
upon if his own organization were accomplishing the work and
the cost was borne directly. JPCL

Fig. 7: Surface profile would be reported as 2 mils using the comparator (the surface closely matches the bottom left segment) and
accepted as meeting a maximum 2-mil specification requirement.
Photo courtesy of KTA

Ken Trimber in 1968

Fig. 8: The replica tape shows the profile of the same surface shown
in Fig. 7 as 2.15 mils. Should this be accepted as meeting a maximum
2-mil specification requirement? Photo courtesy of KTA

Kenneth A. Trimber is the President

And in 2012
of KTA-Tator, Inc., in Pittsburgh, PA,
where he has been employed since
1968. He has more than 40 years of experience in the industrial painting field. He is a Past President of the SSPC and serves
as Chairman on SSPC Committees and Task Groups. He is an
SSPC-Certified Protective Coatings Specialist, an SSPC C-3
Supervisor/Competent Person for the Deleading of Industrial
Structures, and a NACE-Certified Coatings Inspector Level 3
(Peer Review).

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

Quality Control Equipment and Practice Trends: 2009Today

By Charles Lange and Brian Goldie, JPCL

Editors note: This article appeared in JPCL in the 2013 Special Issue

uality control is an active process that needs to

be a part of any protective coatings planfrom
the specification stage, through surface preparation and application, and after the coatings
have been applied.
This should be kept in mind as we study the most recent
trends in developments in quality control equipment and
practices, including faster, more efficient, and ergonomically
designed measurement tools, wireless digital equipment and
software that cuts out all the paperwork, and thorough and
decisive standards and inspection tests. The goal is to supply
the contractor or inspector with the tools needed to ensure
that the highest-quality quality coatings job is completed. The
sampling of trends in development below is primarily based
on reporting in JPCL and PaintSquare News. It is not intended
to be comprehensive, and it supplements the article by Warren Brand and the staff articles on recent SSPC standards.

Inspection isnt the only part of the quality control process that has inspired new software and technology. New
cloud-based applications with features not only dedicated to
coatings inspection, but also safety, time management, and
accounting functions, have appeared in the market, and allow
for immediate storage and analysis of results, cutting down on
some of the hazards and human errors that may be involved in
taking or reading measurements.
Answering the call for better training in using these new
technologies, in 2011, SSPC premiered a new training course,
Protective Coatings Paperless QA and Digital Data Collection, created to guide users in implementing these new digital
tools and software into their work.

Standards and Test Methods: Does It Pass?

Over the past five years, the industry has seen several developments in coating thickness gaugesmost instrument
manufacturers have either upgraded their existing thickness
gauges or released new models with state-of-the-art features
designed for use on a variety of substrates and industrial
applications. Some of these features include built-in storage
memory, high-contrast LCD display, onscreen statistics, USB
mass storage, WiFi technology, and others.

Of course, the measurements and numbers taken with the

above tools mean nothing without context, or something to
compare them to as a means of quality control. Contractors
and inspectors need the most up-to-date, concise, and easily
applicable standards and test methods to be able to analyze
the results taken from the field.
One of the most important points of reference for any individual in the coatings industry was updated in December of
2011, 16 years after its last edition. ASTMs Paint and Coating
Testing Manual: 15th Edition of the Gardner-Sward Handbook
is the newest comprehensive guide to paint and coatings
topics, test methods, procedures, and standards.

As in just about any industry today, protective coatings quality

control methods are shifting towards a more digital, computer-driven direction. Many new or updated thickness gages
and other inspection instruments have been designed to work
with new software and technology, as well.
Manufacturers have released data management software
that can download and upload results and images directly
from the products and organize them into customized reports
from which the user can easily draw conclusions. Most of this
software works hand-in-hand, or is built into, the aforementioned new and improved thickness gauges and other field
instruments.

Quality control pertains to much more than just measuring

coating thickness. Like any protective coatings-related undertaking, there are countless factors to consider in order to
ensure the highest quality possible.
New quality control instruments and gauges have proliferated the market, including a new soluble salt testing kit, a dolly
drill adhesion tester, a dust test kit, a pre-treatment test kit, a
dewpoint gauge, a surface profile and thickness gauge, a wet
film comb, and a hull roughness gauge developed to test and
report on corrosion and biofouling-related roughness on a
ships hull.

Thickness Gages: In the Thick Of It

Software and Digital Equipment: Goodbye, Paperwork!

Other Measurement Tools: Everything Counts

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

The Quest for QC: Whats Next?

Increased knowledge of the many factors dealt with during a
coatings project has no doubt lead to better-trained inspectors performing the job, and that level of sophistication has
been the influence behind the equipment developments and
practice trends of the past five years. Quality control demands
more, and todays equipment has been able to provide it.

Theres no reason to think this level of sophistication will top

off on the inspection end, so equipment should continue to
develop hand in hand.
Perhaps most importantly, though, is that these methods
and equipment will be employed by better-trained, smarter
inspectors and contractorsbecause even with all of these
new technologies, quality control still needs the human touch.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

10

Quality Measures: A Cure for Fear of Failure

By David Beamish, DeFelsko Corporation
Editors note: This article appeared in JPCL in July 2012

Quality-control measurements can play a key role in ensuring proper

surface preparation, substrate moisture, environmental conditions,
and coating thickness and adhesion. Restoration of the exterior of
Frank Lloyd Wrights Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, shown here,
was a subject of a feature story in Journal of Architectural Coatings
(now D+D) in 2009. Photo by David Heald The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York

oated concrete is a commonly used building

material, and arguably can be the most likely to
experience coating failures. These failures greatly increase the potential for premature degradation of the substrate material and often result in
additional expenditure of resources for repair.
The good news is that such failures are far from inevitable.
In many cases, the lack of a comprehensive Quality Control
Procedure is at the root of coating failures. As with other building materials, applying coatings to concrete requires specific
measures to ensure coating performance and longevity.
Assuming that the concrete surface has been determined to
be sound, that it is not compromised by contaminants such as
dust, oil, and grease, and that the moisture level in the concrete is suitable for painting, the following measures should be
part of a quality control program for coating application.

Given the possibility for coating failure and both preparation

and materials costs, it may be desirable to have a permanent
record of this profile for reference.
One such test method that satisfies both the visual comparison and quantifiable measurement for surface profile
utilizes a rapid-cure, two-part putty. By means of application
and removal of the putty, a permanent relief mold of a surface
sample is obtained. The relief mold may be visually compared
to ICRI (International Concrete Repair Institute) CSP (concrete
surface profile) coupons or measured with a specially-built
micrometer at multiple areas on the mold in accordance with
the testing method.

Surface Preparation

Substrate Moisture

One of the first considerations in assuring coating quality

control is the compatibility of the concretes physical surface
texture (also known as the anchor or surface profile) with the
coating to be applied.
The recently issued ASTM standard D7682, Standard Test
Method for Replication and Measurement of Concrete Surface
Profiles Using Replica Putty, references both Method A (visual
comparison) and Method B (quantifiable measurement) as
means by which to determine concrete surface profile.

Generally, moisture testing should be performed before

painting to determine if a problem exists. Selecting proper
test methods can be challenging, however, and the specific
requirements of the coating manufacturer should be implemented.
A typical test is the plastic sheet method (described by
ASTM D4263), where a plastic sheet (18 by 18 in.) is taped to
the surface and allowed to remain for 16 hours. The sheet is
then examined for any moisture that forms on the underside

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

11
of the plastic. If the test indicates moisture, the wall surfaces
should be allowed to dry further before coatings are applied.
Moisture meters may also be used, but these instruments
vary widely in their ability to detect moisture within a concrete/masonry wall. Some meters only detect moisture on the
surface of the wall, but not moisture that is present within the
wall (e.g. cavity or insulation).
Meters that utilize radio frequency or electrical impendence
have been found to offer more accuracy than others, and can
determine the moisture content below the surface. Some instruments also possess the ability to penetrate non-destructively to 0.75 in.
Again, the coating manufacturer should be consulted for the
specific instruments to be used for moisture detection, and
for the associated acceptance criteria.

Environmental Considerations
The primary reason for measuring climatic conditions is to
avoid rework and the premature failure of protective coatings.
Recommendations and requirements are covered under various internationally recognized standards in addition to those
specified by the coating manufacturer.
The ability to log results may also be important as evidence
of the observation of these conditions before, during, and
after the coating process.
Surface preparation and coating application should be
performed under optimum environmental conditions to help
prevent potential coating failure.
A major factor affecting the long-term performance of
coatings on concrete is the climatic conditions during pretreatment and coating application. Handheld, electronic
devices enable painting contractors, inspectors, and owners
to measure and record applicable environmental conditions.

Coating Thickness
The primary purpose for measuring coating thickness on
concrete is to control coating costs while ensuring adequate
protective coverage. Commercial contracts often require an
independent inspection of the work upon completion.
Masonry coatings are used for a multitude of purposes including cosmetic appearance, durability, abrasion resistance,
and protection from elements such as moisture, salt, chemicals, and ultraviolet light. Common coatings for concrete
include formulations based on acrylic, polyurethane, epoxy,
silicone, and polyester resins.
Traditionally, a destructive test method is used to determine
coating thickness on masonry substrates such as concrete.
Coatings used on concrete range from hard to soft and
smooth to textured, and span a wide thickness range. In addition, the surface of concrete can be quite rough, which can
create significant variations in thickness measurements.
ASTM D6132, Standard Test Method for Nondestructive

Measurement of Dry Film Thickness of Applied Organic Coatings Using an Ultrasonic Gage, details a non-destructive test
method that eliminates the need to repair the coating after
inspection, saving time for both the inspector and the contractor.
Ultrasonic measurement testing equipment operates by
sending an ultrasonic vibration into a coating using a probe
(i.e., a transducer) with the assistance of a couplant applied to
the surface.
Ultrasonic coating thickness gages are also used within the
scope of SSPC-PA 9, Measurement of Dry Coating Thickness
on Cementitious Substrates Using Ultrasonic Gages. The PA 9
method determines coating thickness by averaging a prescribed minimum number of acceptable (under the method)
gage readings within separate spot measurement areas of a
coated surface.

Coating Adhesion
Once the coating has been correctly applied to the required
thickness, is it desirable to quantitatively measure the bond
strength between the coating and concrete substrate. The
test method for this purpose is detailed in ASTM D7234, Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Adhesion Strength of Coatings
on Concrete Using Portable Pull-Off Adhesion Testers.
Pull-off adhesion testing is a measure of the resistance of
a coating to separation from a substrate when a perpendicular tensile force is applied. Portable pull-off adhesion testers
measure the force required to pull a specified diameter of
coating away from its substrate. This measured pull-off force
provides a direct indication of the strength of tensile adhesion
between the coating and the substrate.
By eliminating sources of pull-off variation, such as unintended bond failures between the adhesive and poorly
prepared dollies, adhesion test results become even more
meaningful and predictable.
The major components of a pull-off adhesion tester are a
pressure source, a pressure gage, and an actuator. During
The purpose of measuring coating thickness
on concrete is to control coating costs while
ensuring adequate
protective coverage.
Shown here is a wet-film
thickness gage.
Photo courtesy of
KTA-Tator Inc.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

12
operation, the flat face of a pull stub (dolly) is adhered to
the coating to be evaluated. After allowing for the bonding
adhesive to cure, a coupling connector from the actuator is
attached to the dolly. By activating the pressure source, pressure is slowly increased to the actuator within the system.
When testing on concrete, the pressure in the actuator
typically exceeds the internal tensile strength of the concrete
itself, at which point a cohesive failure occurs within the concrete. The maximum pressure indicator of the systems pressure gauge provides a direct reading of the pressure at which
the pull-off occurred. With proper cutting around the dolly,
the instrument can be used to measure the tensile strength of
uncoated concrete, as well as concrete repairs.

QC: Key Contributor to Meeting Cost, Performance Objectives

As the use of concrete as a building material continues to
grow, so too does the need to establish proper Quality Control

measures when applying coatings. As outlined above, these

measures ensure longevity of both the coating and the underlying structure and are a primary contributor to meeting cost
and performance expectations.
David Beamish is president of DeFelsko
Corp., a New York-based manufacturer
of hand-held coating test instruments
sold worldwide. He is a Registered Professional Engineer and has more than 25
years experience in the design, manufacture, and marketing of these testing
instruments in a variety of international
industries including industrial painting, quality inspection, and
manufacturing. He conducts training seminars and is a member of various organizations including NACE, SSPC, ASTM,
and ISO.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

13

QA/QC: Some Things Are Old; Some Are New

By Warren Brand, Chicago Coatings Group, LLC
Editors note: This article appeared
in JPCL in the 2013 Special Issue

hen JPCLs editor invited me to write a

piece about changes in quality assurance
and quality control (QA/QC) in the industry
over the past 30 years, I was honored and
motivated. I love our industry and enjoy
writing and learning as much about it as I am able to.
The editor also suggested that the piece not be a year-byyear account, but something that will be a review to veterans
and an easy introduction to newcomers.
And I liked that challenge. As I was thinking about the article,
my mind wandered to what was really fundamental to QA/
QC for coatings. There are, of course, all the cool tools of our
trade: gages, meters, electronics, comparators, etc. But I want-

Chernobyl nuclear reactor: The decision to use air conditioning

instead of coatings to prevent corrosion of steel in the extraordinary
dome that will protect the reactor was based on root analysis, fundamental to QA/QC for all coating issues. iStock

The basic processes for laying ancient floor

mosaics and modern day epoxy broadcast
flooring are similar; QA/QC for the mosaic was
largely qualitative, while for modern flooring
QA/QC is largely quantitative. iStock

ed to know what was really, really fundamental, which led me

to evaluate how I work for my clients.
What if I were being paid by a client to provide this type of
presentation?
One of the things I try to focus on in my consulting business
is root-cause analysis. That is, lets say weve been hired to
design a coating for the inside of a sulfuric acid tank. Instead
of just picking a coating system, we would also look into keeping moisture out of the carbon steel tank. If we could set up a
dehumidification system, the tank would not actually need to
be lined.
A better and real-life example of looking at corrosion (which
is why were all here in the first place) from a truly fundamental
lens is the dome being built to cover the nuclear reactor at
Chernobyl. As some of you might recall, Chernobyl was the
single worst nuclear power reactor disaster in history.
Dozens of countries contributed to the development of the
new safe confinement (NSC). This is an unimaginably huge
arch, measuring 110 meters high, 250 meters wide, and 150
meters long,and weighing in at 30,000 tonnes. The NSC is being built 600 meters away from the damaged reactor and will
be slid in place, over it, in 2015. The NSC is designed to last for
at least 100 years and to cost an estimated $1.2 billion dollars.
The arch is made of carbon steel and is hollowin order
to provide monitoring of the interstice in case there should
ever be an internal breach. Well, the question was, how do
you internally protect this interstice from corrosion? Painting,
of course, is an option, but too dangerous in this situation,
because of the proximity of deadly radiation and access. How
did they solve the problem?
Easy. Engineers are going to keep the interstice air-conditionedthrough dessicant dryersto keep the humidity
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

14
below 40%, below which carbon steel cannot corrode, due to
the absence of the electrolyte, humidity.
So in thinking about my current task of what is new, I first
started thinking about what was old and what was really fundamental to, or at the root of, all coating issues.

Way Back Then and Now: Coatings and QA/QC

I thought about a video I had recently seen on the design of
ancient byzantine floor mosaics. These mosaics, many of
which are thousands of years old, were designed to last well,
for thousands of years. They were on floors, so they were, for
example, walked on, rained on, and cleaned (one presumes).
And many of them are in excellent condition today.
Whats different about an ancient mosaic
and a modern-day floor coating application? Fundamentally,
not a darn thing.
The video showed that the mosaic surface, which is all we
see, is actually on a bed of layered terracotta and other fill, in
order to provide a sound base. This would correspond to our
concrete floor or secondary containment today.
Then a thick plaster of lime, plaster dust, water, and other
materials was mixed and troweled onto the bed, and small
pieces of glass and other durable materials were placed, by
hand, into the parge coat.
The plaster was designed to take a long time to cure, so that
the artist would have plenty of time to place the mosaic tiles
into the material.
How is this different, say, from an epoxy broadcast floor
system? Well, again, its not.
In both cases were dealing with a solid substrate. With the
mosaic, it would be a layered bed of stone with a solid parge
coat. Today, the solid substrate would be our concrete floor.
(We are assuming that both are new and clean.) Then, a material (today, a clear epoxy resinthen, a plaster parge coat) is
appliedand aggregate placed inside the uncured material.
Did the artisans and contractors thousands of years ago
have the tools that we do today to conduct inspections? Of
course not. Did that prevent them from successful coating
applications? Same answerof course not.
But lets look back even further, say, 40,000
years. According to a June 14, 2012 National Geographic
News article (news.nationalgeographic.com), Worlds Oldest
Cave Art FoundMade By Neanderthals? there are some
caves along Spains northern coast that contain paintings that
are more than 40,000 years oldso far, the oldest in the world.
Located at El Castillo, these paintings were made by some
type of mineral-based paint.
(Dont even get me started on Roman frescoes, or ancient
cisterns and viaducts that are as water-tight today as they
were when they were first specified and built, by contractors
wielding camel-hair brushes and wooden trowels, and wearing
loin cloths, and of course, baseball caps.)

For the ancient pyramids, QA/QC was a matter of pride in craftmanship or fear of retribution for poor work (or both).
iStock

There are even products that have their ties to these same
types of products used thousands of years ago. A company
out of Europe has been making a product to protect and beautify masonry since 1878. When I was working on a project not
too long ago, I asked the technical rep what the anticipated
service life was, and he said something like, I think theres a
church in Southern Italy thats about 110 years old thats still in
good shape.
There are hundreds of similar ancient examples, but suffice
it to say that we humans have been in the business of painting
and coating for quite a while. After all, when the pyramids were
built, they were originally lined and covered with marble.
So, in looking back and obsessively thinking about this
topic, Ive concluded that, fundamentally, the only shift in the
past 40,000 years has been from one of qualitative QA/QC to
quantitative. That shift continues today, and, certainly, is the
biggest difference in the past 30 years as well. We are simply
honing our quantitative tools and training.
Was there QA/QC during the time of the pyramids and
before? Of course. But back then, it was, for the most part,
qualitative. It was the legacy of the tradesman-apprentice
relationship that maintained the quality. It was the pride one
took in his work. Or, if slavery was a part of the mix, it was the
fear of the repercussions for shoddy workmanship.

Not Nearly as Far Back and Now

When I first started out in the coatings industry at 15 (1977),
a gentleman named Vic Johnson worked in our company.
His nickname was Rail because of the unusually elongated
shape of his head. Vic was large and kind. (In fact, he took me
to pick up my first caran AMC Gremlinfrom a junkyard
when I was 16.) And Vic knew coatings as well as anyone. He
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

15
could barely read but when it came time to abrasive blast, Vic
could tell by looking and touching the surface whether or not
it had the right mil-profile and correct visual appearance for
proper coating. Im certain if Vic were around today, he could
tell the difference between a 1 mil profile and a 2.5 mil profile
by touch. I know there are people reading this article who
could do the same.
So if qualitative inspection was sufficient for so many
thousands of years, whats all the fuss, rush and research pertaining to quantitative inspections? (For those seasoned folk
reading this, yes, there are still qualitative aspects to some
of our testing protocols, such as the use of comparators and
SSPC-VIS standards)
Its about one thing, and one thing only: consistency.
Today, you dont have to have an apprentice painting contractor with thirty years of experience to apply a challenging
tri-coat system. Because of advanced training techniques and
highly effective testing tools and techniques, we can apply
coatings around the world, in the most challenging of environments and situations in a consistent, predictable, and quantifiable manner.
What Vic had learned from blasting millions of square feet
of every material possible, we can now deduce and measure
by using visual standards, comparators, replica tape, and
electronic as well as mechanical gauges to determine what Vic
knew in an instant.
And yet, with all of our tools and training, we still get situations like the Sable Offshore Energy Project in Canada. The
offshore oil platform had a coating failure so profound that it
was mentioned in a March 8, 2011 article on PaintSquare News
(www.paintsquare.com) as, What may be the worlds priciest
botched paint job [that] could cost hundreds of millions dollars
to repair.
Back in the day, when I was spraying thousands of gallons of
different paints and coatings, I was able to tell, within a couple
of mils, the WFT by appearance. As I applied the coating
(either conventionally or airless), I could see the profile of the
substrate disappear and the sheen, texture and appearance
of the coating change. Of course I would use a wet mil gage to
ensure my instinctual hunches, but more times than not, I was
spot on.
So, for beginners, I think it is critical to understand why we
inspect. And for the more seasoned of us, I am hoping this
was an interesting read and, perhaps, put what we do in a
different perspective.
So, now that weve established what we do (quantitative
inspection protocols) and why (for consistency), lets discuss
what has changed over the past 30 years.
And, in keeping with the theme of fundamentals, were going
to talk about two dimensions: Training and Equipment.
First, let me explain why were sticking with the fundamentals and painting the changes with very broad brush strokes

(pun intended). The reason is that any attempt to speak specifically about either Training or Equipment will fall far short of
doing either topic justice. For example, lets take a look at the
April 2013 issue of JPCL. There is an excellent and informative article entitled Measuring Dry Film Coating Thickness
According to SSPC-PA 2.
The article is roughly 10 pages long and more than 4,000
wordsand its just about checking the thickness of a coating
after it has cured. The primary focus of the article is on SSPCPA 2, the intellectual and training aspect of the duo, but, of
course, it deals with the tools of our trade. But without even
discussing the difference between a Type 1 gauge (magnetic
or banana gauge) and a Type 2 gauge (an electronic gauge),
the article goes into exquisite and appropriate detail about all
of the fundamentals of testing a cured coating.
So, speaking too specifically about either aspect will dilute
the importance of either.

Training
When I asked Pete Engelbert, a well-qualified inspector, what
had changed the most in the past thirty years, he did not hesitate: Smarter inspectors. The biggest change has been with
the level of sophistication of the inspectionnot the equipment, Engelbert said.
Engelbert has a keen understanding of the industry, and
he teaches NACE courses around the world. (His credentials
include CSP, RPIH, CHST, CET, CIT, CSSM,NACE Certified
Coatings InspectorLevel 3 [Nuclear/Bridge],BIRNCS Senior
Nuclear Coatings Specialist #12NACE Protective Coating
Specialist,NACE Corrosion Technician, and NACE instructor.)
I asked him to describe a typical inspection scenario from
thirty years ago until today. So, we started with a pipe inspection job (which Pete is currently handling).
Thirty years ago there were very few standards to measure
conformance. Now we have multiple standards, Engelbert said.
He also said that thirty years ago during a pipe coating
project, it would not be uncommon for an inspector to stand at
the top of a the excavation and watch the contractor slop on
some stuff. It would not be uncommon to have a contractor
brush on petrolatum, tar, or other materials; wrap it with heavy
paper; and bury it. Often, the inspector wouldnt even look at
the bottom portion of the pipe to see if it had been addressed.
Surface prep wasnt even on the radar.
Today, pipes come shipped, typically, pre-coated with fusion-bonded epoxy (FBE). The inspectors job is to monitor the
joint coating process.
Engelbert said that there are roughly 15,000 to 16,000 NACE
1 inspectors worldwide. And the demand for inspectors, particularly overseas, is huge, with SSPC rapidly growing as well.
Training has taken off overseas, he said. The next standard (for inspectors) will shift from NACE 1 to a NACE 2 or
NACE 3.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

16
Training and development of new standards and guidelines
are universal. There are, of course, SSPC and NACE, but there
are also IMO, ISO, ANSI, STI, and subsets to all of these. I am
currently working on a project for a major oil company pertaining to CUF (corrosion under fireproofing) and related issues.
There is a whole universe of guidelines, standards, nomenclature, and tools that are different for the CUF job than, say, a
bridge coating project, even though the common denominator
remains corrosion.
Another broad example of improved training is SSPCs cutting-edge Quality Programs (QP) and the Painting Contractor
Certification Programs (PCCP).
As summarized on SSPCs website (sspc.org), the training is
relevant to all aspects of a coating project.the selection of
suitable materials is just one aspect of a successful coating
project. It is critical that work is done according to sound
specifications, with correct surface preparation and proper
application techniques. Facility owners need to find top quality
people to provide these servicestrained people who know
the current standards and practices and have a proven track
record of success.
SSPCs QP series is extensive and has modules for contractors, owners/specifiers, and inspection companies.
The trend toward smarter inspectors is profoundly obvious
in the introduction to the SSPC-QP 5sm program, Certification for Coating and Lining Inspection Companies. QP 5 is a
certification for Inspection Companies whose focus is the industrial coating and lining industry. QP 5 evaluates an inspection companys ability to provide consistent quality inspection
of coatings & linings for its clients.
Engelbert said another major shift in terms of training has
been documentation. Thirty years ago, there was very limited
documentation and even less that was standardized. Many of
the daily forms we use today are an offshoot, a progeny, of one
of the originals, which was an ANSI standard for coatings in
nuclear power plants.
In fact, one of the hallmarks of the SSPC-QP certification
programs is an emphasis on documentation.
I think most would agree that the intellectual advances in
guidelines, standards, practices, recommendations, etc., move
at a relatively slow, predictable pace. That is, a two-mil profile
is a two-mil profile. But not so for the tools of our trade. In contrast, there are changes in technology that will change more in
the next ten years then theyve changed in the last 40,000.

Tools
When speaking with Engelbert about tools, I mentioned that I
thought the biggest advance was the ability of the electronic
gauges to gather and store data and then network the data
directly to other devices.
He laughed and quipped, Hey, I was just happy when they
came out with batteries.

He said that thirty years ago it was unlikely to get a trained

coating inspector on a job in the first place. Very often,
inspection work was designated and assigned to an individual who might be an inspector for another trade, perhaps a
welder, or structural engineer. You had welding inspectors or
others signing off on coatings almost as an afterthought.
He said if a job was fortunate enough to have a coating
inspector on site, and he was tasked, say, to measure DFTs,
Youd have one inspector taking measurements with a banana gauge and another walking behind him with a clipboard
taking notes.
Now, modern gauges can store almost limitless inspection
points and then download them for evaluation.
Fundamentally, it means the inspector has to get smarter.
You have to know how to use a computer and, if you dont, find
an eight-year-old to teach you, he said.

The introduction and continuing development of digital equipment for

QA/QC has dramatically changed quantitative inspection of coatings.
Smart technology meets todays smart inspectors, who have benefitted from QA/QC training, certification, and standards not available
30 years ago. iStock

Suffice it to say that the fundamental focus of inspection tools

in the past thirty years has been in ease of use, storage capacity, and data sharing (USB, Blue-Tooth, wireless), etc.
But the most exciting and most important advances are the
cutting edge developments we are seeing now.
The breadth is breathtaking.
I attended a conference about eight years ago
in conjunction with the National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences (NCMS). One of the latest (at the time) technologies
for surface preparation of aircraft was the use of lasers to
remove paint. With wings being designed to unimaginable
tolerances, the use of an abrasive was impossible because it
might damage or warp the wing. The typical means of paint
removal was through highly toxic and dangerous paint removers, oftentimes methylene chloride. The technology was in
its infancy at the time but is now being widely used to remove
paint from aircrafts.
Then theres a November 30, 2011 article from the United
States Naval Research Laboratory entitled, NRL Researchers
Develop Streamlined ApproachTo Shipboard Inspection
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

17
Process (http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2011).
The article talks about inspecting the condition of exterior
shipboard coatings. In the case study reported, the work was
performed on the USS Aircraft Carrier, the Nimitz.
In a quote from the article, The manual method required
a 65-man-day effort to perform the inspection of the entire
topside coating with results taking an additional four weeks
to complete. By contrast, we were able to perform the same
inspection using digital hand-held cameras with the new
process in less than four days including immediate access to
over 3,000 images depicting the ships surface condition for
in-depth inspection.
Briefly, the new process includes highly-detailed photographs downloaded and analyzed by algorithms used to quantify the condition of the existing coating.
Going even a step further, we havent even touched upon
the changing technologies pertaining to coatings and how
those changes will interact with, and change, technologies for
inspection services.
For example, it is not uncommon to use a conductive primer
on concrete in order to be able to use a holiday detector on
the subsequent topcoat. There are talks of nanoparticles that

may communicate with various devices, the use of fluorescent

additives to indicate DFT, etc.

Conclusion
Are we far from the day when new coating systems will work
in concert with new technologies to speed and improve our
ability to quantify and control coating applications?
I am working with an engineering company that is developing a visor that, using different light frequencies, can see the
depth of profile, DFTs, number of coats, wet and dry. After that,
who knows? A paint ball gun that could paint an entire water
tower tank? Its only a matter of time, said Mr. Engelbert.
Warren Brand is the founder of Chicago Coatings Group, LLC, a consulting firm he formed
in 2012. Before opening his consultancy,
Brand was the president of Chicago Tank Linings. He has more than 25 years of experience
as a coatings contractor, is an SSPC-certified Protective Coatings Specialist and a
NACE-certified Level 3 coatings inspector,
and holds an MBA and a BA in Journalism. JPCL

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

When it comes to quality,

people sometimes disagree...

18

Quality Control and

Quality Assurance:
Defining the Roles
and Responsibilities
of the Contractors QC
and the Owners QA
Courtesy of KTA-Tator

By Alison B. Kaelin, Corporate Quality Assurance Manager, KTA - Tator, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Editors note: This article appeared in JPCL in April 2005

very painting project begins with the expectation

that the result will be a painted structure that will
be protected for a minimum period of time. Owners
rely on tools such as the specifications, contractor
certification, quality control, and quality assurance
inspection to verify that the work is performed as specified.
While many projects require quality control and/or quality
assurance inspections, few specifications, if any, differentiate
between the two or provide guidance on the responsibilities
of each.
After discussing the difference between the functions of
quality control and quality assurance, this article reviews the
SSPC certification program requirements, other recognized
industry standards, and transportation specifications that
establish minimum standards of practice for quality control
and quality assurance. It concludes with recommendations
for maximizing the benefits of both quality control and quality
assurance.

Evolution of QC and QA in the Coatings Industry

When the coatings inspection industry began to evolve in
the 1970s, there was little distinction between the roles of
QC and QA. Most early coating inspection was performed as
a response to the inspection parameters established in the
nuclear power industry and ANSI/ASME N45.2.6, Qualification
of Inspection, Examination and Testing Personnel for Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants, and ANSI N101.4,
Quality Assurance for Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear

Facilities. These standards defined the qualifications of coatings inspectors and inspection tasks that were required during
installation or maintenance of nuclear power facilities. ANSI
N45.2.6 specifically applied to third-party inspectors retained
by the owner to perform hold point inspection of contractor
activities. As coating inspection expanded beyond nuclear
power into industries like transportation and water storage
and supply, most owners continued to rely on third-party
inspection to verify that contractor activities were per formed
according to the specification.
In the 1990s and 2000s, with the increased recognition of
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), American Society of Quality (ASQ), and other certifying organizations, more owners, consultants, and contractors started moving to the concept of a total quality system with a clear division
between QC, conducted by the contractor, and QA, conducted
by the owner or a third-party owners representatives. Owners
began to recognize that while third-party inspection was still
necessary, it was not intended to replace the contractors QC.
Unfortunately, this awareness has not always been been
transferred to the specifications as particular QC requirements. The result is that QA personnel still perform the primary role of inspecting and accepting the work. When the roles
of QC and QA personnel are not defined, a critical component
of a total quality system is lost, and conflict can arise between
QA and contractor personnel. But when the QC and QA personnel perform their respective tasks during coating system
installation, the end product improves.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

19

QA vs. QC: Whats the Difference, Anyway?

Quality Control is performing the necessary observations,
testing, and documentation to verify that the work performed
meets or exceeds the minimum standards established by
the project specifications or contract. QC is the contractors
responsibility.
Quality Assurance is an audit process to verify that the
quality of work performed is what was inspected and reported
by the contractors QC. QA is conducted by the owner or by
a third party inspector on the owners behalf. QA may include
reviewing QC documentation, observation of QC testing or
actual testing on a spot or periodic basis.
Basically, then, the contractor is fully responsible for every
aspect of the project from the equipment and materials, and
experience and training of personnel, to the quality of the final
product. QC is a full-time requirement and has responsibilities for every aspect of the surface preparation and painting
process. QA can be full- or part-time, or performed at specific
stages (e.g., following surface preparation) of the project to

verify the adequacy of the contractors QC. When the owner

does not perform QA or provides limited QA inspection, half of
the total quality management process is lost.
Both QC and QA are necessary to verify specification compliance and quality work, but an owner (or third-party inspector) performing QA on a project does not relieve the contractor of the responsibility of performing QC.

Control of Work: A Critical Difference

Only the contractors QC person has the authority to direct
the contractors employees or production operations. When
a contractor is required to retain a third-party QC representative, that person is not a direct employee of the contractor and
may not have the authority to direct the contractors workers
or ensure that they correct their work when needed. Similarly,
limitations may be found when the owner requires the coating
manufacturers technical representative to perform QC functions: there is no contractual relationship; observations may
not be free of bias; conflicts between the manufacturer and

Table 1 - Division of QC and QA Hold Point Inspections

Quality
Control

Quality
Assurance

Ambient conditions (pre-preparation)

TD

TD

Pre-surface preparation conditions (welds, rust, edges, etc.)

VO

VO

Pre-surface preparation conditions (grease, dust, etc.) and/or SP 1

Surface preparation equipment operation and abrasive size/type

VD/TP

RD/VO/TP

TP

RP/TP

Hold Point Inspection

Abrasive cleanliness
Compressed air cleanliness

TD

RD/TP

Soluble salt contamination

TO

RO/TP

Soluble salt remediation

VO

VO

Ambient conditions (pre-mixing and application)

TD

TD

Mixing and materials (batch nos., pot life, thinner, etc.)

VO

RO/TP

VD/TP

RD/VD/TP

TD

RD/TP

Application equipment operation (pressures, agitation, type, etc.)

Compressed air cleanliness (spray application)
Wet film thickness

TO

RO/TP

Stripe coat, caulking, intercoat cleanliness, etc.

VO

RO/VO

Dry film thickness

TO

TO

Visual appearance (runs, drips, sags, etc.)

VO

VO

Repairs

VO

VO

Legend
Frequency of Verification

Type of Verification

D = Daily

V = Visual

O = Occurrence-based

T = Testing

P = Periodic

R = Review of QC report or testing

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

20
contractor may result; and neither QC nor QA is provided.
But when the owners staff performs QA (with direct staff),
the owner has a contractual relationship with the contractor,
and therefore can exert control through the contract (or by
withholding payment or stopping work) when operations or
conditions are non-conforming.
Third-party QA subcontracted to the owner does not have
a contractual relationship with the contractor; therefore, the
third-party QA inspector typically can only document the
non-conformance of the contractors operations and advise
the contractor or the owner. If the contractor fails to correct
the non-conformance, the owner must decide whether to stop
work, withhold payment, accept the non-conformance or take
other action.
But whoever performs QA must be careful not to direct or
unduly interrupt contractor operations due to potential con-

tract issues regarding control of the work and costs related to

work stoppages.

Sequence of QC and QA
The specific duties of QC and the QA personnel will vary from
project to project. The coating inspection process typically
dictates that after certain activities (e.g., surface preparation),
work should be inspected, rework performed as necessary,
and the surfaces accepted by QC and QA staff before the
contractor can move on to the next step of the project. These
specific inspection items are typically referred to as hold
points (Table 1).
Generally, the QC inspection of each hold point should
occur first, and any non-conforming items identified should
be corrected, re-inspected and accepted by the QC inspecContinued on page 22

Other Organizations that Define QC and QA Responsibilities

NACE
The NACE International Coating Inspection Program (CIP) began certifying coatings inspectors over 20 years ago. The CIP
establishes three levels of certification for individual coatings inspectors (regardless of whether they perform QC or QA).
The NACE training provides a comprehensive review of the observations, tests and examinations that may be performed
by a coating inspector during the coating process but does not define them relative to QC and QA. The student manual for
Session 1 (7/1/98), The Coating Inspectors Checklist, indicates inspection tasks ranging from pre-surface preparation to
coating application.
ANSI/ASME
ANSI/ASME N45.2.6, Qualification of Inspection, Examination and Testing Personnel for Construction Phase of Nuclear Power
Plants, establishes criteria for companies to internally certify individual coatings inspectors through experience, education,
and testing as Level I, II, or III coating inspectors. The SSPC-QP 5 standard adopted the
levels used by ANSI/ASME N45.2.6.
ASTM International
ASTM International has several standards that discuss coating inspectors and responsibilities but without differentiating
between QC and QA. ASTM standards discussing inspector responsibilities or Other Organizations that Define QC and QA
Responsibilities inspection and inspection activities related to applicator certification include the following:
D 4227-99, Standard Practice for Qualification of Coating Applicators for Application of Coatings to Concrete Surfaces;
D 6237-98, Standard Guide for Painting Inspectors (Concrete and Masonry Substrates);
D 4228-99, Standard Practice for Qualification of Coating Applicators for Application of Coatings to Steel Surfaces;
D 3276-00, Standard Guide for Painting Inspectors (Metal Substrates);
D 5161-04, Standard Guide for Specifying Inspection Requirements for Coating and Lining Work (Metal Substrates); and
D 4537, Establishing Procedures to Qualify and Certify Personnel Performing Coating Work Inspection in Nuclear Facilities.
Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (PDCA)
PDCA has three specifications that address inspection:
P2-92, Third Party Inspection Qualification and Responsibilities;
PDCA P4, 94, Responsibilities for Inspection and Acceptance of Surfaces Prior to Painting and Decorating; and
PDCA P8-00, Owners Responsibility for Maintenance of Paints and/or Coatings.
None of the PDCA documents address the specific division of QC and QA responsibilities.
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

21

Transportation Agencies Addressing QC and QA

A review was conducted of the standard specifications for over 50 transportation authorities as listed in the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) state transportation websites. Specifications were examined for either QC or QA requirements relative
to personnel training/experience, written procedure/quality control manuals, management, inspection hold points, and documentation requirements.
Where QP 1 certification was required by the specification, it was assumed that the minimum QP 1 requirements for the
above topics (i.e., training/experience) were invoked.
As shown below, 24 of the over 50 standard specifications reviewed (approximately 50%) contained QC requirements or required QP 1 certification. Fourteen of the 24 specifications relied solely on QP 1 certification. Three of the states required the
contractor to complete owner-developed QC forms to document QC inspection of specified hold points. Five of the standard
specifications addressed QA requirements. One state required QA to complete an owner-developed form. QA requirements
are often handled on a per contract basis rather than through standard specifications.
Training/
Experience

Written Procedures /
Quality Manuals

Authority &/or
Management of QC

Inspection
Hold Points

Documentation
or Report

Ministry of Transportation and Highways

(Canada)

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES
(Owner Form)

Delaware River Port Authority

QP1

QP1

NO

YES

YES

Illinois DOT

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES
(Owner Form)

Ohio DOT

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES
(Owner Form)

Nebraska Department of Roads

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

Maine DOT

QP1

YES

NO

NO

YES

Rhode Island DOT

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

Connecticut DOT

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

Massachusetts DOT

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

New Jersey Highway Authority

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

NJ/NY Port Authority

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

New York City DOT

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

New York City Transit Authority

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

New York State DOT

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

New York State Thruway

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

New York TBTA

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

Ohio Turnpike Commission

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

Oklahoma DOT

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

Texas DOT

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

Utah DOT

QP1

QP1

NO

NO

QP1

Alabama DOT

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

Alaska DOT

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

Maryland SHA

QP1

YES

NO

YES

YES

Indiana DOT

QP1

YES

YES

YES

NO

Owner / Specifying Agency

Delaware River Port Authority

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

Illinois DOT

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

Maine DOT

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

Oregon DOT

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

Alaska DOT

YES

NO

NO

YES

NO

Note: If QP 1 is specified, training and QC manual are assumed.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

22
tor. The QA inspection should only occur after the work (hold
point) has been inspected and accepted by the QC inspector.
The QA inspector should then verify that the work that the QC
inspector accepted meets the requirements of the specification. If the QA inspector identifies non-conforming items,
they should be repaired and reinspected by the QC inspector
before the QA inspector accepts the work and the contractor proceeds to the next step of the painting process. It is
often helpful, if not necessary, to have the QC inspector and
the foreman present during the QA observations so that any
deficiencies can be identified and confirmed by all parties.
This also allows the QC inspector and the foreman to clearly
identify areas requiring rework to the laborers and reduces
production delays.
The QA observations may include a review of the contractors QC tests or documentation and duplicate inspection or
testing of certain hold points (e.g., dry film thickness measurements) to verify that the contractors reported results reflect
the quality of the work.
When results of QC and QA inspection differ, the QA observations typically supersede those of the QC. The resolution
of differing QC and QA observations should be defined in the
project specification or agreed upon by all stake-holders in
the pre-job meeting.

SSPC s Approach to QC and QA

SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings (SSPC) has established four qualification procedures (QP) for contractors that
include minimum requirements for QC.
SSPC-QP-1, Standard Procedure for Evaluating Qualifications of Painting Contractors (Field Application to Complex
Structures), establishes specific requirements for the qualifications and duties of the contractors QC personnel on field
coating application projects.
Three other standards have similar requirements: QP 3,
Standard Procedure for Evaluating Qualifications of Shop
Painting Applicators; QP 8, Standard Procedure for Evaluating the Qualifications of Contracting Firms that Install Polymer
Coatings and Surfacings on Concrete and Other Cementitious
Substrates; and QP 6, Standard Procedure for Evaluating
the Qualifications of Contractors Who Apply Thermal Spray
(Metallizing) for Corrosion Protection to Steel and Concrete
Surfaces. QP 6 requires QP 1 or QP 3 certification, also.
Each standard above identifies minimum requirements for
quality control personnel, programs, inspections, and documentation. The following provides a brief review by key topic.
While the specific QC duties are not well defined in the SSPCQP standards, the supporting documentation required by the
respective standards sometimes provides additional insight
on the requirements for the contractors QC.
Minimum QC Qualifications: Under QP 1 and QP 3, the QC
supervisor is responsible for oversight of the QC inspectors.

The QC supervisor is required to have three to five years of

experience and formal training. The QC inspector is to have
a minimum of two years of experience and formal training for
QP 1; however, QP 3 allows the QC inspector to substitute
in-house training for formal training. QP 8 requires the QC
manager and QC inspectors to have two years of experience,
8 hours of general QC training, and 16 hours of concrete
training. QP 6 refers to the thermal spray supervisor (TSS) and
thermal spray inspector (TSI) rather than QC. It requires the
TSS to have minimum of two years of experience and qualification under internal programs. The TSI must be internally
qualified to perform thermal spray inspections.
There is no established curriculum, duration, or evaluation
of knowledge or practical testing required under the QP 1 and
QP 3 standards. Refresher training is not required by any QP
standards.
Written Procedures/Quality Manuals: QP 1 requires the
contractor to have written procedures to ensure that major
operations (surface preparation; primer, intermediate, and
top coat applications) are inspected. It suggests that these
procedures are components of a QC Manual. QP 3 simply
requires the QC to have relevant inspection standards. QP 8
specifically details standard operating procedures that must
be included in the contractors QC manual. QP 6 requires the
contractor to have formal written procedures for performing
and documenting inspections.
Authority of the QC/Management: QP 1 requires written authority for the QC inspectors to report directly to management
and have to have authority to stop work for non-conformances. QP 3 is similar but requires evidence that the QC inspector
reports directly to management, not to a production-related
supervisor or manager. QP 8 and QP 6 do not define the
authority of the QC. QP 6 requires the TSS to be onsite and
involved in material and equipment decisions.
QC Inspection Hold Points: QP 1 does not define the specific hold points for QC. However, the SSPC-QP 1 Annual Internal
Audit Report/Checklist for SSPC Certified Contractors (Rev
02/04) indicates that hold point inspections are to be conducted during each major operation: pre-cleaning, surface
preparation, primer, intermediate coat, topcoat application,
and cure.
QP 3 defines hold points for receipt of items to be coated,
inspection of repaired and coated items, storage of repaired
and coated items, surface preparation, storage of coating materials, handling, repair, labeling, and handling and shipment,
among others.
QP 8 requires hold point inspections based upon the detailed requirements of the QC plan. QP 6 requires hold point
inspection for major operations defined in the written procedures.
Documentation/Report: QP 1 does not define the information that must be documented in QC. The SSPC-QP 1 Annual
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

23
Internal Audit Report/Checklist, specifically requires that daily
QC reports be prepared to include information such as compressed air cleanliness, dry film thickness, air temperature,
humidity, dew point, surface temperature, abrasive cleanliness, degree of cleanliness achieved, surface profile, batch
numbers of paint and thinner used, and mixing according to
specification.
QP 3 provides a similar list; however, it adds wet film thickness and the type and amount of thinner used. QP 6 and QP
8 do not define the information to be recorded other than
references to the QP program requirements.
SSPC has indicated that it will review all QP procedures and
auditing discrepancies for resolution in 2005.

New Quality Standard from SSPC Supplements the QC Standard

SSPC has prepared SSPC-QS 1, Standard Procedure for Evaluating a Quality Standard of Contractors That Apply Protective

Coatings and Linings, for the 2005 SSPC Volume 2, Systems

and Specifications. It provides a supplemental standard (QS 1)
for use by owners that require a higher level of QC on projects
than is addressed in the QP standards. This standard must
be specified in addition to the applicable QP standard. QS 1
sets out minimum QC qualifications; requires implementation
of a quality system rather than a QC manual; calls for documentation of training of managerial staff and demonstrated
management review of fieldwork and QC documentation;
recommends that the contractor provide a project-specific
work plan defining the inspections, reference standards, and
documentation; and requires that results of all inspections and
tests be recorded in a written report.
QS 1 also introduces requirements that are not included in
the QP standards for contractors, including an annual written
review of the QC manual by the QC manager; periodic internal
review of QC documentation by the QC manager; and a policy

Recommendations
We all can improve our understanding of the functions of quality assurance and quality control.
Owners, for example, should evaluate and revise current standard specifications, special provisions, and contracts (i.e.,
contractor and owner or third-party inspection) to clearly define the responsibilities of QC and QA personnel.
Owners also should require adequate QC coverage based on projected schedules or minimum QC coverage by crew, structure, location, or working hours.
And owners should require QC personnel to meet minimum standards of training and experience, provide QC procedures,
and maintain documentation that will be used to verify the quality of the final product.
Furthermore, when specifying SSPC or similar certifications, owners should require the contractor to provide evidence of
QC personnel qualifications and training, necessary QC
equipment, QC procedures, and the type of documentation to be completed by the QC inspector. QS 1 should be required in
addition to QP certifications.
Owners also should develop QC forms or require the QC to use industry - recognized forms. Similarly, owners should develop QA forms for use by internal QA or third party QA.
Finally, owners should evaluate QA coverage based on the contractors proposed work plan, number of crews, locations, or
working hours.
Contractors must recognize that QC is the first step in the total quality process and that adequate employee training, experience, and adherence to QC procedures and documentation are crucial. In addition, contractors should provide for adequate
level of QC in the project estimate and bids.
Third-party inspection agencies need to clarify in advance with owners and contractors the sequence of QC and QA inspections, how to resolve conflicts, and how to communicate non-conforming conditions.
Third-party inspectors also must verify whether the scope of the inspection is quality control or quality assurance. They
must clarify QA inspection hold points versus QC responsibilities.
Trade organizations, such as SSPC, NACE, PDCA, and ASTM, should evaluate the appropriate qualifications/experience,
inspection, and documentations specific to QC and QA in their standards. Such organizations should also consider annual
retraining, minimum training curriculum or training hours, or certifications for QC personnel.
SSPC should evaluate its certification programs for consistency among the different QP standards. Consideration should
be given to defining minimum training requirements for QC and management of the QC process similar to the approach used
for QP 5-certified inspection companies. Some of the actions planned for this year appear to indicate that SSPC is moving in
this direction.
FHWA/AASHTO should consider developing master guidelines and specifications relative to the QC and QA on transportation projects .
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

24
to address the investigation, auditing, and resolution of client
complaints.

SSPC Qualification Procedures for Quality Assurance

SSPC has one QP applicable to QA: SSPC-QP 5, Standard
Procedure for Evaluating Qualifications of Coating and Lining
Inspection Companies. The SSPC-QP 5 program establishes
a certification for inspection companies whose focus is the
industrial coating and lining industry. It evaluates an inspection companys ability to provide consistent quality inspection
of coatings and linings for its clients (typically third-party QA).
Like the portions of the SSPC-QP certifications relat ed to QC,
QP 5 provides minimum requirements for quality assurance
personnel, programs, inspections and documentation. The
new QS 1 incorporates many QP 5 requirements.
Minimum QA Qualifications: QP 5 requires the company to
employ a total quality manager (TQM) who reports directly to
management. The TQM must have at least 10 years of experience and be an SSPC PCS or NACE-Certified Coating Inspector or must hold a BS degree in corrosion science or engineering. Inspectors employed by a QP 5-certified company are
divided into three levels of responsibility, based primarily upon
experience and education. In addition to coating inspection
training, QP 5 requires QA inspectors to undergo annual vision
testing and a coating inspection refresher training.
Written Procedures/Quality Manuals: QP 5 requires participants to develop a complete quality system that addresses:
quality policy and management commitments;
organizational, management structure, and reporting relationships;
procedures for performing coating inspections and tests;
references to inspection equipment, calibration, maintenance, and measurement standards; and
internal audit procedures and schedule.
The program must be reviewed annually and documented
by a written report to management.
Management of QA: QP 5 requires the TQM to audit the QA
inspection staff and oversee the implementation of the quality
system. In addition, QP 5 requires participants to train auditors
and audit the implementation of the quality system.
QP 5 does not define QA hold points or documentation
requirements, but states that they are dictated by contract.
QP 5 places several additional requirements on QA that
are not included in contractor QP programs, such as internal
audits, internal review of QA reports, and resolution of client
complaints.

Staffing of QC and QA Personnel

The contractors schedule, number of work crews or locations,
the QCs other responsibilities, and adequate staffing for
QC and QA can also have a significant impact on QC and QA
work.

Under the SSPC certification requirements, while the

contractor is required to provide a QC representative, there
is no guidance on the number of QC personnel or QC time
necessary to achieve adequate quality control. For projects
involving multiple structures or locations, or multiple crews, it
is unlikely that a single QC inspector could perform the necessary observations, testing, and documentation to verify that
all the work was performed as required by the project specification or the respective QP standard. If the QC inspector
is performing additional duties (e.g., acting as the competent
person or assisting in production operations), his or her ability
to adequately perform QC is further compromised. None of
the QP requirements prevent the QC from performing other
functions.
Where there is inadequate QC coverage of the key hold
points, the QA inspector may be the only one performing observations and testing. This results in the loss of the primary
component (quality control) of the total quality management
system. It can also lead to confrontation between the contractor and the QA inspector when non-conformances are
observed and the QC inspector was not involved in the initial
inspection and correction of the work.
Inadequate QA staffing can also result in inadequate quality
auditing of the QC. The level of QA inspection and the number
of assigned staff are typically established by the owner based
on an engineers estimate of the project schedule and contractors labor. However, once a contractor has been selected,
the contractor typically dictates the schedule, number of work
crews, work areas, and working hours. The QA staffing plan
should be carefully evaluated against the contractors actual
schedule to see if adequate QA staff is available.
Another potential problem with QA staffing is that with
shrinking painting budgets, often QA time on-site is limited
by the project budget. QA may be limited to an eight-hour
workday, while actual contractor operations occur for 12 to
14 hours per day during peak periods. As most of the coating
work is performed at the end of the day, a QA inspector may
not be on-site during the mixing and application of the coating. A reasonable rule of thumb is that the QC and QA should
be present for the complete workday or week.
When QA staffing is inadequate, the ability to observe all
operations is compromised. In the absence of effective QC,
valuable QA time is lost performing initial inspections.

Separating QC and QA Responsibilities

Qualifications: QC qualifications appear to be inconsistently
defined in most of the documents researched. Since QC has
the primary responsibility for the quality of the end product,
QC personnel should have a minimum level of experience and
formal training to perform and document the implementation
of the QC process. Consideration should be given to requiring
QC personnel to document proficiency in coating inspection
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

25
through formal certification or successful completion of a
specific curriculum.
When SSPC-QP 1 is specified, the experience and training
of the proposed QC should be verified.
Procedures: Similar to the above, the contractor should be
required to follow written QC procedures and maintain documentation for recording the QC observations. Most specifications reviewed did not specify submission of QA procedures.
Documentation was required for most QA inspections.
Hold Points: This article suggests that the QC has full-time
responsibility for all phases of the project. Further, given the
contractors control of the equipment, personnel, material,
and processes, they must, through QC, be responsible for
testing of its operation and adequacy. QA is typically specified
at critical hold points and for periodic verification that the QC
is being implemented. An appropriate division of hold points
between QC and QA is delineated in Table 1 on p. 59.
Appropriate division of hold point inspections of the QC
and QA personnel should result in the ultimate responsibility
for quality being that of the contractors, and should allow QA
inspectors to fulfill their role as an audit function, rather than
as the sole entity responsible for the quality of a coatings
project.

Conclusion
Only by establishing clear qualifications, responsibilities, and
documentation requirements for both QC and QA on a given
project will all parties to a protective coatings project benefit
fully from a total quality management process. Benefits can
include avoiding duplication of documentation and inspection,
reducing conflicts among the contractor, owner, and third party QA; real or perceived under- or over-inspection; and most
importantly, long-lasting protection of the structure or asset.
Alison B. Kaelin is the KTA corporate quality
assurance manager and former manager of the KTA Environmental Health and
Safety Group. She holds a BE in civil and
environmental engineering from Vanderbilt
University and is a NACE-certified coatings
inspector. Ms. Kaelin also has 17 years of
public health and environmental experience. She chaired the
SSPC Task Group C.5.3 on Environmental Monitoring Strategies and the Dust Collection Committee, and is a principal
instructor of SSPCs C-3 Certified Supervisor/Competent
Person for Industrial Deleading Projects. Ms. Kaelin has
presented and published over 15 articles on environmental
protection, worker health and safety, and other topics related
to the coatings industry.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

26

Can In-Process Quality Control

Prevent Premature Coating Failure?
By William D. Corbett, PCS, KTA-Tator, Inc.
Richard Burgess, KTA-Tator, Inc., Series Editor
Editors note: This article appeared in JPCL in January 2013

or decades we have heard that the incidence of

premature coating failure would decline by explicitly requiring the contractor to control the quality
of workmanship (via contract document language)
using properly trained (and equipped) quality
control personnel. In this Case from the F-Files, well take a
brief look at five case history failures and assess whether
quality control inspection of the work as it proceeded could
have prevented the failure from occurring, or whether it would
have happened despite the efforts of knowledgeable quality
control personnel.

Defining Quality Control

The ISO definition states that quality control is the operational
techniques and activities that are used to fulfill requirements
for quality.1 This definition could imply that any activity,
whether serving the improvement, control, management, or
assurance of quality could be a quality control activity. Quality
control is a process for maintaining standards and not for
creating them. Standards are maintained through a process of
selection, measurement, and correction of work, so only the
products or services that emerge from the process meet the
standards. In simple terms, quality control prevents undesirable changes in the quality of the product or service supplied.
The simplest form of quality control is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Quality control can be applied to particular products; to processes that create the products; or to the output of the whole
organization, by measuring its overall quality performance.
Quality control is often regarded as a post-event activity, that is, a means of detecting whether quality has been
achieved and taking action to correct any deficiencies.
However, one can control results by installing sensors (e.g., inspection check points) before, during, or after the results are
created. It all depends on where you install the sensor, what
you measure, and the consequences of failure.1
The Joint Certification Standard for Shop Application of
Complex Protective Coating Systems (AISC SPE/SSPC-QP
3 420-10) defines quality control as the inspection of work.

Inspection includes but is not limited to confirming that procedures are met; workers are properly qualified; equipment is
appropriate and in acceptable working order; and the proper
materials are used and are in compliance with inspection
criteria.
Lets take a look at a few case studies to see whether implementation of a quality control program using trained, properly
equipped inspectors makes a difference.

Case Study No. 1: Mirror, Mirror

Background: A contract was awarded to remove and replace
the existing coating system on a large riveted structure. The

Fig. 1: The generic control process

Figure and photos courtesy of KTA-Tator

Fig. 2: Corrosion products on the back sides of the rivets and edges
after six months service
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

27

Fig. 3: Close-up of rusted area, with the edge

of a repair area also shown on left

Fig. 4: Spontaneous cracking of the coating

along the fillet weld

specification required abrasive blast cleaning to achieve a

Near-White blast (SSPC-SP 10/NACE 2), followed by two coats
of a polyamide epoxy (standard gray) and one coat of polyurethane topcoat. Six months after the contract was completed,
corrosion was observed (Fig. 2).
Cause: Corrosion products remained on the back side of
the rivets that were not subjected to direct impact by the
abrasive stream during blast cleaning. The coating was also
applied from one direction, causing thin areas of coating on
the back side of the rivets and the adjacent flat areas of the
steel plate. Inadequate attention was given to the coating
along the edges.
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? The QC inspector should have carefully examined the difficult access
areas after surface preparation and application of each coating layer. As a general rule, if the quality control inspector has
difficulty accessing the areas, then the coating applicators
likely had difficulty as well. Verifying coverage on an abrasive
blast-cleaned surface with a gray coating can be challenging.
Good lighting and the use of an inspection mirror would likely
have revealed the missed areas. The specifier could have
selected a contrasting color for the primer and may have
required stripe coating in these areas (in accordance with
SSPC-Guide 11) to help protect the edges.

Case Study No. 2: The Fix is in, and Thats the Problem!
Background: The project specification required abrasive blast
cleaning to achieve a Near-White blast (SSPC-SP 10/NACE
2), and the application of a single coat of an inorganic zinc
primer to piping. Surface preparation and coating application
were performed in the shop. Once the piping was installed
in the field, damaged areas (caused by the installation) were
abrasive blast cleaned and touched up with an organic
(epoxy) zinc-rich primer. All of the touch-up areas performed
well. However, within one year, portions of the piping showed
extensive pinpoint rusting and rust-through.
A closer examination of the pipe (Fig. 3) shows one of the
rusted areas, with the edge of a repair area also shown (left
portion of Fig. 3). As illustrated, the repair area is performing
well, but the surrounding area is exhibiting rusting.

Fig. 5: Poor adhesion of the coating on the top

of the bottom flange

Cause: When repairing damaged areas, the blaster failed to

start and stop the flow of abrasive from the blast nozzle when
moving from one damaged area to another. Instead, the blast
nozzle was moved to the next location while the abrasive was
still flowing at maximum pressure, which caused considerable damage to the coating. This is apparent in Fig. 3, where
a round patch of coating had been effectively removed by
the abrasive impact, with the surrounding area nicked by the
abrasive.
Because the zinc primer is essentially the same color as the
steel, the damage went unnoticed until the electrolyte (water)
contacted the surface and caused the formation of corrosion.
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? Many would
point to a misplaced repair procedure as the culprit in this
case; and perhaps, even with diligence, the overblast damage
may have been unavoidable. However, during the start-up of
the repair procedures, the QC inspector should have observed the abrasive blast cleaning operations, recognized
the potential for overblast damage, and discussed the issue
with the owner/specifier before work continued. The owner
and inspector could have discussed alternative methods of
preparation. Anticipating potential problems and proposing
resolutions before a widespread problem occurs are intangible values that quality control inspection can bring to a
project.

Case Study No. 3: You Know What They Say: Dry Heat Is More Comfortable
Background: The project specification required abrasive blast
cleaning to achieve an SSPC-SP 10/NACE 2 Near-White blast
and the application of an inorganic zinc primer to structural steel components in the fabrication shop. Application of
the intermediate coat was also performed in the shop, while
the topcoat was scheduled for application in the field after
erection and bolting of the steel. The work was done in the
winter, and the shop was heated. The fabricators quality
control specialist kept documentation revealing that the
shop coating had conformed to the thickness and recoat
times recommended by the coating manufacturers technical
representative, who visited the shop during coating application. The steel was loaded onto trucks and shipped to the
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

28
site. When the coated steel arrived at the construction site,
spontaneous cracking of the coating along the fillet weld
(where the web and flange are joined) was discovered (Fig. 4).
Figure 5 illustrates the spontaneous cracking and lifting along
the fillet, and the poor adhesion of the coating system on the
top of the bottom flange. Examination of a disbonded coating
chip revealed the presence of zinc primer on the back side of
the chip and on the steel surface, indicating that the location
of break was cohesive within the zinc primer.
Cause: Ethyl silicate inorganic zinc-rich primers require
moisture to cure. In this case, insufficient time was allowed
before the application of the epoxy midcoat. Once the epoxy
was applied, no more moisture could react with the primer
because the epoxy sealed off the primer. The zinc primer
remained in a dry but uncured (and weakened state). The solvents from the epoxy midcoat penetrated the uncured primer,
and the contractive curing stresses imparted by the epoxy
caused the zinc primer to cohesively split. Because a web and
flange are adjacent to one another, the thickness of the epoxy
was slightly higher along the fillet weld area. The higher thickness exacerbated the problem and resulted in the cracking
and detachment. When other areas were evaluated, it became
evident that the entire system was at risk for failure.
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? Inorganic zinc-rich primers dry very quickly (especially in a heated
environment); however, they may not cure for many hours or
even days if the humidity is too low within the prevailing environment. The key is to verify that temperature and humidity
(listed on the product data sheets) are present in the shop
before application and to verify the cure has been achieved,
rather than relying on cure time tables provided by the coating manufacturer, or assuming that drying and curing are synonomous. Quality control inspection by the fabricator should
have included a curing test. In fact, there is one specifically
designed for the primer in this case study (ASTM D4752, Measuring MEK Resistance of Ethyl Silicate (inorganic) Zinc-Rich
Primers by Solvent Rub). Once a resistance rating of 4 or 5
is achieved (after 50 double rubs), the zinc-rich primer can be
considered cured and ready for recoating. Some manufacturers rely on pencil hardness data instead of solvent resistance
to assess cure. Either way, a competent QC Inspector knows
how specific coating types cure, the conditions necessary for
the reactions to occur, and the tests available to verify coating film properties before applying the next coating.

Cause: SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3 requires removal of all mill

scale. The surfaces may have staining from mill scale (provided it does not exceed 33% of each 9 square inches). In this
case, the pock marks in Fig. 6 clearly indicate that mill scale
was left on the surface and coated over. The hollow areas
represent those locations where the mill scale was removed,
while the surrounding areas contain mill scale. The areas
containing mill scale exhibit corrosion products. In a mild environment (and with the proper thickness), this system should
have lasted longer than six months. However, the application
of a thin (3- to 5-mil) film alkyd primer combined with damp
storage conditions led to water permeation of the alkyd. The
result was the formation of a corrosion cell at the mill scale/
steel interface. Mill scale is cathodic to steel, which means
that the base steel becomes the anode in the corrosion cell
and begins to deplete, generating the corrosion products.
Ironically, had the joists been stored indoors (or installed upon
receipt), the lack of quality may have never been revealed,
because it is unlikely that corrosion would have occurred due
to the lack of electrolyte.
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? Careful
visual inspection of the steel surfaces by the quality control
inspector after surface preparation (including the use of
SSPC-VIS 1) would have revealed the presence of mill scale,
which is not permitted by the specified cleanliness standard.
That is, quality control personnel need to know industry
standards and need to use tools (in this case, visual guides)
for help in making intelligent decisions. While additional surface preparation before application of the primer would have
required additional labor and more abrasive, it would have
been done at a significantly lower cost than the cumulative
costs associated with the failure investigation, transportation
of the joists back to the fabrication shop (and then back to the
project site once the rework was done), the material and labor

Case Study No. 4: A Pictures Worth Thousands of $$$

Background: The project specification required abrasive blast
cleaning to achieve a Commercial Blast (SSPC-SP 6/NACE No.
3) and the application of a single coat of alkyd primer in the
joist fabrication shop. The joists were shipped to the project
site, where they were stored outdoors (on the ground) for six
months. Corrosion was visible within six months (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6: Corrosion of steel beneath alkyd primer evident within six

months
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

29

Fig. 7: Condition of the coating on the underside of the viaduct before

brush-off blast cleaning

Fig. 8: Area where epoxy mastic was applied directly to the steel rather than the aged alkyd

costs associated with re-application of the primer, and potential for liquidated damages due to project schedule delays.

work was awarded. Even though the QC inspector may have

questioned the specification, it is doubtful that that owner
would have altered the spec unless the fracturing of the
aged lead alkyd had been visible to the unaided eye and the
inspector had informed the owner of the damaged coating.
Inspection personnel cannot use magnification (according to
the SSPC Surface Preparation Standards).

Case Study No. 5: Hey! I Followed the Spec; It Wasnt My Fault.

Background: The underside of a viaduct containing an aged
lead alkyd coating was brush-off abrasive blast cleaned to
remove loosely adhering corrosion and paint (SSPC-SP 7/
NACE No. 4), followed by the application of an epoxy mastic
overcoat. Figure 7 illustrates the condition of the coating prior
to abrasive blast cleaning. Figure 8 illustrates lifting of the old
alkyd by the epoxy mastic overcoat. The number 10 written
on the coating in Fig. 8 is in an area where the epoxy mastic
was applied directly to the steel, rather than the aged lead
alkyd. Directly beneath that area is an area where the mastic
had lifted the alkyd, and was removed by scraping during the
failure investigation. The area beneath the hand in the same
photo represents epoxy mastic applied over the aged lead
alkyd. This area was not probed during the investigation.
Cause: The aged lead alkyd coating was in poor condition,
as illustrated by Fig. 8. While brush-off abrasive blast cleaning
removed the loosely adhering materials, the impact of the
abrasive on the intact alkyd weakened (fractured) it, but did
not affect it enough to consider it loose by the dull putty
knife test. Application of the epoxy mastic imparted curing
stresses that weakened the cohesive strength of the aged
lead alkyd, causing it to lift and disbond from the surface.
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? Because
the QC inspector does not have the authority to change the
specification, this project was doomed from the minute the

Conclusion
So while it appears that controlling quality as the work is
performed reduces the opportunity for coating failure, quality
control cannot be a substitute for a well-written specification,
quality coating materials, and quality workmanship.

Note
1. www.transition-support.com/Quality_control.htm
Bill Corbett is the Professional Services Business Unit Manager for KTA-Tator, Inc., where
he has been employed for 31 years. He is an
SSPC-approved instructor for three SSPC
courses, and he holds SSPC certifications as
a Protective Coatings Specialist, Protective
Coatings Inspector, and Bridge Coatings Inspector. He is also a NACE Level 3-certified Coatings Inspector. He was the co-recipient of the SSPC 1992 Outstanding
Publication Award, co-recipient of the 2001 JPCL Editors
Award, recipient of SSPCs 2006 Coatings Education Award,
and recipient of SSPCs 2011 John D. Keane Award of Merit.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

30

Weighing Your Options:

What Specifiers and Contractors Should Know

about Alternate Dispute Resolution Clauses in Contracts
By George MacDonald, QC, McInnes Cooper
Editors note: This article appeared in JPCL in April 2010

cissors, paper, rock. You cut the last piece of pie

in two and I have first choice. Lets ask Mom to
decide.
All of the above are well-known methods of
obtaining an answer to a question or solving a dispute. They have stood the test of time because they work and
are easy to understand. They enable disputes to be resolved
or answers to be obtained, quickly and effectively.
Most commercial contracts are either silent concerning the
method to be followed to resolve disputes or contain a clause
saying something such as, All disputes arising under the provisions of this agreement are to be resolved by arbitration.
For some reason, people who draft commercial contracts
devote minimal time to the clauses dealing with dispute
resolution, or they neglect to include such a clause at all. As a
result, when disputes arise the parties to the contract have no
choice but to embark on costly litigation or arbitration.
There are some exceptions. For example, standard form
contracts prepared by the governing bodies in the construction industry in the United States and Canada have clauses
detailing a dispute resolution procedure. They call for an initial
meeting between senior executives of the parties to attempt
to resolve the issue. If they fail to reach an agreement, there
is mandated mediation. If that is not successful, the parties
move on to arbitration or, as a last option, go to court.
This procedure is much better than requiring that all disputes be resolved by arbitration, but it can also give rise to
delays and significant expense being incurred by one of the
parties while awaiting the resolution of a dispute.
There is no perfect clause that should be inserted into
every commercial contract. Sufficient time should be devoted
to this topic when a contract is being drafted, however, to ensure that an appropriate dispute-resolution clause is included
in every contract. Otherwise the parties may be forced to go

to arbitration or court to obtain an answer to a dispute that

could have been resolved quickly, even if you have to use one
of the well-known methods referred to above.
I dealt recently with a dispute concerning surface preparation of structural steel and the coating to be applied to the
surface of the prepared steel. The specifications contained
in the tender documents called for the fabricator to prepare
the surface of structural steel to an SSPC-SP 10, Near-White
Metal, followed by application of one coat of an epoxy coating
at a dry film thickness (DFT) of 5 to 7 mils.
During the tendering period an addendum was issued, and
the standard for surface preparation was changed to SSPCSP 6, Commercial Blast Cleaning. The contractor who was
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

31
the low bidder prepared its quote on the assumption it would
abrasive blast the steel obtained from a mill and then apply
the required epoxy coating.
After bids were received, the low bidder and the project
manager met to discuss possible ways to lower the bid price,
which was somewhat over budget. The low bidder offered a
couple of suggestions. The project manager then raised the
topic of the coating to be applied to the structural steel. He
noted that the steel would be erected on site before other
areas of the structure were painted. The project manager
suggested that the structural steel merely have a latex primer
coat applied by the fabricator, with a finish coat applied by
the owner once the steel was erected and the structure was
weather tight.
The low bidder offered a price to substitute the application
of a latex coating for the epoxy primer coating called for in
the specifications. The quote expressly stated that the steel
would be factory cleaned and a latex primer would be applied.
A Change Order was issued once the contract was awarded.
The contractor obtained structural steel from a steel mill, fabricated the steel to satisfy the requirements of the specifications, factory cleaned the steel to an SSPC-SP 3, Power Tool
Cleaning, and applied the agreed-upon latex primer coating.
The specifications did not contain a specified DFT for primer
paint. The paint manufacturers specifications called for a
minimum DFT of 1.5 to 3 mils.
The structural steel was shipped to the site and erected by
the contractor, in accordance with the schedule. The structure was not enclosed for several months, and the structural
steel was subjected to winter-weather conditions for several
months. When the building was made weather tight and the
contractor attempted touch-up painting of the steel, extensive corrosion was discovered on the steel.
The owner took the position that the steel should have been
prepared to an SSPC-SP 6 standard before the latex primer
coat was applied and insisted that the erected steel had to be
prepared to such a standard before painting could take place.
The contractor objected, and the owner proceeded to engage
another contractor who abrasive blasted all the erected
structural steel and then applied both an epoxy primer coat
and a finish coat. The contractor and its bonding company
were called upon to pay the cost of the remedial work.
The contract between the owner and the contractor contained the standard All disputes will be resolved by arbitration clause. There was no contractual obligation for the
bonding company to submit to arbitration. After much debate,
it was agreed that the bonding company would participate in
an arbitration between the owner and the contractor and be
bound by the decision. The parties exchanged written pleadings, assembled and exchanged hundreds of documents, conducted depositions, obtained expert reports, and sat through
weeks of hearings. A couple of years after the building was

erected, the arbitrator dismissed the claim of the owner.

Had the parties given some thought to the types of disputes that could arise in a contract involving fabrication and
coating of structural steel, they likely would have directed
their attention to potential disagreements as to the expected
standard of surface preparation. Such a technical dispute
should not be left to be resolved by a judge or an arbitrator
who does not know (a) why the surface of steel is prepared to
a different standard depending on how and where the steel is
to be used or the type and thickness of coating to be applied
to the steel; or (b) the importance of the thickness of the coating being applied.
The contract should have contained a dispute resolution
clause that required, for example, that the parties submit any
dispute concerning required steel preparation, in the first
instance, to a knowledgeable coatings expert. Such an expert
would know, or quickly understand, the following.
To those involved in the industry, factory finish means to
finish the steel to an SSPC-SP 3.
When steel is finished to an SSPC-SP 6, the resulting steel
profile would be 1.5 to 2.8 mils, and a latex primer coating
would not provide the necessary protection for the steel,
which was to be exposed to winter-weather conditions for
several months before a finish coating was to be applied.
If the expert could convince the owner and its advisors
to accept this finding, the parties would then discuss the
options available to deal with the erected steel, which exhibited significant corrosion. One of the options would be to use
a special coating that could be applied over the corrosion
before application of a finish coat. The remedial cost would be
minimal compared to the actual cost incurred by the owner in
this case.
The failure of the parties to include a dispute-resolution
clause, which would deal with the various types of disputes
that could arise during performance of the contract, resulted
in the parties incurring significant costs to deal with a relatively minor dispute concerning a technical issue. This is a
very common consequence of the failure to give appropriate
consideration to inserting an appropriate dispute-resolution
clause in a particular contract.
It is also fundamentally important that a dispute-resolution
clause set out the authority, or legislation, whose rules will
govern the conduct of the arbitration or mediation. Further,
the clause must dictate which law will govern in resolving
disputes.
Establishing, in the contract, the governing rules for the dispute-resolution clause is particularly important when dealing
with projects in other countries. Well-known and established
rules can be invoked to be used in the resolution of disputes.
For example, the American Arbitration Association (AAA),
the London Court of International Arbitration, and the United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)
2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.

32
all have detailed rules governing conduct of arbitrations.
The next time you are preparing documents to be used to
obtain bids from contractors or are negotiating the terms of a
contract, take some time to consider the type of disputes that
can arise. Consider as well what type of process could best
be used to obtain a quick, effective, and reasonable resolution
of such disputes.
In other words, pay me a little bit now or a whole lot later.

George MacDonald, QC, is involved in

all aspects of the practice of construction law, including drafting of
contracts and litigation, both in courts
and arbitration. He is a founding Fellow
and Past President of the Canadian
College of Construction Lawyers and a
Fellow of the American College of Trial
Lawyers. He is a Professional Engineer as well as a lawyer. He is recognized as a leading practitioner in the construction law field in both Lexpert Magazine
and Best Lawyers in Canada. He also acts as mediator and
arbitrator. He is the chair of the Business Dispute Resolution Practice Group at McInnes Cooper, which is one of the
20 largest law firms in Canada. The firm is headquartered in
Halifax, Nova Scotia.

2005-2015 Technology Publishing Co.