Let’s Talk About Reviewing Daily Coating Inspection Reports

KTA’s Certified Coating Inspector Forum

Volume 4, Issue No. 4 – August 2025

William Corbett, Technical Consultant

AMPP Senior Certified Coating Inspector & Certified Protective Coating Specialist

KTA’s Certified Coating Inspector Forum is designed to provide professional development/continuing education on standards, inspection practices, new instruments, and other topics to help keep certified AMPP and FROSIO coating inspectors current. It represents the views of the author and KTA-Tator, Inc. It may or may not represent the views of AMPP: The Association for Materials Protection & Performance, even though SSPC, NACE, and AMPP standards are frequently referenced in the content.

Introduction

As an AMPP Certified or Senior Certified Coating Inspector (or a FROSIO Level II or III Coating Inspector), you may be required to review the content of daily coating inspection reports completed by an AMPP Basic Coating Inspector (or FROSIO Level I), or by others who are not certified. If you are a Quality Assurance Inspector (working for the facility owner) you may be reviewing daily coating inspection reports completed by the Quality Control Inspector working for the painting contractor. And as a Project Manager your role may be to review inspection reports and inform others of issues related to the quality of the coating work. Finally, you may be required to sign the reports as the reviewer, attesting to the accuracy of the data and narrative contained in the reports. But what does it mean to review a daily coating inspection report? Does it mean to simply skim through it, to verify that data has been entered and there are no “blanks?” If so, but the data is incorrect and you have signed it, are you equally responsible for the wrong information? This issue of the Certified Coating Inspector Forum describes a recommended process for reviewing the content of daily coating inspection reports that are completed by others, including what I consider the top 20 items and how to review them.

Importance of Documentation

The February 2023 issue of KTA’s Certified Coating Inspector Forum (Volume 2, Issue No. 2, https://kta.com/importance-of-documentation/) focused on the importance of documentation. Regardless of which party you are working for, documentation of inspection data is a critical role for a trained/certified inspector, albeit oftentimes one of the more dreaded tasks. Complete, accurate documentation is just as important as your hands-on inspections and acquiring the data. Poor documentation (or lack of it altogether) can make problem resolution very difficult and potentially leave any of the parties (contractor, owner, or material supplier) sharing in the cost of rework they may not be responsible for. Since we don’t have the ability to go back in time, daily inspection reports provide us with a written record of what occurred and are invaluable when investigating problems and taking corrective action. Looking forward, an independent review of coating inspection reports prepared by others is just as important. It provides a second set of eyes (that are arguably less close to the project and therefore less likely to overlook key information) to spot inconsistencies or flaws in the data for the cleaning and painting work being performed so that corrections can be made before problems arise. Let’s look at a suggested review process. Note that familiarity with the project specification and the coating manufacturer product data sheets for the coatings being used is critical for the review to be effective.

1. Ambient Conditions and Surface Temperature: If whirling (sling) psychrometers and psychrometric charts are used to determine ambient conditions, it is recommended to spot check the documented relative humidity and dew point temperature from the psychrometric charts to verify the correct barometric pressure tables were used, the values were looked up correctly in the charts, and that the surface temperature is above the dew point (typically  a minimum of 5°F higher than the dew point temperature). If a digital (electronic) psychrometer was used, no psychrometric charts were needed, but the specified surface temperature-dew point temperature spread should still be verified. Also, regardless of which methods for determining the ambient conditions were used, if work was allowed to proceed, verify the air and surface temperatures and relative humidity conform to the requirements of the project specification, or if specified, the coating manufacturer’s product data sheets.  Also confirm that the location of the readings is where the work is being performed. For example, when painting the top of an elevated tank, the ambient conditions need to be taken at the top of the tank. Readings at ground level are meaningless.

2. Surface Cleanliness and Surface Profile: If coating work was allowed to proceed, verify that the actual surface cleanliness (solvent cleaning, hand or power tool cleaning, abrasive blast cleaning, etc.) documented met/exceeded the minimum cleanliness required by the project specification. The report should also indicate how cleanliness was determined (i.e., use of SSPC Visual Guides, jobsite reference standard). If the specification invoked a surface profile range, verify that the measured surface profile conformed to the minimum/maximum specified, and that the correct method of measurement was used (e.g., visual comparator, replica tape, depth micrometer, or drag stylus).

3. Replica Tape Use: If Testex® replica tape was used to measure the surface profile and the tape is attached to the report, verify that the test area on the tape was completely burnished (no visible white in the test circle), and that the correct range of tape was used. Also verify that the Mylar thickness was deducted from the micrometer reading if an analog spring micrometer was used.

4. Frequency of Surface Profile Measurements: Based on the method used to measure the surface profile, verify the correct number of readings were obtained per location (according to the standard method invoked) and that the correct number of locations were measured (per the project specification or SSPC-PA 17[1], when invoked).

5. Correct Products: Verify that the specified products were used, such as abrasive type, coatings, and caulking. If thinner use was permitted, verify the correct type and amount was used based on the specification, or if approved, the coating manufacturer product data sheets. Verify batch/lot numbers were recorded for all products used.

6. Abrasive and Compressed Air Cleanliness: The SSPC/NACE surface cleanliness standards for abrasive blast cleaning contain referenced requirements, including the use of clean abrasive and clean, dry compressed air. If any of the SSPC/NACE standards for abrasive blast cleaning were invoked by the specification, or if the SSPC abrasive standards[2] were invoked, verify that the abrasive was tested for oil content and that any water-soluble contamination didn’t exceed the maximum allowable according to the SSPC Abrasive standards (1,000 µS/cm). Verify compressed air cleanliness testing was performed prior to abrasive blast cleaning and any blow down for dust removal.  

7. Surface Soluble Salt Levels: If surface soluble salt detection and remediation was invoked by the project specification, verify that surface concentrations were measured after surface preparation (unless the specification requires otherwise), the correct extraction/analysis methods were conducted, the required frequency was met, the specified units (mg/m², µg/cm², µS/cm, etc.) are used, and the results of the final testing are below the maximum permitted.

8. Preparation-to-Primer Application Interval: Verify the elapsed time between final surface preparation and primer application did not exceed the maximum time allowed by the project specification.

9. Spray Pot Agitation: If a zinc-rich primer or other coating material was applied that required constant pot agitation during application, verify that the product was indeed agitated.

10. Coating Thickness Measurement Frequency (based on SSPC-PA 2[3] when specified): According to SSPC-PA 2, the number of areas to measure (to determine coating thickness conformance) is based on the size of the area coated, e.g., during the previous work shift. If SSPC-PA 2 was invoked by the project specification, verify that the correct number of 100 sf areas were measured based on the size of the area coated. Subsequently, verify the correct number of spot measurements were recorded and that the minimum number of gage readings were obtained. Note that in some cases the individual gage readings used to calculate the spot measurements may not be documented. Further, if readings were stored in the gage memory it may be necessary to have printouts to determine whether the frequency was correct.

11. Coating Thickness Measurement Conformance (based on SSPC-PA 2 when specified): If the thickness of the coating layer(s) was documented as “acceptable,” verify the Spot Measurements conformed to the Coating Thickness Restriction Level (from SSPC-PA 2) invoked by the project specification (if the level is unspecified, spot measurements must conform to Level 3). Also, verify that the Area Measurements conformed to thickness range specified.

12.  Spot Check Math: Arithmetical errors in documentation are not uncommon. Spot check averages (e.g., surface profile, coating thickness values, etc.) and that any formulas (e.g., surface salts, wet film calculation, percentage of thinner added, high voltage detection voltage settings) were used correctly.

13.  Illumination: If the project specification invokes minimum lighting requirements, verify that a calibrated light meter was used, the minimum number of readings required were obtained, and that the average illumination value(s) conforms to the project specification (or SSPC Guide 12[4] when invoked) for the operation being performed (e.g., general work area, surface preparation and coating work, inspection work).

Here are seven additional items that are not specific to an inspection checkpoint but are nonetheless important to verify:

14.  Instrument Calibration and Verification of Accuracy: Based on the serial numbers recorded on the inspection report, verify that the inspection instruments used hold a current calibration. According to the AMPP ethics training, use of uncalibrated inspection instruments by a certified coating inspector is considered “malpractice.” Verify that instruments such as coating thickness gages were checked for accuracy prior to use.

15.  Deviations and Nonconformities: If inspection outcomes deviated from the specification, or if nonconformities occurred, assess whether the inspection report describes what actions were taken. For example, if dry spray or runs and sags are removed, it should be documented. Or if a coat is too thin and additional material is applied to certain areas, it needs to be explained.  If there is a nonconformity (e.g., a coating was applied that has exceeded its shelf life), verify that an accompanying nonconformance report (NCR), or similar, was prepared and that it is completed correctly and signed/dated.

16. Commentary and Digital Images: Written communication is an art and the ability to communicate using the written word is paramount for a certified inspector. Some will argue that written communication has become a lost art and that even the most educated individuals cannot convey their thoughts in a clear, concise, coherent manner. Despite this unfortunate potential reality, a properly constructed narrative in a daily coating inspection report gives context to the recorded data and provides all parties with a picture of how the project is progressing. Read any narrative provided and view any accompanying digital images (photos) to verify they reflect the inspection data reported.

17.  Missing Data and Units of Measure: Determine if there are blanks in the report where data should be recorded. Blank fields in an inspection report often infer that the inspection checkpoint was overlooked. Typically, NA (not applicable) or NW (not witnessed) is recorded when appropriate so that there are no blanks on the report. Also, verify units of measure are indicated as appropriate (e.g., °F/°C, mils/microns, volts/kilovolts, etc.)

18.  Consider Whether the Data is Too Consistent. Knowledge of the inherent variability of surface profile and coating thickness measurements can help reveal whether the data being reported is too consistent. This may infer that the data being reported was not obtained using instrumentation on the structure but rather simply created for the report. Look at the recorded values and consider whether the data is simply too consistent to reflect the typical variability found in weather conditions, or cleaning and painting work. If it looks suspicious, address it cautiously but without delay.

19.  Does the Reported Data Make Sense: One of the more challenging items to consider/review is whether all the reported data (for that day) makes sense. For example, if the surface profile exceeded the maximum allowed but primer application ensued (without any explanation), then the inspector was either negligent by accepting non-conforming work, or the documentation is in error. The discrepancies should be addressed immediately.

20.  Signature Required: Verify that the report is signed by the inspector that completed it, and that it is dated correctly. A printed name should accompany the signature, as many signatures are illegible. Also, handwritten reports should be completed in blue/black ink. Verify proper pen color and that any corrections have a single “strike-through,” and are initialed/dated. Use of White-Out Liquid or Tape is frequently disallowed and is never good documentation practice.

Summary

This issue of the Certified Coating Inspector Forum described a recommended process for reviewing the content of daily coating inspection reports that are completed by others. Proper and thorough documentation of coating inspection data combined with a quality narrative and digital images is the only way to accurately and completely communicate what occurred daily. Simply skimming through a report prepared by someone else just looking for blanks and considering it “reviewed” is of minimal value. Rather, consider each of the top 20 items addressed in this article during your next daily inspection report review. It will no doubt provide greater value to your employer or customer.

---

[1] Procedure for Determining Conformance to Steel Profile/Surface Roughness/Peak Count Requirements

[2] SSPC AB1 Standard for Mineral and Slag Abrasives; SSPC-AB 2 Cleanliness of Recycled Ferrous Metallic Abrasives; SSPC-AB 3 Ferrous Metallic Abrasive

[3] SSPC-PA 2, Procedure for Determining Conformance to Dry Coating Thickness Requirements

[4] SSPC-Guide 12, Guide to Illumination of Industrial Coating Projects