Corrosion testing lowers risk, reduces project delays caused by diverting resources
to scrutinize failures and helps avoid costly investigations, recalls and litigation.
Therefore, conducting corrosion tests to completion makes good financial sense...
March 2020 SPRAY 37
Unfortunately, costs could be much higher than in this example.
Product recalls and litigation typically dwarf all other costs
and are not included in my example. For example, my experience
has been that warehouse/distributor recalls could cost many
millions of U.S. dollars and an in-pantry recall could cost more
than 10 million U.S. dollars, particularly if the recall also involves
interfacing with government regulators. I’ve also been told by
several litigation attorneys that failures associated with personal
injury could cost at least $100 million. Consequently, recalls and
litigation could be very expensive.
Therefore, the corrosion testing cost is insignificant when
compared with the worst-case accumulative cost that could
exceed $100 million. In other words, corrosion tests are very
cost-effective.
To sum up...
Corrosion tests are cost-effective and skipping corrosion testing
or abbreviated corrosion testing is not cost-effective. Corrosion
testing lowers risk, reduces project delays caused by diverting
resources to scrutinize failures and helps avoid costly investigations,
recalls and litigation. Therefore, conducting corrosion tests
to completion makes good financial sense.
Please visit www.pairodocspro.com for more information. Thanks
for reading and I’ll see you in April. Spray