8/7/2019 T-47

1/10

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND AND THE NATIONAL SURFACE TREATMENT CENTERSPRESERVATION TECHNICAL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

Richard B. Southard, Project ManagerNational Surface Treatment Center

Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Abstract: The U.S. Navy spends tens of millions of dollars each year repairing failedcoatings on its ships and submarines. The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) andthe National Surface Treatment Center (NST Center) have developed and implemented aprocess to assess preservation work being conducted by both public and commercialshipyards and the Navys Supervisor of Shipbuilding commands. All four Naval Shipyards,two Intermediate Maintenance Facilities, and all eight SUPSHIP commands have beenassessed, as well as six commercial shipyards. This paper describes the assessmentprocess, identifies key findings to date and recommends courses of action for adoption bythe Navy.

BACKGROUND

The number one maintenance burden on the U.S. Navy fleet today is the cost associatedwith the preservation of ships and submarines. The Navy spends over $250 million each

year on the re-preservation of tanks (ballast tanks, collection, holding, and transfer (CHT)tanks, fuel/seawater-compensated fuel tanks, potable water tanks) alone. Much of thiscost is due to improper application of coating systems resulting in premature failures andresultant rework that consumes scarce maintenance funds.

Over the past several years, NAVSEA has approved new coatings, new coating applicationspecifications, and new surface preparation standards designed to take full advantage of

advancements in preservation technology. Tests and failure analysis show that the singlemost important factor influencing the life expectancy of these coating systems is the qualityof the application process. Stringent Quality Assurance (QA) requirements and proceduresmust be in place to effectively monitor the preservation process. Naval Shipyard andSupervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair (SUPSHIP) QA organizations mustprovide the oversight and validation of these requirements.

Coating System FailuresPainting is a key process in shipbuilding. The material and labor costs of applying coatingsduring new construction is high. Repairing or replacing coatings due to premature failuresin critical areas is costing the Navy valuable maintenance dollars. The life expectancy of many coatings on board Navy ships is often significantly shorter than Navy projections.

There have even been instances where coatings applied during new construction have failedbefore a ships commissioning, requiring costly repair and recoating before the ship is inservice.

Preservation process steps occur in series. All key events from surface preparation throughfinal coat application must be sound, or the final product will not deliver the designedservice life. A coating system may be applied properly but will still fail if applied over animproperly prepared surface. Similarly, a coating system with holidays, insufficient filmthickness or other defects applied over a well-prepared surface will not last. A failure at

8/7/2019 T-47

2/10

any stage of the preservation process results in coatings that fail prematurely.Documented root causes of past coating failures include:

Under film thickness Surface contamination Insufficient surface profile Improper mixing ratios Insufficient coating cure time

Overcoat windows exceeded

Soluble salt contamination Holidays, pinholes and other

defects Lack of stripe coat Lack of coating edge

retention Improper surface preparation

Recent high-visibility coating failures aboard Navy ships all can be traced back to coatingapplication problems. Table 1 highlights some recent high-visibility coating failuresinvolving Navy ships.

Failure Cause Cost to Navy

LHA Potable

Water Tanks

Improper Cure $175K wasted per

tank Ship not availableSSN PotableWater Tanks

Improper Coating Thickness

$60K in rework pertank

LPD Fuel Tanks Missed OvercoatWindow

Slip in productionschedule

LSD Ballast Tanks

NumerousApplication QualityIssues

$3M in rework

Aircraft CarrierFlight DeckNon-skid

SurfaceContamination

Carrier scheduledelay

Aircraft CarrierHull/Freeboard

Improper CoatingApplicationSequence

~$32M in rework

Table 1. Recent High-Visibility Navy Coating Failures

DISCUSSION

In response to these costly coating failures, NAVSEA and the NST Center developed aPreservation Technical and Quality Assurance Assessment process and have beenassessing all Naval Shipyards and other maintenance activities responsible for shippreservation work since November 2001. The Team has also assessed several commercialshipyards and contractors. The assessment program is designed to assist shipyards andother maintenance activities in reviewing and documenting their current preservationprocess and comparing it to Navy requirements.

The assessment process is an iterative one. From a macro perspective, the key elements of the assessment process are to:

Conduct initial assessments at each facility: Establish their baseline condition;

8/7/2019 T-47

3/10

Analyze the resultant data; Develop tailored solutions; Implement the solutions and track their results, then Conduct follow-up assessments to validate previous work and focus on continuousimprovement.

The products of each assessment are: A baseline measurement of the current effectiveness of the organizations

preservation process; Identification and documentation of noncompliances with Navy preservation

standards and specifications; Identification and documentation of best practices; Identification of resource shortfalls in training, technical documentation, and

equipment; Facilitation of the development of corrective action plans.

Preservation Assessment ProcessNavy and commercial shipbuilding experience shows the critical elements of successfulhigh-performance coating system installation are tight process control, rigorous qualityassurance, and good quality management practices. To this end, a NAVSEA/NST CenterPreservation Technical and Quality Assurance Assessment Team traveled to all four NavalShipyards, eight SUPSHIP commands and six commercial shipyards to assess the state of their preservation processes. The assessments examined surface preparation (blasting),painting, and the supporting systems. The assessment is process-based. It focuses oninputs to the preservation process, the surface preparation and painting operationsthemselves, and preservation process outputs. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of howthe assessment is arranged.

This Preservation Technical and Quality Assurance Assessment is designed as a resourcefor the promotion of excellence in the construction, overhaul, and repair of Navy ships.Each individual assessment supports the Shipyard or SUPSHIP command by identifyingareas of relative strength that should be supported and sustained, and by pointing topotential improvements in high-impact areas. Each assessment is also part of a largereffort to apply a uniform methodology to a wide swath of preservation activities supportingthe Navy. A continuing goal of this assessment effort is to have a trained, technicallyknowledgeable, and consistent assessment team visit a majority of Navy construction,overhaul, and repair facilities, conduct uniform assessments of their preservation practices,then:

Identify non-compliances with Navy preservation standards and specifications; Document and share best practices; Identify common problems or performance gaps in the industry; Develop and deliver solutions to these common problems.

The ultimate goal of the assessment program is to measurably increase the Navys coatingsystem life-expectancy and reduce its preservation costs.

The assessment addresses Naval Shipyard, IMF, SUPSHIP and Contractor preservationprocesses to:

8/7/2019 T-47

4/10

Review and document the current state of preservation practice at the activity; Identify non-compliances with Navy preservation standards and specifications; Uncover best practices; Identify areas ripe for improvement; Identify common issues among shipyards/maintenance activities

Figure 1: Assessment Structure

The Assessment Team The NAVSEA and NST Center team leaders select the Assessment Team members for theirexpertise in preservation quality assurance. Team members include shipyard engineers,submarine maintenance professionals, coatings supervisors, preservation processmanagers, and industry consultants on quality systems auditing and coatings inspection.

The NST Center trains the team members on the assessment process and on assessmentprocedures to ensure consistency across assessments. Each Assessment Team iscomprised of representatives from NAVSEA and the NST Center as well as other activitiessuch as Naval Shipyards, SUPSHIPs and the Submarine Maintenance Engineering,Planning and Procurement Activity (SUBMEPP).

The Assessment Guide The NAVSEA/NST Center Preservation Assessment Guide looks at all phases of thepreservation process from paint receipt to final coating inspection. It reviews anorganizations management and performance of coatings application. The AssessmentGuide not only provides the focus for the assessments, but also identifies process problemareas. The Assessment Team members use the guide to facilitate their assessment of theirassigned areas. It is a guide, not a checklist.

Assessment Structure

Training InspectionEquipment MaterialManagement Planning

PreservationProcess Execution

Deficiency Tracking

InputsBlast/Paint

ActivityOutputs

Management

PreservationProcessReview

8/7/2019 T-47

5/10

The Assessment Guide is divided into eight Criteria Sets. A Criteria Set is a grouping of related elements that encompass the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for effectiveperformance. These are broken down further into Key Process Elements. The Criteria Setsare:

Management: This section examines the role that the organizations managementplays in promoting and facilitating best practice preservation procedures. Key processesthat are examined in this Criteria Set are: leadership involvement, communication, lessonslearned program, and data review.

Training: This section addresses whether personnel doing preservation work areadequately trained to perform their assigned tasks. The key processes that are explored inthis area are the activitys formal training program and the current level of training of itspeople.

Inspection Equipment: This section assesses what equipment is available to anactivitys QA inspectors and whether it meets their needs. The assessment addresses theavailability of inspection equipment and personnel knowledge and training concerning theequipment.

Process Execution: This section examines the checks in place to monitor thepreservation process. QA oversight during surface preparation and painting application is

investigated, as well as the effectiveness of assigned quality assurance personnel.

Deficiency Tracking: This section assesses how preservation deficiencies aredocumented and corrected, and whether or not root causes of the deficiencies are identifiedand eliminated. The documentation and tracking of both surface preparation and coatingapplication deficiencies are reviewed.

Preservation Process Review: This section reviews the total preservation process fromstart to finish. Key processes explored in this Criteria Set include surface preparation andpaint application procedures, as well as the activitys assets for enhanced surfacepreparation protocols and application of new high-solids coatings.

Material Management: This section reviews the activitys material receipt, storage andhandling procedures.

Planning: This section assesses the organizations ability to effectively planpreservation work.

The Assessment Guide requires that assessors look at all phases of the preservationprocess, from paint receipt inspection to final coating inspection. The Assessment Guidefocuses the assessment and helps the assessors identify noncompliances, process problemsand areas of excellence. Most of the Process Element questions in each of the eight CriteriaSets require the Assessor to enter a numerical rating for that question. The rating scale

documents the frequency with which a certain practice is observed and the maturity of thesystems that manage that practice, with particular attention to whether data (metrics) iscollected, analyzed, and used by management to improve preservation processes. Therating scale is described in Table 2.

RATING SCALE

5Compliance with requirements, with processes in placeto manage compliance and to detect and correct deficiencies . The practice is effectively implemented,

8/7/2019 T-47

6/10

fully documented, and there is at least six months operating data that demonstrates its effectiveness .

4Compliance with requirements, with processes in placeto manage compliance and to detect and correct deficiencies .

3 Compliance with requirements.

2

The practice in question is used infrequently , or not

documented, or not in compliance with all requirements,or is the subject of a minor finding .

1 The practice in question is very rarely carried out , or anoncompliant condition or major finding relates to thispractice.

Table 2: Assessment Rating Scale

Data Collection Process The Assessment Team spends four to five days on location at each activity. Assessmentsstart with an arrival briefing where the Shipyard or SUPSHIP provides an overview of thestate of preservation at their facility. Team members are then paired up with points of contact for their assigned areas.

The assessors utilize the preservation Assessment Guide as their primary tool to extract thedesired process information from each activity. Team members collect information byconducting interviews with key process personnel and supervisors, reviewing records, andinspecting products at various stages during the process.Assessors produce the following for the Criteria Sets they review:

Filled out Assessment Guide with ratings Assessment cards for Noncompliances and Opportunities for Improvement Best practices they observed

Summary paragraphs discussing the strengths and weaknesses found in each area.Assessor CardsDuring the course of the assessment, team members may uncover noncompliant processesor conditions. These findings are recorded on forms and are called Cards. Cards maydescribe several noncompliant conditions, but each relate to one particular process.

Cards are divided into two categories: Noncompliances and Opportunities for Improvement.Noncompliance cards are written only for conditions that violate written Navy specificationsor technical requirements. Opportunity for Improvement cards provide the Teamssuggestions on how a process might be improved and are not always tied to writtenspecifications or requirements. A Noncompliance card will usually generate a 1 or 2rating in a corresponding question in the Assessment Guide.

FINDINGS

This assessment process has revealed several important issues related to preservation workon Navy ships and submarines. The Teams findings include:

Assessment Findings at Naval Shipyards The overall quality of preservation work at Naval Shipyards is marginal. The processcontrol procedures needed for quality coating applications are not always used.

8/7/2019 T-47

7/10

Preservation process standards are not followed. Lessons learned are not tracked,analyzed for root causes, or communicated. There are areas of excellence, but they are notcommunicated among or implemented across shipyards.

Assessment Findings at SUPSHIPsPreservation quality oversight by the repair SUPSHIPs is only partially effective. SUPSHIPsroutinely accept out-of-specification conditions. Resources are limited and personnel have

not been given tools to complete the transition from an inspect-in-quality culture to moresophisticated oversight of contractor product quality management. The new constructionSUPSHIPs assessed were relatively effective at overseeing the installation of legacy coatingsystems such as Mare Island epoxies (but the only Government oversight concerning thesesystems is in surface preparation and final coating system acceptance)..

RECOMMENDATIONS

Deficiencies at any stage in the preservation process result in coatings that failprematurely. The Assessment Teams documented widespread deficiencies in coatingsapplication at the Naval Shipyards and SUPSHIP organizations where assessments were

conducted. Conversely, the Teams also uncovered working solutions that support effectivecoatings application in place at multiple facilities.

The analysis of assessment data revealed cross-organizational issues that lend themselvesto solution through a small group of high-impact programs. They address multiple issuesand build on Best Practices. The National Surface Treatment Center recommends thefollowing courses of action be developed and implemented:

1. Revitalize Quality Assurance in a way that delivers real-time assurance that coatingsystems are being installed correctly in critical coated areas on ships andsubmarines. The assessments to date have identified a rich set of interrelateddeficiencies and best practices that can be combined into an integrated program of

effective quality assurance, oversight and management to verify that high qualitypreservation work is delivered to the Navy. Specifically:

a. Develop and deploy data-driven process control tools. Key preservation processsteps must be inspected to ensure the integrity of the complete preservationsystem. It is critical that these inspections be documented and analyzed forcompliance to the specification requirements in as close to real time aspossible. There is an opportunity for developing and deploying automateddata-driven process control tools that provide real time feedback and reportingof QA inspection results and allow for automated final records review of apreservation job.

b. Implement deficiency tracking and process surveillance Best Practices.Improved QA inspections should be complemented by a deficiency trackingprogram developed from those already in use. Additionally, root causes of process failure should be identified and fixed by combining deficiency trackingand process surveillance inspection programs identified as Best Practicesduring the assessments. These systems will feed into metrics-drivenmanagement processes demonstrated by the Best Practices.

c. Transition to real time, metrics-driven preservation contractor oversight at theSUPSHIPs. Include training in preservation quality oversight and auditing. Thetools must acknowledge the Navys reliance on multiple contractors by

8/7/2019 T-47

8/10

effectively using internet delivery of procedures, tools and training. This wouldalso allow rapid, consistent and cost effective deployment for contractors at alllevels of size and sophistication.

2. Address deficiencies in Material Management in the areas of receipt inspection,storage and inventory control. Existing industry practices of product lotting andacceptance, inventory management, and Just-In-Time delivery can solve these issues.

They should be developed to meet Navy requirements and implemented in

partnership with paint suppliers.3. Distribute authorized paint application procedures that clearly present Navy

requirements to the paint applicator. Planning problems were exacerbated byinconsistencies and lack of clarity in governing documents. Additionally, there is alack of procedures that clearly present Navy requirements in a way that can be usedby a paint applicator. One SUPSHIP is addressing this issue by working with aconsortium of contractors to pre-approve Process Control Procedure (PCP) templatesfor key jobs. We recommend automating and implementing this model at a nationallevel, with electronic authorization and internet accessibility for any contractor doingpreservation work for the Navy.

4. Assist in the development of a national certification standard for blasters andpainters. Add this certification to Navy requirements. The success of NBPI andNACE inspector certifications imply that a national certification standard for blastersand painters could improve the skill level for these trades. Components of acertification program have been developed by SSPC and the National Surface

Treatment Center.

5. Include the Preservation Technical and Quality Assurance Assessment as part of acontinuous improvement process. The Preservation Technical and Quality AssuranceAssessment process itself had a measurable impact on the performance of preservation work in shipyards, on the communication of NAVSEA standardsthroughout the ship repair community, and on training Navy preservation processchampions. This assessment process should be part of a continuous improvementprocess that adapts to new technologies, improved training, and other innovations.

CONCLUSIONS

This Preservation Technical and QA Assessment Program is the first-ever comprehensiveevaluation of preservation capabilities at public and private shipyards and other repairactivities conducting preservation work on Navy ships. The first round of assessmentsprovided a benchmark of the state of preservation processes at public and private yards.

The assessments themselves increased management attention to preservation processes

and often increased its commitment to provide resources. The assessments caused internalprocedures to be written, reviewed, and modified. The number of NAVSEA Basic PaintInspector (NBPI)-trained inspectors at Naval Shipyards and SUPSHIPs doubled during thefirst round of assessments. A core group of Navy preservation process champions wascreated through participation as assessors, in addition to those already tasked with thisresponsibility.

Conducting preservation-related work in a shipyard environment is a complex evolutionrequiring the right processes, materials and personnel with the appropriate level of training. An effective quality assurance program is also imperative. Elements of thesolution set are in place, but they are not implemented consistently industry-wide. The

8/7/2019 T-47

9/10

Preservation Technical and QA Assessment process is a valuable management tool forcommunicating standards and commitment, monitoring process improvement and focusingthe development of solutions.

8/7/2019 T-47

10/10