NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND AND THE NATIONAL SURFACE TREATMENT CENTER’S

PRESERVATION TECHNICAL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

Richard B. Southard, Project Manager

National Surface Treatment Center
Louisville, Kentucky, USA

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

BACKGROUND

The number one maintenance burden on the U.S. Navy fleet today is the cost associated
with 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 this
cost is due to improper application of coating systems resulting in premature failures and
resultant rework that consumes scarce maintenance funds.
Over the past several years, NAVSEA has approved new coatings, new coating application
specifications, and new surface preparation standards designed to take full advantage of
advancements in preservation technology. Tests and failure analysis show that the single
most important factor influencing the life expectancy of these coating systems is the quality
of the application process. Stringent Quality Assurance (QA) requirements and procedures
must be in place to effectively monitor the preservation process. Naval Shipyard and
Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair (SUPSHIP) QA organizations must
provide the oversight and validation of these requirements.

Coating System Failures

Painting is a key process in shipbuilding. The material and labor costs of applying coatings
during new construction is high. Repairing or replacing coatings due to premature failures
in 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 failed
before a ship’s commissioning, requiring costly repair and recoating before the ship is in
service.
Preservation process steps occur in series. All key events from surface preparation through
final coat application must be sound, or the final product will not deliver the designed
service life. A coating system may be applied properly but will still fail if applied over an
improperly prepared surface. Similarly, a coating system with holidays, insufficient film
thickness or other defects applied over a well-prepared surface will not last. A failure at
any stage of the preservation process results in coatings that fail prematurely.
Documented root causes of past coating failures include:
• Under film thickness • Soluble salt contamination
• Surface contamination • Holidays, pinholes and other
• Insufficient surface profile defects
• Improper mixing ratios • Lack of stripe coat
• Insufficient coating cure time • Lack of coating edge
• Overcoat windows exceeded retention
• Improper surface preparation

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

Failure Cause Cost to Navy

LHA Potable Improper Cure • $175K wasted per
Water Tanks tank
• Ship not available
SSN Potable Improper Coating • $60K in rework per
Water Tanks Thickness tank

LPD Fuel Tanks Missed Overcoat • Slip in production

Window schedule
LSD Ballast Numerous • $3M in rework
Tanks Application Quality
Issues
Aircraft Carrier Surface • Carrier schedule
Flight Deck Contamination delay
Non-skid
Aircraft Carrier Improper Coating • ~$32M in rework
Hull/Freeboard Application
Sequence
Table 1. Recent High-Visibility Navy Coating Failures

DISCUSSION

In response to these costly coating failures, NAVSEA and the NST Center developed a
Preservation Technical and Quality Assurance Assessment process and have been
assessing all Naval Shipyards and other maintenance activities responsible for ship
preservation work since November 2001. The Team has also assessed several commercial
shipyards and contractors. The assessment program is designed to assist shipyards and
other maintenance activities in reviewing and documenting their current preservation
process 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;

 • 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 continuous
improvement.

The products of each assessment are:

• A baseline measurement of the current effectiveness of the organization’s
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 Process

Navy and commercial shipbuilding experience shows the critical elements of successful
high-performance coating system installation are tight process control, rigorous quality
assurance, and good quality management practices. To this end, a NAVSEA/NST Center
Preservation Technical and Quality Assurance Assessment Team traveled to all four Naval
Shipyards, 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 on
inputs to the preservation process, the surface preparation and painting operations
themselves, and preservation process outputs. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of how
the assessment is arranged.

This Preservation Technical and Quality Assurance Assessment is designed as a resource

for the promotion of excellence in the construction, overhaul, and repair of Navy ships.
Each individual assessment supports the Shipyard or SUPSHIP command by identifying
areas of relative strength that should be supported and sustained, and by pointing to
potential improvements in high-impact areas. Each assessment is also part of a larger
effort to apply a uniform methodology to a wide swath of preservation activities supporting
the Navy. A continuing goal of this assessment effort is to have a trained, technically
knowledgeable, 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 Navy’s coating
system life-expectancy and reduce its preservation costs.

The assessment addresses Naval Shipyard, IMF, SUPSHIP and Contractor preservation
processes to:
 • 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

Assessment Structure
• Management

Blast/Paint Outputs
Inputs
Activity

• Training • Preservation • Preservation

• Inspection Process Process Execution
Equipment Review
• Material • Deficiency Tracking
Management
• Planning

Figure 1: Assessment Structure

The Assessment Team

The NAVSEA and NST Center team leaders select the Assessment Team members for their
expertise in preservation quality assurance. Team members include shipyard engineers,
submarine maintenance professionals, coatings supervisors, preservation process
managers, and industry consultants on quality systems auditing and coatings inspection.
The NST Center trains the team members on the assessment process and on assessment
procedures to ensure consistency across assessments. Each Assessment Team is
comprised of representatives from NAVSEA and the NST Center as well as other activities
such 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 the
preservation process from paint receipt to final coating inspection. It reviews an
organization’s management and performance of coatings application. The Assessment
Guide not only provides the focus for the assessments, but also identifies process problem
areas. The Assessment Team members use the guide to facilitate their assessment of their
assigned areas. It is a guide, not a checklist.
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 effective
performance. These are broken down further into Key Process Elements. The Criteria Sets
are:

Management: This section examines the role that the organization’s management
plays in promoting and facilitating best practice preservation procedures. Key processes
that are examined in this Criteria Set are: leadership involvement, communication, lessons
learned program, and data review.
Training: This section addresses whether personnel doing preservation work are
adequately trained to perform their assigned tasks. The key processes that are explored in
this area are the activity’s formal training program and the current level of training of its
people.
Inspection Equipment: This section assesses what equipment is available to an
activity’s QA inspectors and whether it meets their needs. The assessment addresses the
availability of inspection equipment and personnel knowledge and training concerning the
equipment.
Process Execution: This section examines the checks in place to monitor the
preservation 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 are
documented and corrected, and whether or not root causes of the deficiencies are identified
and eliminated. The documentation and tracking of both surface preparation and coating
application deficiencies are reviewed.
Preservation Process Review: This section reviews the total preservation process from
start to finish. Key processes explored in this Criteria Set include surface preparation and
paint application procedures, as well as the activity’s assets for enhanced surface
preparation protocols and application of new high-solids coatings.
Material Management: This section reviews the activity’s material receipt, storage and
handling procedures.
Planning: This section assesses the organization’s ability to effectively plan
preservation work.
The Assessment Guide requires that assessors look at all phases of the preservation
process, from paint receipt inspection to final coating inspection. The Assessment Guide
focuses the assessment and helps the assessors identify noncompliances, process problems
and areas of excellence. Most of the Process Element questions in each of the eight Criteria
Sets 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 the
systems that manage that practice, with particular attention to whether data (metrics) is
collected, analyzed, and used by management to improve preservation processes. The
rating scale is described in Table 2.

RATING SCALE
Compliance with requirements, with processes in place
5 to manage compliance and to detect and correct
deficiencies. The practice is effectively implemented,
 fully documented, and there is at least six months’
operating data that demonstrates its effectiveness.
Compliance with requirements, with processes in place
4 to manage compliance and to detect and correct
deficiencies.
3 Compliance with requirements.
The practice in question is used infrequently, or not
2 documented, or not in compliance with all requirements,
or is the subject of a minor finding.
The practice in question is very rarely carried out, or a
1 noncompliant condition or major finding relates to this
practice.
Table 2: Assessment Rating Scale

Data Collection Process

The Assessment Team spends four to five days on location at each activity. Assessments
start with an arrival briefing where the Shipyard or SUPSHIP provides an overview of the
state 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 the
desired process information from each activity. Team members collect information by
conducting interviews with key process personnel and supervisors, reviewing records, and
inspecting 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 Cards
During the course of the assessment, team members may uncover noncompliant processes
or conditions. These findings are recorded on forms and are called “Cards.” Cards may
describe 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 specifications
or technical requirements. Opportunity for Improvement cards provide the Team’s
suggestions on how a process might be improved and are not always tied to written
specifications or requirements. A Noncompliance card will usually generate a “1” or “2”
rating in a corresponding question in the Assessment Guide.

FINDINGS

This assessment process has revealed several important issues related to preservation work
on Navy ships and submarines. The Team’s findings include:

Assessment Findings at Naval Shipyards

The overall quality of preservation work at Naval Shipyards is marginal. The process
control procedures needed for quality coating applications are not always used.
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 not
communicated among or implemented across shipyards.

Assessment Findings at SUPSHIPs

Preservation quality oversight by the repair SUPSHIPs is only partially effective. SUPSHIPs
routinely 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 more
sophisticated oversight of contractor product quality management. The new construction
SUPSHIPs assessed were relatively effective at overseeing the installation of legacy coating
systems such as Mare Island epoxies (but the only Government oversight concerning these
systems is in surface preparation and final coating system acceptance)..

RECOMMENDATIONS

Deficiencies at any stage in the preservation process result in coatings that fail
prematurely. The Assessment Teams documented widespread deficiencies in coatings
application at the Naval Shipyards and SUPSHIP organizations where assessments were
conducted. Conversely, the Teams also uncovered working solutions that support effective
coatings application in place at multiple facilities.
The analysis of assessment data revealed cross-organizational issues that lend themselves
to solution through a small group of high-impact programs. They address multiple issues
and build on Best Practices. The National Surface Treatment Center recommends the
following courses of action be developed and implemented:
1. Revitalize Quality Assurance in a way that delivers real-time assurance that coating
systems are being installed correctly in critical coated areas on ships and
submarines. The assessments to date have identified a rich set of interrelated
deficiencies and best practices that can be combined into an integrated program of
effective quality assurance, oversight and management to verify that high quality
preservation work is delivered to the Navy. Specifically:
a. Develop and deploy data-driven process control tools. Key preservation process
steps must be inspected to ensure the integrity of the complete preservation
system. It is critical that these inspections be documented and analyzed for
compliance to the specification requirements in as close to real time as
possible. There is an opportunity for developing and deploying automated
data-driven process control tools that provide real time feedback and reporting
of QA inspection results and allow for automated final records review of a
preservation job.
b. Implement deficiency tracking and process surveillance Best Practices.
Improved QA inspections should be complemented by a deficiency tracking
program developed from those already in use. Additionally, root causes of
process failure should be identified and fixed by combining deficiency tracking
and process surveillance inspection programs identified as Best Practices
during the assessments. These systems will feed into metrics-driven
management processes demonstrated by the Best Practices.
c. Transition to real time, metrics-driven preservation contractor oversight at the
SUPSHIPs. Include training in preservation quality oversight and auditing. The
tools must acknowledge the Navy’s reliance on multiple contractors by
 effectively using internet delivery of procedures, tools and training. This would
also allow rapid, consistent and cost effective deployment for contractors at all
levels 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 and
acceptance, 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 by
inconsistencies and lack of clarity in governing documents. Additionally, there is a
lack of procedures that clearly present Navy requirements in a way that can be used
by a paint applicator. One SUPSHIP is addressing this issue by working with a
consortium of contractors to pre-approve Process Control Procedure (PCP) templates
for key jobs. We recommend automating and implementing this model at a national
level, with electronic authorization and internet accessibility for any contractor doing
preservation work for the Navy.
4. Assist in the development of a national certification standard for blasters and
painters. Add this certification to Navy requirements. The success of NBPI and
NACE inspector certifications imply that a national certification standard for blasters
and painters could improve the skill level for these trades. Components of a
certification program have been developed by SSPC and the National Surface
Treatment Center.
5. Include the Preservation Technical and Quality Assurance Assessment as part of a
continuous improvement process. The Preservation Technical and Quality Assurance
Assessment process itself had a measurable impact on the performance of
preservation work in shipyards, on the communication of NAVSEA standards
throughout the ship repair community, and on training Navy preservation process
champions. This assessment process should be part of a continuous improvement
process that adapts to new technologies, improved training, and other innovations.

CONCLUSIONS

This Preservation Technical and QA Assessment Program is the first-ever comprehensive

evaluation of preservation capabilities at public and private shipyards and other repair
activities conducting preservation work on Navy ships. The first round of assessments
provided 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 internal
procedures to be written, reviewed, and modified. The number of NAVSEA Basic Paint
Inspector (NBPI)-trained inspectors at Naval Shipyards and SUPSHIPs doubled during the
first round of assessments. A core group of Navy preservation process champions was
created through participation as assessors, in addition to those already tasked with this
responsibility.
Conducting preservation-related work in a shipyard environment is a complex evolution
requiring the right processes, materials and personnel with the appropriate level of
training. An effective quality assurance program is also imperative. Elements of the
solution set are in place, but they are not implemented consistently industry-wide. The
Preservation Technical and QA Assessment process is a valuable management tool for
communicating standards and commitment, monitoring process improvement and focusing
the development of solutions.