SUBMISSION NUMBER: 0218_0314_000043

STANDARDS, APPROVALS AND GUIDELINES – THE TARGET FOR ALLIED NATIONS

Nick Subotsch, Peerless Industrial Systems Pty Ltd

nick@epigen.com.au

PO Box 2041, Hampton East, Victoria, 3189, Australia

System Engineering Management – Reports on system-level approaches to mitigatecorrosion and may include the application life cycle cost approaches, business case

analyses, lessons learned from the field, and failure analyses

Keywords: Standards, Evaluation, Collaboration

ABSTRACT

The increase in military postings around the world has presented unique challenges in maintenance and support. Asset management is frequently prescribed by standards, approvals and guidelines created at a home base or port. When systems are deployed, the delivery of services, parts, products and inspection can be compromised simply because no effort was taken to implement the prescribed management abroad.

Military exercises like RIMPAC out of Hawaii, or Pitch Black out of Darwin bring nations together to build collabo -ration and perform common training. The professionalism demonstrated builds the comradeship and deterrent value within the military but maintenance and in particular corrosion management have yet to experience the same collaboration.

In the USA Mil Specs form a common backbone of reference to address corrosion maintenance and repair while in Australia that work is largely performed by subjectively referencing history or previous practice. When the op-portunity to collaborate and create universal references, standards and guidelines is available to all nations, the value to those that implement the results could be measured by manpower and material savings and reliability of the systems so maintained. Most importantly, the increased readiness of military assets could improve deterrent strength and systems serviceability, regardless of the global location.

A pathway to collaboration in the fight to mitigate corrosion and materials failure will be discussed together with some interesting observations on current practices and experience.

1

2019 Department of De-fense – Allied Nations

Technical Corrosion Con-

INTRODUCTION

Referencing the Technical Program Manual, “The purpose of the DoD-Allied Nations Technical Corrosion Confer-ence is to facilitate information exchange between the U.S. Government participating organizations, private in-dustry, academia, and the Allies with a focus on reducing the impact of corrosion on costs, availability and safety of systems and facilities used by the Armed Forces [1]. Since corrosion of military equipment and infrastructure costs the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approximately $20 billion every year, the DoD Corrosion Community continually and actively seeks new corrosion prevention and mitigation solutions for material, equipment, and fa-cilities.”

We come together and share a lot of information. More often than not it is about the problems we face and the at-tempts to address those problems. The standards, approvals, and guidelines issued in the Corrosion Defense space is complex and might be questioned regarding its value in providing outcomes. New, novel, or convenient solutions can be overlooked, and commercial aspects will also play a role, simply because it is good business to protect an investment.

A pathway to collaboration in the fight to mitigate corrosion and materials failure is going to depend on many ob-servations, all subjective. To target a result and achieve an outcome, the information collected from many events or incidents should come together to provide a better view of the barriers we face and pathway to action. My ob-servations over many years, and the ability to view the efforts applied in mining, water, and other industries provide a different perspective. Thus, my objective is to get my observations across in a way that generates new ideas and motivates follow-up action. Without a focus on the goal one cannot travel the journey or attempt to ar-rive at the destination.

The discussions appear as acts, to facilitate the journey, and my subjective conclusion.

ACT 1

2

The intersection between People and Technology is a great concept and one that surely provides a mix of ideas, discussion, experiences, and solutions. A powerful statement undefined in outcome, but grows the ideal of being better, or being at our best. Standards and to a lesser degree approvals and guidelines often form barriers to act-ively seeking new corrosion and mitigation solutions.

To what degree can standards stifle innovation or progress? Approvals must be given if the innovation is to be used. But it is necessary to have a standard that grants prior approval for any innovation that serves the aims and objectives of that standard. Guidelines provide for the aims and objectives. But how can we break through the governance related to implementation of innovation in a productive and timely manner?

ACT 2

I have listened to many people talk about providing solutions to the military, and the reference to Mil-Specs al-ways comes up as the only way to provide support. An interesting paper that Robert A. Herron delivered in 2011 [2] set out procedures for using specifications and standards to introduce products to the DoD. It had significant detail focused on Qualification and Authorization. Every time I read it, I felt the process was quite a burden on results and outcomes until reading the Department of Defense Manual 4120.24[3]. Its 112 pages of information targets standard procedural, technical, engineering, or design information about material, processes, practices, and methods.

Up to 45,000 standards existed at some point in the past and today less than 30,000 exist according to my gen-eral reading and information search. In one literature search I came across references to U.S. Department of De-fense (DoD) creating and adopting standards for materials, facilities, and engineering practices for the purpose of improving military operational readiness and reducing ownership costs and acquisition cycle time. DoD standards use non-Government standards and commercial technologies, products and practices that meet DoD perfor-mance requirements. The Defense Standardization Program manages this process and provides a uniform series of specifications, standards, and related documents [4]. I am not aware of how the DoD Defense Standardization Program is related to Mil-Specs; realistically they seem to be at odds.

It makes perfect sense to adopt standardization of nuts, bolts, threads, munitions, fuels, and so much more. Arriv-ing in the UK, Australia, or Canada the assets should be interchangeable or maintainable, to the point of keeping those who serve mobilized and maintain the deterrent.

Corrosion unfortunately does not behave or develop according to standards and procedures. It has variations and complexity that frequently requires a doctor’s approach. Inspect, diagnose, and implement remedies.

So, do those that serve and need support really have access to the fast-track or express lane to make things hap-pen that will keep them at the highest level of readiness?

ACT 3

DoD CPO has coordinated corrosion control and prevention efforts, since 2003. It has a number of working integ-rated product teams (WIPTs) to aid in its efforts. The Allied Nations Working Integrated Product Team published Tactical Planning Requirements that reveal the mission, objectives and strategies of the Allied Nations initiative and are as follows. [5]

Allied Nations WIPT

a. Mission: Facilitate exchange of unclassified information, capabilities and facilities between mem-ber Allied Nations; and assist member nations to develop policies, strategies and documentation in support of corrosion prevention and control programs.

b. Objective

3

Increase member nations’ capabilities to reduce the incidence and impact of corrosion and other material degradation on military weapon systems, support systems and facilities.

c. Strategy

Maintain relationships and contacts with the U.S Department of Defense International Cooperation Office and comparable organizations in other Allied Nations governments.

Generate IEAs between member nations.

Support member nations’ efforts to raise broad awareness of corrosion, its negative effects and the need to take measures to reduce its incidence and destructive impact.

Exchange training courses and trainers between member nations.

Facilitate multination collaboration on advanced technology research and development, and technology demonstration research and development.

Maintain an Allied Nations section on the CorrDefense website.

Make Corrosion Forums available to Allied Nations WIPT members via Skype, phone or other communications media.

Arrange for assistance in the development of cost of corrosion studies and other methods of generating useful corrosion metrics.

Share appropriate corrosion standards, specifications and qualification processes.

Collaborate on revision and improvement of policies, procedures and processes that are common to corrosion prevention and control programs of some or all member nations.

Participate in member nation corrosion conferences sponsored by corrosion societies as well as government or military organizations

Plan and/or host in-country corrosion-related visits/events involving two or more member nations

The issues faced by international defense organisations continue to grow with an increase in assets. The prob-lems we faced yesterday seem to be bigger and more costly today. The cost of corrosion appears in studies car-ried out by various societies (eg: NACE, SSPC, etc) and DoD CPO itself [6]. This table reflects information deal-ing specifically with only the USA. The data base information clearly should be interpreted by clarifying the basis of the findings. However it was suggested the amount of money involved was probably understated because all the incidents of day-to-day events in a corrosion related world are difficult to table.

4

ACT 4

By no means is the intent of this paper to reject or downplay “Standards, Approvals and Guidelines”. My involve-ment in corrosion dates back many decades, and my approach to dealing with it stems from my experience as an industrial chemist. From the products with which I have been involved, quality control includes standards or guidelines. Production of product necessitates guidelines or procedures. Many products require practical ap-proval. The practical approval that I have become accustomed to appreciate is subjectively dependent on the ser-vice or duty related to that product. In the case of adhesives used in bonding lighting fixtures, the product must be safe and stable in the presence of heat or flame. Coatings in water tanks must not taint or otherwise compromise water quality. Any process that cannot be carried out in relative safety should be subject to review with respect to risk aversion in practical terms. I hear the argument about hexavalent chromates. So many dangerous chemicals that are in constant use, CNA (Concentrated Nitric Acid @ 98%) is a terror but essential in explosives manufac-ture. Hydrofluoric Acid is an etch for surface preparation, and radiation is used in investigative work, and cancer treatments, as is Arsenic. The adoption of “Standards, Approvals, and Guidelines” must have careful riders to provide the correct outcome and value. A ban should not be applied to those treatments that work brilliantly and can be safely used.

My involvement with DoD CPO effectively came about at the 2017 SSPC Conference in Tampa. I was asked to volunteer time and support the Allied Nations Technical Conference in Birmingham in August 2017. Birmingham was a great conference and I met a number of great people. We discussed the failure of helicopter blades that were exposed to high heat (sunlight), learnt the issues the US Marines based in Australia’s Northern Territory had in maintaining their systems, and the huge toll corrosion takes on European Navies. I came away from the con-ference significantly impacted by the way we lacked capabilities in mitigating corrosion. And it was only with the passage of the seven months and the discussions subsequent to Birmingham that it all became clear. The mech-anisms to mitigate corrosion are not directed by the outcome or target, rather it is the difficulties at the front end of the task that provide the greatest barriers.

3 main pillars support these barriers.

1/ Commercial interest or protectionism of marketing sector – when someone gets a product specified or as-sumes a supply position the drive will always be to restrict changes, modifications or entry of more competitors. It is business, that simple.

2/ Investigations or actions by those tasked with the project have far too much procedural, policy, or report-ing burdens. Barriers that complicate or reduce motivation, novelty, or results even on the peripheral of the framework supported by the words “this is the manner by which things are done”. Incorrectly we refer to this as government or politics; it happens everywhere in commercial industry as well as life itself.

3/ In regards to my military related experiences, I found everyone was concerned by security or raised the security question time and time again without consideration on the pathway forward. So much subject matter that was discussed with the expectation of working through the subject in the future was never addressed after the conference was over. An absence of a pathway to an outcome, or a perceived restriction grounds even the greatest high flyer.

ACT 5

In a statement from Vice Admiral Tom Moore, the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command [7], the expecta-tion of greater readiness was going to put pressure on all the private and public yards to deliver. The comments made may not be specific to corrosion but processes involving corrosion mitigation go hand in hand with mainten-ance. “Navy’s public yards are delivering ships on-time about 45 to 50 percent of the time, while private ship-yards are getting ships out on time about 35 percent of the time. It’s important to keep in mind that I have 55 ships coming into maintenance availabilities in the private sector in 2019, and in 2018 only 35 percent ships I have in availabilities are expected to move on time, Thirty-five percent is just not going to be good enough moving forward to meet the demands that fleet has today.” Accordingly all avenues of the military are said to share is-sues of delivery.

5

The design, construction and active use of an asset whether it be an aircraft carrier, airplane, or vehicle will al-ways be subject to modification or improvement. At worst, a plan to maintain the readiness will have to be imple-mented such as in the case of the F35. I cannot see hundreds of gallons of paint being thrown at it to mitigate corrosion in much the same way as one would a Frigate. Sensitivity of the assets build and performance will im-pact ideal solutions in favor of performance. It could be said the aluminum Littoral Ships are a corrosion accident waiting to happen. However the high speed expectation - nearly 50 knots - and ability to operate in shallow wa-ters requires a light weight approach that will compromise some ideals; and it is for the corrosion professionals to accept the challenge and work toward improving readiness.

I personally don’t know of any standard, or guideline that can assist in this regard. However I can see the need to maintain guidelines on the manner by which these vessels are looked after. If the navy is going to have its 355 assets up from the current 287, the challenges in corrosion are going to be very interesting.

In July 2018, I was in Honolulu, staying next to the Outrigger in Waikiki, which happens to accommodate a lot of military people involved with Rimpac. I have a special admiration for the military and struck up conversations. One that stuck in my mind was with the medics because I saw a parallel sliding door to corrosion. They had been waiting to get approval to go on base, on duty for over a week, but the processes to get on base were “complex” and the next step simply a waiting game. Maybe someone could give Vice Admiral Tom a note to check on the pathway or map to achieving the outcome of his requirements.

The asset list across all branches of the military is seeing very rapid buildup and development, and being used in climates and locations that is staggeringly diverse. How do you keep on top of the progressive and ever changing vista?

ACT 6

During a paper given in Birmingham 2017, the author mentioned the difficulties in servicing the US Marines assets in Darwin. But the lack of further post-conference discussions with so many delegates indicated that security pro-tocols hindered further action and communication. On the other hand it could be that the objectives thereafter re-main country to country, military to military, or society to society and thus all relationships terminate once the cur-tain goes down on a conference.

About the same time, Australia had taken a new system based on the partial blast research done in the US, and possibly a Mil-Spec compliant product especially for the job. The system was implemented in Adelaide on a sub-marine below decks and the feedback indicated the system failed to deliver advertised installation performance. Clearly costs increased, rework was required and all involved went about their business tight-lipped, as you do.

It might have been following a maritime accident in August 2017 that the Australians were asked to take an asset of the US Government. Unfortunately the absence of the proper protocols forced alternative actions to be taken. Standards, Approvals and Guidelines seemed to be a major hurdle.

6

As I continue to mature, I have achieved my Australian Private Pilots License, and now also have my US FAA Air-crew Authorization. I have hired aircraft and amazingly over flown Pearl Harbour during Rimpac; all based on completing criteria targeting and outcome which automatically provided qualification and authorization.

My involvement with the DoD CPO commenced in January 2017 only after making it clear that I wanted to sit in the NBPI Course delivered by an old friend that delivered the course, for the experience. As a foreign national I could not. I was however told that I was the newest volunteer to the DoD CPO Allied Nations Technical Group (whatever that was) and could take it to Australia and do it there as a part of the objectives of DoD CPO.

ACT 7

The manner in which planes are designed, constructed, tested, put into service and continually modified for im-provement is a natural progression of steps. To design and build and never to review for modification is to leave continuous improvement and optimization behind. In all my years in the laboratory carrying out research & devel-opment, a time came to release the products to find their way in the world; and it was often years later that a par-ticular event would demonstrate a short-coming and an improvement would be made.

The lack of guidelines or processes makes the corrosionist’s job significantly more difficult. I read a paper by Paul David [8] about Pathway Dependence, and he put it so eloquently. “A path dependent stochastic process is one whose asymptotic distribution evolves as a consequence (function of) the process’s own history”. I had to read it many times and reach for the dictionary to appreciate what was being said. In all the advice about providing to the military, the Mil-specs line is what Paul David would describe as “locked in”. To quote directly, “the term ‘lock-in’ has been used in my work and that of Arthur (1989), it simply is a vivid way to describe the entry of a system into a trapping region – the basin of attraction that surrounds a locally (or globally) stable equilibrium. When a dy-namic economic system enters such a region, it cannot escape except through the intervention of some external force, or shock, that alters its configuration or transforms the underlying structural relationships among the agents. Path dependent systems – which have a multiplicity of possible equilibria among which event-contingent selections can occur – may thus become locked in to attractors that are optimal, or that are just as good as any others in the feasible set, or that take paths leading to places everyone would wish to have been able to avoid, once they have arrived there.”

George Keller in his paper on Path Dependence (PD) [9], put it more practically and did have some heavy hitting words on the way some of the practices in designing and building for the military take place. The diagram he used to describe the process of PD could be built far more corrosion specific. It does importantly provide reason-able consideration for what is required to keep up with progress during acquisition events.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

In my recent times, I have had a great deal of satisfaction in discussions with members of the corrosion and milit-ary communities. I met some wonderful people and have grown to understand the culture. I hear loud and clear the calls to support those who serve and improve on efficiencies and reduce expensive waste. Cornerstone to

7

this is the deterrent that provides protection, and only through building the deterrent can borders and people be protected. It is not a race to Armageddon, rather simply a balanced defense environment.

I have been criticized over the past 2 years for my involvement with certain branches of the military in Washing-ton, dealing with DoD, and others. It was said I do not have any military background and should stay away from the business. Thankfully I can see these comments come from those that have bias so I pay them no mind.

My original involvement with DoD CPO was related to the request to come on-board and help as a volunteer to support the processes needed to share technical courses. In this regard it never happened and no one has ever asked why when the mission statement reads “Facilitate exchange of unclassified information, capabilities and fa-cilities between member Allied Nations; and assist member nations to develop policies, strategies and documen-tation in support of corrosion prevention and control programs”.

By the admissions of many, no matter what part of the world they come from or branch in which they serve(d), they say the regulations are simply too restrictive. Standards, Approvals and Guidelines are often the barrier to getting outcomes for I see time and time again no one questions these restrictions or evaluates if they work.

If corrosion is going to be managed, for it will never be defeated, then the warriors need the power to work un-bridled, versatile and with great haste. Clearly there are current areas that demand technically the proper proto-cols be adhered to and that comes with experience. But one cannot standardize experience.

My involvement is coming to an end, and I have appreciated being associated with the WIPT. I don’t suggest for one moment that the system be pulled down, but until the mission statement has been, in its most fundamental way, honored across all the avenues or services, all nations participating with DoD CPO; with the implementation of common courses and training, the ultimate benefit will not be realized and Tom Moore may still be waiting for his deliveries because paperwork and getting things signed off takes time.

A better road map, a better pathway for the journey, and a better means of qualifying and authorizing the sign off for improved readiness is required. The culture creates road blocks to “lock in” the system. The road map should define and create a lighthouse that clearly highlights why something should not be allowed by assuming the fun-damental expectation of Allied Nations Collaboration will “Facilitate exchange of unclassified information, capabili-ties and facilities between member Allied Nations; and assist member nations to develop policies, strategies and documentation in support of corrosion prevention and control programs”.

EPILOGUE

The management within the US Department of Defense has numerous facets addressing all manner of tasks. I listened to presentations from NAVSEA, SPAWAR, and NAVAIR at the NACE Conference in Nashville (April 2019) and from my own perspective believe the effort and contribution to corrosion control is significant. I was ex-tremely impressed and in awe at how corrosion efforts are heavily structured and address so much. The 90 slides depicting some of the activities undertaken by NAVSEA, SPAWAR and NAVAIR and the associated parties were colossal. It is amazing that so much is being done behind the scenes with so many resources and so much tech-nical prowess.

I look to the day a direct line to an outcome is created. Be it a wormhole, a tunnel, an express train, we need a means by which a simple idea or concept can transit the path to an outcome and deliver readiness. Models exist to reproduce potential outcomes and would allow wounded ships to be taken in abroad, medics to walk onto a for-eign base and tend without delay, and marines serving in foreign land have their equipment efficiently serviced.

Private pilots from Australia can walk into an FAA office and have their FAA Aircrew Certificate within 30 minutes, allowing them to fly under local flight rules. Certainly the FAA application must be correctly filled in and filed but the important factor is the pathway has no obstructions. It is clear and defines the specific requirements with risk aversion paramount. It assumes your application will be granted once you have provided the information and had it verified.

8

Elias Zerhouni [10] discussed medical processes and a departure from traditional practices. He referred to this as translational, and used the term “Time for a New Vision”. The reference calls for a departure from traditional prac-tices in order to develop medical solutions much more quickly. In the case of a pilot’s license, the FAA systems are continually updated and work well in identifying the outcomes desirable in safe and efficient flight. DoD CPO, together with National Defence University and Air Force Systems Laboratory began to investigate translational practices as documented in a 2015 draft titled Implementing Translational Corrosion Science. At the 2018 SSPC Conference in New Orleans, a NAVSEA presentation on the ANTX program was “The New Vision” that would provide a fast-track to product or service assessment to improve readiness. Everything must change since tradi-tional practices cannot survive simply because military needs are greater than the ability to effectively address them.

Standards, approvals and guidelines provide control where control is required. Readiness on the other hand is unable to patiently wait on the barriers to be overcome, such as the cautious concerns of individuals who wonder what will become of them if they sign off on something. Readiness is based on the assumption that everything will be working and good to go, and the proper process will identify the steps or pathway to effective outcomes rather than the barriers and hurdles that one may face.

• References

[1] The Director, DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight is charged with interacting directly with the corrosionprevention industry, trade associations, other government corrosion prevention agencies, academicresearch and educational institutions, and scientific organizations under 10 U.S.C. 2228. Hosting theDoD - Allied Nations Technical Corrosion Conference fulfils these duties in part.

[2] Introducing Products to DoD using Specifications and Standards, Robert A Herron, 2011 Air Force Conference Robins AFB GA (18 August 2011)

[3] Department of Defense Manual, NUMBER 4120.24 September 24, 2014 Incorporating Change 2, Effective Oc-tober 15, 2018

[4] https://ihsmarkit.com/products/dod-standards.html

[5] ex DoD CPO, December 2017 Strategic Plan

[6] ex DoD CPO data base “Cost of Corrosion Table 2016”

[7] https://news.usni.org/2018/09/19/navsea-new-pentagon-strategy-putting-pressure-private-public-maintenance-yards-deliver-ships-time

[8] Path dependence, its critics and the quest for ‘historical economics’, Paul A. David All Souls College, Oxford & Stanford University, June 2000

[9] Impact of Path Dependence on Corrosion of Commercial and Military Systems, Daniel Dunmire & George Keller, Australasian Corrosion Conference Sydney November 2017

[10] Translational and Clinical Science – Time for a New Vision, Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. ,N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1621-1623October 13, 2005DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb053723

9