Air Force Sustainment Center

Corrosion Impacts

within the

Air Force Sustainment Center

Kevin Stamey, SESDirector, Engineering & Technical Management

AFSC/EN

6 June 2017DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Introduction

2

Impact of Corrosion to the Air Force

AFSC Goals for corrosion cost reductions

▪ Reduce/eliminate Hazardous Materials risks

and costs

▪ Ensure product quality through

collaboration, when updating T.O.

▪ Resolve engineering dispositions faster

Conclusion

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 3

Reference: Estimated Impact of

Corrosion on Cost & Availability

of DOD Weapon Systems –

FY17 Draft report

Air Force has highest

aviation & missiles

Study Segment Corrosion Cost

($ million)

Air Force aviation and missiles 5,325

Navy and Marine Corps aviation

and missiles

3,021

Army aviation and missiles 625

Other:

Navy vessels 3,849

Navy other equipment 1,178

Army ground vehicles 797

Army other equipment 450

Marine Corps ground vehicles 593

Air Force other equipment 213

Infrastructure and facilities 2,991

TOTAL DoD 19,042

Corrosion Cost = $5.3 Billion

Impact of Corrosion

to the Air Force

AFSC’s Corrosion:

Cost = $1.75 billion

Non-avail Hrs = 1.17 million hrs

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 4

Air Force Aviation and Missile

Total Maintenance and Corrosion Costs:

Total Corrosion Cost increased by 42% between FY06 & FY15

Reference:

Estimated Impact

of Corrosion on

Cost & Availability

of DOD Weapon

Systems – FY17

Draft report

Impact of Corrosion

to the Air Force

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 5

AF Aviation and Missile Corrosion Maintenance Actions -

Non-Available Hrs (NAHs)

Preventive Actions

Top 3 Maintenance Actions:

• Inspect/Test

• Clean & Wash

• Treat

are low cost maintenance that

eliminate higher cost

replacement/repair actions

Impact of Corrosion

to the Air Force

Reference: Estimated Impact of

Corrosion on Cost & Availability of DOD

Weapon Systems – FY17 Draft report

Maintenance

Actions

Corrosion

NAHs

Focus on safer, better performing products and processes to

protect weapon systems and reduce field/depot maintenance

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

AFSC’s Goals for Cost Effective Readiness

during Corrosion Protection/Prevention:

▪ Reduce/eliminate

Hazardous Materials

risks and costs

▪ Ensure product quality

through collaboration,

when updating T.O.

▪ Resolve engineering

dispositions faster

AFSC’s Goals for

Corrosion Cost Reduction

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 7

AFSC has authority to

manage bottom 3 levels

in protecting workers

from the HazMat during

corrosion protection &

prevention activities.

AFNWC and AFLCMC

has authority to address

top 2 levels with T.O.

change.

Most

Effective

Less

Effective

Weapon System Engineers are key to the most effective

method of addressing Hierarchy of Controls

Cost of HazMat

Assoc. with Corrosion Prevention

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 8

Hrs Task

1.5 Don & Doff PPE (Work Force)

HazMat housekeeping &

paperwork (Support)

0.5 Housekeeping per Expanded

Standards

(regulations/requirements)

1.0 Lunch and breaks

4.5 Actual Production Work

0.5 Clean up at end of shift &

changing out processes

8.0 HOURS TOTAL

25% of

workday is

spent on

HazMat

related

activities

8-hours workday in Paint Hangar:

Required Maintenance Effort

Cost of HazMat

Assoc. with Corrosion Prevention

SOURCE: 569 AMXS/MXDPA

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 9

Different PPEs for different jobs in Paint Hangar at Tinker:Required Maintenance Effort

Cost of HazMat

Assoc. with Corrosion Prevention

Source: 566 AMXS/MXDVA

Working in PPE is

slow and difficult.

Either substitute

hazardous materials

Ex: Cr-free product

Or remove the worker

from the threat

Ex: robotic laser

depaint

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Request DOEs

and Program

Offices

participate in

HMR GB and IPT

Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous

Materials costs and risks

10

Addressing HazMat Reduction:

1) Established HazMat Reduction Governance Board (HMR GB) to

take an enterprise approach in addressing reduction initiatives and

proliferation opportunities across AFLCMC, AFNWC and AFSC.

HMR GB Membership

AFSC/EN (Co-Chair)

AFLCMC/EN (Co-Chair)

AFNWC/EN (Co-Chair)

AFRL/RX

AFTC/CA

AFMC/A4 Tech Dir

AFMC/SGPB

AFMC/EN Tech Dir

AFSC/EN Tech Dir

OC-ALC/EN Tech Dir

OO-ALC/EN Tech Dir

WR-ALC/EN Tech Dir

448 SCMW/EN Tech Dir

USAF HQ/AQR

HMR IPT MembershipAFSC/EN OL-HILL (Co-Chair)AFNWC/NI ESOH (Co-Chair)AFLCMC/WNV (Co-Chair)AFLCMC/EZPAFRL/RXS (Materials)AFTC Tech Advisor (412 TENG) AFMC/A4FUSAFSAM/OE

OO-ALC, OC-ALC, and WR-ALC Production Engineering

OO-ALC, OC-ALC, and WR-ALC ESOH Representatives

72 ABW, 75 ABW, and 78 ABW ESOH Representatives

448 SCMW EngineeringAFSC/ENSAFCEC/CZTQAFSC/SESAF/AQRE

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous

Materials costs and risks

11

Addressing HazMat Reduction:

2) Developed AFSC Logistics Sustainment Enterprise Roadmap

(LSE) 2040 for Attribute #3 – Safety and Environmental Excellence:

• Identify and track initiatives, focused on reducing and eliminating

HazMat and establishing safer engineering controls and

technologies.

• Assess proliferation opportunities of proven alternatives to like

processes across other weapon systems and ALCs.

Safety and Environmental Excellence

Requires Program Office support to be successful

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous

Materials costs and risks

12

Addressing HazMat Reduction:

3) Developed the HazMat Matrix: Data-driven prioritization of

enterprise-level HazMat reduction efforts, based on ESOH,

production impact, and alternative technology assessment

• First iteration identified 16 chemicals of concern to focus on.

Currently modifying the HazMat Matrix Process.

• Collaboration is needed to evaluate tools and processes to tie

HazMat data in EESOH-MIS with DOEHRS, IPIMS and other

key databases to easily do data mining

Request Program Offices’ support in

identifying/prioritizing HazMat reduction opportunities that

will minimize ESOH risk and cost for weapon systems.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 13

Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous

Materials costs and risks

Focus in the next 2 years:

• Link chemicals to

product and processes

• Evaluate usage &

reduction

• Revise Matrix Process

• Improve data

accessibility &

consistency

Highlighted (in orange) are

materials used in paints, sealants,

cleaners and strippers.

Identified Chemicals

of Concern –

HAZMAT MATRIX

Occ Health

Combined

Effects

Inhalation

Risk

Safety

Rating

Isocyanates 11 16 0

Chrome Plate Soln 11 15 0

Chrome coating, spray 10 15 3

NMP 8 20 0

n-Hexane 8 20 0

Phenol 8 20 0

Ethylene Glycol 8 9 0

Hydrofluoric Acid 7 20 0.5

Ethyl Benzene 7 20 0

MeCl 6 20 0

MEK 6 20 0

Toluene 6 20 0

Xylene 6 20 0

Cad coating, abrasion 6 15 3

Lead 6 5 0

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 5 20 0

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 14

Lbs of Hex Chrome used in the AF

Primers 55,792.89

Adhesives/Sealants 9,187.11

Chrome Plating 5,312.5

Coatings Removal/Cleaners 1,544

Coatings & Topcoats 1,499.39

Conversion Coatings 576.33

Sealers 159.98

Total lbs 74,072.2

Hexavalent Chrome (Cr6+): ESOH’s highest priority is eliminating (Cr6+),

as it’s a toxic carcinogen, with highest exposure risk during application and

removal of chromate coatings, when Cr6+ may be inhaled.

REFERENCE: Cr6+ Usage in the AF: July 2014 - July 2015

SERDP/ESTCP special study “Advanced Coatings 5-year Strategy and

Roadmap”, championed by Dr. Robin Nissan, Weapon Systems and

Platforms Program Manager (Sept 2015)

Request participation at Cr6+

Technical Interchange Meeting• AFLCMC/EZP hosted

• San Antonio, TX, 12-14 Sep 17

• Discuss test results and

Strategy Forward

Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous

Materials costs and risks

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 15

Ensure Product Quality through

Collaboration Work, when Updating T.O.

When updating T.O. with safer alternatives that perform

equal or better than current products:

• Collaborate and reduce duplicate testing

• Standardized requirements – 1 common process and

1 quality product across all aircraft -- easier for

depot to manageEx: AF-wide proliferation and standardization opportunities

with recent update to T.O. 35-1-3 Corrosion Prevention

and Control, Cleaning, Painting, and Marking of USAF

Ground Support Equipment authorizing non-chrome

primer.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

EXAMPLE: B-52 Iterative 202s Corrosion-related:

Corrosion 202s FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Total 202s 60 82 125 60

Iterative* 22 (37%) 42 (51%) 51 (39%) 14 (23%)

16

• Counts may not include many 202s where corrosion is found during ASIP inspections

(e.g. Sculpted Skin, Splice plates, 538 Lower Longeron box)

Resolve Engineering

Dispositions Faster

▪ 202s related to corrosion require multiple communications between

MX and engineer

▪ First attempted blend may not completely remove corrosion,

requires additional analysis after each maintenance action

▪ Damage/location varies on each occurrence

2015 B-52 Study indicated components with iterative corrosion-related 202s,

such as the R/H 538 Lower Longeron Box & 805 Splice Plates have some of

the longest resolution times

• Iterative count includes repeats and resubmits

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Addressing Iterative 202s:SPO continually improving 202

process/procedures to reduce iterative 202s

▪ Designated Engineering Authority

(DEA) reviews historical 202s

▪ DEA Pre-analyzes typical corrosion

locations

▪ DEA on-site to verify corrosion removal

and authorize resolution

▪ Roughly 25% iterative 202s eliminated

since implemented

▪ Need to evaluate digital real-time tools

17

Resolve Engineering

Dispositions Faster

Corrosion Examples: Upper longeron

chord on the lower longeron box just

behind the side segment

Process has improved, but still significant opportunity to reduce

schedule related to iterative engineering dispositions for corrosion

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Opportunities for Industry

18

Digital real-time tools (video) for 202 communication

➢ Improve real-time collaboration

Qualifications of safer, effective non-Hazardous

Materials for paint and depaint processes

➢ Reduce HazMat risks and costs

➢ Ex: Effective depaint process for non-Chrome coating system

Better engineering controls and more comfortable

PPEs to protect the workers during paint and depaint

processes

➢ Allow personnel to meet the mission more effectively and

efficiently

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Summary

19

Air Force has highest Corrosion Cost in DoD

Focus on improving Preventive Corrosion Actions

with safer, better performing products and processes

to protect weapon systems

Request collaboration among AFLCMC, AFNWC, and

AFSC to accomplish these Goals:

▪ Reduce/eliminate HazMat risks and costs

▪ Ensure product quality through collaboration,

when updating T.O.

▪ Resolve engineering dispositions faster

Air Force Sustainment Center

Corrosion Impacts

within the

Air Force Sustainment Center

Kevin Stamey, SESDirector, Engineering & Technical Management

AFSC/EN

6 June 2017

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 21

Backup Slides

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Corroded C-130 Aft Fuselage

Skins and Ring Segment

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Hexavalent Chrome Reduction

23

AFRL Non-Chrome Coating Testing Type of Testing

MIL-PRF-32239 Qualification Testing

Outdoor Corrosion Testing Qualification Testing

MIL-PRF-32239 (Skydrol Resistance) Qualification Testing

Cure Time Process Integration Testing

Reparability Process Integration Testing

Stress Corrosion Protection Process Integration Testing

Chemical Stripper Removability (OC-ALC) SOCCER Testing

Low IR SOCCER Testing

Sealant Paintability SOCCER Testing

Outdoor Exposure Testing over Mg SOCCER Testing

Reparability of Lazer Stripped Panels SOCCER Testing

Chemical Stripper Removability (Gloss Topcoat) SOCCER Testing

Field Aged Chemical Stripper (C-5) SOCCER Testing

Flamability Testing SOCCER Testing

Composite Compatibility Additional Testing Identified

Investigating C-130 Maxwell Issues Additional Testing Identified

Status of non-chrome coating

systems for Outer-Mold Line:

- Implementation (2): F-15

- Currently field testing (5):

F-16, C-130, KC-135, E-3,

HH-60

- Plans to field test (4):

H-1, C-17, E-8, B-1

- No plans yet to field test (8):

B-52, A-10, KC-46, C-5,

KC-10, MQ-9, RQ-4

- No plans to implement -

retiring, phasing out (2):

QF-4, MQ-1

AFRL’s non-chrome coatings testing (ECD FY17 – FY18)

Data provided by AFRL and AFLCMC/EZP

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 24

.

Trends in Air Force Aviation and Missile Assets with the Highest

Combined Ranking for Average and Total Corrosion Cost, FY15

Chart from the Estimated Impact of Corrosion on Cost &

Availability of DOD Weapon Systems – FY17 Update report

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 25

Trends in Air Force Aviation and Missile Maintenance

and Corrosion AVAILABILITY

Chart from the Estimated Impact of Corrosion on Cost &

Availability of DOD Weapon Systems – FY17 Update report

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

Labor Costs per FY

Corrosion Related DL/OH/G&A Costs

26

Weapon System Hours / Jet DL/POH/G&A FY18 OUTPUTS Cost

KC-135 11,677 143.10$ 75 125,323,403$

B-52 2,411 158.16$ 17 6,482,504$

E-3 4,000 175.53$ 6 4,212,720$

B-1 666 153.56$ 11 1,124,981$

TOTAL 137,143,607$

FULLY BURDENED RATE

Note:

Costs based on Labor, POH, & G&A required for corrosion hours

No Direct Material is included

Rates are the average cost rates on completed jets FYTD Feb 2017