Corrosion Prevention and Control PDF
Corrosion Prevention and Control PDF
Corrosion Prevention and Control PDF
PLANNING GUIDEBOOK
SPIRAL 3
September 2007
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
14. ABSTRACT
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 309
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
I.1 Purpose
This document provides program and project managers with guidance for developing and im-
plementing a corrosion prevention and control program for DoD weapon systems and infrastruc-
ture. It includes corrosion-related policy; management planning; and technical and design
considerations that should be addressed for a viable design. This guidance is in accordance with
the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control policy letter, signed by the Acting Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD[AT&L]), 12 November 2003 (see
Attachment 1), and the Facility Corrosion Prevention and Control memorandum, signed by the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, 10 March 2005 (Appen-
dix F to Volume III).
Program and project managers—perhaps more than any other group—greatly influence DoD’s
corrosion-related cost, safety, and reliability impacts during the acquisition of systems and infra-
structure. That is why Volumes I and III of the Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning
Guidebook are targeted to them. The volumes identify the materials, processes, techniques, and
tasks required to develop and integrate an effective corrosion prevention and control program
during all phases of DoD weapon system and infrastructure development. The objective is to
minimize the effects of corrosion on life-cycle costs, readiness, reliability, supportability, safety,
and structural integrity.
Volume II of this guidebook focuses on equipment sustainment and includes information on life-
cycle logistics and the development of sustainment corrosion programs for weapon systems.
Following the guidance in this document in conjunction with applicable program and technical
documentation will result in the best possible balance between acquisition and life-cycle costs
for DoD systems.
I.2 Requirement
10 U.S.C. 2228 requires DoD to develop and implement a long-term strategy to address the corrosion
of its equipment and infrastructure. A key element of this strategy is programmatic and technical
guidance provided in this guidebook. Spiral 3 adds a volume on sustainment and refines the previous
acquisition guidance based on corrosion surveys, lessons-learned from program office reviews, and
Government Accountability Office audits. For example, GAO-07-618 evaluated the extent to which
DoD has incorporated corrosion prevention planning in weapon system acquisition. It should be
noted that corrosion prevention and control (CPC) planning is now required for all acquisition pro-
grams requiring an acquisition plan in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS). While sustainment has been included since the inception of the congressionally directed
OSD Corrosion Program, it has not been the focus of the program nor has it been separately ad-
dressed in the Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook—until now.
I.3 Background
The Department of Defense acquires, operates, and maintains a vast array of physical assets,
ranging from aircraft, ships, ground combat vehicles, and other materiel to wharves, buildings,
and other infrastructure. These assets are subject to degradation due to corrosion, with specific
effects in the following areas:
• Safety. A number of weapon system and infrastructure mishaps have been attributed to
the effects of corrosion. For example, corroded electrical contacts on F-16s caused “un-
commanded” fuel valve closures (with subsequent loss of aircraft), and corrosion-related
cracking of F/A-18 landing gears resulted in failures (collapses) during carrier operations.
• Readiness. Weapon systems and infrastructure support activities are routinely out of
commission due to corrosion deficiencies. For example, corrosion has been identified
as the reason for more than 50 percent of the maintenance needed on KC-135 aircraft.
Also, corrosion of a fuel pipeline resulted in a leak of hazardous petroleum, oil, and lubri-
cants (POL) material into the environment endangering area water aquifers. Until it was
repaired, the loss of the pipeline also affected the ability to transfer fuel, hampering the
ability to perform the mission, detrimentally affecting readiness.
• Financial. The cost of corrosion to the DoD is estimated to be between $10 billion
and $20 billion annually. 1
1
United States General Accounting Office, Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and Increase Readiness,
GAO-03-753, July 2003, p. 3.
iv Spiral Number 3
Introduction
DoD has a long history of corrosion prevention and control. The Department has been a leader in
many areas of research (ranging from understanding the fundamentals of corrosion to applying
advanced materials, coatings, inhibitors, and cathodic protection for corrosion control); however,
it also has very special corrosion-related challenges:
• DoD’s assets are getting older in both relative and absolute terms. The current ex-
pected—although often not planned—service lives of some aircraft, missiles, ships,
and infrastructure are much longer than any comparable commercial assets.
• In order to perform its mission, the Department must train, fight, and sustain infra-
structure in all environments, some of which are among the most corrosively aggres-
sive on Earth.
• DoD has unique corrosion-related issues. For example, many coatings used on vehi-
cles and other assets are formulated to perform a special function, such as resistance
to chemical agents or maintaining low signature. Corrosion is, at best, a secondary
consideration.
Corrosion costs DoD an estimated $10 billion–$20 billion annually. In an attempt to minimize
these costs, Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. 2228, which emphasizes DoD management and techni-
cal awareness of corrosion prevention and control. Corrosion is a long-term issue that usually
affects system operation some time after the system is procured; but the best time to combat
the effects of corrosion is early in system development.
According to DoD Directive 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, corrosion prevention,
control, and mitigation will be considered during life-cycle cost tradeoffs. Consideration of op-
erational and logistics capabilities (such as readiness, reliability, sustainability, and safety) is
critical to ensure the effectiveness of a weapon system, and is usually accomplished during con-
ceptual design, when the effects of corrosion on these capabilities should be addressed as well.
Corrosion is often “out of sight” and, therefore, “out of mind” until a failure occurs; and there is
a false perception that corrosion prevention and mitigation can be reverse-engineered later in a
system’s operational life cycle. The fact is, corrosion can have a significant impact on opera-
tional readiness and safety (both by itself and in conjunction with other damage phenomena), and
its interactions with these factors should be considered during the conceptual design phase.
National priorities dictate the need for extended service lives for DoD systems and infrastructure.
History indicates the effects of corrosion increase with system age, which only amplifies the
need to consider corrosion prevention as a primary design parameter. As a consequence, the
original designs of weapon systems should include the best materials and manufacturing proc-
esses. The only way to ensure an effective, across-the-board response to prevention or a dramatic
reduction of corrosion and its effects is to establish a standard DoD corrosion control philosophy
and methodology. With a clearly defined methodology, acquisition program managers and infra-
structure project managers can initiate and execute plans and actions to employ satisfactory materials
and processes.
Spiral Number 3 v
I.4 Document Structure
This guidebook is structured into three volumes—Equipment Acquisition; Equipment Sustain-
ment; and Facilities Acquisition/Sustainment—as outlined below.
vi Spiral Number 3
Equipment
Acquisition
Volume I Equipment Acquisition
Table of Contents
1. General Acquisition Program Management Requirements......................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1.1 Intended Use ........................................................................................................ 1-2
1.1.2 Applicability ........................................................................................................ 1-2
1.1.3 Policy/Guidance................................................................................................... 1-2
1.1.4 Applicable Documents......................................................................................... 1-3
1.1.5 Definitions............................................................................................................ 1-3
1.2 General Program Management Requirements ........................................................... 1-4
1.2.1 Systems Acquisition Community ........................................................................ 1-4
1.2.2 System Verification Plan in Acquisition.............................................................. 1-6
Figures
Figure 1-1. Volume I Organization.............................................................................................. 1-1
Figure 1-2. Defense Acquisition Process..................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 2-1. Defense Acquisition Process..................................................................................... 2-2
It is simply good sense and good management to prevent corrosion through better de-
sign and selection of materials, and to reduce treatment costs by detecting corrosion
earlier and more precisely. Fighting corrosion is just one of the things that we need to
constantly do so that we are always ready to perform the fundamental mission of the
Department, which is to maintain our national security. 1
—DoD Corrosion Executive
1.1 Introduction
Program managers—perhaps more than any other Figure 1-1. Volume I Organization
group—greatly influence DoD’s corrosion-related
costs, safety, and reliability issues, regardless of
General
whether it is in the acquisition of new systems or Program
Management
during the sustainment of existing systems. That is Requirements
why this volume of the Corrosion Prevention and
Control Planning Guidebook is targeted to them. It DoD 5000 Systems Acquisition
identifies the materials, processes, techniques, and
• Concept Refinement
tasks required to integrate an effective corrosion pre- • Technology Development
vention and control program during all phases of • Systems Development & Demo
• Production & Development
DoD weapon system and infrastructure development • Operations & Support
and sustainment. The objective is to minimize the
effects of corrosion on life-cycle costs, readiness,
reliability, supportability, safety, and structural integ- PM CPC
Planning
rity. Following the guidance in this document in con-
junction with applicable program and technical
documentation will result in the best possible bal-
ance between acquisition and life-cycle costs for
DoD systems. Management Technical and
Planning and ILS Design Corrosion
Considerations
Figure 1-1 outlines the structure of Volume I of this
• Management Planning
guidebook. The remainder of this chapter further ex- - Programmatic Considerations
• Technical Considerations
- Corrosion variables
plores the acquisition-related corrosion requirements as - CPC Planning - Potential solutions
they relate to program management. It also identifies - CPAT - Impacts
- CCT - Testing
general program manager requirements. Chapter 2 out- - CPCP - Service laboratories
lines specific corrosion-related planning requirements. • ILS Planning • Design Considerations
- Material selection
Chapter 3 focuses on technical and design considera- - Coating
tions that may impede or eliminate corrosion. - Design geometries
- Environment
- Process/finish specifications
1
AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4, Winter 2003, p. 9.
• provides tools and techniques for implementing sound material/process selection prac-
tices and finish treatments during all phases of DoD weapon system development;
• provides guidance on program management that can be implemented in organizations
to address corrosion issues and develop corrosion control plans; and
• describes requirements and methods for
establishing and managing a corrosion prevention action team (CPAT) that is
appropriately integrated into all design integrated product teams (IPTs) (where
applicable), and
developing and implementing a corrosion prevention and control plan (CPCP) as
described in this document.
1.1.2 Applicability
This guidebook is applicable to all DoD procuring activities (and their respective contractors)
involved in the planning, design, and procurement of new DoD systems and the sustainment and
upgrade of existing ones. The detailed CPCP and the process/finish specifications apply to all
elements of DoD systems, including spare parts.
1.1.3 Policy/Guidance
Among recent policy accomplishments, the most important may
have been the publication of DoD corrosion prevention and control
policy guidance. 2 The policy recognizes that “the early stages of ac-
quisition provide our best opportunity to make effective trade-offs
among the many competing design criteria that will provide desired
Defense capability.” Program and project management requirements
include the following:
2
USD(AT&L) memorandum, Corrosion Prevention and Control, 12 November 2003. See Attachment 1 for a
copy of this memorandum.
• Adhere to the corrosion prevention and control guidance in the Designing and Assess-
ing Supportability in DoD Weapons Systems Guidebook. 3
• Implement best business practices and best-value decisions for corrosion prevention
and control in system and infrastructure acquisition, sustainment, and utilization.
• Formulate and implement a support strategy that ensures system support and life-cycle
affordability considerations are addressed and documented as an integral part of the
program’s overall acquisition strategy. Specific support strategy requirements are con-
tained in the Interim Defense Acquisition Guidebook. 4
1.1.4 Applicable Documents
Corrosion-related documents from government, industry, academia, and standards organizations are
available on the DoD Corrosion website (www.corrdefense.org). The following are examples of ap-
plicable documentation:
1.1.5 Definitions
The term “corrosion” means the deterioration of a material or its properties due to a reaction of
that material with its chemical environment. 6 Other key definitions are as follows: 7
3
USD(AT&L), Designing and Assessing Supportability in DoD Weapons Systems Guidebook: A Guide to In-
creased Reliability and Reduced Logistics Footprint, 24 October 2003.
4
Interim Defense Acquisition Guidebook, 30 October 2002, formerly DoD 5000.2-R (dated 5 April 2002).
5
DoD Report, Efforts to Reduce Corrosion on the Military Equipment and Infrastructure of the Department of
Defense, June 2007.
6
Section 1067 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public
Law 107-314, enacted 10 U.S.C. 2228.
7
Acronyms are defined in Attachment 2. A complete list of defense acquisition acronyms and terms can be
found at http://www.dau.mil/pubs/glossary/preface.asp.
support. 8 - CPAT
- Potential solutions
- Impacts
- CCT - Testing
- CPCP - Service laboratories
• ILS Planning • Design Considerations
Figure 1-2 depicts the acquisition process with the corro- - Material selection
8
DoD Directive 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, 12 May 2003, p. 2.
9
User requirements, including corrosion-related requirements, need to be reflected in the initial capabilities
document (ICD), capability development document (CDD), and capability production document (CPD). These
documents are explained in detail in Appendix A.
Update CPCP
Update CPCP
In general, the program manager and the prime contractor should translate the corrosion pre-
vention requirements into a request for proposal (RFP), performance specifications, and all
CPC planning. When developing a system, the CPCP should address the
• establishment of the Corrosion Prevention Action Team; 10
• development of a process or finish specification;
• environmental testing and verification plans;
• procedure to ensure corrosion prevention and control at the component, assembly,
and system levels; and
• guidance for development of corrosion-related technical manuals and maintenance
concepts.
Appendix A presents a more complete discussion of the capability documents (initial capabilities
document [ICD], capability development document [CDD] and capability production document
[CPD]) that are used to implement corrosion control during the DoD acquisition process.
Lesson Learned: Determine corrosion requirements from these documents. If not documented, ask
the user about the expected equipment’s operational environment as it pertains to corrosiveness.
10
GAO-07-618, High-Level Leadership Commitment and Actions are Needed to Address Corrosion Issues, rec-
ommended the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
provide the necessary leadership and commitment to, “Require major defense acquisition programs to prepare a cor-
rosion prevention advisory team as early as possible in the acquisition process.” April 2007, pp. 16 and 17.
Success criteria should include both retention of functionality and freedom from required corro-
sion repair per specified performance requirements. Qualification should be based upon envi-
ronmental exposure testing to the system requirements. Qualification by analysis or similarity
should be on an exception basis only, with the concurrence of the CPAT. Corrosion criteria
should be included in full-scale testing, including reliability and environmental testing.
***
The next chapter covers program management corrosion prevention and control planning.
•
• Concept Refinement
Management of the planning • Technology Development
• Systems Development & Demo
•
• Production & Development
Technical and design considerations (e.g., require- • Operations & Support
• Management Planning
• Technical Considerations
- Programmatic Considerations
- Corrosion variables
The remainder of this chapter covers management plan- - CPC Planning - Potential solutions
- CPAT - Impacts
ning, while Chapter 3 details technical and design corro- - CCT - Testing
- CPCP - Service laboratories
sion considerations. • ILS Planning • Design Considerations
- Material selection
- Coating
- Design geometries
2.1 DoD Corrosion Performance - Environment
- Process/finish specifications
Specification Issues
DoD acquisition reform over the last decade has resulted in a shift from traditional military
specifications and standards to more commercial and performance-based specifications. This
shift challenges the program, project, or engineering manager or designer to develop a mean-
ingful performance specification for corrosion. Several programmatic and technical points
must be considered for effective implementation of corrosion performance specifications in DoD
acquisition programs. These are detailed in the Management Planning and Integrated Logistics
Support (ILS) sections (this chapter) and the Technical and Design sections (Chapter 3).
• Prepare a corrosion prevention and control plan as early in a program or project as possi-
ble. In the case of weapon systems, the program manager should generate the document
no later than Milestone B, Program Initiation.
• Implement the CPCP with an accompanying process/finish specification and organize the
Corrosion Prevention Action Team.
Update CPCP
Update CPCP
• prescribe the membership and organization of the CPAT, describe basic duties of team
members, define operating procedures, and prescribe appropriate specifications and stan-
dards used in the systems/facilities;
• include the process/finish specification (materials and processes for corrosion prevention
and control) 1 that specify the detailed finish and coating systems to be used on the pro-
cured weapon system; and
• address sustainability and logistics considerations.
Lesson Learned: Boilerplate CPC plans are ineffective. CPC plans should be
tailored to address specific program requirements.
The program manager should balance the cost of improved design for corrosion against the life-
cycle costs for the system. This may be difficult unless objective measures for corrosion control
effectiveness are established.
2.2.2.2 Warranties
With a warranty, the seller essentially assures the buyer that the product will perform as repre-
sented over a period of time. If the product fails to perform as represented, the seller may be re-
quired to provide a new product or satisfactorily repair the existing product. With respect to
corrosion in DoD procurements, such agreements are typically hard to enforce.
• A warranty has little value in a critical situation. Replacement or repair of a corroded part
is meaningless to personnel under fire or when the failure has resulted in property dam-
age, personnel injury, or mission capability degradation.
• The terms of warranties are often complex. This may result in burdensome record keep-
ing and may constrain DoD’s flexibility with respect to maintenance procedures.
• The terms can also be somewhat subjective, such as when corrosion affects appearance
and objective measures of performance are not available. Previously, many corrosion
maintenance actions were considered discretionary until system functionality was af-
fected. Today, however, maintenance concepts and reliability considerations do not allow
for deterioration to the point of functional failure.
1
The specification will be in accordance with CPCP approved process/finish specifications and standards.
Lesson Learned (Other Funding Sources): CPAT may advocate for separate funding to address the
issues of concern when there is not program money for studies or R&D to validate the need for such
changes. Programs should also make use of alternative sources of funding for R&D needs, such as
the sponsoring of topics for the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, various envi-
ronmental programs, such as Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP),
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Commercial Technologies
for Maintenance Activities program (CTMA), and Value Engineering.
the RFP to guide the insertion of the program’s or project’s corrosion planning • Management Planning
- Programmatic Considerations
into the RFP. The initial CPCP also guides the initial performance specification - CPC Planning
- CPAT
development. CPC planning consists of the following: - CCT
- CPCP
• ILS Planning
• Establishment of the CPAT, which, along with the CCT, guides the
direction of CPC planning
• Documentation that implements and reflects the CPC planning
• Actual design, manufacture or construction, testing, and support of the system.
Lesson Learned: Make CPC part of the source selection criteria and the CPC
plan a deliverable documentation requirement.
The CPAT is actively involved in the review of all design considerations, material selections,
costs, and documentation that may affect corrosion prevention and control throughout the life
of the system or facility. The CPAT advises the program manager on corrosion-related issues,
confirms the adequacy of the corrosion maintenance documentation and guidance as they are
developed, and elevate unresolved issues to the Office of the Secretary of Defense Overarching
IPT (OIPT). Attachment 4 contains corrosion points of contact for DoD, the Coast Guard,
NASA, and selected private sector organizations.
2.2.3.1.2 Membership
A representative of the procuring activity should chair the team, which should include represen-
tatives from the contractor’s organization and from DoD.
• Prime contractor members (once the contract is awarded). The contractor’s team mem-
bers should be authoritative representatives of the contractor’s organizations. They en-
sure proper materials, processes, and treatments are selected and properly applied and
maintained from the initial design stage to the final hardware delivery or final con-
struction.
• DoD members. The DoD team is designated by the program or project manager and in-
cludes all involved military services. Membership from the services should include, but
not be limited to,
program engineering and support;
individual service corrosion program office, technical authority, or the
equivalent; and
subject matter experts, which may include
o individual service laboratory material engineers,
o corrosion personnel from the user command,
o information analysis center personnel (such as AMMTIAC), and
o operational test personnel.
• Interface with the contractor corrosion team to ensure the goals outlined in this guide-
book are attained.
• Monitor all activity during design, engineering, testing, and production.
• Advise the program or project manager on corrosion-related issues and identify risks as
well as corrosion prevention opportunities.
• Attend appropriate CCT meetings.
• Advise the program on technical issues to be resolved.
• Review and resolve discrepancies submitted by the program or project manager.
• Schedule reviews as frequently as deemed necessary by the chairperson.
Lesson Learned (Independent Review): Contractors often have subtle, and sometimes overt, control
of changes for improved corrosion performance. It is the role of the CPAT to independently review,
analyze, and recommend actions to the program manager in such cases. Where appropriate action
does not result, CPAT members may individually elevate their concerns via their separate organizations.
To evaluate the adequacy of the contractor’s efforts in corrosion prevention and control, the pro-
gram or project manager retains authority to conduct scheduled periodic reviews of the contrac-
tor’s design and the contractor’s and subcontractor’s facilities where critical parts and assemblies
are being fabricated, processed, assembled, and readied for shipment.
A CCT chairman will be selected and serve as the manager of the CCT and the contractor focal
point for the program.
• Ensure the appropriate documents outlined under section 2.2.4 are prepared and submit-
ted in accordance with the required schedule.
• Obtain the necessary design reviews, clarification’s, resolutions of any differences in
technical position, and final approval of the documentation on a timely basis.
The chairperson or designee should
• maintained by the contractor (or contractor team) and approved by the CPAT and pro-
gram or project manager; and
• revised as required to properly record changes to materials and processes being used for
corrosion prevention and control. Through design studies, analysis of failure reports, and
weapons systems inspections, data should be collected for analyses of required revisions
to this document.
Copies of the major revisions to the document should be formally submitted to the Defense
Technical Information Center (DTIC) so the CPAT’s accomplishments are preserved and future
programs can benefit from legacy knowledge as they prepare their respective CPCPs.
PMs shall develop and implement performance-based logistics strategies that optimize to-
tal system availability while minimizing cost and logistics footprint. Trade-off decisions
involving cost, useful service, and effectiveness shall consider corrosion prevention and
mitigation. Sustainment strategies shall include the best use of public and private sector
capabilities through government/industry partnering initiatives, in accordance with statu-
tory requirements. 2
Integrated logistics support is realized through the proper integration of logistics support ele-
ments (part of the system engineering process) and the application of logistics considerations as
they apply to corrosion prevention and control decisions made during the equipment design
phase. The optimum balance of an item of equipment is somewhere between its capability and
availability to perform a specified military requirement. This goal can only be achieved by in-
cluding logistics support considerations in all stages of the CPCP, from formulation and valida-
tion of the concept, through engineering design and development, to test and evaluation,
production, deployment, and operation. In applying the concept of ILS to system or equipment
acquisition, it is important to maintain a proper perspective and remember that logistics support
is not an end in itself. ILS exists only to support the operation of the system or equipment to
which it is related; therefore, it must be considered as the CPCP evolves.
• Maintenance plan
• Support and test equipment
• Supply support
• Transportation and handling
• Technical data
• Facilities
• Personnel and training.
• Logistics support resource funds
• Logistics support management resources
2
DoDD 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, Enclosure 1, paragraph E1.17, 12 May 2003.
The key to effective application of the ILS process to the CPCP is a systematic and orderly man-
agement process through which the Corrosion Prevention Action Team can identify logistics ac-
tions and requisite decisions quickly and can present them to the program manager.
The design of DoD weapon systems requires the proper blend of safety, affordability, and envi-
ronmental needs with mission and operational requirements. DoD systems or facilities should
• perform reliably,
• require minimal maintenance over a specified lifetime, and
• deteriorate at a rate that permits maximum service life.
Materials, manufacturing methods, and protective treatments that reduce deterioration failures
should be considered during the selection of suitable materials and appropriate manufacturing
methods that will satisfy system requirements. The following are among the deterioration modes
that contribute to failures:
General
•
Program
General corrosion Management
Requirements
• Dealloying
PM CPC
•
Planning
Intergranular corrosion
• Stress corrosion cracking
• Hydrogen embrittlement Management Technical and
Planning and ILS Design Corrosion
•
Considerations
Corrosion fatigue • Management Planning
• Technical Considerations
- Programmatic Considerations
•
- Corrosion variables
Flow-assisted (erosion) corrosion - CPC Planning
- CPAT
- Potential solutions
- Impacts
- CCT
•
- Testing
Fretting corrosion - CPCP
• ILS Planning
- Service laboratories
• Design Considerations
•
- Material selection
Stray current corrosion - Coating
- Design geometries
- Environment
• Fungus growth - Process/finish specifications
The CPCP and program specifications should detail specific requirements. To assist program
managers and others participating in the acquisition of aerospace-related systems, a set of aero-
space system guidelines has been developed and included at Appendix D. Likewise, a set of na-
val ship guidelines has been developed and included at Appendix E.
Fundamentally, the design and design disciplines should allow for the evaluation of the follow-
ing general approaches:
The design should also attempt to eliminate corrosive contaminants. If materials are to be ex-
posed to contaminants, precautionary measures should be taken throughout the design phase to
minimize deterioration of individual parts and assemblies (as well as the entire system). Precau-
tionary measures are included in the technical and design considerations discussed below.
A thorough review of relevant technical literature is essential for making informed decisions for cor-
rosion performance requirements. Written corrosion specifications should be sufficiently flexible to
allow the designer and manufacturer to consider the entire range of potential solutions.
• The potential loss of function due to corrosion can often be quantified through physi-
cal measurements. These may include plating thickness loss, pit depth measurements,
torque measurements, and conductivity measurements. Quantitative assessments are
costly and, as a result, are typically applied to critical items only.
• Hidden corrosion is difficult to detect and is a major problem.
• are most useful for ranking the relative performance of materials, coatings, etc. in a
specific environment and application in comparison to a known system; and
• often do not adequately reflect the effects of design changes, substantial material
changes, and maintenance cycles.
The design of environmental tests and verification planning should duplicate both the levels and
types of damage expected from the environmental spectrum defined for the system. This may be
achieved by a combination of environmental tests that capture the critical aspects of the expo-
sure, such as wet-dry cycles, specific corrodents, and geometric configurations.
Lesson Learned (Analysis of Trade Studies): Corrosion often competes with other performance pa-
rameters, such as environmental stewardship and low observability. A CPAT review and analysis of
trade studies with strong documentation and recommendations to program managers can be effec-
tive in preserving corrosion requirements.
• The Cambridge Material Selector (accessible from Granta Design Limited, Material
Information Solutions, (http://www.grantadesign.com)
• DoD Corrosion website (http://www.corrdefense.org)
This appendix provides additional background information on DoD’s acquisition process that is
too detailed to include in Chapters 1, 2, or 3. Readers who require specific acquisition informa-
tion for decision-making are encouraged to consult the department’s acquisition website for cur-
rent and detailed information (http://akss.dau.mil/jsp/default.jsp).
The capabilities documents that may be used to implement corrosion control during the
DoD procurement process are discussed below, and are addressed in CJCSI 3170.O1C. All
major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) are required to have
Mission need statements (MNSs) and operational requirements documents (ORDs) are being
phased out and should only be modified if allowed by the Milestone Decision Authority or by
directive. Typically, procurements also involve the development of a specification and a request
for proposal (RFP) at some point during the procurement process.
Update CPCP
Update CPCP
• establishes the need for a materiel approach to resolve a specific capability gap;
• defines
the capability gap in terms of the functional areas,
the relevant range of military operations, time, obstacles to overcome, and
key attributes with appropriate measures of effectiveness (e.g., distance effect, in-
cluding scale); and
• proposes the recommended materiel approach based on analysis of the relative cost,
efficacy, sustainability, environmental quality impacts, and risk posed by the materiel
approach under consideration.
Normally, an ICD is not updated once it has been approved. The CDD and CPD, however, con-
tinue to refine the material approach to address the capability gap.
The ICD, CDD, and CPD describe top-level capability gaps and identify top-level alternatives;
corrosion-related wording should be at a similar level. Most importantly, the expected opera-
tional environment as it pertains to corrosiveness should be clearly identified. The ICD should
discuss whether corrosion (either through cost or impact on readiness) played a role in creating a
deficiency. The following statements are examples of corrosion-related wording that should be
considered for inclusion in the ICD:
• “Existing systems have been unable to meet required maintenance periodicity as a re-
sult of corrosion.”
• “Corrosion occurring on existing systems places a large cost and labor-hour burden
on the maintenance infrastructure.”
• “Excessive corrosion on existing systems has resulted in reduced readiness.”
• “The system is expected to operate under severe operational and environmental con-
ditions. The system maintenance should be performed in compliance with Environ-
mental Protection Agency guidelines in effect at the time of the procurement and with
minimal use and generation of hazardous materials or ozone-depleting chemicals.”
• “The system should meet operational, support, and readiness requirements in all cli-
mates and types of terrain where the system may be based or deployed.”
• “The system will be supportable within the current accepted maintenance concept.”
• takes its guidance from the ICD, the analysis of alternatives, and technology
development activities;
• captures information necessary to develop the proposed programs;
• outlines an affordable increment of a capability; 1 and
• provides the operational performance attributes, including supportability, necessary
for the acquisition community to design the proposed system. (Corrosion-related
wording should address how corrosion would impact system performance.)
The CPD
The following statements are suggested wording for use in the CDD and the CPD. A finer level
of fidelity can be inserted as the program progresses through Milestones B and C:
• “The system is expected to meet the operational, support, and readiness requirements
in all types of climate and terrain where the system may be based or deployed.”
• “The system is expected to operate under severe operational and environmental con-
ditions. Common tools; standard maintenance practices; and standard, common, or
general purpose support and test equipment will be used to the maximum extent pos-
sible. Maintenance of the system will be performed in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other pertinent environmental and safety
guidelines in effect at the time of the procurement.”
• “Existing systems have been unable to meet required maintenance periodicity as a
result of corrosion.”
• “Corrosion occurring on existing systems places a large cost and labor-hour burden
on the maintenance infrastructure.”
• “Excessive corrosion on existing systems has resulted in reduced readiness.”
• “The system should meet readiness and logistics requirements in anticipated corrosive
environments: (provide specifics on the environment).”
1
An increment is a militarily useful and supportable operational capability that can be effectively developed,
produced or acquired, deployed and sustained. Each increment will have its own set of attributes and associated per-
formance values.
• Define what will be expected from the bidders in the development, implementation
and management of CPC planning.
• Describe the managerial and technical aspects of CPC planning to ensure the contrac-
tors fully realize the type of robust CPC planning they are expected to develop and
implement.
• Explain the CPC planning organization, including
how the government is expected to participate in the planning,
the contractor’s responsibilities, and
the deliverable documents.
Specifications
Two types of specifications will be developed as part of CPC planning:
• Performance specifications, which are used with the RFP to award the initial contract
and to procure follow-on items
• Process/finish specifications, which are developed as the CPC planning is developed
and implemented.
Performance Specification
Performance specifications are outlined in MIL-STD-961, which
The following text provides guidelines and recommended input for Sections 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the
performance specification.
Section 3: Requirements
• Requirement specifications should contain detailed requirements for materials,
design, service environment, maintainability, and environmental compliance.
• Requirement specifications should state these requirements in terms of quantifiable
performance.
Section 4: Verification
• Verification specifies which tests should be conducted to verify conformance to re-
quirements established in Section 3.
• Verification also establishes first-article inspection, qualification inspection, sampling
procedures, and inspection conditions.
Section 6: Notes
• Notes establish data item description (DID) and technical manual requirements. The
documentation prescribed in this section can be used to require the contractor to pro-
vide information regarding how corrosion control for the system will be achieved and
to provide quality assurance data.
Process/Finish Specification
The prime contractor should prepare a process/finish specification in accordance with the
CPC plan that is developed collaboratively between the government and the contractor. The con-
tent of the process/finish specification will be addressed in Appendix C.
This appendix provides an example of a corrosion prevention action team (CPAT) charter; it is
intended to be representative only. The contents of this appendix are not direction. The contents
of a program’s actual CPAT charter will vary and should reflect the needs of the particular pro-
gram or project.
1.0 Introduction
Past experience has shown that corrosion in systems can impede operational readiness, impact
life-cycle cost, and jeopardize system effectiveness. Corrosion, which is defined as the environ-
mental deterioration of any material, metallic or nonmetallic, includes the operating environ-
ment’s degradation of all materials. DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Guidelines define
the objectives and responsibilities aimed at minimizing these threats throughout all phases of a
weapon system’s life cycle. The guidance recommends a CPAT be established for each system.
The intention is to bring the designer, maintainer, and the user together so they may contribute
their unique experience to problem definition, formulate recommendations for solution, and track
final resolution. This charter defines the purpose, membership, responsibilities, and procedures
of the weapon system.
2.0 Purpose
The CPAT provides assistance and advice to the program manager on the most current methods
of providing and maintaining effective corrosion prevention and material compatibility planning
for the weapon system.
3.0 Membership
The following organizations constitute the CPAT membership. Each organization identifies, in
writing, any changes to their primary and alternate representatives to the CPAT. This charter is
reviewed annually by the CPAT to update content and membership, as required.
4.1 The PM chairperson, as the program manager’s representative, the contractor team co-
chairperson, as the prime contractor, and the Service Corrosion Prevention and Control Of-
fice, as corrosion prevention and control program managers, will organize the CPAT effort
and accomplish the following tasks:
• Establish and chair a CPAT to evaluate the adequacy of corrosion prevention and ma-
terial compatibility measures included in the design, to review the program’s ap-
proach to corrosion prevention, and to advise on corrosion prevention and control for
inclusion in specifications and technical data.
Make sure the engineering effort conducted by the integrated product teams
(IPTs) during design and fabrication focuses on the prevention and control of cor-
rosion and the compatibility of composites/materials with the system operating
environment. This will be done during the Technology Development, Systems
Development and Demonstration (SDD), and Production and Deployment phases.
Evaluate compliance with applicable standards, specifications, design handbooks,
and related technical documentation
o Direct Contractor Corrosion Team (CCT) Quality Assurance members to con-
duct spot inspections during manufacturing to ensure manufacturing and fab-
rication processes do not include practices that would eventually cause
corrosion and material degradation problems, and to ensure approved tech-
niques adopted by the air vehicle IPTs early in SDD are being followed.
o Direct CCT Quality Assurance members to inspect preservation and packag-
ing procedures at the contractor facilities of all materials being delivered to
activities to ensure practices adopted by the IPTs are being followed.
To the extent they support structural requirements, use standard materials for
weapon system sustainment for corrosion prevention.
Make sure each proposed redesign or modification is evaluated for potential cor-
rosion, material, and environmental compatibility effects and requirements for the
prevention and control of corrosion and material are addressed.
Interface with the chairperson of the major subsystem CPATs to ensure data ex-
change and resolution of mutual concerns.
Interface with all team members to ensure data exchange and incorporation of
technical advancements into the system.
• Make sure the results of testing to environments outlined in by verification require-
ment and contract are reviewed by the CPAT to identify future potential corrosion
and material compatibility issues.
4.2 The following are tasks for the Service program office members:
• Co-chair the CPAT and assist the PM and user in tracking/resolving action items.
• Ensure the proper requirements for corrosion prevention and control are included in
specifications, tailored standards, and procedures; cite newly approved materials in
updating specification revisions, design handbooks, and technical data.
• Evaluate the CPCP to confirm it covers the proper steps for preventing corrosion
and ensuring material compatibility.
• Identify and help solve corrosion and material compatibility problems in the design,
maintenance, and use of the system.
• Periodically review and update technical data; send pertinent information to appropri-
ate training organizations for use in training courses.
• Review modification proposals to ensure proper requirements for corrosion preven-
tion and control are included.
• Review and validate Corrosion maintenance facility requirements documents.
4.3 User members will
• Convene at least annually or as often as required throughout the life cycle of this sys-
tem at the times and places arranged by the chairperson. The interval will normally be
semiannually during the SDD phase, unless the chairperson determines that more or
less frequent sessions are necessary.
• Review corrosion prevention/material compatibility contract requirements and pre-
pare the appropriate design guidance tailored to the unique aspects of this program.
• Advise the CCT to conduct plant site inspections, as appropriate, at contractor and
subcontractor facilities to evaluate the adequacy of the design as it relates to corrosion
prevention, and to assess the manufacturing, fabrication, engineering liaison, and
quality control procedures for corrosion prevention and material compatibility.
• Advise the CCT to conduct field site inspections at flight test/ground test, demonstra-
tion facilities, and operational facilities to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrosion
prevention/material compatibility considerations/designs. Define discrepancies and
propose possible solutions.
• The lead contractor will prepare and distribute minutes (no more than 60 days after
the date of the CPAT meeting) that assign action items to the responsible agencies for
resolution. The lead contractor will maintain a continuing agenda or log of specific
efforts, problems, action items, discrepancies, etc., with the following for each item:
Definition or description
Alternatives
Team recommendation
Responsible action individual or agency
Final disposition.
• Make recommendations to the program manager for all changes, corrections, or im-
provements that require action by a government agency or a contractor.
Note: The CPAT has no authority to direct any government agency or contractor to take any ac-
tion as a result of its finding. The chairperson will make clear the nonbinding advisory nature of
the opinions, findings, suggestions, and recommendation of the team to all parties at all team
meetings and activities.
This appendix provides an example of a corrosion prevention and control plan (CPCP); it is in-
tended to be representative only. The contents of the appendix are not direction. The contents of
a program’s actual CPCP will vary and should reflect the needs of that program.
Corrosion prevention and control requires the coordinated efforts of numerous disciplines and
organizations across the contractor teams and the government program office. A contractor cor-
rosion team (CCT) will be established at each company to oversee the corrosion control system
and to provide a forum for the coordination of the CPC tasks assigned to each organization.
Suppliers or vendors who have been granted design authority will actively participate in the
CPC process by formulating their own CPC plans that meet the intent of this document and par-
ticipating in CCT meetings on an as-required basis. A corrosion control group, which includes
the chair of each CCT, will ensure team uniformity and coordination of CPC. The CCT will fol-
low the integrated product team (IPT) philosophy by ensuring all decisions are properly coordi-
nated and implemented with the full knowledge of the appropriate design IPT. Section 2 of this
corrosion prevention and control plan defines the CCT, and assigns each corrosion control task
to the responsible organization or discipline.
The flow of these tasks is illustrated in Figure 1. Section 3 details specific CPC practices to be
implemented through the Process/Finish Specification or Engineering Dataset. Section 4 pro-
vides background information and general design information for the interrelation of corrosion
with the operating environments.
Prepare/review manufacturing
work instructions
• Develop, document, and maintain the Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan.
• Establish regular meetings and call special meetings if required.
• Coordinate and document material selection guidelines for corrosion
protection/avoidance.
• Coordinate the documentation of corrosion design guidelines.
• Coordinate corrosion prevention policies and procedures with other team policies and
practices.
• Review corrosion test results for process/finish material qualifications.
• Establish corrosion test requirements for procured items in conjunction with the
cognizant IPTs.
• Establish and maintain team-common process/finish requirements.
• Establish criteria for identification of corrosion specialists within IPTs.
• Resolve any impasse in determining the preferred process or treatment method for
corrosion control at any team site.
• Maintain a log of problems, action items, corrective actions, and status of each for all
sites.
• Coordinate and interface with government program office on the above.
The CCT will meet as needed to resolve corrosion control issues and to ensure coordination of
the CCT and their activities. Meetings, whether formal, informal, electronic, or in person, will be
documented by minutes distributed to all CCT members. The lead company CCT chairman will
be the primary liaison with government personnel on matters relating to corrosion control. All
CCT members will participate in Corrosion Prevention Action Team (CPAT) meetings.
CCT members will support CPAT and CCT meetings on an as-required basis.
will be a member of the applicable IPTs and an expert in the area of corrosion. Each CCT will
provide a forum, through the representatives of the affected disciplines and consistent with CCT
direction, to establish engineering, manufacturing, and quality requirements that will be imple-
mented by the responsible organizations at that company. The teams support the writing of the
Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan and establish requirements for the generation of de-
sign guidelines, material specifications, process specifications, and quality control guidelines.
Each CCT will consist of knowledgeable personnel who represent, at a minimum, the following
disciplines, which are necessary to implement this corrosion prevention and control plan:
1. Review internal controls to ensure corrosion prevention and control techniques are estab-
lished, implemented, and maintained.
2. Review procedures for interim protection during all phases of manufacture and during
preparation for storage/packaging for shipment.
3. Review training programs to ensure the required corrosion prevention and control tech-
niques (e.g., finishing, sealing, and drainage systems) are properly addressed.
4. Provide technical input to corrosion control and other related technical publications and
review/approve the documents.
5. Review and recommend approval of cleaning materials, solutions, and chemicals not
covered by approved specifications for use on the system, parts, and components.
6. Conduct failure analyses and provide corrective action for corrosion problems. These
analyses will be conducted and documented by the appropriate Failure Analysis Group,
reported to the Material Review Board, and recorded in the corresponding corrosion con-
trol engineer’s log. A summary of this log from each team leader will be given to the
CCT chairperson.
9. Ensure periodic reviews are made of all facilities to evaluate the adequacy of corrosion
prevention and control measures.
10. Make field site inspections of systems when requested by the CPAT or on a schedule as
established by the CPAT.
11. Incorporate environmental resistance requirements and verification methods into the test-
ing and selection of materials. Environment is defined as natural and man-made or opera-
tional environments. Materials include metallic and non-metallic materials.
12. Incorporate corrosion prevention and control measures into avionics, electro-magnetic
environmental effects, low observable technology, biological/chemical vulnerability and
other related technologies.
13. Monitor and investigate industrial developments for processing and/or process/finish im-
provements related to corrosion prevention and for cost effectiveness or compliance with
environmental regulations.
14. Notify the CCT chairperson of each CCT meeting date, meeting topics, and any decisions
resulting from the previous CCT meeting.
15. Ensure a balance is maintained between electrical bonding/grounding needs and corro-
sion control approaches.
2. Serve as design consultants for the selection of materials, processes, and finishes.
3. Review and approve engineering drawings, system and component specifications, and
technical order manuals related to corrosion prevention and control.
10. Resolve disagreements (if any) during the SDD and production phases.
12. Provide shop/manufacturing surveillance and support to assure compliance with specifi-
cation requirements.
13. Participate in or assist with, as applicable, the Engineering Material Review Board for
materials and processes technical disciplines.
2.2.2.2 Design
1. Incorporate CCT decisions into product designs
4. Participate in design trade studies during all phases of design development. Provide guid-
ance on corrosion prevention based on experience gleaned from other aircraft programs.
5. Develop and recommend corrective and preventive procedures based on reliability and
maintainability analyses of field data on similar in-service equipment.
3. Maintain records of scheduled processing solution tests and prepare test reports on speci-
fication compliance.
5. Help procurement office evaluate processing capabilities of subcontractors when such as-
sistance is requested.
4. Reject any material or part that has been damaged or has not been finished in accordance
with applicable specification or standards.
2. Serve as focal point for coordination and distribution of new regulations with the CCT,
including new regulations regarding materials and processes.
1. Bare 2000 series and 7000 series. Chromic acid anodize per MIL-A-8625 Type 1B or bo-
ric sulfuric acid anodize per MIL-A-8625, Type I C, or thin-film sulfuric acid anodize per
MIL-A-8625, Type IIB.
Note: Sulfuric acid anodize per MIL-A-8625, Type II, Class 1 or 2 may be used as an al-
ternate to chromic acid anodize except on fracture or maintenance critical parts or those
parts sized by fatigue requirements. Use of any other anodize treatments requires approval.
2. Inherently corrosion resistant alloys of the 1000, 3000, 5000, and 6000 series and alumi-
num casting alloys. Chemical conversion coat per MIL-DTL-5541 Type 1 Class 1A using
materials conforming to MIL-DTL-81706. Where a low resistivity contact is necessary
for electrical bonding purposes, MIL-DTL-5541 Class 3 may be used.
Titanium alloys should not be cadmium- or silver-plated. Cadmium-plated tools, clamps, fixtures
and jigs should not be used for fabrication or assembly of titanium components.
should extend a minimum of 1 inch beyond the contact region. For condensation polyimide–
based laminates (e.g., bismaleimide, cyanate ester), the glass barrier ply should fully cover the
laminate surfaces in contact. In addition, a minimum of one coat of primer, or fuel tank coating
should be used in the contact area. On assembly, the joint between the composite surface and this
dissimilar metal should be fay and fillet sealed with sealant and fasteners wet installed using
MIL-S-81733 or AMS 3276. Fasteners should be overcoated to the maximum extent practical
using primer, fuel tank coating, or sealant.
Soft surface coatings such as nickel-cadmium, and aluminum should not be used for sliding or
wear applications. Silver plated surfaces should not be used in applications where surface tem-
perature exceeds 232°C (450°F). Cadmium should not be used without approval of the Hazard-
ous Materials Team and review by the CCT. Cadmium plated fasteners should not be used.
Protective systems to be used, specialty coatings for fuel tank interiors, rain erosion, crew com-
partment, anti-glare, etc., are defined in the engineering dataset and included in the process/finish
specification. Refer to Table 1 (when completed) and Table 2 for guidance on these coatings.
Dissimilar metals as defined in Table 2 are protected from galvanic corrosion in accordance with
the requirements of the process/finish specification.
3.3 Sealing
Faying surfaces composed of dissimilar metals as defined in Table 2, in addition to receiving one
coat of primer (0.0006 inch–0.0009 inch) should be sealed with MIL-S-8802, MIL-S-81733, or
AMS 3276 sealant. The joint should be subsequently fillet sealed using the same sealant as was
used for the fay surface. Joints that require separation as a part of normal maintenance may have
a form-in-place seal substituted for a fay seal.
Attaching parts and fasteners such as screws, bolts, nuts, bushings, spacers, washers, rivets, and
clamps, or the surfaces to which they attach should be wet installed with MIL-PRF-23377 primer or
MIL-S-81733 or MIL-S-29574 sealant. Neither primer nor sealant should be applied to the threaded
portion of fasteners for which torque requirements are established without the coating. All non-
aluminum fasteners installed in aluminum structure should be overcoated with a minimum thickness
of 0.006 inch of MIL-S-81733, MIL-S-29574, MiIL-S-8802, or AMS 3276 sealant. After installa-
tion, all attaching parts should be overcoated with primer or primer and topcoat corresponding to the
finish requirements of the surrounding area. Topcoat should match the color of the adjacent topcoat.
Nuts and heads of bolts that are subsequently lubricated need not receive final finishing.
The exterior of electrical bond connections should be touched up to restore the finish in the sur-
rounding area and subsequently sealed over with MIL-S-81733, MIL-S-8802, MIL-S-29574, or
AMS 3276 sealant.
4.6 Soot
Soot, generated by a fire or from normal engine operation, is carbon, including a variety of com-
bustion byproducts and sulfur oxides, depending on what has been burned. Soot is both corrosive
and hygroscopic. It imbeds itself into painted surfaces and is very difficult to clean off. Severe
corrosion will result wherever paint has been chipped on aluminum structure because of the
small anode (aluminum) and very large cathode (soot) being in contact with each other in the
presence of moisture.
4.8 Rainfall
Rainfall provides some benefit in corrosion prevention by washing away some contaminants.
During periods of high acid rain activity, the beneficial effect of rain will be somewhat dimin-
ished. In either case, improperly sealed joints, open cavities, and trap areas will allow corrosion
initiation within these areas.
which are highly abrasive bits of pulverized rock and can erode leading edges and internal
engine parts.
Particle sizes usually range from .05 microns to 100 microns, and, since most airplane filters will
remove material down to 15 microns, smaller material could impede air and fluid filters. The ash
will most likely be encountered as a fine powder, similar to talcum powder and will be light gray
in color. In the presence of moisture, the ash becomes a corrosive paste that tends to set up
somewhat like concrete. Airplanes that may have accumulated this material during flight, or on
the ground, may need special cleaning, both inside and out. Even when ash is not visible, air-
planes that operate within the vicinity of volcanic activity can be contaminated with corrosive
acids. Exposure to the acids can be checked with nitrizine paper. A pH of 4 or below is an indi-
cation that cleaning is required.
4.12 Chemicals
Maintenance chemicals, such as cleaners, acids, paint strippers, solvents, etc., can present as
many different problems as there are chemicals being used. Paint strippers, solvents, and some
cleaning agents can, when improperly used, deteriorate paint, plastics and elastomers. Some
paint strippers, some cleaners, and most acids are very corrosive to airplane structure. Designers
should select materials or impose preventive measures to prevent or lessen damage from chemi-
cal attack. Additionally, maintenance personnel should be thoroughly familiar with the chemicals
they use while performing maintenance on the airplane.
1.0 Scope
1.1 Scope
This appendix establishes the guidelines for aerospace systems in determining materials, processes,
techniques, finishes, coatings, and sealants that lead to an effective corrosion prevention and con-
trol program during the conceptual, validation, development, production, and support phases of
DoD aerospace systems. The intent is to minimize the effects of corrosion on life-cycle cost, readi-
ness, reliability, supportability, safety, and structural integrity of aerospace systems.
1.3 Applicability
As an appendix to the Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook, this guidance is
applicable to all DoD procuring activities and their respective contractors involved in the design,
procurement, and upgrade of DoD aerospace systems. The detailed CPCP and the process/finish
specification should apply to all elements of DoD aerospace systems, including spare parts. This
guidance, when used in conjunction with supportability, reliability, maintainability, structural
integrity programs and applicable specific technical guidance will result in reliable DoD aero-
space systems having a good balance between acquisition costs and life-cycle cost.
• http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/
• http://www.ihs.com.
The DoDSSP also maintains the Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Information Sys-
tem (ASSIST) management and research database (website above), which retains electronic ver-
sions of the following federal and military specifications.
2.1.1.1.1 Federal
TT-P-28, Paint, Aluminum, Heat Resisting (1200ºF), active, 28 June 2007
QQ-C-390, Copper Alloy Castings (including cast bar) has been cancelled. Refer to SAE AMS
4842E, SAE AMS 4845G, SAE AMS 4855F, SAE AMS 4860E, SAE AMS 4862F, SAE AMS
4890C, ASTM B 148, ASTM B 176, ASTM B 22, ASTM B 271, ASTM B 30 REV A, ASTM
B 369, ASTM B 427, ASTM B 505/B 505M, ASTM B 584 REV A, ASTM B 61, ASTM B 62,
ASTM B 66/B 66M, ASTM B 67, ASTM B 763, ASTM B 770, ASTM B 806][ FLIS ].
MIL-C-5056, Coating, Permanent Resin, Process for Application of Aircraft Parts, inactive,
28 August 1996
MIL-S-8784, Sealing Compound, Low Adhesion for Removable Panels and Fuel Tank In-
spection Plates, inactive, 24 March 1997
MIL-F-18264, Finishes: Organic, Weapon System: Application and Control of, inactive, 30
September 1999
MIL-O-19838, Oil Systems, Aircraft, Installation and test of, inactive, 7 August 1996
MIL-PRF-46010, Lubricant, Solid Film, Heat Cured, Corrosion Inhibiting, active, 10 August
2000
MIL-I-46058, Insulating Compound, Electrical (for coating printed circuit assemblies), inac-
tive, 30 November 1998
MIL-A-46146, Adhesive-Sealants, Silicone, RTV, Non-Corrosive (for use with sensitive met-
als and equipment), active, 28 October 1992
MIL-P-53022, Primer, Epoxy Coating, Corrosion Inhibiting, Lead and Chromate Free, ac-
tive, 1 June 1988
MIL-P-53030, Primer Coating, Epoxy, Water Reducible, Lead and Chromate Free, active,
20 August 1992
MIL-PRF-63460, Lubricant, Cleaner and Preservative for Weapons and Weapon Systems
(Metric), active, 15 March 2006
2.1.1.2 Standards
The DoDSSP’s ASSIST management and research database also retains electronic versions of
the following federal and military standards.
2.1.1.2.1 Federal
FED-STD-595, Colors Used in Government Procurement, active, 11 January 1994
2.1.1.2.2 Military
MIL-STD-171, Finishing of Metal and Wood Surfaces, active, 18 July 2006
MIL-STD-883, Test Methods and Procedures for Microelectronics, active, 28 February 2006
MIL-STD-2161, Paint Schemes and Exterior Markings for U.S. Navy and Marine
Corps Aircraft, active, 1 May 1993
2.1.2 Handbooks
MIL-HDBK-275, Guide for Selection of Lubricants, Fluids, and Compounds for Use in
Flight Vehicles and Components, active, 29 June 1976
ASTM A380, Stainless Steel Parts, Equipment and Systems, Cleaning, Descaling, and Pas-
sivation of, active, 25 March 1988
ASTM B194, Standard Specification for Copper-Beryllium Alloy Plate, Sheet, Strip, and
Rolled Bar, active, 15 November 1992
ASTM B196/196M, Standard Specification for Copper-Beryllium Alloy Rod and Bar,
29 June 1990
ASTM D1732, Painting for Magnesium Alloy Surfaces, Preparation of, active, 8 September
1967
ASTM D2247, Water Resistance Testing of Coatings in 100 Percent Relative Humidity,
active, 3 October 1994
ASTM D2803, Metal Organic Coatings on Filiform Corrosion, Resistance of, active,
3 October 1994
ASTM G85, Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog), active, 3 October 1994
AMS-3265, Sealing Compound, Polysulfide (T) Rubber, Fuel Resistant, Nonchromated Cor-
rosion Inhibiting for Intermittent Use to 360Mdf (182Mdc), work-in-process, revision C,
June 2007
SAE-AMS3276, Sealing Compound, Integral Fuel Tanks and General Purpose, Intermittent
Use to 360Mdf (182Mdc); active, 10 January 1994
SAE-AMS3277, Sealing Compound, Polythioether Rubber, Fast Curing for Integral Fuel
Tanks and General Purpose, Intermittent Use to 400°F (204°C); active, 17 April 1995
SAE-AMS3281, Sealing Compound, Polysulfide (T) Synthetic Rubber for Integral Fuel Tank
and Fuel Cell Cavities Low Density (1.20 to 1.35 Sp Gr), for Intermittent Use to
360Mdf (182Mdc); active, 28 March 2006
3.0 Definitions
3.1 Aerospace System
All types of aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs), rotorcraft, missile systems,
and unique weapon system ground equipment are considered aerospace systems.
3.1.1.2 Platings
Plating is a layer (or layers) of metal deposited on or applied to a surface from a solution by
chemical or electrochemical action. Such metals include, but are not limited to, aluminum, cop-
per, chromium, nickel, cadmium, zinc, tin, lead, silver, gold, and metal alloys, such as zinc-
nickel and tin-lead.
Plating is a coating, but a coating is not necessarily a plating.
3.6 Seaplanes
All aircraft operating wholly, or in part, from water, such as flying boats, airplanes with float-type
alighting gear, aircraft with hydro-skis, amphibians, or convertibles are considered “seaplanes.”
The above DID was current as of the date of this standard. The ASSIST database at
http://assist.daps.dla.mil must be researched to ensure only current and approved DIDs are cited
on the DD Form 1423.
5.1.2.3 Drainage
Drain holes should be provided to prevent collection or entrapment of water or other unwanted
fluid in areas they can enter by various methods. A “dams and drains” drawing/plan should be
developed to ensure adequate drainage is provided. This is critical because separate groups or
contractors are often responsible for the design of modules or structure, and they may not be able
to eliminate fluids except via adjacent modules or structure. Minimum diameter for all drains
should be 9.525 mm (0.375 inches) unless otherwise approved by the procuring activity. All de-
signs should include considerations for the prevention of water or fluid entrapment and insure
that drain holes are located to permit maximum drainage of accumulated fluids. All draining
should be through meniscus-free drain holes. Closed sections, where used, should have provision
for drainage of condensation or other fluids. Special effort should be made to ensure free drain-
ing of rain, seawater, or other fluids. End fittings used with open tube should not form pockets,
which may collect moisture. Cork seals, dams, and metal end plugs machined to fit should not be
used. A single valve installation to the side of aft cockpit should be provided for drainage. Low
points should not be required in the aft cockpit floor, provided alternate drainage provisions are
satisfactory for the intended purpose. Drainage provision should be provided as required by the
engine model specification and should be in accordance with MIL-O-19838. The drain valves
should be readily accessible for drainage and oil should drain clear of the aircraft. Airframe sup-
plied drain valves should contain a locking feature.
When it is necessary to use dissimilar metals in direct contact, the metals should be adequately
protected against galvanic corrosion. Galvanic corrosion can be minimized by interposition of a
material, which will reduce the overall electrochemical potential of the joint or by interposition
of an insulating or corrosion inhibiting material. Composite materials containing graphite fibers
should be treated as graphite in Table 1. Items electrically bonded or used for EMI hardening
should be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion. Frequently removed items or items that it is not
practical to seal should be of similar materials. Emphasis should be place on using fasteners ver-
sus bare metal-to-metal contact to achieve bonding. During the structural design and mate-
rial/process selection, consideration should be given to various design alternatives, which
preclude the traditional galvanic corrosion problems created by dissimilar metal bushings (e.g.
beryllium copper, aluminum bronze) installed in aluminum structure. Consideration should be
given to the avoidance of using removable graphite/bismaleimide (BMI) composite doors/panels
fastened to aluminum alloy substructure, particularly on upper surfaces where moisture/salt spray
can potentially migrate through the fastener holes and cause corrosion of the aluminum substruc-
ture. Unless suitably protected against electrolytic corrosion, dissimilar metals should not used in
direct contact.
5.1.3.1 Aluminum
5.1.3.1.1 Alloy Selection
The selection of aluminum alloys for structural application requires consideration of their resis-
tance to pitting, exfoliation and stress-corrosion cracking (SCC). Maximum use should be made
of alloys and heat treatments that minimize susceptibility to pitting, exfoliation and SCC. Rela-
tive SCC ratings for high strength aluminum alloy products based on ASTM G64 and service
experience are given in Table 2. Although the ratings are based primarily on the results of stan-
dard corrosion tests, an experience factor can be substituted for those materials that have estab-
lished service records. The ratings are given for the short transverse grain direction, as this is the
most critical SCC condition in structural applications. In addition, recommended alloys and tem-
pers for exfoliation and stress corrosion resistance are listed in Table 3.
Alloy and Temper Rolled plate Rod and bar Extruded shapes Forgings
2014-T-6 Low Low Low Low
2024-T3, T4 Low Low Low Low
2024-T6 High Low
2024-T8 High Very High High Intermediate
2124-T851 High
2219-T351X, T37 Very High Very High Very High
2119-T6 Very High Very High Very High Very High
6061-T6 Very High Very High Very High Very High
7005-T53, T63 Low Low
7039-T64 Low Low
7049-T74 Very High High High
7049-T76 Intermediate
Alloy and Temper Rolled plate Rod and bar Extruded shapes Forgings
7149-T74 High High
7050-T74 High High High
7050-T76 Intermediate High Intermediate
7075-T-6 Low Low Low Low
7075-T736 High
7075-T74 Very High Very High Very High Very High
7075-T76 Intermediate Intermediate
7175-T736 High
7475-T6 Low
7475-T73 Very High
7475-T76 Intermediate
All aluminum sheets used in external environments and interior corrosive environments should be clad on both sides ex-
cept where the design requires surface metal removal by machining, chemical milling, adhesive bonding or where alloys of
the 1000, 3000, 5000, or 6000-series type are used.
If these alloys and tempers, or other approved alloys, are not used, the susceptibility to stress cor-
rosion cracking of the selected alloy should be established for each application in accordance
with the American Society for Testing and Materials, test methods G44 and G47.
Suitably clad aluminum alloys or inherently corrosion-resistant alloys should be used in exterior
skin that is 0.125 inch or less in thickness; forms a leading-edge, exhaust trail area of any source
or wheel well area; is spot- or seam-welded; or is the face sheet in bonded sandwich construc-
tion. Non-clad materials may be used for the aileron skins, the flap shroud skins and the flap
shroud closure pocket. To preclude partial aging in heat treatable alloys, the bonded sheet
should be in the artificially aged condition prior to bonding. The references above to exterior
surfaces and skin mean the external surface only and do not preclude use of material clad only on
one side or the removal of cladding from internal surfaces. Clad high strength aluminum alloys
should not be fusion welded.
a. Aircraft-quality, vacuum-melted steel should be used for parts which are heat treated
to an ultimate tensile strength of 220,000 psi and above.
b. The maximum ultimate tensile strength in production parts should not be greater
than 20,000 psi above the established allowable minimum requirement.
c. Preference should be given, in selection of carbon and low alloy steels, to composi-
tions having the least hardenability, which will provide thorough hardening of the
part concerned.
d. Compositions should be selected such that heat treatment to the required strength and
service temperatures should preclude temper embrittlement, blue brittleness, or brittle
temper.
e. Steels should be selected having ductile-brittle fracture transition temperatures as de-
termined by impact test below the minimum operating temperature.
f. Steels whose mechanical properties are developed by cold deformation should have
the recovery temperature of at least 50ºF above the expected operating temperature
range.
g. Critical parts should be designed and processed so as to result in no decarburization in
excess of 0.003 inch of highly stressed areas. Elsewhere, decarburzation should be
avoided and where unavoidable should be compensated by appropriate reduction in
design fatigue strength. Unless otherwise specified, designs should preclude use of
as-forged surfaces. Carburization and partial decarburization of fully hardened steel
parts should be restricted such that the difference in hardness from the surface to the
nominal subsurface hardness should not exceed two points Rockwell C (HRC).
h. The mechanical drilling of holes in martensitic steels after hardening to strength lev-
els of 180,000 psi and above should be avoided. When such drilling is unavoidable,
detailed information concerning the processes to be used should be in accordance
with the procuring activity approved contractor material and process specifications.
i. Grinding of martensitic steels and chromium plated martensitic steels hardened to
200,000 psi and above should be in accordance with MIL-STD-866.
j. Use of high fracture toughness materials is required in major landing gear compo-
nents and critical fittings. Materials should be procured in accordance with contractor
or industry specifications appropriate for the application. Aeromet 100 should be pro-
cured in accordance with AMS-6532. Standard pins, fasteners, springs and other
standard parts are excluded from this requirement.
k. H-11, D6-AC, 4340M and 300M steels should not be used without specific ap-
proval of the procuring activity.
5.1.3.2.1 Limitation on Use of Protective Metallic Coatings
Soft surface coatings such as cadmium, nickel-cadmium, and aluminum should not be used for
sliding or wear applications. Cadmium plated surfaces should not be used in applications where
surface temperature exceeds 232ºC (450ºF). Cadmium should not be used on parts that may be in
contact with hydraulic fluids, fuels, lubricating oil, and other petroleum based fluids. Cadmium
should not be used on parts that will be subsequently soldered. Cadmium should not be used on
components that will come into contact with titanium and graphite composites. Cadmium should
not be used in confined spaces, in the presence of organic materials that give off corrosive or
damaging vapors. Cadmium plated fasteners, used in areas where contact with fuel can occur,
should be overcoated with an approved fuel tank coating (such as AMS-C-27725) and subse-
quently coated with fuel tank sealant. Chromium plating should be considered an acceptable cor-
rosion preventative for alloy steel wear surfaces only when the chrome plating is periodically
lubricated (fluid or grease types only) or a 0.038 mm (0.0015 inch) minimum layer of nickel
plating is applied under the chromium. All chromium plated steel parts used in fatigue applica-
tions should be shot peened prior to electroless nickel (EN) plating. Chromium plated surfaces
should not be used in applications where service temperatures exceed 371ºC (700ºF).
5.1.3.4 Titanium
Titanium alloys other than recrystallized annealed 6Al-4V should not be used for fatigue crack
propagation critical applications or fracture toughness critical applications. The use of titanium
alloy 8Al-1Mo-1V in other than the beta heat-treated condition should not be used.
5.1.3.4.2 Fretting
Titanium alloys are highly susceptible to the reduction of fatigue life by fretting at interfaces be-
tween titanium alloys or titanium and other metals. In any design where fretting is suspected,
tests should be made to determine whether such a condition will exist and insure that fatigue life
requirements are met. Design considerations should be applied to minimize fretting in structural
applications including provision made for anti-fretting coatings or inserts.
5.1.3.6 Beryllium
In applications where beryllium is an approved material, consideration should be given to suit-
able protective coatings to protect parts against corrosion. All beryllium should be used in a pas-
sivated condition by a process approved by the procuring activity. High content Beryllium alloys
(>3 percent Be) should not be used without specific approval of the procuring activity. The use
of beryllium and beryllium-based alloys for structural parts is discouraged, except for beryllium
copper alloys containing less than 2 percent beryllium by weight. Beryllium copper alloy should
be considered for use in high bearing load applications, critical wear applications, and wear ap-
plications where good structural load capability is required. Alloy UNS C17200 or UNC 17300
or equivalent is required. Wrought beryllium copper should be acquired to ASTM B196, ASTM
B197, or ASTM B194. Beryllium copper castings should be acquired to AMS-4890 and classi-
fied (class and grade) per AMS-2175.
5.1.3.7 Mercury
Mercury and many compounds containing mercury can cause accelerated stress cracking of
brass, aluminum and titanium alloys. Mercury should not be used where spillage can contact
these materials.
5.1.3.10 Composites
Composites are defined as materials that consist of reinforcing fibers made of graphite, fiber-
glass, aromatic polyamide, boron, or other materials in a matrix consisting of organic resin or
metal.
Imide-based or graphite composites should not be used in structures not accessible for nonde-
structive inspection, non-inspectable structure, or non-removable by organizational level mainte-
nance, without the specific approval of the procuring activity.
The use of metal or ceramic matrix composites and ceramics is prohibited, except for rudder and
aileron servocylinder end glands. These materials should only be used upon engineering ap-
proval by the procuring activity.
All organic materials should have resistance to degradation and aging (including resistance to
hydrolysis, ozonolysis and other chemical processes attendant upon atmospheric exposure), and
minimum flammability consistent with performance requirements for the intended use.
Decomposition and other products, including volatile and leachable constituents, released by organic
materials under normal operating conditions should not be injurious or otherwise objectionable with
respect to materials or components or to personnel with which they may be reasonably expected
to come in contact.
Cellular plastics, foams and wood should not be used for skin stabilization in structural compo-
nents, other than in all-plastic sandwich components. Use of foam as sandwich core materials
should not be used without the specific approval of the procuring activity.
The use of adhesives in the fabrication of the aircraft structure, including metal faced and metal
core sandwich, without the specific approval of the procuring activity is prohibited.
Materials that are in direct contact with fuels should be resistant to fuel-related deterioration and
capable of preventing leakage of the fuel, if required.
All elastomeric components should possess adequate resistance to aging, operational environ-
mental conditions and fluid exposure for the intended system use. Asbestos and asbestos contain-
ing material shall not be used.
5.2.1 Cleaning
Cleaning of the various types of metallic surfaces, prior to application of the surface treatments
and coatings, should be as specified in MlL-S-5002, using materials and processes which have
no damaging effect on the metal, including freedom from pits, intergranular attack, and signifi-
cant etching. After cleaning, all parts should be completely free of corrosion products, scale,
paint, grease, oil, flux, and other foreign materials including other metals, and should be given
the specific treatment as soon as practical after cleaning. Particular care should be exercised in
the handling of parts to assure that foreign metals are not inadvertently transferred, as may occur
when steel is allowed to come into contact with zinc surfaces.
a. Hydrochloric acid
b. Trichloroethylene/Trichloroethane
c. Carbon tetrachloride
d. All chlorides
e. Chlorinated cutting oil
f. Halogenated hydrocarbons
g. Methyl alcohol.
5.3.2.1.1 Aluminum
All nonclad parts made from 7000 series aluminum alloys should be sulfuric acid anodized in
accordance with MlL-A-8625, Type II or chromic acid anodized, MIL-A-8625, Type IB. All
nonclad parts made from 2000 series aluminum alloys should be anodized in accordance with
MIL-A-8625, Type I or II. Clad 2000 and 7000 series aluminum alloys may be anodized in ac-
cordance with MIL-A-8625, Type I or II, or should have a chemical film in accordance with
Type 1, Class 1A MIL-DTL-5541 using materials qualified to MIL-DTL-81706 as a minimum
corrosion preventative coating. All 5000 and 6000 series aluminum alloys should have a chemi-
cal filming in accordance with MIL-DTL-5541 using materials qualified to MIL-DTL-81706 as a
minimum corrosion preventative coating.
• Where temperatures do not exceed 1000oF (538oC) and other coatings would not be
suitable.
• To minimize the effects of crevice corrosion with unplated corrosion-resisting steel or
stainless steel in contact with other stainless steel.
• As an undercoat for other functional coatings.
• To restore dimensions by rebuilding worn surfaces.
• For resistance to sand erosion.
5.3.2.1.4.1 Low Residual Stress
Where applications require low residual stress in the plated nickel, plating shall be in accordance
with AMS-2424.
5.3.2.1.4.2 Undercoating
Where the selected coating does not provide corrosion protection for the base metal and the
coated surface or portion thereof is exposed to corrosive environment, an undercoat of 0.0010 to
0.0016 inch of nickel on steel or zinc parts or an undercoat of 0.0008 to 0.0010 inch of nickel on
copper alloy parts in accordance with AMS-2423 or AMS-2424 shall be used. Coatings proposed
for applications where temperatures exceed 1,000oF (538oC) in service shall be subject to engi-
neering approval by the procuring activity.
AMS-2460, with a minimum thickness of 0.002 inch, unless otherwise specified. If a Class 1 (cor-
rosion) coating is specified, and the part will not be subjected to lubricants during use, a nickel un-
dercoat shall be applied in accordance with AMS-2403 having a minimum thickness of 0.0015
inch. When chromium plating is specified, it shall be used on only one of two contacting surfaces.
5.3.2.1.6 Magnesium
When using magnesium alloys, refer to section 5.1.3.5. Magnesium alloys should be treated in
accordance with ASTM D1732 prior to painting. Hole(s) drilled after finishes have been applied,
should be treated in accordance with AMS-M-3171 Type VI. Parts, subsequent to anodizing,
may be given a surface sealing treatment per AMS-M-3171, Type VII.
In addition, with respect to detail requirements, all finishes and coatings should comply with the
requirements of MIL-STD-7179.
5.3.3.1 Finishes
The organic finishes or finish systems used should provide the necessary protection against cor-
rosion for all materials used in areas subjected to corrosive environments. All exterior paints and
colors should be consistent with thermal design requirements. The appropriate exterior finish
systems should be selected based upon the base material in accordance with MIL-STD-7179,
MIL-DTL-53072, or other appropriate specification. All interior surfaces exposed to an exterior
environment should be considered as exterior surfaces and should be primed and painted. Interior
primer should conform to MIL-PRF-23377, Type I, Class 1 or 2, or MIL-P-85582, Type I, Class
2, except in high temperature areas, the selected material should be approved by the procuring
activity. Integral fuel tank coatings should meet the requirements of AMS-C-27725. All exterior
plastic parts that are subject to rain or solid particle erosion should be protected by coatings that
conform to specifications AMS-C-83231 or AMS-C-83445. Justification data, including both
laboratory and service experience, should be submitted for approval by the procuring activity
whenever materials other than those given above are proposed.
5.3.3.2 Applications
The MIL-PRF-85285 aliphatic polyurethane coating should be applied in two coats to a thick-
ness of 0.045 to 0.058 mm (0.0017 to 0.0023 inch), for an overall average total topcoat thickness
of 0.51 mm (0.0020 inch). The MIL-PRF-23377, Type I, Classes 1 or 2, of MIL-P-85582, Type
I, Class 2 primer should be applied to a thickness of 0.015 to 0.023 mm (0.0006 to 0.0009 inch),
sealant conforming to AMS-3276 or AMS-3277. For areas that operate at 135 to 260ºC
(275 to 500ºF) sealant conforming to MIL-A-46146 or MIL-A-46106 should be used.
(Note: MIL-A-46106 releases acetic acid during cure and is corrosive to metallic components.
Its use is prohibited except in specific applications on composites and where etching may be re-
quired. Specific approval by Materials and Processes Engineering is required for use.) AMS-
3277 may be used in areas where the operational temperature is a maximum of 149ºC (300ºF).
Sealants used in integral fuel tanks should conform to AMS-S-8802 or AMS-3281, or approved
alternative specification. Removable panels and access doors should be sealed, either by me-
chanical seals or separable faying surface sealants conforming to MIL-S-8784 or AMS 3267,
except in Navy aircraft. High adhesion sealants such as AMS-S-8802, AMS-3276, AMS-3281,
AMS-3277, or approved alternative, may also be used for access door sealing providing a suit-
able parting agent is used on one surface. Justification data, including laboratory and service
experience, should be submitted for approval by the procuring activity whenever materials other
than those given above are proposed.
MIL-PRF-23377 x x x x 1/ x
4/6/
MIL-P-53022 x x x x 1/ x
2/5/7/
MIL-P-53030 x x x x 1/ x
2/5/6/8/
MIL-PRF-85582 x x x x 1/ x
4/6/8/
TT-P-2760 – – – – 1/
3/4/6/
MIL-P-53084 x x x x
2/
1/
TT-P-2756 is a self-priming topcoat. Application of an appropriate primer coating is required for all AF systems. Application of a
primer coating is not required, with the exception of FED-STD-595, color number 36495, for all other services. For infrared reflectance
protection, TT-P-2756 requires the use of a primer coating conforming to TT-P-2760, Type II; MIL-PRF-23377, Type II; or MIL-PRF-85582,
Type II. TT-P-2756 is authorized for use on aluminum, aluminum alloy, and polymer matrix composite structures only. TT-P-2756 is com-
patible with all of the primer coatings listed above. If the item to be coated with TT-P-2756 has been preprimed, removal of the primer coat-
ing prior to application of TT-P-2756 is not necessary. TT-P-2756 is to be applied to a dry film thickness of 2.0 to 2.6 mils (51 to 66 µm).
2/
For CARC finish systems refer to MIL DTL-53072.
3/
TT-P-2760 is primarily intended for use on aircraft in areas where there is a high degree of structural flexing. TT-P-2760 is to be
applied to a dry film thickness of 1.5 to 2.0 mils (38 to 51 µm).
4/
These coatings are best suited for aluminum and polymer matrix composite substrates.
5/
These coatings are best suited for ferrous and magnesium substrates.
6/
Contains at least one type or class with a VOC of less than or equal to 340 grams/liter (2.8 pounds/gallon).
7/
Contains at least one type or class with a VOC of less than or equal to 420 grams/liter (3.5 pounds/gallon).
8/
This material may cause flash rusting of bare steel. Do not use on bare steel unless proven satisfactory for the intended purpose.
9/
Approved for interior use only on U.S. Army weapon systems per MIL-DTL-53072
2 Sacrificial metal coatings and non-sacrificial 0.6 (15) 1.2 (30) 1.7 (43) –
coatings applied to non-corrosion-resistant
metals
3 Titanium alloys 2/ – – – –
4 Magnesium alloys 1.2 (30) 1.2 (30) 1.7 (43) 1.7 (43)
5 Armor plate-ferrous 0.6 (15) 1.2 (30) 1.7 (43) –
6 Corrosion resistant alloys 0.6 (15) 0.6 (15) 1.7 (43) –
7 All metals not covered above 0.9 (23) 1.5 (38) 1.7 (43) –
8 Polymer matrix composites 1/ 0.6 (15) 1.2 (30)4/ 1.7 (43) –
1/
TT-P-2756 may be used; see Table 5, footnote 1/.
2/
These metals do not require primer coating or topcoats for corrosion protection except for faying surfaces as noted in 5.5.1.
Primer coatings and topcoats may be applied to blend with adjacent areas (use item 2 requirements).
3/
See Table 5, note 3/.
4/
Application of primer on interior surfaces is only required at dissimilar metal interfaces (see 5.5.1.c).
5/
For CARC finish system on U.S. Army weapon systems see MIL-DTL-53072.
a. Where 5.3 and Table 5 and Table 6 specify application of a specific thickness of primer
coating to fayed surfaces, one-half of the required thickness of primer coating may be ap-
plied to each surface being joined.
b. Primer coating should not be applied to resistance-welded fayed surfaces. Only weld-
through sealants approved by the procuring activity should be used prior to assembly.
Primer coating should be applied to fayed surfaces after spot welding. All exterior edges
should be primer coated.
c. Fayed surfaces that are to be adhesively bonded should be cleaned, treated, and processed
as specified in the procuring activity approved bonding procedures documents for the as-
semblies concerned, or in accordance with MIL-HDBK-83377, as applicable (except for
Navy assets).
d. Titanium to titanium and corrosion resistant steel to corrosion resistant steel constructions
should be protected by application of primer coating (see paragraph 5.3) or sealant, con-
forming to AMS-S-8802, AMS-3276, AMS-3277, MIL-PRF-81733, AMS-3265, or ap-
proved alternative, to the fayed surfaces. Where protection against fretting is required for
these constructions, the contractor should propose a method of protection for approval by
the procuring activity.
e. In addition to any required primer coating, all exterior fayed surfaces, seams, and edges
should be sealed with a sealant conforming to AMS-S-8802, AMS-3276, AMS-3277,
MIL-PRF-81733, AMS-3265, or approved alternative. A minimum gap of 0.02 inch
(0.5 mm) should exist at exterior surface butt joints to allow for effective sealing.
5.5.1.3 Sealing
For exterior locations, openings (with the exception of drain holes at low points) that are not re-
quired for aircraft operations should be sealed to prevent fluid intrusion from external sources.
Sealing around access plates should be accomplished by the application of sealant to the struc-
ture in a manner such that that the access plates can be removed without damaging the formed-
in-place sealant or the surrounding metal. The recommended thickness of sealant for formed-in-
place seals should be 0.030 inch (0.76 mm).
5.5.10 Tubing
Refer to Table 8 for coatings to be used on tubing types.
Paint coatings should not be applied to the interior surfaces of airspeed indicator tubing or other
sensing lines. Aluminum tubing used in fire-extinguishing systems employing halogenated
agents should be finished internally and externally with a baked resin coating conforming to
MIL-PRF-3043, applied in accordance with MIL-C-5056.
I Single tubes having separate Applied after all required forming Topcoat applied after fabrication
connections at each end. operations have been completed and prior to installation.
and prior to fabrication of the
assembly.
II Assemblies made up of individual Primer coating applied, followed Same as for category I.
tubes permanently joined by non- by application of sealant (MIL-S-
separable type fittings (brazing, 8802, MIL-S-29574, MIL-S-
welding, swaging) and having 81733, or AMS-3276 after all re-
separable type connectors at quired bending and permanent
each end. joining has been completed and
prior to final fabrication of the
assembly.
III Single or multiple tube assem- Same as for category II. For tube Same as for category I. For all
blies that have one or more free assemblies employing a perma- assemblies having been only
ends that must be permanently nent joining process not com- partially primed, additional primer
joined by nonseparable type patible with the primer coating coating should be applied as re-
fittings. during fabrication, the primer quired, followed by the coating of
coating may be omitted from the all nonseparable joints with seal-
affected free ends at a distance ant (MIL-S-8802, MIL-S-29574,
acceptable to the procuring activ- MIL-S-81733, or AMS-3276), fol-
ity. lowed by the required exterior
paint system.
IV Other types of tube assemblies Not Applicable. Not Applicable.
not covered in categories I, II, or
III. For this category, the contrac-
tor should establish a paint pro-
tection system acceptable to the
procuring activity.
1/
Apply primer coatings in accordance with Tables 2 and 3. Assemblies in categories I, II, and III, in which sleeves or ferrules are
used in the separate connection, and the sleeves or ferrules are fixed in position by deformation of one or both members into con-
tact, the primer coating need not extend beyond the initial point of intimate contact. For all tubing categories where flare fittings are
used, primer coating must be applied to the end of the tube.
2/
Any damage occurring to the finish system during installation should be touched up using the initial finish system for repair. For
aluminum plumbing lines, see 5.10.22.
b. For large tubing structures, interconnecting holes may be drilled between members to
promote circulation of the corrosion preventive compound, described in 5.2.10.2.1a.
For AF Systems only: Dry installation (without sealant or primer) of permanent, interference fit
fasteners may be allowed in aluminum and titanium structures with approval of the procuring
activity. Fastener shall be Titanium pin-type with chromated aluminum-filled, organically
bonded coating (Hi-Kote 1).
5.5.11.5 Touch-Up
All attaching parts should receive final coating after installation. Topcoats should be applied over
the primer coating to match the color of adjacent exterior surfaces, when necessary. Nuts and
heads of bolts in joints that are subsequently lubricated need not receive final finishing.
5.5.11.6 Washers
Washers constructed of aluminum alloy 5356 or 5052, or high pressure phenolic laminates
should be used under machine screws, countersunk fasteners, bolt heads and nuts that would oth-
erwise contact magnesium and should be wet installed and fillet sealed after installation with
sealant conforming to MIL-S-81733.
a. 300 to 400°F (149 to 204°C), either on the ground or in flight (other than instantaneous
effects), should be finished in accordance with 5.3.6, Tables D-6 and D-7, the appropriate
color and gloss. For exposure to operational temperatures of 250 to 350°F (121 to
177°C), sealant conforming to MIL-A-46146, MIL-A-46106 or AMS-3276 should be
used. (Note: MIL-A-46106 releases acetic acid during cure and is corrosive to metallic
components. Its use is prohibited except in specific applications on composites and where
etching may be required. Specific approval by Materials and Processes Engineering is re-
quired for use.) AMS-3277 may be used in areas where the operational temperature is a
maximum of 300°F (149°C).
b. 400 to 500°F (204 to 260°C), a silicone finishing system should be applied directly to
surface treated metal, omitting the wash primer and primer coating. The color should
conform to the color scheme for the aerospace system. For exposures up to 450°F
(232°C), sealant conforming to MIL-A-46146 or MIL-Q-46106 may be used, when au-
thorized by the procuring activity. (Note: MIL-A-46106 releases acetic acid during cure
and is corrosive to metallic components. Its use is prohibited except in specific applica-
tions on composites and where etching may be required. Specific approval by Materials
and Processes Engineering is required for use.)
c. Above 500°F (260°C), heat-resistant finishes conforming to TT-P-28 may be used; how-
ever, each application must be approved by the procuring activity.
EMI design requirements often run counter to corrosion protection requirements. In addition,
many EMI areas need to be accessed, forcing the use of re-usable conductive seals that are prone
to leaking and typically made from highly conductive, noble materials, which create strong gal-
vanic couples with the surfaces they contact. Design of EMI systems should take all possible
means to provide corrosion protection in combination with EMI performance requirements.
5.5.24.2.1 Connectors
All connectors meeting MIL-DTL-38999 should be Class W.
Permanently mated electrical connectors should be sealed after installation with sealant conform-
ing to AMS-S-8802, AMS-3277, MIL-PRF-81733, AMS-3265, AMS-3276, or approved alterna-
tive. Electrical connectors not permanently sealed should be internally protected with material
conforming to MIL-C-81309, Type III. Preferred corrosion protection method for external con-
nector mating areas, especially for coaxial connectors, is application of a stretch sealing connec-
tor tape (such as AvDEC polyurethane Stretch Seal) but protection may be provided by
application of MIL-C-81309, Type III. Nickel plated connector shells should not be used.
Test Criteria
ASTM D 2247 30 day humidity test No blistering, softening, loss of adhesion or other film
defect
ASTM B117 2000 hours salt spray test with scribed panels No blistering, lifting of coating nor substrate corrosion.
ASTM G 85.A4 500 hours SO2 salt spray test with scribed No pitting greater than 1 millimeter in depth.
panels (Navy Only)
ASTM D 2803 1000 hours filiform corrosion test with No filiform corrosion extending beyond 1/4 inch from
scribed panels. the scribe.
Wear should be considered damage at an interface, generally with progressive loss of material
from one or both surfaces, due to relative motion between the surfaces. Wear mechanism include
adhesive, abrasive, and fretting wear as well as corrosive and thermal wear. Erosion should be
considered progressive loss of material from a surface due to impinging fluid or solid particles.
Surface damage frequently is a combination of two or more wear and erosion mechanisms. Wear
Apply erosion prevention practices all surface areas including leading edges, radomes, housing
and other protrusions as well as to surfaces exposed to particle impingement during take-offs and
landings. Include erosion prevention measures in the finish specification.
5.7.4 Lubrication
Provisions should be made for lubrication of all parts subject to wear. The selection of lubri-
cants (oil, greases, solid film coatings, and hydraulic fluids) should be in accordance with
MIL-HDBK-275 as specified in MIL-HDBK-838. The fire resistant synthetic hydrocarbon hy-
draulic fluid, MIL-H-83282, should be use as the aircraft hydraulic fluid. The number of differ-
ent lubricants required should be kept to a minimum by using multipurpose lubricants such as the
wide temperature general purpose grease MIL-G-81322 whenever possible, without compromis-
ing performance and reliability. All lubrication fittings should be readily accessible. Components
are highly loaded/dynamic and potentially corrosive applications (e.g., landing gear, arresting
gear) should make maximum use of lubrication fittings, vice other form of lubricant. Parts sub-
ject to immersion in seawater should be designed so as to exclude seawater from bearings.
coverage of these parts should be provided for comparison with post-test conditions. The engine
should then be reassembled, pretest performance calibrated, and subjected to 25 AMT cycles while
being injected with a two percent of airflow weight spray solution, consisting of the following mate-
rials dissolved with sufficient distilled water to make one liter of salt spray solution:
The stock solution should be composed of the following materials dissolved with sufficient dis-
tilled water to make one liter of stock solution:
At specified intervals during the test, the engine should be subjected to internal inspections to
detect any evidence of corrosion or progression of corrosion of internal parts. Upon completion
of the test, a performance check should be conducted and the engine disassembled and inspected
for evidence of corrosion. Detailed photographs should be taken of all parts that show evidence
of corrosion. The contractor should present test specimen evidence of metallurgical analyses that
completely characterize the types of corrosion found. The test results should be considered satis-
factory when the extent of corrosion is not of such a magnitude as to impair structural integrity
or component operation, or be a cause of significantly reducing performance, engine durability,
or parts.
1 Background
1.1 Abstract
The United States Congress has enacted Public Law 107-314 Sec: 1067 titled “Prevention and
mitigation of corrosion of military equipment and infrastructure.” This law requires the Secretary
of Defense to be responsible for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion of military equipment
and infrastructure, and the development and implementation of a long-term strategy for corrosion
prevention and mitigation. Over the past several years the Department of Defense has required
Program/Acquisition Managers to develop and implement a Corrosion Prevention and Control
Plan. Acquisition reform has seen a shift from traditionally required military specifications, stan-
dards and handbooks to more reliance on commercial and performance specifications. This shift
and the requirement for a well defined Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan presents opportu-
nities and challenges for Program/Acquisition Managers. One of the many challenges facing the
Program/Acquisition Managers is the ability to develop a meaningful Corrosion Prevention and
Control Plan. Corrosion of DoD assets is not only costly in monetary and manpower terms, but
degraded availability of assets are unacceptable in these times of high operational tempo and
shrinking budgets. Appendix (A) contains a recommended template for Program/Acquisition
Managers to develop a useful Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan.
1.2 Introduction
The Department of Defense (DoD) requires 1 Program and Project Managers to include corro-
sion-related planning in the acquisition process. This document provides guidance for Program
Manager’s (PM), which will enable them to develop a Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan
(CPCP) that will reduce the overall life cycle cost of a system. A properly developed CPCP will
enable the PM to specify materials, coatings and design features for structures and equipment,
with an emphasis on corrosion control, and provide a tool to reduce maintenance costs through
proper design. The initial draft of the CPCP should be completed prior to Milestone B. Appendix
A of this document provides a draft CPCP template to help the PM with this process. The authors
have previously published and provided guidance on corrosion wording for acquisition docu-
ments to assist Program/Acquisition Managers with corrosion wording for Requests for Propos-
als and Statements of Work. 2,3
1
Department of Defense (2002). “Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook,”
PDUSD (AT&L). UNCLASSIFIED.
2
Hays, R.A., and E.B. Bieberich, “Corrosion Wording for USMC Acquisition Documents,”
CARDIVNSWC TR-61-05 (July 1999).
3
Conrad, R.K., R.A. Hays, and D.A. Davis, “Corrosion Wording for USMC Acquisition Documents, Part 2,”
NSWCCD-61-TR-2002/14 (August 2002).
• The CPAT must be actively involved and review all design considerations, materials
selections, cost, and documentation that may affect corrosion prevention and control
throughout the life of the system;
• The CPAT provides advice and guidance to the PM on corrosion-related issues, and
identifies risks as well as corrosion prevention opportunities and the adequacy of the
corrosion maintenance documentation;
• The CPAT must review and resolve corrosion, materials and coating discrepancies
from QA and coating inspections submitted by the PM;
• The CPAT must review materials issues and determine if a Material Selection Review
(MSR) is required;
• The CPAT elevates unresolved issues to the OSD Integrating IPT;
• The CPAT’s meeting schedule should be set by the CPAT chairperson and the PM at
a frequency that ensures adequate time to address issues with the CCT. This would al-
low those issues to be resolved in a timely manner such that negative impact on
scheduling is avoided;
• The CPAT must outline the CCT duties that should be included in the contract and
define the appropriate documentation required by the CCT;
• The CPAT chairperson and appropriate representatives should attend all CCT meet-
ings and advise the PM on technical issues that need to be resolved.
The CCT should include knowledgeable representatives from project design integrated process
teams, materials and process engineers, operations and manufacturing, quality control, process
control, design, reliability, maintainability, supportability, production operations, manufacturing,
hazardous materials, safety, environmental, Integrated Logistics Support (ILS), procurement, test
and evaluation, to include contractors and subcontractors. The specific responsibility of the CCT
should be:
• Develop, document and maintain the Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan (CPCP);
• Establish process/finish requirements;
• Establish corrosion testing requirements for procured items in conjunction with the
Integrated Products Teams (IPTs);
• Establish regular meetings and initiate special meetings if required to address corro-
sion prevention and control and materials issues;
• Coordinate and interface with the government PM and CPAT chairperson;
• Coordinate and document materials selection guidelines for corrosion protec-
tion/avoidance;
• Coordinate and document coating selection guidelines for corrosion protec-
tion/avoidance;
• Coordinate the documentation of corrosion design guidelines;
• Coordinate corrosion prevention polices and procedures;
• Review corrosion, materials and coatings test results for process/finish qualifications;
• Identify corrosion specialists within the materials/coatings IPTs;
• Resolve any impasse in determining the preferred process or treatments for corrosion
control at any team site.
4 Documentation
4.1 Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan
The corrosion prevention and control plan assists the PM in establishing a management approach
to corrosion prevention and control during system acquisition. This plan should describe the spe-
cific anticipated CPCP measure to be implemented. This document should be initially drafted by
the CPCP and provided to the PM for inclusion as part of the draft RFP no later than Milestone
B. After the award of the contract, this document will be maintained by the contractor but any
changes must be approved by the PM and CPAT. Copies of major revisions to this document
should be formally submitted to Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
5 Abbreviations
CPCP Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
1 Introduction......................................................................................................1
iii
5.3.1.3 Welding Specifications ....................................................................................12
5.3.1.4 Testing and Evaluation Requirements .............................................................12
5.3.1.5 QA/QC Requirements......................................................................................12
5.3.1.6 Certifications and Training ..............................................................................12
5.3.2 Non-metallic (Name of the non-metallic material)................................................12
5.3.2.1 Application.......................................................................................................12
5.3.2.2 Limitations/Trade-offs .....................................................................................12
5.3.2.3 Testing and Evaluation Requirements .............................................................12
5.3.2.4 QA/QC Requirements......................................................................................12
5.3.2.5 Certifications and Training ..............................................................................12
5.3.3 Determine if Material Selection Review (MRS) requirements Apply...................12
5.4 Coatings (Name of coating) .........................................................................................12
5.4.1 Surface Preparation & Application........................................................................12
5.4.2 Limitations/Trade-offs ...........................................................................................12
5.4.3 Testing and Evaluation ..........................................................................................12
5.4.4 QA/QC Requirements............................................................................................12
5.4.5 Certifications and Training ....................................................................................12
5.5 Sealants ........................................................................................................................12
5.6 Bonding and Grounding...............................................................................................12
5.7 Cathodic Protection Systems .......................................................................................12
5.7.1 ICCP.......................................................................................................................12
5.7.2 Sacrificial ...............................................................................................................12
5.8 Quality Assurance Requirements.................................................................................12
5.8.1 Third Party QA/QC................................................................................................12
5.8.2 Contractors/Subcontractors QA/QC ......................................................................12
5.9 Wear and Erosion.........................................................................................................13
5.10 Stress Corrosion Factors ..............................................................................................13
5.11 Limitation on Use of Protective Metallic Coating.......................................................13
5.11.1 Cadmium................................................................................................................13
5.11.2 Nickel-cadmium.....................................................................................................13
5.11.3 Chromate conversion coatings...............................................................................13
5.12 Surface Considerations ................................................................................................13
iv
5.13 Galvanic Corrosion ......................................................................................................13
5.14 Lubrication...................................................................................................................13
7 Deliverables ...................................................................................................16
8 Reference Material.........................................................................................16
Figures
Figure 1. CPAT and CCT Corrosion Control Discrepancy Adjudication Process ..........................5
Figure 2. Corrosion Prevention Control Plan Tasks ........................................................................6
v
vi
1 Introduction
The primary function of this (Program) Program Office Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan
(CPCP) is to provide a process that will develop and resolve corrosion requirements and discrepan-
cies for (Type of Ship/Asset). Through this plan, the costs due to materials and coating selections,
corrosion, scale, and microbiological fouling will be addressed and reduced. Compliance with the
law and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, Occu-
pational Safety and Health Administration, and other applicable guidance will be met.
1
Testing Issues: Assigned by PM
2
• Ensure life cycle costs and logistic support changes are reflected and ensure any
changes are warranted.
• Draft proposals/justifications for corrosion control/material improvements as re-
quired.
• Review equipment corrosion test reports resulting from testing required by the (Type
of Ship/Asset) system operating and non-operating environments specification.
• Establishes an ECP/Change Control Document Review Board.
• Coordinate review of appropriate corrosion control documentation by the proper or-
ganization, e.g., NAVSEA, PEO’s, OPNAV, and EPA.
• The CPAT will maintain the action item list and meeting schedule. Meeting quarterly
or as required.
• Additional responsibilities as identified and needed can be added.
2.2.2 Design
• Reviews applicable American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Naval Vessel Rules (NVR)
and NAVSEA technical publications for information that will assist in developing
contract design requirements.
• Establishes the Design Decision Memorandum Process.
• Address corrosion concerns and issues as part of the Design Decision Memorandum
(DDM) process.
• Provide CPAT, CCT, and any other reports to the design teams as required.
• Ensure that adequate corrosion prevention and control requirements are implemented
in accordance with the Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan, contract, design plans,
and specifications.
• Reviews applicable (Type of Ship/Asset) specification sections and approved modifi-
cations for information that will assist in developing contract design requirements.
2.2.3 Quality Assurance
• Address and establishes the guidelines for QA/QC audits and the responsibilities of
the CPAT, prime contractor, subcontractors, and third party inspectors.
• Establishes the schedule and team to perform QA audits.
• Reviews the contractors/third party’s QA plan for coatings application to include
qualification, checkpoints, and required remedial actions.
• Verify that the contractor or subcontractors personnel providing surface preparation
or coating application meet the certification requirements defined in the Corrosion
Prevention and Control Plan.
2.2.4 Materials and Coatings
• Evaluate materials to determine if a Material Selection Review (MSR) is required.
3
• Evaluate Design Agent’s trade-off studies affecting materials, coatings and corrosion
performance.
• Reviews and comments on the paint procedures and schedules at least six months
prior to any painting operations.
• Participates on the Engineering Materials Review Board.
• Addresses any coating deficiencies from previous systems and recommends potential
corrective actions to the appropriate design team.
• Recommends corrosion and materials validation testing as appropriate.
• Invite and involve corrosion/material/coating advisors as required.
2.2.5 Reliability, Maintainability, and Supportability
• Ensures the Contractor’s plan specifies a Life Cycle Maintenance Corrosion Control
Document for the (Type of Ship/Asset).
• Reviews and approves the Life Cycle Maintenance Corrosion Control Document.
4
Figure 1. CPAT and CCT Corrosion Control Discrepancy Adjudication Process
5
3 Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan (CPCP)
This plan describes the corrosion control tasks and outlines who has responsibility for the system
and support equipment. A Contractor Corrosion Team (CCT) will be established at the prime
contractor to oversee the Corrosion Control Prevention and Control Plan (CPCP) and to provide
a forum for the coordination of the Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan tasking assigned to
each organization. The prime contractor will ensure that copies of major revisions to this docu-
ment will be formally submitted to DTIC. Suppliers and vendors that have been granted design
authority will actively participate in the CPCP process by formulating their own CPCP’s that fol-
low the guidelines set forth in this document and will participate in the CCT meetings as re-
quired. The flow diagram presented in Figure 2 illustrates the flow of tasking.
6
4 Contractor Team Coordination
and Corrosion Control
The CCT will include at least one Program representative from each of the team companies and
be chaired by the company IPT Corrosion Control Specialist. This team will provide coordinated
and consistent corrosion prevention and control policy. The CCT will guide, direct and instruct
the prime and subcontractors on corrosion prevention and control measures and will verify all
measures implemented on the program are necessary, adequate, timely, and cost effective. The
following are the responsibilities of this team:
a. Develop, document and maintain the Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan (CPCP).
b. The CCT chairperson will be the primary liaison with the government CPAT on all
corrosion issues.
c. The CCT will establish a regular meeting schedule and call additional meetings when
needed and notify the CPAT chairperson of each CCT meeting date, meeting topic,
and any decisions resulting from the CCT meeting.
d. The CCT will establish an Engineering Materials Review Board that documents ma-
terial/corrosion concerns and reports to the CPAT Chairperson.
e. The CCT will monitor and investigate industrial developments for processing and/or
process/finish improvements related to corrosion prevention and for cost effective-
ness of, or compliance with, environmental regulations.
f. The CCT will coordinate the documentation of corrosion design guidelines and will
provide technical input to corrosion control and other related technical publications
and review/approve the related documents.
g. The CCT will coordinate corrosion prevention policies and procedures with other IPT
policies and practices, as applicable.
h. Establish criteria for identification of corrosion specialists within
i. The CCT will conduct quarterly CCT meetings to ensure implementation of this plan
and to coordinate solutions for problems that arise during the development, design,
and manufacturing phase. Additional CCT meetings will be conducted as required.
Close communication between the CCT chairperson, company team leader, and
CPAT chairperson will be maintained.
j. The CCT will maintain a log of problems, solutions and actions they have addressed
or are addressing.
k. The CCT will make field site inspections of systems when requested by the CPAT or
on a schedule established by the CPAT.
l. The CCT will review and document the prime and subcontractors internal controls to
ensure that corrosion prevention and control techniques are established, implemented,
and maintained.
7
m. The CCT will review training programs to ensure that the required corrosion preven-
tion and control techniques, as well as safety, QA/QC, and Environmental issues, are
properly addressed.
n. The CCT will review corrosion test results developed for process/finish material
qualifications.
o. Review coating procedures, specifications and qualifications.
p. Establish corrosion test requirements for procured items in conjunction with the cog-
nizant IPT’s.
q. The CCT will conduct failure analyses as required and provide corrective action for
corrosion problems. These analyses will be conducted and documented by the appro-
priate Failure Analysis Group. Results will be reported to the Engineering Materials
Review Board and recorded in the corresponding corrosion control engineer’s log.
r. The CCT will incorporate environmental resistance requirements and verification
methods into the testing and selection of materials (metallic and non-metallic) and
coatings. Environment is defined as natural, and man-made or operational environ-
ments.
s. The CCT will incorporate corrosion prevention and control measures into electro-
magnetic environment effects, low observable technology, biological/chemical vul-
nerability and other related technologies.
t. The CCT will ensure that a balance is maintained between electrical bond-
ing/grounding needs and corrosion control approaches.
u. Establish and maintain team-common process/finish requirements.
v. Resolve any impasse in determining the preferred process/treatment method for cor-
rosion control at any team site.
w. Maintain a log of problems, action items and corrective actions. This log will include
the status of each of these items for all contractor and subcontractor sites.
x. Creates and maintains an interface with the government CPAT and PM.
y. Establishes the Life Cycle Maintenance Corrosion Control Document.
z. Additional Responsibilities as identified and needed should be added.
4.1 Contractors Corrosion Team (CCT) Functional Tasks
A CCT will be established at the prime contractor and each of the subcontractors that have de-
sign responsibilities and will provide coordination among the organizational and technical disci-
plines responsible for, or involved in, corrosion control tasks. Each CCT will consist of
knowledgeable personnel who represent, at a minimum, the following disciplines necessary to
implement the CPCP:
8
4.1.1 Design
• The CCT Chairperson will work with the CPAT to incorporate Program and Team
CCT decisions into the product designs.
• The CCT Chairperson will coordinate corrosion-related design problems with the
CPAT and Team CCTs.
• The CCT will review drawings for conformance to standard corrosion prevention de-
sign practices.
• The CCT will participate in design trade-off studies during all phases of design
development.
• The CCT will provide guidance to the CPAT on corrosion prevention procedures
based on experience.
4.1.2 Materials and Processes
• The CCT will write and maintain a process/finish specification for the engineering
and manufacturing development and production models.
• The CCT will serve as a design consultant for the selection of materials, processes and
finishes. The CCT will review and approve engineering drawings, systems, and the com-
ponents specifications and technical manuals related to corrosion prevention and control.
• The CCT will initiate changes to materials and process specification and design as
required.
• The CCT will submit logs of corrosion problems and solutions/actions to the CCT
chairperson and CPAT.
• The CCT will maintain records of all inputs.
• During the system development, demonstration and production phases, the CCT will
work with the PM to resolve materials and corrosion prevention concerns and docu-
ment actions taken.
• The CCT will monitor the development in processing or finish requirements relative
to the CPCP for design incorporation.
• The CCT will review and recommend approval of cleaning materials, solutions, and
chemicals for use on the system, parts, and components not covered by approved
specification.
• The CCT will review and recommend approved surface preparation and coating ap-
plication methods.
• The CCT participates in, or assists with, as applicable, the Engineering Material Re-
view Board for materials and process technical disciplines.
• The CCT participates in the development of MSR’s.
• The CCT reviews NVR and NSTM’s for compliance with specifications and regulations.
9
4.1.3 Reliability, Maintainability, and Supportability
• The CCT will ensure the incorporation of reliability, maintainability and supportabil-
ity (RM&S) into materials, corrosion prevention, finish selection and development.
• The CCT will ensure corrosion-related supportability design-to-requirements is cur-
rent and available to the designers. This includes design reviews to ensure hidden or
inaccessible areas are addressed.
• The CCT will develop and recommend corrective and preventive procedures based on
Reliability and Maintainability analyses of field data on similar in-service equipment.
• The CCT will document maintenance procedures and applicable logistic resources
• The CCT will provide shop/manufacturing surveillance and support to assure compli-
ance with specification requirements.
4.1.4 Production Operations
• During production operations the CCT will review and analyze corrosion-related
problems in all departments. Consultations with materials and process corrosion en-
gineers will be conducted as required during this process.
• The CCT will request changes to engineering documentation in order to correct fin-
ishing procedures or implement new procedures.
4.1.5 Quality Assurance
The CCT quality assurance authority consists of process control and quality control items.
10
• The CCT will verify that all applied coatings and finishes conform to pertinent de-
signs, specifications and standards.
• The CCT will reject any materials, parts, coatings, or finishes that have been damaged
or are not in compliance with applicable specifications or standards.
4.1.6 Manufacturing
• The CCT will translate processing and finishing requirements of engineering data
onto planning documents.
• The CCT will provide requirements to ensure in-process corrosion protection of the
materials and parts during manufacturing.
• The CCT will revise planning documents when changes to engineering design or
specifications require those alterations, then inform the CPAT and PM of those
changes.
4.1.7 Hazardous materials, Environmental and Safety Compliance
• The CCT ensures that materials and processes will comply with all federal and state
regulations.
• The CCT will document and report compromises to the CPCP due to Environmental
or Safety requirements.
• The CCT will serve as the focal point for coordination and distribution of new regula-
tions, including those regarding materials and processes.
11
5.2 Process/Finish Specifications
5.3 Materials
5.3.1 Metal/Alloy (Name of metal/alloy i.e. Steel, Stainless Steel, Aluminum, etc)
5.3.1.1 Application
5.3.1.2 Limitations/Trade-offs
5.3.1.3 Welding Specifications
5.3.1.4 Testing and Evaluation Requirements
5.3.1.5 QA/QC Requirements
5.3.1.6 Certifications and Training
5.3.2 Non-metallic (Name of the non-metallic material)
5.3.2.1 Application
5.3.2.2 Limitations/Trade-offs
5.3.2.3 Testing and Evaluation Requirements
5.3.2.4 QA/QC Requirements
5.3.2.5 Certifications and Training
5.3.3 Determine if Material Selection Review (MRS) requirements Apply.
5.4 Coatings (Name of coating)
5.4.1 Surface Preparation & Application
5.4.2 Limitations/Trade-offs
5.4.3 Testing and Evaluation
5.4.4 QA/QC Requirements
5.4.5 Certifications and Training
5.5 Sealants
5.6 Bonding and Grounding
5.7 Cathodic Protection Systems
5.7.1 ICCP
5.7.2 Sacrificial
5.8 Quality Assurance Requirements
5.8.1 Third Party QA/QC
5.8.2 Contractors/Subcontractors QA/QC
12
5.9 Wear and Erosion
5.10 Stress Corrosion Factors
5.11 Limitation on Use of Protective Metallic Coating
5.11.1 Cadmium
5.11.2 Nickel-cadmium
5.11.3 Chromate conversion coatings
5.12 Surface Considerations
5.13 Galvanic Corrosion
5.14 Lubrication
(Add sections as needed)
6 Operational Environment
This section is presented as background information on the operational environment. The opera-
tional environment is defined in the Environmental Criteria Document. Within this part of the
CPCP, define the expected environmental conditions that should be considered in the design and
construction phase in order to reduce life cycle cost and maintenance burdens such as:
13
6.3 Seawater Immersion
Natural seawater covers more than 70 percent of the earth’s surface and is the most abundant
natural occurring electrolyte. Most metals and alloys used for ship construction are attacked by
seawater. In addition to the corrosion of the metal by the electrolyte, biofouling will occur. The
major concerns in this environment are pH, salinity, oxygen, biological activity, pollution, and
temperature.
6.7 Soot
Soot from a fire or from normal engine operation is primarily carbon, but can include a variety of
combustion byproducts and sulfur oxides, depending on what has been burned. Soot is both cor-
rosive and hygroscopic. It imbeds itself into painted surfaces and is very difficult to clean off.
When pain chips off of an aluminum structure, you can have a small anode (aluminum exposed
through chipped paint) and a large anode (soot) in contact with each other in the presence of
moisture. This can result in severe corrosion.
6.9 Rainfall
Rainfall provides some benefit in corrosion prevention by washing away some contaminants.
During periods of high acid rain activity, the beneficial effects of rain will be somewhat dimin-
14
ished. In either case, improperly sealed joints, open cavities, and trap areas will allow corrosion
initiation to occur.
6.12 Chemical
Maintenance chemicals, such as deicers, cleaners, acids, paint strippers, solvents, etc., can pre-
sent many different problems as long as these chemicals are being used. Paint strippers, solvents,
and some cleaning agents can, when improperly used, deteriorate paint, plastics, and elastomers.
Some paint strippers, some cleaners, and most acids are corrosives. Designers should select ma-
terials or impose preventive measures to minimize the damage from chemical attack caused by of
the cleaning agents. Additionally, maintenance personnel should be thoroughly familiar with the
chemicals they use while performing maintenance.
15
7 Deliverables
• Documentation of material/corrosion deficiencies, as required. Complete Enclosure
(1) following the adjudication of any issues and file as appropriate.
• Life Cycle Maintenance Corrosion Control Document.
• Review and comment on design issues. Provide technical justification as required.
• Resolve materials and corrosion issues identified by the various IPT’s.
• Resolve design issues related to materials corrosion control and coatings identified by
the Design Agents.
• Review of (Type of Ship/Asset) Specifications, providing updates for current
technologies.
• Periodic review and update of the CPCP.
8 Reference Material
• Steel Structures Paint Council–Surface Preparation Standards
• American Bureau of Shipping Naval Vessel Rules
• NSTM Section 074–Castings and Welding
• NSTM Section 075–Threaded Fasteners
• NSTM Section 078—Materials Requirements
• NSTM Section 505–Piping System Requirements
• NSTM Section 630–Corrosion Prevention and Control
• NSTM Section 631–Preservation of Ship in Service NSTM Section 632–Metallic
Coatings
• NSTM Section 633–Cathodic Protection NSTM Section 634–Deck Coverings
• NAVSEA Approved Preservation Process Instruction (PPI’s)
• Tech Pubs
• Military Specifications and Standards
• www.corrdefense.org (DoD corrosion website)
• www.NSTCenter.com
16
Enclosure (1) Corrosion Control Discrepancy
Documentation Form
NAVSEA CORROSION PREVENTION
AND
CONTROL PLAN FOR
(type of ship or asset)
This form is use to document the resolution of any corrosion control discrepancies reviewed by
the NAVSEA Corrosion Prevention Advisory Team (CPAT) or their designated representa-
tive(s). Complete information will be available in any documents referenced below
Date:
Performing Activity
TPOC: Phone:
Description of Resolution:
Accepted Rejected
Name: Phone:
Activity: Date:
17
18
Distribution
DoD—CONUS
COMMANDER COMMANDING OFFICER
NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
ATTN SEA 05M1 PORT HUENEME DIVISION
1333 ISSAC HULL AVENUE ATTN CODE 4C33
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376 5 4363 MISSILE WAY
OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4307 1
ONE LIBERTY CENTER COMMANDING OFFICER
ATTN CODE 332 (A PEREZ) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
875 NORTH RANDOLPH STREET, PORT HUENEME DIVISION
SUITE 1425 ATTN CODE 4C33 (J RELPH)
ARLINGTON VA 22203-1995 2 4363 MISSILE WAY
US ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4307 1
AMSTA-TR- E/MEPS-270 (I C HANDSY) COMMANDING OFFICER
WARREN MI 48397-5000 1 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
US ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND PORT HUENEME DIVISION
AMSTA-DSA-LT (J JACZKOWSKI) ATTN T TENOPIR
WARREN MI 48397-5000 1 4363 MISSILE WAY
PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4307 1
NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
ATTN CODE 6310 (ENV PROTECTION) COMMANDING OFFICER
4555 OVERLOOK AVENUE SW NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
WASHINGTON DC 20375-5320 1 ATTN CODE 4C33 (B ACKER)
PORT HUENEME DIVISION
US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY 4363 MISSILE WAY
ATTN AMSRL-WM-MC (B PLACZANKIS) PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4307 1
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005 1
COMMANDING OFFICER
DEFENSE TECH INFO CTR NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
8725 JOHN KINGMAN ROAD ATTN CODE L06 (R OROPEZA)
SUITE 0944 PORT HUENEME DIVISION
FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 1 4363 MISSILE WAY
US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4307 1
AMSRL-WM-MC (DR J BEATTY) COMMANDING OFFICER
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005 1 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ATTN CODE 4G05 (J O’NEIL)
2001 NORTH BEAUREGARD ST PORT HUENEME DIVISION
SUITE 210 4363 MISSILE WAY
DIR CORROSION POLICY/OVERSIGHT PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4307 1
ALEXANDRIA VA 22311 2 COMMANDING OFFICER
MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
PM TRANS SYS (JULIE REDFERN) PORT HUENEME DIVISION
2033 BARNETT AVE SUITE 315 ATTN CODE 4C30 (T KINNOSON)
QUANTICO VA 22134-5010 1 4363 MISSILE WAY
PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4307 1
MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND
ATTN ACENG (H PORTERFIELD) DIRECT REPORTING PROGRAM MANAGER
2033 BARNETT AVE SUITE 315 FOR EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLES
QUANTICO VA 22134-5010 1 WORTH AVE TECHNOLOGY ANNEX
ATTN R CROSS
14041 WORTH AVE
WOODBRIDGE VA 22192-4123 1
Dist (1)
DIRECT REPORTING PROGRAM MANAGER COMMANDING OFFICER
FOR EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLES NAVSEA LOUISVILLE DETACHMENT
WORTH AVE TECHNOLOGY ANNEX ATTN CODE G51 (D WHITTLE)
ATTN S BETTADAPUR 160 ROCHESTER DR
14041 WORTH AVE LOUISVILLE KY 40214 1
WOODBRIDGE VA 22192-4123 1
COMMANDING OFFICER COMMANDING OFFICER
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER NAVSEA LOUISVILLE DETACHMENT
CRANE DIVISION ATTN CODE 4K22 (G HARLER)
ATTN CODE 8074 (C COX) 160 ROCHESTER DR
300 HWY 361 LOUISVILLE KY 40214 1
CRANE IN 47522 2
COMMANDING OFFICER Internal
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
CRANE DIVISION CODE 011 1
ATTN CODE 4052 (N MAEGERIEIN)
300 HWY 361 CODE 0113 1
CRANE IN 47522 1 CODE 0114 1
COMMANDING OFFICER CODE 28 (R PETERSON) 1
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND CODE 60 1
ATTN CODE 4T4220D (N ANDERSON)
1 ADMINISTRATION CIRCLE STOP 1002 CODE 61 1
CHINA LAKE CA 93555-6100 1 CODE 6109 1
COMMANDING OFFICER CODE 611 1
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND
ATTN CODE 4T4220D (C WEBBER) CODE 612 1
1 ADMINISTRATION CIRCLE STOP 1002 CODE 613 5
CHINA LAKE CA 93555-6100 1 CODE 613 (CONRAD) 10
COMMANDING OFFICER CODE 613 (DAVIS) 1
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
INDIAN HEAD DIVISION CODE 613 (SHEETZ) 1
ATTN CODE 5130K (H ARCHER) CODE 613 (RUEDISUELI) 1
101 STRAUSS AVE
CODE 614 1
INDIAN HEAD MD 20640-5035 1
CODE 614 (CLAYTON) 1
COMMANDING OFFICER
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CODE 614 (DUCKWORTH) 1
INDIAN HEAD DIVISION CODE 614 (ENG) 1
ATTN CODE 5130Q (J VILCHEZ)
101 STRAUSS AVE CODE 614 (KOCH) 1
INDIAN HEAD MD 20640-5035 1 CODE 614 (MURRAY) 1
COMMANDING OFFICER CODE 616 1
NAVSEA LOUISVILLE DETACHMENT
CODE 616 (BOHLANDER) 1
ATTN CODE G42 (J WEBB)
160 ROCHESTER DR CODE 63 1
LOUISVILLE KY 40214 1 CODE 65 1
CODE 66 (DOC PG ONLY) 1
CODE 3452 (TIC/C) 1
Dist (2)
Appendix F
Frequently Asked Questions about Corrosion
Prevention and Control Planning
Is a corrosion prevention and control plan (CPCP) mandatory and what happens
if I don’t have a CPCP?
A CPCP is mandatory for all ACAT I programs and is integral to effective corrosion
prevention and control planning. CPC planning will be a standard topic and will be
reviewed by the Overarching IPT with any unresolved issues raised to the DAB. The
DAB will also review and assess the effectiveness of corrosion planning.
Why worry about corrosion during concept refinement phase, when it happens
during operations?
While corrosion and its effects usually appear after a system has been in operation for
some time, the mechanisms that initiate and propagate corrosion are most often inher-
ent in the materials selected or caused by manufacturing and assembly processes.
Much of the annual $10 billion to $20 billion DoD cost of corrosion is currently spent
How can I ensure that systems I procure meet requirements for corrosion
resistance? What requirements can I impose in a contract?
The request for proposal and accompanying specifications impose procurement re-
quirements. The CPC Planning Guidebook provides guidelines for determining cor-
rosion resistance requirements and assessing compliance. The guidebook also
prescribes the Corrosion Prevention and Advisory Team, which will be available to
review and provide advice concerning design considerations, procurement require-
ments, materials selection, costs, and documentation that may affect corrosion pre-
vention and control throughout the life of the system or facility.
How are issues resolved when there is disagreement between CPAT members
and the program manager as to requirements and actions reflected in the
corrosion prevention and control plan?
The CPAT and the program manager should make every effort to resolve issues in-
ternally. Unresolved issues will be presented to the overarching integrated product
team (OIPT) for adjudication. If this results in no agreement or resolution, the issue
may be presented during the DAB Review Process.
How will a facility’s corrosion prevention and control plan be integrated with
weapon systems’ plans?
Each facility CPCP reflects materials and methods to prevent, resist, or minimize cor-
rosion and its effects on facilities and other infrastructure items. In those cases where
facilities directly support weapon systems and warfighting capability, weapon system
maintenance concepts and other support requirements may dictate facility require-
ments. While the facility CPCP will reflect such requirements, integrating the facility
CPCP requirements with weapon system plans is outside the scope of the facility
CPCP itself.
Figures
Figure 1-1. Life-Cycle Impact ..................................................................................................... 1-1
Figure 1-2. Standard Materiel Maintenance Program.................................................................. 1-5
1.1 Overview
A fundamental element of DoD policy (Total Life Cycle Systems Management [TLCSM]) is the
designation of the program manager (PM) as the life cycle manager, responsible for effective and
timely acquisition and sustainment of the system throughout its life cycle. The PM provides the
needed product support capability to maintain the materiel readiness, sustainment, and opera-
tional capability of a system. Emphasis is placed on increasing reliability and reducing logistics
footprint in the systems engineering process, and providing for effective product support using
performance-based logistics (PBL). In support of the total system level responsibilities of the
PM, PBL strategies may be applied at the system, subsystem, or major assembly level, depend-
ing upon program-unique circumstances and appropriate economic or business case analysis. By
employing PBL, TLSCM becomes the overarching DoD framework for implementing the Title
10 requirement to provide sustained materiel readiness to the warfighter. 1 This volume focuses
on the sustainment responsibilities of the PM and, more specifically, the importance in mitigat-
ing or preventing corrosion.
DoD continues its efforts to conduct operations in a more effectively and with greater fiscal re-
sponsibility. Under the Total Life Cycle System Management approach, the sustainment aspects
of a weapon system’s life cycle receive increased attention by service leadership and program
managers. Based on simple analysis of operations and support (O&S) costs compared to total
ownership costs, the life-cycle impact is plain to see, as shown in Figure 1-1.
1
Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.0.1,
https://akss.dau.mil/dag/DoD5000.asp?view=document, accessed 5 July 2007.
Implementation of the TLCSM business approach means all major materiel alternatives and all
major acquisition functional decisions can be implemented only after the program manager dem-
onstrates an understanding of the effects on operations and sustainment phase system effective-
ness and affordability.
In addition, TLCSM assigns the program manager responsibility for effective and timely acquisi-
tion, product support, availability, and sustainment of a system throughout its life cycle. TLCSM
applies to all systems in all life cycle phases. 2
2
Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.1.1.
The PM’s responsibility under TLCSM is to provide the warfighter with sustainable weapon sys-
tems that meet their requirements remaining fiscally responsible and accountable. PMs should use
the best possible analysis at all program stages to assess performance, schedule, supportability, and
cost outcomes. These outcomes should be documented to ensure there is a credible foundation
based on the analysis that has been conducted. These efforts are critical for both establishing budg-
etary requirements and tracking execution success over time for either new or legacy programs.
LCL supports sustained materiel readiness by establishing readiness standards (metrics), opti-
mizing life-cycle investment strategies to achieve those standards, implementing and executing
materiel readiness plans, and continually assessing performance against the standards.
LCL includes the planning, development, and implementation of performance-based logistics and
performance-based life cycle product support initiatives as the preferred approach to systems support
(DoD Directive 5000.1). Examples of these initiatives include managing performance agreements,
integrating support strategies, and employing diagnostics, prognostics, and logistics chain manage-
ment approaches to achieve operational effectiveness, proactive Diminishing Manufacturing Sources
and Material Shortages (DMSMS) management, system affordability, and a reduced logistics foot-
print. LCL should be an integral part of the systems engineering process to ensure that sustainment
considerations are implemented during the design, development, and production of a weapon system.
This process is critical to providing more effective, affordable, and operationally reliable systems by
increasing availability and sustainability.
LCL fully supports DoD’s strategic goals for acquisition and sustainment logistics as stated in
the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Joint Vision 2020, and the Focused Logis-
tics Campaign Plan (FLCP). DoD goals include the following:
In addition, LCL helps program managers achieve these goals within the context of TLCSM. 3
The overall product support strategy, documented in the acquisition strategy, should include life-
cycle support planning and address actions to ensure sustainment and continually improve product
affordability for programs in initial procurement, re-procurement, and post-production support.
3
Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.1.2.
Performance-based logistics, the preferred DoD approach to product support, serves to consoli-
date and integrate the support activities necessary to meet these objectives. 4
Figure 1-2 depicts a standard materiel maintenance program. Corrosion, as a significant driver of
maintenance requirements, needs to be considered during each phase—maintenance engineering,
maintenance requirements, maintenance execution, and maintenance assessment and status reporting.
4
Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.1.3.1.
Maintenance
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Assessment &
Engineering Requirements Execution Status Reporting
Maintenance concept Resources are applied
Initiation of maintenance Maintenance is
definitized through to accomplish
concept for each system/ documented and materiel
reliability-centered requirements.
item based on: condition is assessed
maintenance. Maintenance occurs at:
• Design Characteristics • Condition
Develops • Depot-level
• Reliability Projections • Readiness
•Technical Orders • Field-level
• Operational Factors
• Directives
• Other Factors
• Instructions
• Others
The first two steps, maintenance engineering and maintenance requirements, are accomplished in
both the acquisition and sustainment phases. For example, the maintenance concept (in the main-
tenance engineering step) is initially developed during weapon system acquisition based on the
factors depicted in the graphic. However, the maintenance concept is reviewed and adjusted (if
necessary) based on data collected during the operational and sustainment phases. Because cor-
rosion prevention and repair are essential maintenance functions, they are embedded in each of
the materiel maintenance stages as follows:
Because corrosion permeates maintenance activities, its prevention and mitigation must also
permeate key maintenance initiatives, such as Continuous Process Improvement (CPI), Condi-
tion-Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+), and Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM).
MIT defines Lean as the “elimination of waste and efficient creation of enterprise value,” and
includes “optimization of value delivered to all stakeholders and enterprises in value chain.” Ac-
cording to the Lean Aerospace Initiative:
5
Lean Aerospace Initiative, https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=22426, accessed 11 July 2007.
data, enable analysis and support the decision-making processes for weapon system acquisition
and sustainment or operations. 6
The objective of the RCM process is to identify ways to avoid or reduce the consequences of
failures, which, if allowed to occur, will adversely affect personnel safety, environmental health,
mission accomplishment, or economics. Preventive maintenance is only one way failures can be
mitigated. A preventive maintenance task should be implemented when it is appropriate to do so;
but that might not be the best solution in all cases. An RCM analysis might indicate, for example,
that the best solution is to simply allow the failure to occur, then perform corrective maintenance
to repair it. Or analysis might indicate that some other action is warranted, such as an item redes-
ign, a change in an operational or maintenance procedure, or any number of other actions that
will effectively reduce the consequences of failure to an acceptable level. 7
Diagnostic metrics are measures that relate to specific elements of the maintenance process that
must be quantified, managed, and improved to ensure overall performance and cost goals are met.
Initially, however, the CBM+ implementation team should identify higher-level metrics required to
monitor overall maintenance performance, costs and results. The CBM+ implementation team
should begin with metrics developed through recent research that uses the “balanced scorecard”
approach. 8
6
Draft DoD Policy Issuance, CBM+ DoD Instruction.
7
From http://logistics.navair.navy.mil/rcm/index.cfm, accessed 11 July 2007.
8
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, “The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive, Performance,” Har-
vard Business Review, vol. 70, no. 2, January–February 1992.
Implementation of CBM+ requires a structured approach to measuring both the progress of im-
plementation and the performance and costs once the condition-based maintenance process is in
operation.
2.2 Requirements
Specific requirements for addressing corrosion in systems in the sustainment phase have been limited
in the past. Furthermore there have been only limited metrics by which to measure the success of a
corrosion program. In addition to such requirements established by the individual services, a pending
DoD Instruction on corrosion (DoDI 5000.rr, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DoD
Military Equipment and Infrastructure) promulgates corrosion-specific requirements (see para-
graph 2.2.2) The procedures in the pending DoD Instruction indicate that each system have a corro-
sion prevention action team (CPAT). In a similar manner the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) requires corrosion planning for all contracts over $5 million,
which includes many sustainment efforts. Key requirements are contained in the following issuances.
• Explain the philosophy and strategy to address corrosion for the remainder of the
planned life of the system.
• Be formally accepted and signed by the program manager as an official program
document.
• Define CPC requirements in accordance with existing technical data. These require-
ments should take into account operating environments and system-peculiar corrosion
vulnerabilities. Based on materials and protective systems, their age and condition,
the operating environment, and experience, a prevention and mitigation strategy
should be clearly defined with a clear link to requirements.
• Define data systems, collection, analysis, and reporting of corrosion data in accor-
dance with pending DoDI 5000.rr. Required corrosion data storage and tracking with
reporting frequencies should be established. In many cases, corrosion records have
not been retained, thus precluding the identification of trends and the anticipation of
problems. Corrosion may occur long after the causative action, so long-term record
keeping may be warranted.
• List applicable technical data, specifications, and standards.
• Define the relationship and role of corrosion in other system programs or plans, such
as reliability, RCM, condition-based maintenance, maintainability, supportability,
system master plans, structural integrity plans, etc. If corrosion is an element or sub-
set of a separate focus, it may not receive the needed attention without specific advo-
cacy within that program. This should be reflected in the corrosion plan to ensure the
necessary resources are available.
• Establish the management structure to be used for the peculiar system including a CPAT.
• Define the competency level, duties, roles, responsibilities, and authority of the sys-
tem corrosion manager. This should include procedures for review of all contracted
and organic maintenance efforts, drawings, etc.
• Prescribe a CPAT charter with the approving signature level, the membership, and
organization of the CPAT. The charter should describe basic duties of team members
and define operating procedures. The CPAT charter should also define detailed work-
ing procedures as defined in Section 2.4.2 below.
• Define processes for addressing corrosion in all contracted and organic maintenance
efforts.
• Outline sources of funding and procedures to be used to obtain funding for corrosion
prevention and mitigation and the necessary engineering support.
• Establish processes and procedures for review of drawings, statements of work, main-
tenance planning documents, etc. for materials and processes or other content that
might affect CPC.
• Establish responsibility and procedures for corrosion quality assurance audits of
maintenance activities, storage facilities, etc.
The CPAT will play an important role in providing the guidance and expertise necessary to im-
plement the corrosion prevention and control plan. The CPAT advises the program manager on
corrosion-related issues, the adequacy and execution of the various elements of the plan, and al-
ternative organizational avenues for addressing corrosion-related issues.
2.4.2 Charter
The CPAT charter provides the authority for the CPAT and its activities. The charter should be
signed by the program manager as the one responsible for the specific system. It should define
the purpose of the team and include the scope and responsibilities of the CPAT. The charter also
should include organizational membership and specify a minimum meeting frequency (once per
year) with more frequent meetings as required. The charter should define both member roles and
responsibilities and CPAT activities in support of the system’s CPC plan.
2.4.3 Membership
The corrosion manager/POC for the system typically chairs the CPAT. In some cases, users or
other involved members might serve as co-chair. Many systems now have contractor support for
the CPAT activities. Membership should include representatives from system users, program or
project engineering, service corrosion program offices, technical authorities or the equivalent,
and subject matter experts, which may include individual service laboratory materials engineers,
information analysis center personnel (such as AMMTIAC), and personnel from both organic
and contractor maintenance organizations.
Systems that are still in production or that will likely have variants produced should also have
representatives from the original equipment manufactures (OEMs) as non-voting members.
Every effort should be made to maximize user participation, especially from activities with spe-
cific corrosion responsibilities.
One weapon system studied in this effort conducted periodic (every 5 years) fleet surveys. These
surveys provide the backbone for CPAT activities, as previously unidentified corrosion items be-
came formal CPAT action items and were subsequently addressed and tracked. As the result of an
OSD-funded project, another sustainment corrosion program manager, along with contractor sup-
port personnel, visited multiple user sites to accomplish on-equipment testing. During the testing,
multiple, previously unknown, corrosion problems were discovered and found to be prevalent
across the fleet. These discoveries became one of the primary sources of CPAT actions for the next
several years, and they may mean significant problems could be otherwise avoided.
Limited budgets often preclude such assessments and surveys, but they should be a part of the
CPC plan. Once conducted, the corrosion program manager should quantify the benefits and
track associated actions.
2.5.2 Feedback
Other feedback mechanisms are available to access corrosion problems. These include results of
“lead-the-fleet” weapons system assessments, materials and quality deficiency reports, consum-
able and reparable parts history, and newer parts usage and trend analysis.
2.5.3 Monitoring
The insertion and adaptation of developed technologies such as corrosion monitoring sensors can
provide valuable information related to corrosion prevention and control. Monitoring sensor results
can accurately predict impacts of specific environments on the expected corrosion. Prediction and
active monitoring may result in such examples as determining frequency of washing or rinsing and
avoidance/extension of periodic maintenance.
This is best illustrated with the story of two salesmen of corrosion inhibitor systems being called
to the customer’s facility to view the annual internal inspection of the boiler. The inevitable cor-
rosion had occurred over the last year, and the salesman whose system was currently in use de-
clared how wonderful it had worked, since corrosion was limited to what they saw. The hopeful
competitor looked aghast and declared how terrible it was and how much better it would have
been if his system had been used. Such is the difficulty of measuring the success of a sustainment
corrosion program. Likewise, when effective corrosion measures are taken, how long does it take
to see the results?
It should be noted that economic cost is only one factor; it should not be used alone as a corro-
sion performance metric, because costs can be misleading if not properly understood and used in
context. Corrosion maintenance costs, for instance, can be reduced over a given period simply by
deferring the maintenance, but after a time the same maintenance costs will be much greater.
Likewise, investments in prevention can prove very costly initially but will yield large returns on
the investment over the life of the system. Unfortunately, corrosion programs can fall victim to
budgets, so program managers must use other information to support requirements for addressing
the corrosion issues in a timely fashion.
Corrosion-related trends in readiness, in conjunction with cost and safety, can be indicators of
the effectiveness of the corrosion program. These factors can be even more indicative when
compared to other systems with similar attributes of usage, design, etc.
for Maintenance Activities Program (CTMA), Value Engineering, and other OSD sponsored
efforts including OSD corrosion project funding where projects meet the defined criteria. In-
formation on such funding is available at www.corrdefense.gov.
2.10 Conclusions
A review of the DoD weapon systems in the sustainment phase of their life cycle, with success-
ful participation in the OSD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Program, provided a template for
corrosion programs for systems in this phase. Some of these systems were no longer in produc-
tion, others were well into the sustainment phase as production continued; either way, the corro-
sion issues related to production should be addressed during acquisition.
Acquisition corrosion programs are much more fluid with changing needs and focus as the pro-
grams move through the milestone development process while sustainment corrosion programs
have a more permanent and fixed focus. While the sustainment programs require significant
flexibility to address ever-changing corrosion challenges, the programmatic approach and focus
can be more constant. Sustainment corrosion programs have fewer automatic review points or
defined corrosion performance metrics but they offer an increased opportunity to tailor programs
in the long term to meet specific program needs.
In this appendix, we summarize the results from recent DoD cost-of-corrosion baseline studies.
DoD’s cost-of-corrosion studies are important for two reasons:
• They measure the annual cost of corrosion for various categories of weapon systems,
facilities, and infrastructure.
• They identify corrosion cost reduction opportunities for the military services
and DoD.
Introduction
According to two separate studies—including one by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO)—the cost of corrosion to DoD equipment and infrastructure is estimated to be between
$10 billion and $20 billion annually. Although the spread between these estimates is large, both
studies confirm that DoD corrosion costs are significant.
Congress, concerned with the high cost of corrosion and its negative effect on military equip-
ment and infrastructure, enacted legislation in December 2002 that directed the Secretary of De-
fense to appoint a DoD Corrosion Official to report to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD[AT&L]). The Secretary of Defense was also di-
rected to inform the Congress within 60 days, the structure of the office and who the office
would report to. Modifications have been made, and the USD(AT&L) is the Corrosion Executive
with a direct reporting Corrosion Office. To perform its mission of corrosion prevention and miti-
gation, fulfill congressional requirements, and respond to GAO recommendations, USD (AT&L)
established the Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team (CPC IPT), a cross-
functional team of personnel from all the military services as well as representatives from private
industry.
Table A-1 presents the results of the initial five studies and the timeline for future cost-of-
corrosion studies.
Based upon their general source of funding and level of maintenance, materiel corrosion costs
are segregated into three categories: depot-level, field-level (both intermediate and organiza-
tional maintenance), and outside normal reporting. Outside normal reporting costs cover corro-
sion prevention or correction activities that are not identified in traditional maintenance reporting
systems. Examples of these costs include the time an aviation crew member with a non-
maintenance skill specialty spends inspecting the aircraft for corrosion damage, or the cost of
corrosion-related training.
To accommodate the anticipated variety of decision makers and data users, a corrosion cost data
structure that maximizes analysis flexibility was designed. Figure A-1 outlines the data structure and
different methods of analysis.
Using this data structure, weapon system managers and other decision makers can analyze the
data against the following:
• Equipment type
• Age of equipment type
• Corrective versus preventive cost
• Depot, field-level, or outside normal reporting
• Structure versus parts cost
• Labor costs
• Material costs
• Work breakdown structure (WBS).
Cost
(then-year dollars in millions)
Fiscal Depot Corrosion-
Service Systems year maintenance related Share
Army Ground vehicles 2004 1,956 274 14.0%
Army Aviation and missiles 2005 1,861 529 28.4%
Navy Ships 2004 4,812 1,345 28.0%
Marine Corps Ground vehicles 2005 521 119 22.8%
Source: LMI cost-of-corrosion studies for DoD.
Corrosion-related costs as a share of field maintenance costs are generally lower than at the
depot level, as well as being more tightly grouped. Corrosion-related maintenance costs were
20.4 percent of field maintenance costs for Marine Corps ground vehicles in FY2005, and this
is the clear outlier in this set of data.
Cost
(then-year dollars in millions)
Fiscal Field Corrosion-
Service Systems year maintenance related Share
Army Ground vehicles 2004 6,980 1,045 15.0%
Army Aviation and missiles 2005 6,505 1,028 15.8%
Navy Ships 2004 5,892 779 13.2%
Marine Corps Ground vehicles 2005 1,862 379 20.4%
Source: LMI cost-of-corrosion studies for DoD.
Corrosion-related maintenance costs for Marine Corps ground vehicles also represented the
highest share of the materiel maintenance costs for the military services and types of equipment
studied to date. Note that Table A-4 does not include outside-normal-reporting corrosion costs
and therefore differs from Table A-1, which does include them.
Cost
(then-year dollars in millions)
Fiscal Field + depot Corrosion-
Service Systems year maintenance related Share
Army Ground vehicles 2004 8,936 1,319 14.8%
Army Aviation and missiles 2005 8,366 1,557 18.6%
Navy Ships 2004 10,704 2,124 19.8%
Marine Corps Ground vehicles 2005 2,383 498 20.9%
Source: LMI cost-of-corrosion studies for DoD.
Navy Ships
Table A-9. Top Five Navy Ship Categories
by Total Corrosion Maintenance Cost in FY2004
Figures
Figure 1-1. Volume III Organization ........................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2. Process to Implement Corrosion Control During a Classic Design-Bid-Build
Project .................................................................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 1-3. Process to Implement Corrosion Control During a Classic Design-Build
Project .................................................................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 2-1. Process to Implement Corrosion Control During a Classic Design-Bid-Build
Project .................................................................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2. Process to Implement Corrosion Control During a Classic Design-Build
Project .................................................................................................................................... 2-2
It is simply good sense and good management to prevent corrosion through better design
and selection of materials, and to reduce treatment costs by detecting corrosion earlier
and more precisely. Fighting corrosion is just one of the things that we need to constantly
do so that we are always ready to perform the fundamental mission of the Department,
which is to maintain our national security. 1
—DoD Corrosion Executive
1.1 Introduction
Project managers—perhaps more than any other group—greatly influence DoD’s corrosion-
related costs, safety, and reliability issues, regardless of whether it is in the design and construc-
tion of infrastructure or in their sustainment. 2 That is why this Corrosion Prevention and Control
Planning Guidebook is targeted to them. It identifies the materials, processes, techniques, and
tasks required to integrate an effective corrosion prevention and control program during all
phases of DoD infrastructure development and sustainment. The objective is to minimize the ef-
fects of corrosion on life-cycle costs, readiness, reliability, supportability, safety, and structural
integrity. Following the guidance in this Infrastructure Volume, in conjunction with applicable
project and technical documentation, will result in the best possible balance between construc-
tion and sustainment costs for DoD infrastructure.
Figure 1-1 outlines the structure of this volume. The remainder of this chapter explores the cor-
rosion requirements as they relate to facility managers and planners, project managers (PMs),
and designers. It also identifies general project manager requirements. Chapter 2 outlines specific
corrosion-related planning requirements. Chapter 3 focuses on technical and design considera-
tions that may impede or eliminate corrosion.
1
AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4, Winter 2003, p. 9.
2
Per 10 USC 2228, the term “infrastructure” encompasses “all buildings, structures, airfields, port facilities,
surface and subterranean utility systems, heating and cooling systems, fuel tanks, pavements, and bridges.”
General
Project
Management
Requirements
• Planning
- Define Requirement
- Conceptual Design
• Final Design & Specs
• Contract Award
• Construction
• Operations & Maintenance
PM CPC
Planning
• Management Planning
• Technical Considerations
- Programmatic Considerations
- Corrosion variables
- CPC Planning - Potential solutions
- CPAT - Impacts
- CCT - Testing
- CPCP - Service laboratories
• ILS Planning • Design Considerations
- Material selection
- Coating
- Design geometries
- Environment
- Process/finish specifications
1.1.2 Applicability
This infrastructure volume is applicable to all DoD procuring activities and their respective con-
tractors involved in the planning, design, and procurement of new DoD infrastructure as well the
activities responsible for the sustainment of existing infrastructure.
1.1.3 Policy/Guidance
DoD corrosion policy recognizes that “the early stages of acquisition
provide our best opportunity to make effective trade-offs among the
many competing design criteria that will provide desired Defense ca-
pability.” This guidance is in accordance with the DoD Corrosion Pre-
vention and Control policy letter, signed by the Acting Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD[AT&L]),
12 November 2003 (see Attachment 1) and the Facility Corrosion Pre-
vention and Control memorandum, signed by the Deputy Under Secre-
tary of Defense for Installations and Environment, 10 March 2005 (see
Appendix F). Program and project management requirements include
the following:
1.1.5 Definitions
The term “corrosion” means the deterioration of a material or its properties due to a reaction of
that material with its chemical environment. 4 Other key definitions are as follows: 5
• Management Planning
• Technical Considerations
- Programmatic Considerations
Effective and viable CPC planning should be smoothly and seamlessly - CPC Planning
- Corrosion variables
- Potential solutions
- CPAT - Impacts
integrated. The initial phases of the construction cycle should consider - CCT - Testing
- CPCP - Service laboratories
the effects of corrosion on the infrastructure and should be reflected in • ILS Planning • Design Considerations
- Material selection
the appropriate documentation. A corrosion prevention and control - Coating
- Design geometries
plan describes how a particular project will implement CPC planning. - Environment
- Process/finish specifications
4
Section 1067 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003, Public Law 107-314,
enacted 10 U.S.C. 2228.
5
Acronyms are defined in Attachment 2. A complete list of defense acquisition acronyms and terms can be
found at http://www.dau.mil/pubs/glossary/preface.asp.
Figure 1-2. Process to Implement Corrosion Control During a Classic Design-Bid-Build Project
Contractor Corrosion
Team(s) formed
Figure 1-3. Process to Implement Corrosion Control During a Classic Design-Build Project
Contractor Corrosion
Team(s) formed
Request for Proposal (RFP) prepared
***
The next chapter covers project management corrosion prevention and control planning.
The remainder of this chapter covers management planning, • ILS Planning • Design Considerations
- Material selection
• Prepare a corrosion prevention and control plan as early in the project as possible. In-
clude CPC requirements in the DD Form 1391 or any other appropriate project
documentation.
• Implement the CPCP with an accompanying process/finish specification and organize
the CPAT.
Figure 2-1. Process to Implement Corrosion Control During a Classic Design-Bid-Build Project
Contractor Corrosion
Team(s) formed
Figure 2-2. Process to Implement Corrosion Control During a Classic Design-Build Project
Contractor Corrosion
Team(s) formed
Request for Proposal (RFP) prepared
The project manager should balance the cost of improved design for corrosion against the life-
cycle costs for facility. This may be difficult unless objective measures of effectiveness for cor-
rosion control are established.
2.1.2.2.2 Warranties
With a warranty, the seller essentially assures the buyer that the product will perform as repre-
sented over a period of time. If the product fails to perform as represented, the seller may be re-
quired to provide a new product or satisfactorily repair the existing product. With respect to
corrosion in DoD procurements, such agreements are typically hard to enforce:
1
The specification will be in accordance with CPCP approved process/finish specifications and standards.
ciated with CPC planning occurs after contract award. The initial CPCP require- • Management Planning
ments should be developed before the RFP to guide the insertion of the project’s - Programmatic Considerations
- CPC Planning
corrosion planning into the RFP. The initial CPCP also guides the initial perform- - CPAT
- CCT
ance specification development. CPC planning consists of the following: - CPCP
• ILS Planning
• Establishment of the CPAT, which, along with the contractor corrosion team (CCT),
guides the direction of CPC planning; alternatively, and when more appropriate, es-
tablishment of processes (including standard procedures, guidance on the processes,
and project preparation templates) to ensure CPC is incorporated into projects
• Documentation (outlined above) that implements and reflects the CPC planning—
CPC requirements should be included in the DD Form 1391 or other appropriate pro-
ject documentation
• Actual design, manufacture, or construction, test, and support of the system.
The CPAT is actively involved in the review of all design considerations, material selections,
costs, and documentation that may affect corrosion prevention and control throughout the life of
the system or facility. The CPAT advises the project manager on corrosion-related issues and the
adequacy of the corrosion maintenance documentation and guidance as they are developed, and
elevate unresolved issues to a decision-level authority.
2.1.2.3.1.2 Membership
A representative of the procuring activity should chair the team, which should include represen-
tatives from the contractor’s organization and from DoD:
• Prime contractor members (once the contract is awarded). The contractor’s team
members should be authoritative representatives of the contractor’s organizations.
They ensure proper materials, processes, and treatments are selected and properly
applied and maintained from the initial design stage to the final hardware delivery
or final construction.
• DoD members. The DoD team is designated by the project manager and includes all
involved military services. Membership from the services should include but not be
limited to
project engineering and support;
individual service corrosion program office, technical authority, or the
equivalent; and
subject matter experts, which may include
o individual service laboratory material engineers,
o corrosion personnel from the user command,
o information analysis center personnel (such as AMMTIAC), and
o operational test personnel.
• Interface with the contractor corrosion team to ensure the goals outlined in this
guidebook are attained.
• Monitor all activity during design, engineering, testing, and production.
• Advise the project manager on corrosion-related issues and identify risks as well as
corrosion prevention opportunities.
• Attend appropriate CCT meetings.
• Advise the project manager on technical issues that need to be resolved.
• Review and resolve discrepancies submitted by the project manager.
• Schedule reviews as frequently as deemed necessary by the chairperson.
To evaluate the adequacy of the contractor’s efforts in corrosion prevention and control, the pro-
ject manager retains authority to conduct scheduled periodic reviews of the contractor’s design
and contractor and subcontractor facilities.
A CCT selected chairperson will serve as the manager of the CCT and contractor focal point for
the program/project.
• Ensure the appropriate documents outlined under section 2.1.2.4 are prepared and
submitted in accordance with the required schedule.
• Obtain the necessary design reviews, clarification, resolutions of any differences in
technical position, and final approval of the documentation on a timely basis.
The chairperson or designee should
During the design stage, the project manager should prepare, as soon as possible, a CPCP that
describes the contractor’s specific corrosion prevention and control measures to be implemented.
The CPCP should
• address only the materials and processes to be used in the specific DoD facility being
constructed; and
• outline how the contractor will ensure vendor and subcontractor compliance with the
corrosion plan approved by the project manager, including installation of govern-
ment-furnished equipment.
After contract award, the CPCP should be
• maintained by the contractor (or contractor team) and approved by the CPAT and
project manager; and
• revised as required to properly record changes to materials and processes being used
for corrosion prevention and control.
Copies of the major revisions to the CPCP should be formally submitted to the Defense Techni-
cal Information Center (DTIC) so the CPAT’s accomplishments are preserved and future pro-
jects can benefit from legacy knowledge as they prepare their respective CPCPs.
PMs shall develop and implement performance-based logistics strategies that optimize to-
tal system availability while minimizing cost and logistics footprint. Trade-off decisions
involving cost, useful service, and effectiveness shall consider corrosion prevention and
mitigation. Sustainment strategies shall include the best use of public and private sector
capabilities through government/industry partnering initiatives, in accordance with statu-
tory requirements. 2
Integrated logistics support is realized through the proper integration of logistics support ele-
ments (part of the system engineering process) and the application of logistics considerations as
they apply to corrosion prevention and control decisions made during the facilities design phase.
The optimum balance for facilities/infrastructure is somewhere between its capability and avail-
ability to support a specified military requirement. This goal can only be achieved by including
logistics support considerations in all stages of the CPCP, from formulation and validation of the
concept, through engineering design and development, to construction, and operation. In apply-
ing the concept of ILS to facilities/infrastructure, it is important to maintain a proper perspective
and remember logistics support is not an end in itself. ILS exists only to support the use of the
facility/infrastructure; therefore, it must be considered as the CPCP evolves.
2
DoDD 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, Enclosure 1, paragraph E1.17, 12 May 2003.
• Maintenance plan
• Support and test equipment
• Supply support
• Transportation and handling
• Technical data
• Facilities
• Personnel and training
• Logistics support resource funds
• Logistics support management information.
When the baseline of any one logistics element is changed—or proposed to be changed—
because of a corrosion process application, the effect on all other logistics elements and on the
total system/equipment must be considered formally, with the necessary adjustments made.
The key to effective application of the ILS process to the CPCP is a systematic and orderly man-
agement process through which the corrosion prevention advisory team can identify logistics ac-
tions and requisite decisions quickly and can present them to the project manager.
The design and construction of DoD infrastructure requires the proper blend of safety, afforda-
bility, and environmental needs with mission and operational requirements. DoD infrastructure
should
• perform reliably,
• require minimum maintenance over a specified lifetime, and
• deteriorate at a rate that permits maximum service life.
Materials, manufacturing methods, and protective treatments that reduce deterioration failures should
be considered during the selection of suitable materials and appropriate construction methods that
will satisfy system requirements. The following are among the
deterioration modes that contribute to failures: General
Project
Management
Requirements
• General corrosion
• Planning
•
• Final Design & Specs
Pitting corrosion • Contract Award
• Construction
•
• Operations & Maintenance
Concentration cell corrosion
•
PM CPC
Dealloying Planning
• Intergranular corrosion
• Stress corrosion cracking Management Technical and
Design Corrosion
Planning and ILS
Considerations
• Hydrogen embrittlement • Management Planning
• Technical Considerations
- Programmatic Considerations
- Corrosion variables
• Corrosion fatigue - CPC Planning
- CPAT
- Potential solutions
- Impacts
- CCT - Testing
• Fungus growth.
The CPCP and project specifications should detail specific requirements. Fundamentally, the de-
sign and design disciplines should allow for the evaluation of the following general approaches:
A thorough review of relevant technical literature is essential for making informed decisions for cor-
rosion performance requirements. Written corrosion specifications should be sufficiently flexible to
allow the designer and manufacturer to consider the entire range of potential solutions.
• The potential loss of function due to corrosion can often be quantified through physi-
cal measurements. These may include plating thickness loss, pit depth measurements,
torque measurements, and conductivity measurements. Quantitative assessments are
costly and typically applied to critical items only.
• Hidden corrosion is difficult to detect and, therefore , a major problem.
• are most useful for ranking the relative performance of materials, coatings, etc. in a
specific environment and application in comparison to a known system and
• often do not adequately reflect the effects of design changes, substantial material
changes, and maintenance cycles.
The design of environmental tests and verification planning should duplicate both the levels and
types of damage expected from the environmental spectrum defined for the system. This may be
achieved by a combination of environmental tests that capture the critical aspects of the expo-
sure, such as wet-dry cycles, specific corrodents, and geometric configurations.
• The Cambridge Material Selector (accessible from Granta Design Limited, Material
Information Solutions, http://www.grantadesign.com)
• DoD Corrosion Exchange website (http://www.corrdefense.org)
Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 depict the implementation process for corrosion control during a
DoD construction project. The individual steps of the process are explained below.
Contractor Corrosion
Team(s) formed
Request for Proposal (RFP) prepared
Figure A-2. Process to Implement Corrosion Control During a Classic Design-Build Project
Contractor Corrosion
Team(s) formed
Request for Proposal (RFP) prepared
Conceptual Design
Once the requirements are defined, the facilities managers, engineers and architects assigned to
the integrated product team (IPT) responsible for the design of the facility, utilities, or installa-
tion should ensure the conceptual design includes corrosion prevention requirements, and incor-
porate the Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan (CPCP) as early as possible in the conceptual
design process.
• What will be expected from the bidders in the development, implementation and
management of CPC planning (This is critical when beginning the contracting proc-
ess for a construction project.)
• The managerial and technical aspects of CPC planning to ensure the contractors fully
realize the type of robust CPC planning they are expected to develop and implement
• The CPC planning organization
• Government participation in the planning, contractor responsibilities, and deliverable
documents.
Specifications
Finally, facility design plans and specifications will be provided with the RFP when the
construction contract is awarded.
This appendix provides an example of a corrosion prevention advisory team (CPAT) charter; it is
intended to be representative only. The contents of this appendix are not direction. The contents
of a program’s or project’s actual CPAT charter will vary and should reflect the needs of the par-
ticular program or project.
1.0 Introduction
Past experience has shown that corrosion in systems can impede operational readiness, impact
life cycle cost, and jeopardize system effectiveness. Corrosion, which is defined as the environ-
mental deterioration of any material, metallic or nonmetallic, includes the operating environ-
ment’s degradation of all materials. DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Guidelines define
the objectives and responsibilities aimed at minimizing these threats throughout all phases of a
weapons system’s life cycle. The guidance recommends that a CPAT be established for each sys-
tem. The intention is to bring the designer, maintainer, and the user together so they may con-
tribute their unique experience to problem definition, formulate recommendations for solution,
and track final resolution. This charter defines the purpose, membership, responsibilities, and
procedures of the weapon system.
2.0 Purpose
The CPAT provides assistance and advice to the program/project manager on the most current
methods of providing and maintaining an effective corrosion prevention and material compatibil-
ity planning for the weapon system.
3.0 Membership
The following organizations constitute the CPAT membership. Each organization identifies, in
writing, any changes to their primary and alternate representatives to the CPAT. This charter is
reviewed annually by the CPAT to update content and membership, as required.
4.1 The PM chairperson, as the program or project manager’s representative, the contractor
team co-chairperson, as the prime contractor, and the Service Corrosion Prevention and
Control Office, as corrosion prevention and control program managers will:
4.1.1.1 Establish and chair a CPAT to evaluate the adequacy of corrosion prevention/material
compatibility measures included in the design, to review the program’s approach to cor-
rosion prevention, and to advise on corrosion prevention and control for inclusion in
specifications and technical data.
4.1.1.1.1 Make sure the engineering effort conducted by the integrated product teams (IPTs)
during design and fabrication focuses on the prevention and control of corrosion and
the compatibility of composites/materials with the system operating environment. This
will be done during the Technology Development, Systems Development and Demon-
stration (SDD), and Production and Demonstration phases.
4.1.1.1.2 Evaluate compliance with applicable standards, specifications, design handbooks, and
related technical documentation.
4.1.1.1.2.1 Direct Contractor Corrosion Team (CCT) Quality Assurance members to conduct
spot inspections during manufacturing to ensure manufacturing and fabrication
processes do not include practices that would eventually cause corrosion and mate-
rial degradation problems and to ensure approved techniques adopted by the air
vehicle IPTs early in SDD are being followed.
4.1.1.1.2.2 Direct CCT Quality Control members to inspect preservation and packaging proce-
dures at the contractor facilities of all materials being delivered to Air Force activi-
ties to ensure practices adopted by the IPTs are being followed.
4.1.1.1.3 To the extent they support structural requirements, use standard materials for weapon
system sustainment for corrosion prevention.
4.1.1.1.4 Make sure each proposed redesign/modification is evaluated for potential corrosion,
material, and environmental compatibility effects and requirements for the prevention
and control of corrosion and material are addressed.
4.1.1.1.5 Interface with the chairperson of the major subsystem CPATs to ensure data exchange
and resolution of mutual concerns.
4.1.1.1.6 Interface with all team members to ensure data exchange and incorporation of techni-
cal advancements into the system.
4.1.1.2 Make sure the results of testing to environments outlined in MIL-STD-810 are reviewed
by the CPAT to identify future potential corrosion and material compatibility problems.
• Co-Chair the CPAT and assist the PM and user in tracking/resolving action items.
• Ensure the proper requirements for corrosion prevention and control are included in
specifications, tailored standards, and procedures; cite newly approved materials in
updating specification revisions, design handbooks, and technical data.
• Evaluate the CPCP to confirm it covers the proper steps for preventing corrosion
and ensuring material compatibility.
• Identify and help solve corrosion and material compatibility problems in the design,
maintenance, and use of the system.
• Periodically review and update technical data; send pertinent information to appropri-
ate training organizations for use in training courses.
• Review modification proposals to ensure proper requirements for corrosion preven-
tion and control are included.
• Review and validate Corrosion maintenance facility requirements documents.
4.3 User members will:
5.1 Convene annually as a minimum or as often as required throughout the life cycle of this sys-
tem at the times and places arranged by the chairperson. The interval will normally be semi-
annually during the SDD phase, unless the chairperson determines that more or less frequent
sessions are necessary.
5.2 Review corrosion prevention/material compatibility contract requirements and prepare the
appropriate design guidance tailored to the unique aspects of this program.
5.3 Advise the CCT to conduct plant site inspections, as appropriate, at contractor and subcon-
tractor facilities to evaluate the adequacy of the design as it relates to corrosion prevention,
and to assess the manufacturing, fabrication, engineering liaison, and quality control proce-
dures for corrosion prevention and materials compatibility.
5.4 Advise the CCT to conduct field site inspections at flight test/ground test, demonstration fa-
cilities, and operational facilities to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrosion preven-
tion/material compatibility considerations/designs. Discrepancies will be defined and
possible solutions proposed.
5.5 The lead contractor will prepare and distribute minutes (no more than 60 days after the date
of the CPAT meeting), which assign action items to the responsible agencies for resolution.
The lead contractor also will maintain a continuing agenda or log of specific efforts, prob-
lems, action items, discrepancies, etc., with the following for each item:
• Definition or description
• Alternatives
• Team recommendation
• Responsible action individual or agency
• Final disposition.
5.6 Make recommendations to the program manager for all changes, corrections, or improve-
ments that require action by a government agency or a contractor.
Note: The CPAT has no authority to direct any government agency or contractor to take any ac-
tion as a result of its finding. The chairperson will make clear the nonbinding advisory nature of
the opinions, findings, suggestions, and recommendation of the team to all parties at all team
meetings and activities.
This appendix provides an example of a Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan (CPCP), and is
intended to be representative only. The contents of this appendix are not direction. The contents
of a program’s or project’s actual CPCP will vary and should reflect the needs of the particular
program/project.
1.0 Objectives
The primary goals of corrosion control planning are to develop and maintain dependable and
long-lived structures, equipment, plants, and systems; conserve energy; reduce costs due to cor-
rosion, scale, and microbiological fouling; and ensure compliance with Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Transportation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and
other applicable regulations and guidance.
2.0 Scope
Corrosion control minimizes the effects of electrochemical or chemical attack on materials by
the environment. Planning includes the following:
3.1.1 Headquarters Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency. The Air Force Civil Engineer
Support Agency (AFCESA) oversees the Air Force’s facility corrosion control planning in the
Technical Support Directorate, Mechanical/Electrical Engineering Division (HQ
AFCESA/CESM).
3.1.2 AFCESA assists HQ USAF (HQ AF/A7C) in formulating corrosion control policy.
3.1.3 AFCESA maintains Air Force corrosion control technical publications and coordination on
tri-service technical publications. Develops technical standards, criteria, and procedures with
Department of Defense staff elements and other federal agencies.
3.1.4 AFCESA provides specialized field assistance and consultation to Air Staff and major
commands on special corrosion control problems, including designs, construction acceptance,
and failure analysis.
3.1.5 AFCESA provides corrosion literature searches and delivers any publicly available, but
difficult to find, engineering documentation. Through an agreement between HQ AFCESA and
the Air Force Research Laboratory, Airbase and Environmental Technology Division
(AFRL/MLQ), the Technical Information Center should be contacted for literature or documents.
Contact information is:
3.1.6 AFCESA approves corrosion control methods and equipment not specified in Air Force
publications.
3.1.7 AFCESA maintains a list of all corrosion points of contacts at the major command level to
include full name, complete mailing address, DSN and commercial telephone and fax numbers,
training received, and assigned corrosion duties.
3.1.8 AFCESA compiles each fiscal year a summary of funded projects justified all or in part by
corrosion control and a summary of leak records. Catalogs and analyzes these data for trends.
3.2.1 The Deputy Chief of Staff, G–4 (DCS, G–4) has responsibility for oversight and resourcing
the Army CPC Program for fielded systems. The DCS, G–4 will:
a. Coordinate the CPC Program for fielded systems at Headquarters, Department of the
Army (HQDA), and provide support to the CPC Program during design and production.
b. Designate a principal point of contact to direct HQDA-level CPC Program activities.
c. Develop, support and defend resources to initiate and sustain an effective Army CPC
program.
d. Evaluate the program’s effectiveness through routine field sampling and on-site visits.
3.2.2 The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
(ASA (ALT)) will:
a. Ensure that CPC requirements for materiel are reflected in DA policies for the formu-
lation, management, and evaluation of personnel and programs for all components of
the Army. Particular consideration should be given to:
i) Personnel utilization and distribution.
ii) Training and education of military and civilian personnel to develop CPC specialists.
b. Support MACOM CPC programs.
a. Manage the CPC Program and implement primary program policy and establish the
necessary policies, procedures, and techniques to effectively administer the program.
b. Establish a responsible official at HQAMC to oversee the Army CPC Program
management.
c. Support and provide assistance to the USAMC major subordinate commands (MSCs)
and depots in the establishment and implementation of their individual CPC pro-
grams, with resources and technical expertise.
d. Assure that CPC is considered in the following areas:
i) System acquisition and production.
ii) Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) programs and activities.
iii) Equipment standardization programs, including international standardization
agreements (STANAGs).
iv) Logistics research and development initiatives.
a. Include corrosion and deterioration control considerations in the LSA process early in
the materiel acquisition/development phase.
b. Include corrosion training (both initial and follow-on skill) for appropriate military
and civilian storage/maintenance/supply and maintenance support/packaging special-
ists concerning the causes of corrosion, detection, and corrective and preventive
measures. This training will include the proper packaging and preservation of unserv-
iceable but repairable items of materiel being returned for maintenance.
c. Develop the curriculums for advanced individual training (AIT) of appropriate per-
sonnel in CPC as an expansion skill. These personnel can then become a more effec-
tive part of a system’s maintenance team.
d. Ensure that appropriate course curriculums and training materials reflect the current
CPC information available from USAMC as well as from industry and academia. In-
cluded in all corrosion training courses will be the necessary safety, health, and envi-
ronmental requirements related to the technical content of the training being provided.
e. Disseminate training materials to all participating commands and furnish, on request,
the following to:
Commander, USAMC, ATTN: AMCQPS–IEI
9301 Chapek Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–5527:
a. Appoint from internal sources a CPC manager with a technical background to admin-
ister the command-level program.
b. Ensure that all subordinate command activities understand and fulfill their responsi-
bilities under the command program.
a. Appoint a functional manager for the CPC Program and, on the basis of guidance
from the USAMC responsible official, implement Army program policy.
b. Establish a CPC program office to administer the Army CPC Program.
c. Support and provide assistance to the USAMC major subordinate commands (MSCs)
and depots in the establishment and implementation of their individual CPC Pro-
grams, with resources and technical expertise.
d. Assure that CPC is considered in the following areas:
i) Collection, distribution, and feedback of system test and equipment maintenance
information relating to corrosion, including the following:
(a) Test incident reports (TIRs).
ii) Weapons system and ground support equipment acquisition, recapitalization, re-
manufacture, overhaul, and/or product improvement, including the evaluation of
each proposal for a new system, equipment, or component.
iii) Manufacturing technology and related programs.
iv) Funded research and development programs.
v) Administration of system programs or projects by the program or project managers.
vi) Testing and evaluation on the equipment, processes, and application tech-
niques within the assigned areas of responsibility. (This specifically includes
nondestructive testing and evaluation (NDT/NDE) of commercial material,
equipment, or processes.)
vii) Acquisition of nondevelopmental items, equipment, and systems.
viii) Care of supplies in storage, including preservation, packaging and exercising
requirements.
e. Provide information to and support the weapons systems managers.
Include corrosion prevention and control requirements as a separate line item in project docu-
mentation for the construction of new or the repair/upgrade of existing metallic structures. In-
clude CPC narratives and cost estimates on DD Form 1391 under supporting utilities. Coordinate
CPC requirements with the activity corrosion control plan to establish and ensure compatibility
with existing systems. The CPAT and/or cognizant NFESC CP SME and NAVFAC Echelon III
CPC program manager can assist in determining the system requirements. The CPC requirement
must not be eliminated from any project unless approved by the CPAT.
Navy engineers and architects in charge of design (EIC/AIC) should ensure that project designs in-
clude appropriate corrosion prevention and control measures to comply with appropriate statutes and
criteria listed in the annex to this Appendix. Design CPC systems for maintainability. The design of
CPC can be a complex technology, and if application problems or other technical questions arise,
contact the CPAT and/or NFESC CPC SMEs and NAVFAC Echelon III CPC program manager.
3.3.5 Construction Community. The Navy Facilities Engineering Command and Resident
Officer in Charge of Construction (FEAD/ROICC) should:
a. Conduct quality assurance evaluations of the contractor and ensure as-built drawings
provide the location of all CPC system equipment, test points, etc. Conduct quality
assurance evaluations of the contractors protective coatings surface preparation pro-
cedures, coatings materials, and coatings applications procedures.
b. Observe acceptance tests of the CPC systems to ensure they comply with procedures
specified in the contract documents. In the absence of a qualified CPC inspector obtain
assistance from the CPAT, NFESC CPC SMEs, or NAVFAC Echelon III CPC program
manager.
3.3.6 Operation and Maintenance.
Inspect and maintain CPC systems according to appropriate operation and maintenance criteria
manuals, Operation and Maintenance Support Information (OMSI) or other specific maintenance
manuals; and cognizant NAFAC Echelon III requirements.
Qualified personnel at these NAVFAC component commands can provide CPAT assistance to
activities/regions.
a. Serve as members of or assist CPATs. Assist with the preparation and review of pro-
jects for correcting existing corrosion problems or avoiding future corrosion damage.
Review designs for CPC technical adequacy.
b. Provide technical assistance during the installation and commissioning of CPC sys-
tems or application of CPC measures. Assist the activity in developing maintenance
and operation plans to insure that the CPC systems remain effective.
c. Monitor the performance of CPC systems by evaluating records of their performance.
3.3.8 Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center is assigned Navy-Wide Specialized Expertise
for Corrosion Prevention Control and can assist in the following:
a. Serve as members of or assist CPATs. Assist with the preparation and review of pro-
jects for correcting existing corrosion problems or avoiding future corrosion damage.
Review designs for CPC technical adequacy.
b. Provide technical assistance during the installation and commissioning of CPC sys-
tems or application of CPC measures. Assist the activity in developing maintenance
and operation plans to insure that the CPC systems remain effective.
c. Provide direct technical assistance to the Commander Navy Infrastructure, Navy Re-
gional Commanders, activities and NAVFAC component offices in the investigation
of corrosion problems and the development of plans for remedial action.
3.4.1 [Major command civil engineers][Regions][Regions] assist installations and bases in de-
veloping and executing corrosion control planning (including aqueous, atmospheric, and under-
ground corrosion) to ensure compliance with Department of Defense and service policy;
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and Occupational Safety and
Health Administration regulations; and local (including host country) requirements.
3.5.1 The CPAT ensures design according to publications referenced in Annex 1 to this appendix.
3.5.1.1 Accomplishes surveys and design before construction contract advertisement or before
construction in design-build contracts.
3.5.1.2 Ensures designer or design reviewer meets qualifications according to major command
policy for design of corrosion control measures. For example, an experienced NACE Interna-
tional accredited corrosion specialist, NACE International–certified cathodic protection special-
ist, or a registered professional corrosion engineer accredited or registered in cathodic protection
should perform contracted cathodic protection surveys and designs.
3.5.2 CPAT does not delete corrosion control measures from any design without the specific ap-
proval of the designer of record and the command corrosion engineer.
3.5.3 CPAT coordinates with the command corrosion engineer and the base corrosion control
engineer during preliminary design. This coordination ensures compatibility of design with exist-
ing corrosion control systems and maintenance of successful techniques within craftspersons’
capability. Installation personnel approve the updating of systems and equipment per designer’s
recommendations.
3.5.4 CPAT performs failure analysis for replacement projects that did not achieve life expec-
tancy. Ensure complete understanding of the failure and include procedures in the specifications
to prevent recurrence. This analysis shall be part of the preliminary design submittals.
3.5.5 CPAT coordinates among design team members to ensure material selections and system
designs are compatible with the corrosion control approach selected.
3.5.6 CPAT does not allow the construction contractor to continue with any work until approval
of the corrosion control system shop drawings. The technical reviewer, usually the contracting
officer’s technical representative, shall be knowledgeable in the installation of the corrosion con-
trol systems.
3.5.7 CPAT ensures the contractor notifies the contracting officer a minimum of 24 hours prior
to installation, testing, or final acceptance of corrosion control systems.
3.5.8 CPAT ensures the construction inspector understands the corrosion control system installa-
tion or involves the base corrosion control engineer or craftsperson as technical advisor. This in-
volvement includes construction surveillance during installation, testing, and final acceptance. If
the construction agent cannot ensure the presence of an in-house inspector during cathodic pro-
tection work, the construction agent will use Title II, Construction Inspection Services, to obtain
a full-time qualified inspector.
3.5.9 CPAT ensures the specifications contain acceptance testing to ensure achievement of de-
sign criteria and the contractor performs this acceptance testing with installation representatives
in attendance.
3.5.11 CPAT uses field surveys, field tests, and experience of installation personnel in the design.
3.5.12 CPAT specifies the testing necessary for the final acceptance of the corrosion control sys-
tem. Target values of system operating parameters will be part of this testing to ensure the facil-
ity will function within design limits. Ensure the acceptance testing protocol includes procedures
if acceptance testing differs from target values. Consult operations personnel, equipment manu-
facturers, and the construction contractor to determine solutions and set new equipment operat-
ing points.
3.5.13 CPAT incorporates operability and maintainability into the overall design of the corrosion
control systems. Designs will provide minimum life-cycle cost over the facility life expectancy.
3.5.14 CPAT provides detailed calculations and one-line diagrams at the preliminary design
stage to show the magnitude and layout of the corrosion control system. For example, validate
the use of pre-engineered tanks with factory installed cathodic protection through appropriate
calculations and field tests.
3.5.15 CPAT provides corrosion control system drawings to show location of equipment, test
points, sampling points, potential cathodic protection interference, items requiring periodic main-
tenance, and installation details.
3.5.16 CPAT ensures appropriately qualified and trained personnel develop and execute a com-
prehensive corrosion control planning, encompassing the three areas of corrosion control. Ensure
compliance with applicable Federal, state, local, and host nation laws and regulations, particu-
larly those related to public safety and environmental protection. The planning will include ap-
plying and maintaining effective corrosion control methods in design, operations and
maintenance, quality assurance, and acceptance testing.
3.5.18 CPAT develops and manages the [base][installation] corrosion control planning.
3.5.19 CPAT assists programmers in narrative and cost estimates for corrosion control line items
on DD Forms 1391, Military Construction Project Data Sheets.
3.5.20 CPAT participates in project design and design review related to corrosion control. Sign all
project drawings when corrosion control measures, operability, and maintainability are adequate.
3.5.21 CPAT provides technical advice to the construction inspector during installation, testing,
and final acceptance of corrosion control systems.
3.5.22 CPAT coordinates operations and maintenance of corrosion control systems with the op-
erations unit, including preventive maintenance scheduling. Ensure control charts for industrial
water treatment detail the frequency and actions for testing and adjustment of each system.
3.5.23 CPAT reviews corrosion control records and takes action to correct deficiencies.
3.5.24 CPAT investigate leaks from corrosion, tuberculation, and scaling in heating and cooling
systems, and premature failure of protective coatings. Take corrective action in each case, other
than simple repair by replacement.
3.6.1 The CCT ensures adequate corrosion prevention and control requirements are being im-
plemented in accordance with the project contract, plans, and specifications.
3.6.2 The CCT ensures the implementation of corrosion prevention and control is documented
and that documents are submitted in accordance with the required schedule.
3.6.3 The CCT establishes periodic meetings, as required, to resolve problems as they occur.
Other meetings should be convened should a critical or major problem arise which requires ac-
tion by the CCT or CPAT.
3.6.4 The CCT notifies all DoD and contractor members of each meeting date, the topics to be
discussed, and any decisions resulting from the previous meeting.
3.6.5 The chairperson or his designees should sign off on all construction drawings after review
of materials selection, treatments, and coatings.
3.6.6 The chairperson will maintain a continuing record of all action items and their resolutions.
4.0 Requirements
4.1 Environmental. Consult [AFPD 32-70, Environmental Quality][AR 200-1, Environmental
Protection and Enhancement], and associated [Air Force][Army][Navy] instructions
[(AFIs)][(AIs)][(NIs)] to understand the impact of corrosion and corrosion control activities on
the environment.
4.1.1 The primary environmental impact of cathodic protection is in the prevention of petroleum,
oil, and lubricant corrosion-induced leakage into the environment from underground and on-
ground tanks and underground piping. Cathodic protection is already a requirement on new tank
installations. The goal is to prevent all notices of violation due to corrosion. Ensure compliance
with [AFI 32-7044, Storage Tank Compliance][DA Pam 200-1, Environmental Protection and
Enhancement][…]; Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 280; and applicable state and lo-
cal requirements.
4.1.2 The primary environmental concern of industrial water treatment is the proper disposal of
chemically treated water. Consult [AFI 32-1067, Water Systems][DA Pam 200-1, Environmental
4.1.3 The following environmental laws apply to industrial water treatment. Consult with bioen-
vironmental engineering and environmental engineering to determine methods of compliance
with laws and local practices.
4.1.3.1 Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601) authorizes the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to control existing and new chemical substances determined to cause unreason-
able risk to the public health or environment.
4.1.3.2 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) includes the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and
amendments. This act establishes limits for the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters, regu-
lations on specific toxic pollutants in wastewater discharges, and control of oil and hazardous
substance discharges.
4.1.3.3 Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300) provides for protection of underground sources
of drinking water and establishes primary and secondary drinking water standards.
4.1.3.4 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136-136y) requires the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to register all pesticides.
4.1.3.5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 690) addresses the control of solid
and hazardous waste. The act defines hazardous waste and controls it by a complex manifest sys-
tem designed to track a waste from its generation to final disposal.
4.1.3.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C.
9601), also commonly referred to as “Superfund,” defines procedures for responding to existing
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, establishes the National Priorities List and the National Con-
tingency Plan, and requires the reporting of hazardous substance releases into the air, land, and
water.
4.1.3.7 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401) regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile
sources to protect public health and welfare. State and local governments have the primary re-
sponsibility to prevent and control air pollution.
4.1.5 The environmental concerns of protective coatings center upon metal content in the dried
paint and volatile organic compounds that evaporate from solvent-based paint.
4.1.5.1 Lead-containing paint has a lead content of more than 0.06 percent lead by weight (calcu-
lated as lead metal) in the total nonvolatile content of liquid paint or in the dried film of the paint
already applied. Do not use lead-containing paint on any Army, Navy or Air Force facility. Note
that nonlead-containing paint must still pass a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Potential Test or
be considered hazardous waste during disposal.
4.1.5.2 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency restricted the use of mercury-containing fun-
gicides in solvent-thinned, oil-based paint. Exterior water-thinned paints may contain a maxi-
mum of 0.2 percent mercury (calculated as metal) in the total weight of the paint. Clear markings
indicating the mercury content must be on the container. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency banned the use of mercury in interior paint applications.
4.1.5.3 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified six major pollutants that may harm
the public health and welfare. Ozone is one of these pollutants. Since the presence of Volatile
Organic Compounds (photochemically reactive solvents) in the air directly relate to the ozone
concentration in the air, VOC’s used in the drying and curing of coatings have an environmental
impact. National VOC limits have been set by EPA but may also be more stringent in impacted
regions of the country and/or vary by end-use surface coating operation.
4.2 Safety. Consult [AFPD 91-2, Safety Programs and AFPD 91-3, Occupational Safety and
Health][AR 385-10, The Army Safety Program][…] as well as their associated instructions, for
guidance to minimize the risk of corrosion and corrosion control activities on facility and worker
safety.
4.2.1 For cathodic protection, consult [AFI 32-1064, Electrical Safe Practices][DA TM 5-682,
Facilities Engineering: Electrical Facilities Safety][…]. The Department of Transportation regu-
lates flammable utilities. The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended, and the Haz-
ardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, as amended, provide the minimum criteria to ensure
safe operation.
4.2.2 Many of the chemicals used to treat industrial water may be harmful to the health of the
operator and other base personnel. They range from highly toxic to mildly irritating to the per-
sons handling them. Handle water treatment and testing chemicals with care, following guidance
in Occupational Safety and Health Administration directives, manufacturer’s recommendations,
and the material safety data sheets. Install eye wash stations and safety showers according to
ground safety requirements. Consult with unit safety, bioenvironmental engineering, and envi-
ronmental engineering on potential safety issues and the use of less hazardous substitutes.
4.2.2.1 A cross-connection is a physical connection between a potable water supply system and a
non-potable system (such as an industrial water system) through which contaminated water can
enter the potable water system. Consult [AFI 32-1066, Plumbing Systems][DA TI 814-10,
Wastewater Collection][…]. Permit only Class III backflow prevention devices (air gap or re-
duced pressure principle) to provide makeup from a potable water system to an industrial water
treatment system.
4.2.2.2 Morpholine, cyclohexylamine, and similar chemicals added to protect condensate lines
from corrosion make the steam and condensate unfit for consumption or other uses normally re-
served for potable water. Do not use treated steam in direct contact with food or for any direct
steam humidification, such as in a gymnasium steam room or humidity control for electronic
equipment.
4.2.3 Most paint and protective coatings are hazardous to some degree. All, except water-
thinned paints, are flammable; many are toxic; and others can irritate the skin. By following
4.3 Design
4.3.1 Design, construction, and application of cathodic protection, industrial water treatment, and
protective coatings are functional requirements for almost all projects. Designs shall achieve the
minimum life cycle cost for the overall facility. [Base][Installation] personnel must be able to
operate and maintain the final facility design, including the corrosion control systems, without
extensive training or equipment investment, unless this is the best approach to achieve minimum
life cycle cost.
4.3.2 Corrosion resistance is not the only criterion for material selection. When selecting a mate-
rial, investigate all aspects of its physical properties in the application environment, during both
normal operation and typical system failure.
4.3.3 Clearly and distinctly document corrosion experience for future reference. This experience
should refer to design, material selection, selection of corrosion control technique, or decisions
of no requirement for corrosion control. Document all design and selection decisions in project
design analyses. Pass this information to the operations and maintenance elements to assist future
decisions.
4.3.4 Revisit the design and selection decisions when a system malfunctions or leaks due to cor-
rosion, scaling, or premature failure of the corrosion control system. This is especially important
for the rare case when a designer justified no corrosion control being needed.
4.3.5 Ensure new or supplemental corrosion control systems are compatible with existing sys-
tems. The construction contractor shall not select the warranty period industrial water treatment.
4.3.6 Construct pipelines in a manner that facilitates use of in-line inspection tools.
4.3.7 Cathodic protection and coatings work together. Ensure these items are part of the design.
Do not design submerged or buried coated metallic facilities without cathodic protection and do
not design cathodic protection on bare metallic facilities. Recommend fiberglass-clad under-
ground storage tanks be installed with galvanic anodes. This recommendation is made even
though many such tanks are EPA-approved for installation without cathodic protection.
4.3.8 Do not use unbonded coatings, such as loose polyethylene wraps. Use of unbonded coat-
ings is a direct violation of Department of Transportation regulations and Air Force, Army and
Navy criteria for pipelines.
4.3.9 Provide both cathodic protection and protective coatings for buried or submerged metallic
facilities, regardless of soil or water corrosivity, when the facility:
4.3.11 Provide both cathodic protection and protective coatings for the following aboveground
tanks based upon qualified analysis:
4.3.11.1 All ferrous tanks in contact with the earth, unless built on an oil-filled sand pad with
plastic liner underneath.
4.3.12 Consider the need for lightning and fault current protection at isolating devices (dielectri-
cally insulated unions and flanges) when designing cathodic protection systems. Consult [AFI
32-1065, Grounding Systems][DA TM 5-811-3, Electrical Design–Lightning and Static Electric-
ity Protection][…].
4.3.13 Installed cathodic protection systems shall provide protective potentials meeting criteria in
NACE International Standard SP0169, Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Sub-
merged Metallic Piping Systems, Section 6, Criteria and Other Considerations for Cathodic Pro-
tection. Structure-to-soil potentials are to be potential drop (current times resistance) free.
4.3.14 Special conditions sometimes exist where cathodic protection is ineffective or only par-
tially effective. Corrosion personnel may deviate from this instruction after documenting the
achievement of objectives and receiving command corrosion engineer approval.
4.3.15 Industrial water treatment designs or decisions begin with an analysis of the system
makeup water. Consult bioenvironmental engineering and [AFI 48-119, Medical Service Envi-
ronmental Quality Programs][…][…] for sampling potable water sources that feed industrial
systems. Use [AF Form 2752A, Environmental Sampling Data][…][ …], for complete analyses
to identify the quantity and relationship of water constituents for industrial water treatment purposes.
4.3.16 Acceptance testing of new heating and cooling systems will ensure the industrial water treat-
ment system meets design and operation parameters. Boiler steam purity tests will determine total
dissolved solids limits. Correlate the total dissolved solids level selected for boiler operation to the
conductivity reading of a typical sample. The Water or Wastewater Laboratory at associated plants or
4.3.17 Indicate locations to install corrosion coupon racks following American Society For Test-
ing and Materials Standard Test Methods for Corrosivity of Water in Absence of Heat Transfer
(Weight Loss Methods), D26888-92, Test Method B. The coupons are the best confirmation of
industrial water treatment effectiveness.
4.3.18 Do not use nonchemical industrial water treatment devices on Army, Navy and Air Force
systems either regularly or on a test evaluation basis except as indicated below. This includes the
Management and Equipment Evaluation Program.
4.3.18.1 Basic research and application development of nonchemical industrial water treatment
devices has been underway since before 1935. However, many variables affect performance, and
no criteria and standards have been developed which may be incorporated into guide specifica-
tions or statements of work. Such criteria and standards are necessary for standard Army, Navy
and Air Force contracting methods to ensure devices will perform as advertised. In addition, be-
cause of downsizing and outsourcing, the technical capability to perform installation-specific test
evaluations is not available at installation level.
4.3.19 Light-reflective floor coatings include chemically resistant urethane for existing hangar
floors and dry shake metallic floor topping applied to the top layer of freshly poured concrete for
new floors. Ensure electrostatic discharge and slip resistance are part of the design. Include the
daily cleaning requirements to cover equipment, supplies, and frequency as part of the mainte-
nance instructions provided to the using agency.
4.3.20 Avoid using chemical strippers. If specified, perform effectiveness tests prior to award of
any contract. This is especially necessary for removing lead-based paint from wood. Also, spec-
ify procedures to confirm neutralization of alkaline paint stripper through chemical testing. Alka-
line residue left on the substrate is a recurring paint failure mechanism.
4.4 Maintenance
4.4.1 Perform routine maintenance checks, surveys, and inspections of cathodic protection, in-
dustrial water treatment, and protective coating systems. Each installation must have the basic
equipment and training to perform tests and measurements of installed corrosion control systems.
Consult associated manuals and tables of allowances for the minimum required field inspection
instruments.
4.4.2 Investigate when corrosion control actions do not achieve results. This information pro-
vides the basis for selecting corrective actions and ensuring future projects do not continue the
same problems.
4.4.3 Select and apply methods for determining voltage drops during cathodic protection testing
using sound engineering practices, such as contained in NACE International Technical Report
10A190, Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection of Underground
or Submerged Steel Piping Systems (see Annex 1).
4.4.4 Cathodic protection situations involving stray currents and stray electrical gradients require
special analysis. For additional information, see UFC 3-570-06, O&M: Cathodic Protection Sys-
tems, and NACE International Standard SP0169, Section 9, Control of Interference Currents.
4.4.5 Industrial water treatment requires testing at a frequency that ensures the prevention of
scale, corrosion, and biological formation in the heating and cooling systems. The time between
testing depends on system integrity and operations. A mechanically sound system will require
less frequent testing as less chemical leaves the system over time.
4.4.6 Develop and post, in appropriate locations, control charts for each boiler, cooling tower,
and closed system showing the treatment chemicals used, the amount to add per operating pa-
rameter, the testing required, the limits to maintain in the system, what to do if the chemical lev-
els are above or below the limits, and any other information peculiar to the system.
4.4.7.1 Annually check the capacity of ion exchangers. Do not rely on a timed regeneration cycle.
4.4.7.2 Once at the start of heating season and once at the end of heating season, test the conden-
sate throughout the return system to identify potable water leakage into the condensate return
system at heat exchangers. This identifies leaks at the earliest stages.
4.4.7.3 When adding or deleting buildings to a steam system or significantly changing industrial
water treatment chemicals, perform the design acceptance tests for the boiler total dissolved sol-
ids limit and verify the total protection of the condensate return system.
5.1 Cathodic protection recordkeeping, using prescribed forms as explained in UFC 3-570-06,
includes the following:
5.1.1 Initial close interval, anode bed, and annual corrosion surveys of installed impressed cur-
rent and sacrificial systems. Use [AF Form 491, Cathodic Protection Operating Log for Im-
pressed Current Systems; AF Form 1686, Cathodic Protection Operating Log for Sacrificial
Anode System; and AF Form 1688, Annual Cathodic Protection Performance Survey][…][…] to
record these tests.
5.1.2 Impressed current system checks every 60 days. Use [AF Form 491][ …][ …] to record
these checks.
5.1.3 Initial and annual water tank calibrations of installed systems. Use [AF Form 1689, Water
Tank Calibration][…][…] to record these tests.
5.1.4 Annual update of the Cathodic Protection Annual Performance Booklet, sent to major
command. For the National Guard, booklets will be maintained at the installation and made
available upon request.
5.1.5 Use the information captured on [AF Form 1687, Leak/Failure Data Record][…][ …] to
provide justification for system repair or replacement, for installation of corrosion control meas-
ures, and for the project narrative on DD Forms 1391. Consult [AFI 32-1069, Gas Supply and
Distribution][DA TM 5-653 Steam, Hot Water, and Gas Distribution Systems: Inspection and
Preventive Maintenance Service][…]; UFC 3-230-02, Operation and Maintenance of Water
Supply Systems; and UFC 3-460-01, Petroleum Fuel Facilities, for leak detection and survey re-
quirements on these systems.
5.2 Industrial water treatment records should reflect the minimum entries needed to effectively
manage the control of the industrial water treatment program and indicate the need for additional
testing. Treatment, testing and reporting procedures are addressed by UFC 3-240-13FN, Opera-
tions and Maintenance: Industrial Water Treatment. The reverse of prescribed forms explains
their use. Associated recordkeeping includes the following:
5.2.1 Accomplish industrial water treatment operating logs based upon one log for each indi-
vidually treated system (each boiler, each cooling tower bank, and each closed system).
5.2.2 Use [AF Form 1457, Water Treatment Operating Log for Cooling Tower Systems][DA
Form 4141, Facilities Engineering Operating Log (Water–General)][…] as a minimum.
5.2.3 Use [AF Form 1459, Water Treatment Operating Log for Steam and Hot Water Boil-
ers][DA TM 5-650, Central Boiler Plants][…] as a minimum.
5.2.4 Keep other industrial water system records on modifications of these forms or a log devel-
oped locally for the specific tests required.
5.2.5 Keep the maintenance and history of industrial water treatment, other than that contained in
the logs, in a historical record for each system. This book should contain a record (including
dates) of occurrences of corrosion and scale, major maintenance and surveys performed on the
system, replacements of piping and equipment, accidents, outages, changes in methods of opera-
tion and treatment used, and other pertinent data to assist troubleshooting and provide facts for
management decisions on process improvement.
5.2.6 Use [AF Form 3222, Centrifugal/Reciprocating Operating Log, and AF Form 3221, Ab-
sorption Operating Log][…][…] to evaluate the mechanical aspects of the equipment and deter-
mine the efficiency of the Industrial Waste Treatment (IWT) program.
5.3 Maintain records following MIL HDBK 1110/1, Paints and Protective Coatings. Perform
evaluations using these records after any paint failure and before any protective coatings con-
tract. These records replace undocumented hearsay experience and allow fact-based decisions
with costs and verified life expectancies of completed work to determine the following:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Title 42, U.S.C.,
Section 9601
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Title 7, U.S.C., Section 136-136y
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, Public Law 96-129, title II, 30 Nov 79, 93
Stat. 1003, (49 U.S.C. 1811, 2001 et. seq.), as amended
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, Public Law 90-481, 12 Aug 68, 82 Stat 720 (49
U.S.C. 1671 et. seq.), as amended
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Title 42, U.S.C., Section 690
Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Un-
derground
Storage Tanks (UST), Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 280, Environmental
Protection Agency
DoD Publications
Department of Defense Corrosion Website
www.corrdefense.org
UFC 3-230-02, Operations and Maintenance of Water Supply Systems, July 2001
UFC 3-240-13FN, Operations and Maintenance: Industrial Water Treatment, May 2005
NACE International
PO Box 218340
Houston TX 77218
Phone: Comm (713) 492-0535
SSPC
40 24th Street, 6th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412)281-2331
Additional References
Public Laws
Lead-Based Paint Exposure Reduction Act, Public Law 102-550, Title X, Subtitle B, 28 Oct
92, 106 Stat. 3924 (29 U.S.C. 671, 42 U.S.C. 4853 et. seq.)
Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, Public Law 91-695, 13 Jan 71, 84 Stat. 2078
(42 U.S.C. 4801 et. seq.), as amended
UFGS 09 62 50.10, Thin Film Flooring System for Aircraft Maintenance Facilities
UFGS 09 62 50.12, Epoxy Mortar Flooring System for Aircraft Maintenance Facilities
UFGS 09 97 13.28, Protection of Buried Steel Piping and Steel Bulkhead Tie Rods
Instructions
AFI 21-105, Aerospace Equipment Structural Maintenance
Handbook
AFH 32-1290(I), Cathodic Protection Field Testing
Technical Report
ENM-TR-01, Industrial Water Treatment Primer, March 1992 (Available from HQ
AFCESA/CESM)
Army Publications
Regulations
AR 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Technical Manuals
TM 5-650, Central Boiler Plants
TM 5-653, Steam, Hot Water, and Gas Distribution Systems: Inspection and Preventive
Maintenance Service
Technical Instruction
TI 814-10, Wastewater Collection
Pamphlet
Pam 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Form
DA Form 4141, Facilities Engineering Operating Log (Water–General)
ETL 1110-9-10 (FR), Engineering and Design, Cathodic Protection System Using Ceramic
Anodes, 5 January 1991
Navy Publications
Maintenance and Cathodic Protection Interim Design Guidance
MO-225, Industrial Water Treatment, August 1990
Industry Standards
National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE)
RP0187-2005, Design Considerations for Corrosion Control of Reinforcing Steel in Concrete
RP0198-2004; The Control of Corrosion Under Thermal Insulation and Fireproofing Materials—
A Systems Approach
Cathodic Protection.
RP0186-2001, Application of Cathodic Protection for Well Casings
RP0193-2001, External Cathodic Protection of On-Grade Carbon Steel Storage Tank Bottoms
SP0387-2006 Metallurgical and Inspection Requirements for Cast Galvanic Anodes for
Offshore Applications
SP0492-2006 Metallurgical and Inspection Requirements for Offshore Pipeline Bracelet Anodes
TR 6D161, Specification and Format for Surface Preparation and Material Application for
Industrial Maintenance Painting
AR Army Regulation
NG National Guard
This appendix, using the Air Force approach as an example, provides design guidance for DoD
facilities and infrastructure.
1. Based upon qualified analysis, provide both cathodic protection and protective coatings
for the following aboveground tanks:
a. All ferrous tanks in contact with the earth, unless built on an oil-filled sand pad with
plastic liner underneath
b. Interiors of steel water distribution storage tanks.
2. Consider the need for lightning and fault current protection at isolating devices (dielectri-
cally insulated unions and flanges) when designing cathodic protection systems. Consult
Air Force Instruction 32-1065, Grounding Systems, during the design process.
3. Ensure installed cathodic protection systems provide protective potentials meeting
criteria in NACE International Standard SP0169, Control of External Corrosion on
Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems, Section 6, “Criteria and Other
Considerations for Cathodic Protection.” Structure-to-soil potentials should be free from
potential drop (current × resistance).
4. Under certain conditions cathodic protection is ineffective or only partially effective.
Corrosion personnel may deviate from this guidance after documenting the achievement
of objectives and receiving command corrosion engineer approval.
5. Because industrial water treatment designs or decisions begin with an analysis of the sys-
tem makeup water, consult bioenvironmental engineering and AFI 48-119, Medical Ser-
vice Environmental Quality Programs, for sampling potable water sources that feed
industrial systems. Consider using AF Form 2752A, Environmental Sampling Data, for
complete analyses to identify the quantity and relationship of water constituents for in-
dustrial water treatment purposes.
6. Acceptance testing of new heating and cooling systems will ensure the industrial water
treatment system meets design and operation parameters. Boiler steam purity tests will de-
termine total dissolved solids limits. Correlate the total dissolved solids level selected for
boiler operation to the conductivity reading of a typical sample. The water or wastewater
laboratory at associated plants or base supply’s fuels laboratory usually can measure total dis-
solved solids using standard methods developed by the American Society for Testing and
Materials. Verify the selected condensate treatment meets design parameters by testing for
copper, iron, and pH at near, medium, and far points from the boiler.
7. Indicate locations to install corrosion coupon racks following the American Society for
Testing and Materials’ D26888-92, Standard Test Methods for Corrosivity of Water in
Absence of Heat Transfer (Weight Loss Methods): Test Method B. The coupons are the
best confirmation of industrial water treatment effectiveness.
8. Do not use nonchemical industrial water treatment devices on DoD systems either regu-
larly or on a test evaluation basis except as approved in advance. This includes the Man-
agement and Equipment Evaluation Program.
9. Light reflective floor coatings include chemically resistant urethane for existing hangar
floors and dry shake metallic floor topping applied to the top layer of freshly poured con-
crete for new floors. Ensure electrostatic discharge and slip resistance are part of the de-
sign. Include the daily cleaning requirements to cover equipment, supplies, and frequency
as part of the maintenance instructions provided to the using agency.
10. Avoid using chemical strippers. If specified, test product for effectiveness prior to award
of any contract. This is especially necessary for removing lead-based paint from wood.
Also, specify procedures to confirm neutralization of alkaline paint stripper through
chemical testing. Alkaline residue left on the substrate is a recurring paint failure mechanism.
In this appendix, we summarize some important results from DoD’s cost-of-corrosion studies con-
ducted the past 2 years. DoD’s cost-of-corrosion studies are important for two important reasons:
• They measure the annual cost of corrosion for various categories of weapon systems,
facilities, and infrastructure.
• They identify corrosion cost reduction opportunities for the military services and
DoD.
Introduction
According to two separate studies, the cost of corrosion to DoD infrastructure and equipment is
estimated to be between $9 billion and $20 billion per year. Although the spread between these
estimates is large, both studies confirm that DoD corrosion costs are significant.
Congress, concerned with the high cost of corrosion and its negative effect on military equip-
ment and infrastructure, enacted legislation in December 2002 that created an office with the
overall responsibility of preventing and mitigating the impact of corrosion on military equipment
and infrastructure. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(USD[AT&L]) was the office designated to fulfill this role. To perform its mission of corrosion
prevention and mitigation, fulfill congressional requirements, and respond to Government Ac-
countability Office (GAO) recommendations, the USD (AT&L) established the Corrosion Pre-
vention and Control Integrated Product Team (CPC IPT), a cross-functional team of personnel
from all the military services as well as representatives from private industry.
Table E-1 presents the results of the initial five studies and the timeline for future cost-of-
corrosion studies.
Method
The method used to estimate facilities corrosion costs 1 focuses on tangible direct material and la-
bor costs as well as some indirect costs (e.g., priority 2 costs) such as research and development
(R&D) and training. The corrosion cost estimation is a combined top-down and bottom-up ap-
proach. The top-down portion uses summary-level cost and budget documentation to establish
spending ceilings for family housing and non-family housing maintenance and construction activ-
ity. This establishes a maximum cost of corrosion for each area of activity. The bottom-up portion
uses detailed work order records to aggregate actual occurrences of corrosion maintenance and
construction. This establishes a minimum level of corrosion costs in each activity area. When nec-
essary, statistical methods to bridge any significant gaps between the top-down and bottom-up
figures were used to derive a final estimation for the cost of corrosion in each area.
The cost estimation method also segregates costs by their source and nature, using four schema
groups:
1
“Costs” reflect known or identified actual expenditures.
Percentage
Facility Type 438 Cost
of total
Percentage
Facility Type 260 Cost
of total
Priority 2 Priority 2
$17 5.6%
corrosion costs corrosion costs
Costs increase as
Characterizes
Time of wetness Time of wetness time of wetness
100% of costs
increases
Costs reflect Characterizes
Airborne salinity Airborne salinity no impact 100% of costs
Using this data structure, it is possible to analyze the data against the following:
• FAC code
• Installation
• Labor and material costs
• Total cost versus corrosion-related cost
• Maintenance, construction, and priority 2 costs
• TOW/S zone
• Corrective versus preventive maintenance cost
• Family housing (FH) versus non-family housing (non-FH) cost
The highest costs of corrosion occur during performance of facilities and infrastructure mainte-
nance, from both a total cost and percentage of expenditure standpoint. The cost of corrosion for
facility and infrastructure maintenance is approximately seven times higher than corrosion costs
associated with facility and infrastructure construction. There are two main reasons for this:
• Only construction projects with an existing mission and an existing footprint are eligible
to contain corrective corrosion costs; therefore, more than half of the total construction
project population was excluded from corrective corrosion costs calculations. This results
in a lower ratio of corrosion-related construction cost to total construction cost.
Maintenance costs due to corrosion generally increase as the time of wetness increases. How-
ever, an increase in corrosion costs for installations located within 1 mile of seawater (a measure
of the presence of airborne salinity) was not observed.
DoD spent more than twice as much on corrective corrosion maintenance ($1,042 million) as it
did on preventive corrosion maintenance ($504 million). However, of the total preventive facility
and infrastructure maintenance expenditures, more than one-third are corrosion-related.
Although not shown in Figure E-1, corrosion-related maintenance costs for non-FH facilities
($1.361 billion) are much higher than corrosion-related maintenance costs for FH facilities
($0.185 billion. This is because there are significantly more non-FH facilities than FH facili-
ties. In terms of maintenance percentage, corrosion expenditures for FH facilities equal
17.4 percent of maintenance costs. The same calculation for non-FH corrosion yields a corro-
sion percentage of 14.9 percent. The slightly higher ratio for FH facilities makes intuitive sense
because a significant trigger for facilities corrosion expenditures is deteriorating appearance
(rust, scaling, flaking, etc.) as well as potential health impacts (the presence of mold, for exam-
ple). It is reasonable to conclude that occupants and managers of FH dwellings have a lower tol-
erance for appearance and health-related problems than users of non-FH facilities. Therefore,
potential corrosion issues in FH dwellings may receive earlier intervention and, therefore, a
higher percentage of maintenance costs than similar issues in non-FH facilities.
Throughout the facilities cost-of-corrosion study, a list of corrosion best practices was developed
that proved applicable across services, TOW/S zones, and installations. Those best practices are:
• Perform all scheduled recurring work services and maintenance. Doing so will help
control costs due to corrosion damage as well as other facilities lifecycle costs.
• Use anti-corrosion water treatment in closed-loop heating and cooling systems.
• Use cathodic protection on steel storage tanks and pipelines. Find adequate re-
sources for the cathodic protection program so that these systems are maintained
and function appropriately.
• Choose appropriate corrosion-resistant materials for new construction and repair
by replacement.
• When a system (such as a pipeline) begins to fail due to corrosion, make the neces-
sary repairs, then plan and program funds for total system replacement, preferably
with a corrosion-resistant material.
• Government staff should review new construction project designs to ensure mainte-
nance is properly considered and preventive measures (such as corrosion-resistant
materials, closed system water treatment, and cathodic protection) are not eliminated
to bring the project’s cost down.
• Consider treating domestic water when the pH is less than 6.5 or greater than 8.5.
This will diminish the effects of corrosion on systems that distribute or use domestic
water.
• Consider using corrosion-resistant concrete embeds and equipment mounting brackets
in facilities such as water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, sewage lift sta-
tions, swimming pool chlorination rooms, etc. In addition, consider using remote
sensing instruments so that only the sensor must be mounted in areas that are humid
or have corrosive environments.
Attachment 2 Acronyms
AS allowable standard
HQ headquarters
PT product team
QA quality assurance
RP recommended practice
TM technical manual
TR technical report
Maintenance Plan
A description of the requirements and tasks necessary to achieve, restore, or maintain the opera-
tional capability of a system, equipment or facility. Corrosion prevention techniques and proc-
esses should be discussed in this document as they relate to the overall maintenance concept. The
maintenance plan normally is a subordinate plan of the integrated logistics support plan (ILSP).
Supply Support
All functions and management actions needed to determine requirements for acquisition, catalog-
ing, packaging, preservation, receipt, storage, transfer, issue, and disposal of spares, repair parts,
bulk material, clothing, food, and fuel. Corrosion control and monitoring supplies should be
identified and integrated with other supply requirements (e.g., cleaners, coatings, and abrasives).
Technical Data
All types of specifications, standards, engineering drawings, instructions, reports, manuals, ta-
bles, and test results used in the development, production, testing, use, maintenance, and dis-
posal of military items, equipment, and systems. Corrosion control and monitoring manuals,
reports, specifications, and standards should be identified and integrated with other logistic
requirements and made readily available to users (e.g., specifications available on web).
Facilities
Facilities includes all real property (all buildings and land) and permanent improvements to real
property (access roads and railroad spurs, security fencing, utility lines, dedicated spaces, and
piers) required for operation and support of a system or equipment. Wash racks and other perma-
nent corrosion control facilities need to be identified early in the development process to ade-
quately budget for the land and associated dedicated improvements.
Training
The processes, procedures, and equipment used to train personnel in the operation and support of
a system or equipment. Corrosion control and monitoring training should be identified and inte-
grated with other support equipment requirements (e.g., school house requirements, imbedded
training, and training material).
Organization
OSD
Director, DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight
ODUSD (AT&L), The Pentagon
3000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3000
(703) 695-2300, DSN: 225-2300
(703) 614-9884 (fax)
Joint Staff
JCS/J4
Pentagon, Room 2C828
Washington, DC 20301-2500
DSN: 227-6849
(703) 697-6849
(703) 693-2584 (fax)
U.S. Army, Aviation and Missile Command US Army Natick Soldier Research Develop-
AMSAM-RD-PS-AM ment and Engineering Center
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 Kansas Street
(256) 876-7472 AMSRD-NSC-BO
DSN: 746-7472 Natick, MA 01760
(508) 233-6977
DSN: 256-6977
(508) 233-6976 (fax)
Navy
Office of Naval Research NAVAIR (AIR-4.3.4)
ONR 332 Materials Division BLDG 2188
800 N Quincy Street Patuxent River, MD 20670
Arlington, VA 22217 (301) 342-8000
(703) 696-4309
(703) 696-0934 (fax)
(Vehicle and Vehicular Equipment Procurement) (Vehicle and Equipment Corrosion Issues)
580 Combat Sustainment Squadron 642 CBSSS/GBEC
Vehicle Management Branch 380 Richard Ray Blvd.
295 Byron St. Robbins AFB, GA 31098
Robbins AFB, GA 31098 DSN: 472-1762
DSN: 472-1762 (478) 222-1600
(478) 222-1600
Marine Corps
Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC)
2200 Lester Street (ACENG/ES&P)
Quantico, VA 22134-6050
DSN: 378-3800
(703) 432-3800
Coast Guard
USCG Technical Support Manager (ARINC)
USAF Corrosion Prevention and Control Office
325 Richard Ray Blvd., Building 165
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1639
(478) 926-3284
(478) 926-6619 (fax)
NASA
Corrosion Studies
ASRC Aerospace/NASA
mail stop: ASRC-15
Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899
(321) 867-7558
NACE-International
Executive Director Director, Public Affairs
NACE International NACE International - The Corrosion Society
1440 South Creek Drive 1440 South Creek Drive
Houston, TX 77084 Houston, Texas 77084
(281) 228-6205 (281) 228-6213
(281) 228-6305 (281) 228-6313 (fax)
hppt://www.nace.org
Kimberly Andrews
Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office (AFCPCO)
AFRL/MLS-OLR
Materials Engineer
325 Richard Ray Blvd., Bldg.165
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1639
(478) 926-7644; DSN: 468-7644
Main office line: (478) 926-3284; DSN: 468-3284
(478) 926-6619 (fax) ); DSN: 468-6619 (fax)
kimberly.andrews.1@us.af.mil
https://afcpco.robins.af.mil
Lee-Ann Barkhouse
US Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center
Kansas Street
AMSRD-NSC-BO
Natick, MA 01760
(508) 233-6977
DSN: 256-6977
leeann.barkhouse@us.army.mil
Dr John H. Beatty
US Army Research Laboratory
AMSRL-WM-MC BLD 4600
APG, MD 21005
(410) 306-0869
(410) 306-0829 (fax)
jbeatty@arl.army.mil
Beau Brinckerhoff
Naval Sea Systems Command
1333 Isaac Hull Ave SE, STOP 5131
Washington Navy Yard, DC 20376-5131
(202) 781-3659 office
beau.brinckerhoff@navy.mil
Thadd Buzan
ODUSD (Installations and Environment)
Installations Requirements and Management
3400 Defense Pentagon, Rm 5C646
Washington DC 20301-3400
(703) 571-9079
(703) 693-2659 (fax)
thadd.buzan@osd.mil
Michael Carpenter
Achievia-Solutions
P.O. Box 293160
Kettering, OH 45429-9160
(937) 901-2799
michael.carpenter@achievia-solutions.com
Paul Chang
LMI
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102
(571) 633-7794
(703) 917-7471 (fax)
pchange@lmi.org
Larry Cornwell
USCG Technical Support Manager
USAF Corrosion Prevention and Control Office
325 Richard Ray Blvd, Bldg 165
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1639
(478) 926-3284; DSN: 468 office
(478) 926-6619 (fax)
lawrence.cornwell@robins.af.mil
Susan Drozdz
Senior Researcher
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)
CEERD-CF-M
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, Il 61826-9005
(217) 373-6767
(217) 373-7222 fax
susan.a.drozdz@erdc.usace.army.mil
Jeffrey Duckworth
NSWCCD
1569 Constitution Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19112
(215) 897-7486
jeffrey.w.duckworth@navy.mil
James Dulan
MKI Systems
USMC CPAC Program Support
2525 Pointe Center Court
Suite 300
Dumfries, VA 22026
(703) 884-9957
jdulan@mkisystems.com
Daniel J. Dunmire
Director, DoD Corrosion Policy & Oversight
ODUSD(AT&L)
3000 Defense Pentagon
Washington DC, 20301-3000
(703) 695-2300; DSN: 225-2300
(703) 614-9884 (fax)
daniel.dunmire@osd.mil
David F. Ellicks
Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 Richard Ray Blvd (Bldg 165)
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1639
478-926-3284; DSN: 468
478-926-6619 (fax)
david.ellicks@robins.af.mil
https://afcpco.robins.af.mil
Milon Essoglou
Associate for Technology
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1322 Patterson Avenue SE Suite 1000
Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5064
(202) 685-9172
(202) 685-1577 (fax)
milon.essoglou@navy.mil
Dave Forman
LMI
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102
571-633-7771
(703) 917-7471 (fax)
dforman@lmi.org
Jessica Glace
LMI
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 917-7089
(703) 917-7471 (fax)
jglace@lmi.org
Cynthia Greenwood
NACE International
Editor at Large CorrDefense
1440 South Creek Drive
Houston, Texas 77084-4906
(713) 527-8699 (voice and fax)
(713) 557-9792 (cell)
cynthia.greenwood@nace.org
Christian Grethlein
Deputy Director, AMMTIAC
Alion Science & Technology
201 Mill Street, Rome, NY 13440
(315) 339-7009
(315) 339-7107 (fax)
cgrethlein@alionscience.com
Rich Hays
Manager, Corrosion Research and Engineering Branch
NSWCCD Code 613
9500 MacArthur Blvd.
West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
(301) 227-5135
(301) 227-5548 (fax)
richard.hays@navy.mil
Robert Herron
Commander, USA RDECOM
ATTN: AMSRD-AMR-PS-AM/R Herron
Bldg 7103
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898
(256) 876-5061
(256) 842-1359 (fax)
robert.a.herron@us.army.mil
Eric Herzberg
LMI
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102
(571) 633-7732
(703) 917-7471 (fax)
eherzberg@lmi.org
Elizabeth Hogan
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Ave. SW
Washington DC 20375
(202) 404-7182
liz.hogan@nrl.navy.mil
Ed Irish
Commander, Navy Installations (CNI)
2713 Mitscher Road, SW Ste 300
Anacostia Annex, DC 20373-5802
(202) 433-4417; DSN: 228
ed.irish@navy.mil
Karen Jackson
Government-Industry Data Exchange Center (GIDEP)
Training Coordinator
GIDEP Liaison to DKSP
P.O Box 8000
Corona, CA 92878-8000
(951) 898-3226
karen.jackson@navy.mil
kjackson@gldp.org
Gretchen Jacobson
NACE International
Publications Director
1440 South Creek Drive
Houston, Texas 77084-4906
(281) 228-6207
(281) 228-6307 (fax)
gretchen.jacobson@nace.org
Robert Jamond
Materials Engineer/CP Specialist
NFESC
1100 23rd Street
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-1061
(805) 982-1074 (fax)
robert.jamond@navy.mil
Kumar Jata
Materials and Manufacturing Directorate
AFRL/MLL 2230 Tenth Street
Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433
(937) 2251304 office
(937) 225-9792 (fax)
kumar.jata@wpafb.af.mil
Cliff Johnson
NACE International
Public Affairs Director
1440 South Creek Drive
Houston, Texas 77084-4906
(281) 228-6213
(281) 228-6313 (fax)
cliff.johnson@nace.org
David Jutton
CP Specialist
NAVFAC Atlantic
6506 Hampton Blvd
Norfolk, VA 23508
(757) 322-4650
(757) 322-4614 (fax)
david.jutton@navy.mil
George Keller
LMI
16132 Kennedy Street
Woodbridge, VA 22191
(703) 551-0097
gkeller@comcast.net
kellerg@onr.navy.mil (alternate e-mail)
Richard Kinzie
PCI
522 Corbin Ave
Macon, GA 31204
(478) 714-8852
richard.kinzie@gmail.com
Matthew Koch
Corrosion Engineer/Program Manager
USMC Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPAC)
MARCORSYSCOM
2200 Lester Street
Quantico, VA 22134
(703) 432-6165 (MCSC)
(302) 732-9268 (cell)
(215) 897-8311 (NAVSEA Philadelphia)
matthew.e.koch@usmc.mil
Kevin Kovaleski
NAVAIR Organic Coatings Team Leader
NAVAIR (AIR-4.9.7.2)
48066 Shaw Rd
Bldg 2188/Unit 5
Patuxent River, MD 20670
(301) 342-8049
kevin.kovaleski@navy.mil
Richard Lampo
Senior Researcher
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)
CEERD-CF-M
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(217) 373-6765 office
(217) 373-7222 fax
richard.g.lampo@erdc.usace.army.mil
Larry Lee
OSD-ATL CTR
Corrosion Policy and Oversight
9032 Patton Blvd
Alexandria, VA 22309
(571) 265-5786
lleeva@gmail.com
larry.lee.ctr@osd.mil
Pat Little
LMI
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 917-7145
(703) 917-7471 (fax)
plittle@lmi.org
Stephen Lowell
Deputy Director
Defense Standardization Program Office
8725 John J. Kingman Road
Attn: J-307, Stop 6233
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221
(703) 767-6879
(703) 767-6876 (fax)
stephen.lowell@dla.mil
Keith Lucas
Naval Research Laboratory
Center for Corrosion Science and Engineering
Naval Research Laboratory Code 6130
4555 Overlook Ave SW
Washington, DC 20375
(202) 767-0833
(202) 404-3881 (fax)
keith.lucas@nrl.navy.mil
Orange Marshall
Senior Researcher
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)
CEERD-CF-M
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(217) 373-6766 office
(217) 373-7222 fax
orange.s.marshall@erdc.usace.army.mil
Judy Mashburn
MKI Systems
USMC CPAC Program Support
2525 Pointe Center Court, Suite 300
Dumfries, VA 22026
(703) 884-9958
jmashburn@mkisystems.com
Craig Matzdorf
NAVAIR Senior Corrosion Engineer
NAVAIR (AIR-4.9.7.6)
48066 Shaw Rd
Bldg 2188/Unit 5
Patuxent River, MD 20670
(301) 342-9372
craig.matzdorf@navy.mil
Bill McGovern
Defense Acquisition University
CDSC/DAU
9820 Belvoir Rd.
Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5565
(703) 805-5401; DSN: 655-5401
Bill.McGovern@dau.mil
Hilton Mills
HQ AMC
9301 Chapek Road
Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5527
(703) 806-9840; DSN: 656
(703) 806-9265 (fax)
hilton.mills@us.army.mil
Sean Morefield
Researcher
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)
CEERD-CF-M
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(217) 373-4567
(217) 373-7222 fax
sean.morefield@erdc.usace.army.mil
William Needham
NSWC Code 613 Corrosion Engineering
9500 MacArthur Boulevard
West Bethesda, Maryland, 20817
(301) 227-5034
william.needham@navy.mil
David Pearson
Professor of Engineering Management
Defense Acquisition University
Ft Belvoir, VA 22060
(703) 805-5269
david.pearson@dau.mil
Airan J. Perez
Office of Naval Research
875 North Randolph Street
Code 333
Arlington, VA 22203-1995
(703) 696-0845
(703) 696-6887 (FAA)
pereza@onr.navy.mil
Edwin Piedmont
Corrosion Control Branch Head/CP Specialist
NAVFAC SE
21555 Eagle Drive
North Charleston, SC 29406-5500
(843) 820-7141
(843) 820-7024 (fax)
edwin.piedmont@navy.mil
Walt Poliansky
HQ USAF/A7CAE
(703) 604-2210; DSN: 664
walter.poliansky.ctr@us.af.mil
David N. Purcell
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
Facilities & Housing Directorate/Facilities Policy Division
ATTN: DAIM-FDF-UE
2511 Jefferson Davis Hwy
Arlington, VA 22202
(703) 601-0371; DSN: 329
(703) 601-0545 (fax)
david.purcell@hqda.army.mil
David Rose
Reliability Information Analysis Center
Kunsela Hall, Suite C003
12 N. Horatio Street
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 351-4204
(315) 339-7107 (fax)
drose@quanterion.com
Randy Schober
Chief, Environmental Branch
GSA/FSS/6FLEE
1500 E Bannister Road
Kansas City MO 64131
(816) 926-2429
randall.schober@gsa.gov
Ellen Segan
USA RDECOM
ARL/ARO (Army Research Laboratory/Army Research Office)
4300 South Miami Blvd.
Durham, NC 27703-9142
(919) 549-4240; DSN: 832
(919) 549-4248 (fax)
ellen.segan@us.army.mil
Bill Shoup
Executive Director
The Society of Protective Coatings
40 24th Street, 6th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(412) 281-2331 x230
(412) 281-9992 (fax)
shoup@sspc.org
Don Skelton
Lead Systems Engineer
Army Corrosion Office
Metallic Materials Technology Branch
AMSRD-AAR-AEE-P
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
(973) 724-4071
donald.skelton@us.army.mil
Dr Lew Sloter
Associate Director, Materials & Structures
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology)
1777 N Kent St Ste 9030
Arlington VA 22209-2110
(703) 588-7418; DSN: 425
(703) 696-2230 (fax)
lewis.sloter@osd.mil
Steve Spadafora
NAVAIR
Head, Materials Protection/Corrosion Branches
and Joint Council on Aging Aircraft/Corrosion Steering Group Leader
NAVAIR (AIR-4.9.7)
48066 Shaw Rd, Bldg 2188/Unit 5
Patuxent River, MD 20670
(301) 342-8007
stephen.spadafora@navy.mil
Tony Stampone
DUSD(L&MR)LP&P
Pentagon Rm 2D-261
Washington DC 20301-3500
(703) 614-3838
anthony.stampone@osd.mil
Thomas J. Tehada
NAVFAC CP Technical Expert
NFESC; 258 Makalapa Drive, Ste 100
Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134
(808) 472-1254; DSN: 472
(808) 471-5870 (fax)
tom.tehada@navy.mil
John Theis
Army Corrosion Office
AMSRD-AAR-AEE-P, Bldg 355
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
(973) 724-5795
(973) 724-2864 (fax)
john.theis@us.army.mil
Vicki VanBlaricum
Chief, Materials and Structures Branch
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)
CEERD-CF-M
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(217) 373-6771
(217) 373-7222 fax
vicki.l.vanblaricum@erdc.usace.army.mil
Michael Wallace
US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile
109 St. Joseph Street
Mobile, AL 36602
(251) 694-4068
(251) 694-4057 (fax)
michael.a.wallace@sam.usace.army.mil
Allen Westheimer
U.S. General Accounting Office
350 S. Figueroa Street
World Trade Center, Suite 1010
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 830-1057
westheimera@gao.gov
Soloman Williams
HQ AFCESA/CEOA
139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1
Tyndall AFB, FL 32043
(852) 283-6358; DSN: 523
(850) 283-6219 (fax)
sol.williams@tyndall.af.mil
Earl Wingrove
LMI
2000 Corporate Ridge
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 917-7387
(703) 917-7471 (fax)
ewingrove@lmi.org
Robert Zanowicz
Lead Systems Engineer
Army Corrosion Office
Metallic Materials Technology Branch
AMSRD-AAR-AEE-P
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000
(973) 724-5744
robert.zanowicz@us.army.mil
Michael Zapata
Air Force Fuels Engineer
HQ AFCESA/CEOA
139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
(850) 283-6070; DSN: 523-6070
michael.zapata@us.af.mil
Daniel A. Zarate
NAVFAC Paints & Coatings SME
NFESC
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-1057; DSN: 551
(775) 417-5802 (fax, primary)
(805) 982-1074 (fax)
daniel.zarate@navy.mil
There are seven references to corrosion within the document. They are primarily contained within the
discussion of maintainability and supportability as they pertain to system availability in DoD weapon
systems. The following are specific factors to be considered, planned, and provided for:
DoD Directive 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System (12 May 2003)
Policies in this directive apply to all acquisition programs.
According to Paragraph E1.17, Performance-Based Logistics, PMs must develop and implement
performance-based logistics strategies that optimize total system availability while minimizing
cost and logistics footprint. Trade-off decisions involving cost, useful service, and effectiveness
must consider corrosion prevention and mitigation. Sustainment strategies must include the best
use of public and private sector capabilities through government-industry partnering initiatives,
in accordance with statutory requirements.
• Provide strategic review and advice as necessary to deal with the following congres-
sional requirements:
Expanded emphasis on corrosion prevention and mitigation
Uniform application of requirements and criteria for testing and certification of
new corrosion prevention technologies throughout the DoD
Development of a coordinated approach to collecting, reviewing, validating and
distributing information on proven methods and products
Specifically Part 207.105 (b),13), Logistics consideration, states “Performance based logistics
that optimize total system availability while minimizing costs and logistics footprint should be
considered. Trade-off decisions involving cost, useful service, and effectiveness shall consider
corrosion prevention and mitigation.”
The vision of the DoD Corrosion website is for the DoD, academia, and industry to work to-
gether to develop and share corrosion data, information, and knowledge to help reduce the cost
of corrosion and its impact on the readiness of DoD weapon systems, equipment, comparable
commercial assets, and infrastructure.
• Improve and support communication, collaboration, and coordination within the cor-
rosion prevention and control (CPC) community.
• Increase the effectiveness of CPC research and operations
• Develop, maintain, and expand the web-based information aggregation and sharing
capabilities of the website.
• Maintain a content-rich, collaborative online environment for all members.
The DoD Strategic Plan for Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation applies to all elements of DoD
component services and agencies, including the science and technology, acquisition, operational,
and support communities. The plan also applies to segments of the industrial community (includ-
ing manufacturers, material suppliers, and contract maintenance organizations) that provide
products or services affected by or related to equipment and infrastructure corrosion. The plan
addresses affordable system and facility design, materials selection, manufacturing, detection,
treatment, and repair processes associated with corrosion and its effects. The plan was formally
promulgated by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
(USD[AT&L]) and remains in effect until cancelled or superseded. Revisions to the plan will be
incorporated and implemented as needed throughout the life of the plan.
Paragraph 4.4.13, “Corrosion Prevention and Control,” states, “The program manager should
consider and implement corrosion prevention and mitigation planning to minimize the impact of
corrosion and material deterioration throughout the system life cycle.” Corrosion prevention and
mitigation methods include the use of effective design practices, material selection, protective
finishes, production processes, packaging, storage environments, protection during shipment, and
maintenance procedures. The program manager establishes and maintains a corrosion prevention
and mitigation reporting system for data collection and feedback and uses it to adequately ad-
dress corrosion prevention and mitigation logistic considerations and readiness issues. Corrosion
prevention and mitigation considerations are integral to all trade-off decisions for Performance
based logistics as required in DoD Directive 5000.1:
PMs shall develop and implement performance-based logistics strategies that optimize total sys-
tem availability while minimizing cost and logistics footprint. Trade-off decisions involving cost,
useful service, and effectiveness shall consider corrosion prevention and mitigation. Sustainment
strategies shall include the best use of public and private sector capabilities through government/
industry partnering initiatives, in accordance with statutory requirement.
OSD, Report to Congress, Status Update on Efforts to Reduce Corrosion and the
Effects of Corrosion on the Military Equipment and Infrastructure of the
Department of Defense (February 2005)
This report is submitted per guidance in Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit,
GAO-04-640 that requires the department to submit to Congress, as part of the fiscal year 2006
budget submission, a report identifying the
• long-term funding and personnel resources needed to implement the corrosion strategy,
• status of the corrosion reduction projects funded in FY2005, and
• status of the cost of corrosion baseline study.
In addition, this report updates other key corrosion activities, including the
• transition of corrosion control and oversight activities from task force status to em-
bedding the responsibilities within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD),
• identification and characterization of corrosion-related specifications and standards,
• enhancements in corrosion training for appropriate DoD personnel, and
• activity highlights of the seven working integrated product teams (WIPTs): Commu-
nication and Outreach; Facilities/Infrastructure; Impact, Metrics and Sustainment;
Policy and Requirements; Science and Technology; Specifications/Standards and
Product Qualification; and Training and Doctrine.
• planning for a corrosion study by the National Materials Advisory Board of The National
Academies, and
• activity highlights of the seven WIPTs.
OSD Memorandum, Facility Corrosion Prevention and Control (10 March 2005)
This memorandum establishes policy to apply the proper corrosion prevention practices in the
management of facilities. It initiates a review of the sustainment program to ensure corrosion
prevention is fully incorporated into the management of facilities requirements.
The corrosion prevention and control program is a critical consideration in assuring the sustained
performance, readiness, economical operation, and service life of Army systems and equipment.
It requires active consideration in the materiel development, acquisition, fielding, operation, and
storage processes. CPC requires life-cycle management planning and action in design, develop-
ment, testing, fielding, training, and maintenance.
AR 750-59, Army Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (18 March 2003)
This regulation establishes Army policy and procedures for implementing and managing an effective
corrosion prevention and control program for all Army systems, equipment, and components.
This regulation identifies the Army Corrosion Program Manager and prescribes the policies, re-
sponsibilities, and procedures for implementing the Army Corrosion Prevention and Control
(CPC) Program.
This corrosion prevention and control section contains guidelines for establishing and managing
the Army CPC program throughout the life cycle of Army materiel systems. It applies to all ac-
tive Army elements that have responsibility for the development, acquisition, and support of
military materiel. The ultimate goal of the CPC Program is to reduce corrosion in Army prod-
ucts. This goal must translate into specific, achievable objectives so that manpower and cost sav-
ings can be realized.
OPNAVINST 4700.7K, Maintenance Policy for US Navy Ships (11 July 2003)
This instruction sets policy and establishes responsibility for the maintenance of U.S. Navy
ships. It applies to all ships and patrol craft of the U.S. Navy (active and reserve).
The NAMP provides for the maintenance, manufacture, and calibration of aeronautical equip-
ment and material at the level of maintenance that will ensure optimum use of resources. It fur-
ther provides for the protection of weapon systems from corrosive elements through an active
corrosion control program, and the application of a systematic planned maintenance program.
This instruction applies to all surface ships of the U.S. Navy with electronic equipment and the sys-
tem commands that acquire and support equipment. This includes electronic equipment in combat
systems as well as electronic components in hull, mechanical, and electrical systems.
One of the special programs of ALREMP is Corrosion Prevention and Control, which prevents
mishaps, excessive out-of-service time, serious damage to aircraft and equipment, and a resultant
The basic document and three attached volumes contain 19 references to corrosion. They generally
discuss standards, causes, and recommended actions concerning safety related corrosion discrepan-
cies, lead removal due to corrosion, CPC-incompatible materials, and incorrect procedures, general
precautions, and observed defects where corrosion is a factor.
One reference to corrosion (Chapter 21) deals with the removal of any lead-containing materials
as a result of corrosion.
It contains 202 references to corrosion, dealing with the organizational, intermediate, and depot
maintenance and repair of
This document also references corrosion prevention and cleaning and minor corrosion treatment,
corrosion control treatment and repainting, specific procedures to be followed for each type of
metal and substrate to be cleaned, and the organization responsibilities to carry out an effective
corrosion prevention and control program.
It provides guidance on requirements, processes, and resources for the successful planning, de-
sign, construction, operation, and maintenance of cathodic protection systems. Cathodic protec-
tion along with protective coatings is the effective method for mitigating corrosion of buried or
submerged metallic structures.
It contains one reference to corrosion, which defines the failure of components due to fatigue or
stress related to corrosion.
The Corrosion Prevention and Control Program ensures structural integrity of air and space sys-
tems and supporting equipment by preventing, assessing, detecting and controlling the damage
and effects of corrosion.
Chapter 6, “Corrosion Prevention and Control for USAF Vehicles,” establishes policies and pro-
cedures for controlling materials, processes, and levels of protection to be incorporated in, or
performed upon, Air Force vehicles or vehicular equipment for corrosion prevention and control.
It also contains general information pertaining to the scope of this publication, reference publica-
tions, definitions, Air Force policy, responsibilities, and levels of corrosion prevention. It in-
cludes a list of installations and the corrosive susceptibility of vehicles at or within close
proximity to those installations, and the minimum effective wash cycle for the specified corro-
sion severity zone the equipment is assigned to or operating from. In addition, it provides the lo-
cal installation commanders and vehicle fleet managers with the knowledge-based tools to
establish an effective corrosion prevention and control program.
This standard provides a mechanism for implementation of sound materials selection practices
and finish treatments during the design, development, production, and operational cycles of aero-
space weapon systems. This standard defines requirements to ensure establishment and imple-
mentation of a corrosion prevention advisory board (where applicable), a corrosion prevention
and control plan, and its accompanying finish specification as directed in Section 4. The corro-
sion prevention and control plan will dictate the organization of the boards, their basic duties,
operating procedures, and the finish philosophies used in the systems. The finish specification
will therefore be required to specify the detailed finish and coating systems to philosophies as
approved in the corrosion prevention and control plan.
The purpose is to orient command, base, and unit corrosion control programs toward preventing cor-
rosion through the timely inspection and proper treatment of aerospace vehicles and support equip-
ment to include proper maintenance of protective finishes and ensuring equipment cleanliness.
This instruction assigns responsibilities and establishes policies and procedures for implementing
and maintaining the aircraft structural maintenance and corrosion control program for aircraft,
aerospace ground equipment (AGE), communications, electronics and meteorological (CEM)
equipment, and other end items relative to the functions of Air Combat Command.
Aircraft structural maintenance (ASM) incorporates design, repair, and fabrication of metal, fi-
berglass, plastic, and composite structures for aircraft. Corrosion identification, prevention and
treatment procedures as well as removal and application of radar absorbing material (RAM) are
also integral components of ASM. All aspects of ASM are geared toward maintaining the struc-
tural integrity and low observable systems at the organizational and intermediate levels.
Corrosion control programs will be oriented toward the prevention and control of corrosion
through frequent cleaning, corrosion inspection and early detection, application of proper treat-
ment materials/procedures, and maintenance painting. Frequent cleaning has proven to be the
most effective means of preventing corrosion. Maintenance painting is defined for field purposes
as spot painting, sectionalized painting, and complete scuff sand and overcoat.
The AMC corrosion management program is oriented towards prevention. This is accomplished
through equipment cleaning, maintenance of protective coatings, and early detection and treatment of
corrosion. Strict adherence to corrosion prevention policies and technical orders is essential.
The Air Logistics Centers (ALC), Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC),
and other AFMC depot maintenance activities will implement this instruction as written.
This supports the Air Force Corrosion Program Office (AFCPO) by participating in equipment
evaluations, corrosion program managers meetings, advisory boards, executive counsel meetings,
and field surveys. It coordinates with Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) on the development and
testing of corrosion control techniques and material. It also organizes, directs, and manages the
wing/group corrosion prevention program according to AFIs 21-101.
It publishes operating instruction (OI) that outline local policy and procedures for the following:
• Designate a senior NCO with appropriate technical background and corrosion control
experience to serve as the unit corrosion prevention and control manager.
• Ensure a corrosion-training program is established.
• Ensure all personnel involved in aircraft maintenance receive corrosion control (ini-
tial and refresher) training, and meet safety and health requirements, as set forth un-
der the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
• Ensure local procedures are established for periodic cleaning of aircraft and support
equipment, in accordance with applicable publications.
Aircraft Structural Maintenance incorporates design, repair and fabrication of metal, fiberglass,
plastic and composite structures for aircraft. Corrosion identification, prevention and treatment
procedures as well as removal and application of Radar Absorbing Material (RAM) are also in-
tegral components of ASM. All aspects of ASM are geared towards maintaining the structural
integrity and Low Observable systems at the organizational and intermediate levels.
Corrosion control Programs shall be oriented towards the prevention and control of corrosion
through frequent cleaning, corrosion inspection and early detection, application of proper treat-
ment materials/procedures, and maintenance painting. Frequent cleaning has proven to be the
most effective means of preventing corrosion. Maintenance painting is defined for field purposes
as spot painting, sectionalized painting, and complete scuff sand and overcoat.
This instruction assigns responsibilities and establishes policies/procedures for implementing and
maintaining the aircraft structural maintenance and corrosion control program for aircraft and
aerospace ground equipment.
Aircraft Structural Maintenance (ASM) incorporates design, repair and fabrication of metal, fi-
berglass, plastic and composite structures for aircraft. Corrosion identification, prevention and
treatment procedures are also integral components of ASM. All aspects of ASM are geared to-
wards maintaining the structural integrity at the organizational and intermediate levels.
Corrosion control programs must be oriented toward the prevention and control of corrosion
through frequent cleaning, corrosion inspection and early detection, application of proper treat-
ment materials/procedures, and maintenance painting. Frequent cleaning has proven to be the
most effective means of preventing corrosion. Maintenance painting is defined for field purposes
as spot painting, sectionalized painting and complete scuff sand and overcoat.
All aircraft, ground and support equipment users and maintainers must attend periodic corrosion
prevention and identification training as defined in Section 3.14, structural personnel are exempt
from this requirement. Awareness is the key to an effective corrosion management program.
For aviation, the Coast Guard typically follows either the OEM or complies with Air Force and
Navy technical orders. Specific application of corrosion protection components are contained
within the Coast Guard’s Aircraft Computerized Maintenance System (ACMS) procedure cards,
which are peculiar for each weapon system. Procedure cards are similar to, but much more con-
densed than, the Air Force job guides and are used on the job site by the technician to accom-
plish a maintenance task.
For the facilities and ship organizations, the Coast Guard follows guidance as provided by the
Navy technical orders.
A difference in electrical potential exists between the different metals and serves as the driving
force for electrical current flow through the corrodant or electrolyte. This electrical current re-
sults in corrosion of one of the metals. The larger the potential difference, the greater the prob-
ability of galvanic corrosion.
Galvanic corrosion only causes deterioration of one of the metals. The less resistant, active metal
becomes the anodic corrosion site. The stronger, more noble metal is cathodic and protected.
The galvanic corrosion chart lists the potential differences for various metals in water. The order
of the series can change for different electrolytes (for example, different pH, ions in solution).