Skip to main content

Full text of "A survival analysis of the tanks and voids on USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) and USS Enterprise (CVN 65)"

See other formats


NPS ARCHIVE 
1997* O 3 
CORDON, C. 



NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL 

Monterey, California 




THESIS 



A SURVIVAL ANALYSIS OF THE TANKS AND VOIDS 
ON USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CV 67) 

AND USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) 

by 

Charles R. Cordon 
March 1997 

Thesis Advisor: Lyn R. Whitaker 



Thesis 

075^629 



Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 



»1AVAL postgraduate school 

MONTEREY CA 93943-5101 



DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY 
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL 
MONTEREY, CA 93943-5101 



REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 


Form Approved 
OMB No. 0704-0188 


Public reporting burden for this 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, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 


1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

March 1997 Master’s Thesis 


4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

A SURVIVAL ANALYSIS OF THE TANKS AND VOIDS ON 
USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CV 67) AND USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) 


5. FUNDING NUMBERS 


6. AUTHOR(S) 

Cordon, Charles R. 


7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Naval Postgraduate School 
Monterey, CA 93943-5000 


8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 
REPORT NUMBER 


9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 


10. SPONSORING / MONITORING 
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 


11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of 
the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 


12a. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited 


12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 


13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

The maintenance of an aircraft carrier’s tanks and voids has a direct impact on ship operability and service 
life. The scheduling of inspections and repair work for these tanks and voids poses a significant problem for 
the carrier maintenance community. This thesis contributes to refining strategy in the repair planning process 
by providing the framework for building comprehensive tank and void database files. To demonstrate this, 
repair history files are constructed for USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) and USS Enterprise (CVN 65). These 
files consolidate tank and void repair documentation from the myriad of carrier maintenance agencies and 
comprise the most complete database for these ships. A similar database can be developed for all the carriers 
by duplicating this effort. A life cycle analysis of the data reveals that paint coating failure rates are more 
similar among tanks and voids on the same ship rather than among tanks of the same functional type. A case 
study for CV-67 examines model accuracy and predicts the expected number of coating failures at a future 
maintenance period. The lessons learned in this thesis directly supports a follow on study of the JP-5 tanks 
on the Nimitz class aircraft carriers. 




14. SUBJECT TERMS 

Reliability, Survival Analysis, Aircraft Carriers, Tanks, Voids 


15. NUMBER OF PAGES 
108 


16. PRICE CODE 


17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT 

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified 


20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

UL 



NSN 7540-01 -280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 



Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 
298-102 

i 



Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 



A SURVIVAL ANALYSIS OF THE TANKS AND VOIDS ON 
USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CV 67) AND USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) 



Charles R. Cordon 
Lieutenant, United States Navy 
B.S., University of the State of New York, 1988 
B.A., University of the State of New York, 1989 

Submitted in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN OPERATIONS RESEARCH 

from the 

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL 
March 1997 



f)fZ I rrV )0 
\ °\ c \*,oZ 
0/(5 >/• ^ ( 










ABSTRACT 



The maintenance of an aircraft carrier’s tanks and voids has a direct impact on 
ship operability and service life. The scheduling of inspections and repair work for these 
tanks and voids poses a significant problem for the carrier maintenance community. This 
thesis contributes to refining strategy in the repair planning process by providing the 
framework for building comprehensive tank and void database files. To demonstrate this, 
repair history files are constructed for USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) and USS Enterprise 
(CVN 65). These files consolidate tank and void repair documentation from the myriad of 
carrier maintenance agencies and comprise the most complete database for these ships. A 
similar database can be developed for all the carriers by duplicating this effort. A life cycle 
analysis of the data reveals that paint coating failure rates are more similar among tanks 
and voids on the same ship rather than among tanks of the same functional type. A case 
study for CV-67 examines model accuracy and predicts the expected number of coating 
failures at a future maintenance period. The lessons learned in this thesis directly supports 
a follow on study of the JP-5 tanks on the Nimitz class aircraft carriers. 



v 




■ 






VI 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



I. INTRODUCTION 1 

A. PROBLEM STATEMENT 2 

B. LESSONS LEARNED IN PREVIOUS STUDIES 3 

C. SCOPE OF THESIS 5 

n. TRACKING TANK AND VOID MAINITENANCE 7 

A. BACKGROUND 7 

B. TANK AND VOID MAINTENANCE PLANNING 8 

C. DISTRIBUTION OF TANK AND VOID REPAIR 10 

D. CONFOUNDING FACTORS IN TRACKING TANK AND VOID 

DATA 11 

1. Documentation and Accounting Issues 11 

2. Data Collection Issues 12 

IB. DEVELOPING HISTORY FILES 15 

A. HISTORY FILE BASIS 16 

B. HISTORY FILE STRUCTURE 17 

1. Determining Censoring Intervals 17 

2. Summary Interval Charts 19 

3. Assumptions Made in History Files 20 

4. CV-67 File Specifics 21 

5. CVN-65 File Specifics 22 

C. HISTORY FILE LIMITATIONS 22 

IV. ANALYSIS 25 

A. MODELING FAILURE DATA 25 

B. METHODOLOGY 27 

1 . Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Weibull Model Parameters 27 

2. Estimating Confidence Regions for X,k 29 

vii 



C. SURVIVAL FUNCTIONS 29 

D. ESTIMATING THE EXPECTED NUMBER OF FAILURES IN AN 

INTERVAL WITH CONDITIONAL SURVIAL FUNCTIONS 32 

1 . Conditional Survival Function 32 

2. Estimating the Expected Number of Coating Failures 32 

E. COMPARISONS 34 

1 . Methods for Comparing Survival Functions 34 

2. Cross-ship Comparisons 35 

3. Same-ship Comparisons 37 

F. SUMMARY 38 

V. CV-67 CASE STUDY 39 

A. CALCULATING CONDITIONAL SURVIVAL PROBABILITIES 40 

B. CALCULATING EXPECTED NUMBER OF COATING FAILURES 

AT AN AVAILABILITY 41 

C. MODEL ACCURACY 42 

1. CV-67 Fuel Oil Tanks 43 

2. CV-67 JP-5 Tanks 43 

3. CV-67 Damage and List Control Voids 44 

D. MODEL APPLICATION 45 

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 49 

A. CONCLUSIONS 49 

B. RECOMMENDATIONS 50 

REFERECENCES 53 

APPENDIX A. 1 PERAMAND AY SUMMARY 55 

APPENDIX A.2 HISTORY FILE RESOURCES AND REFERENCES 56 

A.2.1 CV-67 56 

A.2. 2 CVN-65 58 

APPENDIX A. 3 CV-67 FUEL OIL TANK HISTORY FILE 60 

viii 



62 



APPENDIX A.4 CV-67 JP-5 TANK HISTORY FILE 

APPENDIX A. 5 CV-67 DAMAGE AND LIST CONTROL VOID HISTORY 

FILE 63 

APPENDIX A.6 CVN-65 FUEL OIL TANK HISTORY FILE 64 

APPENDIX A. 7 CVN-65 JP-5 TANK HISTORY FILE 65 

APPENDIX A. 8 CVN-65 DAMAGE AND LIST CONTROL VOID 

HISTORY FILE 68 

APPENDIX A.9 CVN-65 DRY VOID AND COFFERDAM HISTORY FILE 71 

APPENDIX B. 1 CV-67 SUMMARY INTERVAL CHARTS 77 

APPENDIX B.2 CVN-65 GROUP INTERVAL CHARTS 78 

APPENDIX C. 1 TWO PARAMETER WEIBULL DISTRIBUTION 

PROPERTIES 81 

APPENDIX C.2 EXAMPLE MAPLE CODE FOR MLE (CVN-65 JP-5 

GROUP) 83 

APPENDIX C.3 CV-67 GROUP MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD PLOTS 85 

APPENDIX C.3 CVN-65 GROUP MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD PLOTS 86 

APPENDIX C.4 EXAMPLE MAPLE CODE FOR OBTAINING JOINT 

CONFIDENCE REGIONS (CVN-65 JP-5 GROUP) 87 

APPENDIX D SURVIVAL FUNCTIONS 89 

FUEL OIL TANKS 89 

JP-5 TANKS 90 

DAMAGE AND LIST CONTROL VOIDS 91 

DRY VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 92 

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 93 



IX 






X 



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 



APS 


Automated Planning System (NNSY database) 


CBMP 


Condition Based Maintenance Policy 


CSMP 


Current Ship’s Maintenance Project 


CD 


Cofferdam 


COH 


Complex Overhaul 


COMNAVAIRLANT 


Commander Naval Air Forces Atlantic Fleet 


CV 


Conventionally powered aircraft carrier 


CVN 


Nuclear powered aircraft carrier 


DC 


Damage Control (void) 


DSRA 


Docking Selected Restricted Availability 


ESWBS 


Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure 


FO 


Fuel Oil (tank) 


FOB 


Fuel Oil or Ballast (tank) 


FOOB 


Fuel Oil Overflow or Ballast (tank) 


FOS 


Fuel Oil Service (tank) 


FW BLST 


Fresh Water Ballast (tank) 


IWP 


Integrated Work Package 


JB 


JP-5 or Ballast (tank) 


JCN 


Job Control Number 


JOB 


JP-5 Overflow or Ballast (tank) 


JP 


JP-5 (tank) 


JP Serv 


JP-5 Service (tank) 


JP-5 


Jet Propulsion (fuel) 


LC 


List Control (void) 


MEP 


Maintenance Index Page 


MLE 


Maximum Likelihood Estimate 


MPM 


Maintenance Planning Manager (PERA) 


MRC 


Maintenance Requirement Card 


MTTF 


Mean Time To Failure 


NAVSEADET 


Naval Sea Systems Detachment 


NNS 


Newport News Shipyard, Newport News, VA 


NNSY 


Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, VA 


NSTM 


Naval Sea Systems Technical Manual 


PERA 


Planning and Engineering for Repairs and Alterations 


PMS 


Preventative Maintenance Schedule (3M) 


PNSY 


Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, PA 


PSNS 


Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA 


RCOH 


Refueling Complex Overhaul 


SARP 


Ships Alteration and Repair Package 


SRA 


Selected Restricted Availability 



xi 



SSSF 


Supervisor Shipyard San Francisco (Mare Island), San 
Francisco, CA 


Sup Ship 


Supervisor of Shipbuilding 


SWB 


Seawater Ballast 


SWLIN 


Ship Work Line Item Number 


TYCOM 


Type Commander (e.g., COMNAVAIRLANT) 


TVDB 


Tank and Void Database 


TVTM 


Tank and Void Inspection Manual 


WDC 


Work Definition Conference 



XII 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



The maintenance of an aircraft carrier’s tanks and voids has a direct impact on 
ship operability and service life. Current planning and projected force structure call for a 
fifty year service life for the Nimitz class carriers and has extended the service life of the 
older conventional fueled carriers beyond original forecasts. Several programs have been 
implemented by the cognizant carrier maintenance agencies to fulfill fleet requirements. 
The Carrier Life Enhancing Repairs (CLER) program was instituted by Naval Sea Systems 
Command specifically to address engineering, repair planning, and reduced maintenance 
costs. The CLER program is directed by Naval Sea Systems Command Detachment, 
Planning and Engineering for Repairs and Alterations, Aircraft Carriers (NAVSEADET 
PERA (CV)). One of the problem areas that PERA (CV) has undertaken within the 
CLER program is the inspection and repair planning process of the tanks and voids. 

Complete documentation of individual tank repair history is paramount to 
improving the tank and void repair planning process. Developing methods to predict 
paint coating failure to augmenting current maintenance strategy requires sustained record 
keeping as well. This thesis provides significant contributions toward these requirements 
by providing the most comprehensive tank and void paint coating database available for 
USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and USS Enterprise (CVN-65). History files are 
developed that compile repair documentation retrieved from depot level facilities and 
PERA archives. A template is produced to build the repair history files that maps out the 
carrier availability planning and tank work distribution process within the maintenance 
infrastructure. Using the data gathering methods outlined, similar tank and void databases 
can be constructed for all aircraft carriers. 

A life cycle analysis of the data in the history files is conducted to develop survival 
functions of the tank and void paint coatings. Comparisons of the tank and void groups 
on the same ship and between the two ships are made to examine failure patterns. Results 
of the analysis show that tanks and voids on the same ship have more similar survival 
functions than those of the same group type between the two ships. CV-67 and CVN-65 
are of differing class type and have dissimilar maintenance histories. These observations 



XIII 



pose two important issues towards applying a more structured approach to tank and void 
maintenance planning. First, it requires that ships be on similar repair schedules to remove 
the effect of differing repair histories. Secondly, the use and repair history of the tanks 
and voids on each ship may result in unique failure patterns, particularly when comparing 
ships of differing class type. 

The accuracy of the survival models is tested for the CV-67 tank and voids. 
Additionally, a demonstration of predicting estimated coating failures to aid decision 
makers in the repair planning process is provided. USS Kennedy and USS Enterprise are 
two of the oldest carriers currently in service. A confounding factor limiting the validity 
of the analysis was the inability to recover repair data prior to 1979. CV-67 was 

commissioned in 1968 and CVN-65 was commissioned in 1961. By 1979, both carriers 
had undergone one or more dry docking availabilities, however there is no means of 
accounting for the extent of tank and void work conducted during those periods. Thus, 
the details and impact of the unaccountable work are not included in the history files. 
Consequently, the effect of these missing repairs is over estimation of the coating survival 
rate, yielding an overly optimistic life cycle. 

Positive steps have been by PERA (CV) to acquire historical tank and void repair 
data using the sources referenced in this thesis. As a direct result of the lessons learned in 
this thesis, PERA (CV) has endorsed a life cycle study of the JP-5 tanks on the newer 
Nimitz class aircraft carriers. The study of this critical tank group among ships of the 
same class removes a significant obstacle in furthering the analysis of tank and void 
coating failures. The repair histories for this class ship are very similar and the failure data 
is much more compete. The methods used in this thesis will be applied to that study, 
currently in progress at the Navy Postgraduate School. The cross-ship comparisons of 
failure histories for this class may provide productive fleet wide decision criteria in tank 
and void repair planning. For example, if tanks of the same functional group have similar 
failure patterns, regular inspection and repair schemes can be developed for the entire class 
with resources budgeted accordingly. This would be a major step in reducing undesired 
growth work and unnecessary inspections. 



XIV 



I. INTRODUCTION 



The primary mission of an aircraft carrier is to project air power ashore in support 
of national interests. The ability to sustain carrier presence requires a high degree of 
coordination within the operations and maintenance infrastructure. For instance, the 
maintenance of an aircraft carrier’s tanks and voids has a direct impact on ship operability 
and service life. Many facets of ship’s operations require the upkeep and functionality of 
the nearly 1000 tanks and voids dispersed throughout an aircraft carrier. Air operations 
require the stowage, transfer, and distribution of quality jet propulsion (JP-5) fuel. Flight 
deck attitude and trim are maintained by floodable ballast and list control voids. 
Conventional powered (non nuclear) ships are highly dependent on their fuel oil tank 
capacity. These are just a few of the operations that have an enormous dependence on 
this intricate network of tanks and voids. 

Extensive ship repairs are conducted during maintenance availability periods at a 
contracted shipyard facility. These availabilities are dynamic and complex processes 
involving a myriad of both military and civilian agencies. Maintenance availabilities range 
from four month pier side evolutions to two or three year refueling complex overhauls 
(RCOH) in dry-dock. Preservation and repair of the tank and void system have become a 
focal issue in recent carrier availabilities. Rising costs and limited resources necessitate a 
more structured approach to both maintenance planning and system tracking methods. 
Management has responded to these limited resources by mandating a conditioned based 
maintenance policy (CBMP). A CBMP ensures that those systems in most need of repair 
and with the greatest impact on ship’s mission have priority in both planning and 
allocation of resources. The primary agenda for the maintenance planners is to ensure that 
the repairs scheduled during these availabilities will fulfill the needs of the fleet through the 
ship’s next operational cycle. 

The largest cost element in tank and void repair is the maintenance or replacement 
of the protective interior surface coating (Scalet, 1996). Adequate corrosion and wear 



1 



protection depends on the material condition of the paint coating. Adherence to the 
CBMP assumes that tank conditions are known, and thus informed work is scheduled; this 
is not always true. Past availabilities have documented cases where tanks scheduled for 
re-coating actually have paint coatings that are acceptable for continued service. 
Conversely, tanks not scheduled for repair but accessed to support other work have been 
found to have coating failure. Unplanned or new work (growth work) that results from 
this type of discovery during an availability is performed at a cost two or three times 
higher than scheduled work. 

Current planning and projected force structure call for a fifty year service life for 
the Nimitz class aircraft carriers and has extended the required service life of the 
conventional fueled carriers. Several programs have been implemented by the cognizant 
carrier maintenance agencies to fulfill fleet requirements. The Carrier Life Enhancing 
Repairs (CLER) program was instituted by Naval Sea Systems Command specifically to 
address engineering, repair planning, and reduced maintenance costs. The CLER program 
is directed by Naval Sea Systems Command Detachment, Planning and Engineering for 
Repairs and Alterations, Aircraft Carriers (NAVSEADET PERA (CV)). One of the 
problem areas that PERA (CV) has undertaken within the CLER program is the inspection 
and repair planning process of the tanks and voids. 

A. PROBLEM STATEMENT 

Two of the oldest carriers in the active duty fleet are the thirty-five year old USS 
Enterprise (CVN 65), commissioned in 1961, and the twenty-eight year old USS Kennedy 
(CV 67), commissioned in 1968. Both ships have undergone several extensive overhaul 
periods in their service life. The focus of this thesis is to analyze the maintenance of the 
tanks and voids on these two older carriers. To support the analysis, comprehensive 
history files are developed which consolidate the diverse repair documentation particular 
to each carrier. These files provide the basis for predicting the number of tanks and voids 
with paint coating failure. 



2 



A typical operational cycle between dry-docking repair opportunities is about 
sixty months. Cost, manning, operational restrictions, and safety requirements do not 
allow for the complete inspection of all tanks and voids prior to a scheduled repair period. 
Therefore, to augment a CBMP it is important that the material condition of tanks and 
voids are tracked for each ship and that the data gathered be used to predict future failure 
patterns. This is particularly vital as an aircraft carrier ages through its service life. Older 
carriers such as USS Kennedy and USS Enterprise have a mix of tanks and voids in 
various stages of coating life corresponding to different chances of failure through the next 
operations cycle. 

B. LESSONS LEARNED IN PREVIOUS STUDIES 

This is the third Naval Postgraduate School thesis on the subject of aircraft carrier 
tanks and voids. A thorough examination of the scope of the problems inherent in the 
current maintenance planning methods and procedures can be found in the first thesis by 
LT Cynthia Womble (Womble, 1994). Womble’s thesis stresses the need for an 
inspection methodology and record system to better track and predict the failure behavior 
of tank coatings on Nimitz class aircraft carriers (CVN-68 class). She concludes that 
maintenance planning managers (MPM) are not being provided with the necessary 
information to make well informed decisions about which tanks to inspect and repair at 
each ship availability. 

Efforts to implement an adaptive planning system in response to rising costs from 
unplanned growth work are addressed in Womble’s thesis. The Tank and Void Database 
(TVDB) was implemented as a step towards correcting this deficiency. Initial 
introduction of the TVDB to the fleet was on CVN-65 in 1992, and subsequently added to 
CV-67 and the Nimitz class as well. Although a fleet-wide master database is maintained 
at the PERA(CV) offices in Bremerton, WA., it does not include data from sources prior 
to its inception. 

Womble provides background information on transition to the Incremental 
Maintenance Plan (IMP) that will be used to schedule repair periods for the Nimitz class 



3 



carriers. A class-wide repair scheduling policy is possible for ships of the same 
architectural design. Older carriers (including CV-67 and CVN-65) are scheduled for 
availability periods based on engineering operating cycles that are more particular to the 
class type of the ship. Since the Nimitz class carriers comprise the majority of the U.S. 
carrier fleet, the maintenance community is very interested in developing a class-wide tank 
and void repair plan that can be supported by the IMP. As CVN-65 and the conventional 
fueled carriers (CV-63, CV-64, CV-67) reach the end of service life within the next fifteen 
years, the Nimitz class will be the sole aircraft carrier type in U.S. naval service. 

The second Naval Postgraduate School thesis on this topic, by LT Mark Thomell 
(1996), characterizes aircraft carrier tanks and voids by function, failure mode, deck 
location, and liquid volume contained. He then stratifies the tanks and voids into groups 
and assigns criticality factors to each group reflecting the relative impact of tank failures 
on ship’s operations. Thomell’s stratification scheme is used in this study to separate each 
ship’s tanks and voids into functional groups which provide the basis for compiling the 
repair data for analysis. 

Thomell also develops a preliminary inspection decision model based on each 
group’s criticality factor, coating failure characteristics, and cost of inspection and repair. 
The results of his model shows the cost of intermediate inspections between docking 
availabilities lower overall lifecycle costs compared to the costs that are currently realized 
with an infrequent inspection system. Primarily, cost savings are realized when inspections 
are more frequent because the planning managers will have better foreknowledge of the 
tanks and voids in the planning stage of the availability instead of during the availability. 
This greatly reduces the occurrence of expensive new or growth work. 

Thomell was able to develop survival functions for coating lifetimes of Nimitz 
class carriers using the TVDB. His analysis comparing the tank and voids indicates that 
the coating failure rates of the groups are different. For the newer Nimitz class carriers 
that have not yet had an extended docking availability, the TVDB can provide a 
reasonable record of tank activity. The older Nimitz class, (CVN-68,69,and 70), however, 



4 



have had several docking availabilities and overhauls prior to 1990. Since the TVDB does 
not contain a record of these repair periods it cannot be used as the sole reference for 
developing a life cycle study of the paint coatings. This fact is even more evident for CV- 
67 and CVN-65. 

C. SCOPE OF THESIS 

Expanding on the TVDB to develop a composite record of tank repairs for older 
carriers requires a knowledge of the maintenance infrastructure. The PERA office in 
Bremerton, WA maintains a library of aircraft carrier availability documentation. This 
library was thoroughly searched as an historical resource for tank and void overhaul data 
for CVN-65 and CV-67. Visits were made to the major shipyards to interview tank 
inspectors and planners. From historical records and interviews, missing tank and void 
overhaul data was tracked down. The following chapter discusses the means of tracking 
tank and void repair within the maintenance network and the impact this network has 
toward developing a life cycle study. 

Chapter III gives the specific details and assumptions that were made in developing 
the repair history files for each carrier. While both ships are aircraft carriers, they are not 
of the same class. The USS Enterprise is the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier and is 
unique from the Nimitz class nuclear carriers. USS Kennedy is the last built conventional 
fossil fuel powered carrier and thus its hull design differs from that of a nuclear carrier. 
The differences in hull design create varying functionality in the tanks and voids. 

Chapter IV addresses selection and estimation of survival functions based on the 
data contained in the history files to model the tank and void coating lifetimes. Survival 
functions are compared between ships as well as between tank groups of the same ship. 
Chapter V provides an example of using the survival functions to estimate the expected 
number of tank coating failures for CV-67 between availability periods. In addition, the 
accuracy of the estimated survival functions is compared to actual tank coating failure 
history of CV-67. Chapter VI summarizes the study and provides recommendations. 



5 



D. TRACKING TANK AND VOID MAINTENANCE 



A comprehensive tank and void maintenance program requires a chronological 
record of the tanks that are opened and the results of those inspected. Each tank history 
should document repair as well as paint dates. To date, there exists no centralized 
database for tank and void maintenance that consolidates repairs from all availability 
periods across each ship’s service life. This fact has impeded developing a life cycle 
failure analysis of the various tank and void groups from historical data. 

Failure analysis of the paint coatings requires identifying tank and void repair work 
to the individual tank level. Tracking maintenance and repair of individual tanks is 
extremely difficult. Since the tank and void repair documentation are so widely dispersed 
along each ship’s history, it is essential to develop a roadmap to localize possible sources 
of data. This chapter documents the progression of events through an availability period, 
from administration and planning to distribution of work. Breaking the process into stages 
allows the identification of repair opportunities and historical coating failure data. It is 
intended that this documentation not only serve as background for CV-67 and CVN-65 
history files, but that it also provides a template for constructing similar history files for 
other carriers. 

A. BACKGROUND 

Aircraft carriers are built at Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), located in 
Virginia. NNS also serves as one of the dry docking shipyards for the Atlantic Fleet 
along with Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) in Portsmouth, Virginia. Ships often transfer 
fleet assignments within their service life, as in the case of USS Enterprise which has 
transferred from the Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic Fleet. The age of the data sought, and 
the distribution of shipyards where carrier availabilities are performed confound tracing 
historical repair data. In addition. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) has resulted in 
a number of public shipyards closing. Among these are Philadelphia Naval Shipyard 



7 



(PSNS) and Mare Island Naval Shipyard. Decreased shipbuilding and downsizing of the 
US Navy force structure along with economic competition has resulted in consolidation in 
the private sector as well. The sole remaining shipyard that can facilitate a carrier docking 
availability on the Pacific coast is Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) in Bremerton, 
WA. With each homeport change and shipyard closing, records and institutional 
knowledge of carrier maintenance are lost. 

Aircraft carrier maintenance availabilities fall into three general categories: selected 
restricted availability (SRA), docking selected restricted availability (DSRA), and complex 
overhauls (COH). Tank and void paint coating overhaul (grit blast and re-coat) usually 
requires the ship to be in a dry docking availability period. This limits the majority of 
actual overhaul work of tanks and voids to the DSRA and COH availabilities. SRA 
periods can be effectively used to inspect the tanks and voids and schedule those found in 
need of repair at a subsequent docking period. Each carrier has a planning yard for these 
availabilities; for example, the planning yard for CV-67 is NNSY, and the planning yard 
for CVN-65 is PSNS. 

B. TANK AND VOID MAINTENANCE PLANNING 

Administration and funding of aircraft carrier maintenance resides with the fleet 
Type Commanders (TYCOM). This billet is filled by Commander Naval Air Forces 
Atlantic (COMNAVAIRLANT) and equivalently (COMNAVAIRPAC). Since active 
duty military personnel periodically rotate assignment, it is necessary to have a long term 
civilian component in the maintenance network to keep system expertise and provide 
continuity with the repair facilities. NAVSEADET PERA(CV) fills this role. 

Figure 1 illustrates the tank and void maintenance planning process. Discrepancies 
found through ship’s force and independent contractor inspections are input into the 
onboard Current Ship’s Maintenance Project (CSMP) database via a form 4790. 2K (“two- 
kilo”) submission. The results of these inspections should be recorded in the TVDB as 
well. Tank and void work candidates come from authorized work requests (AWR) that 
are generated based on the CSMP and the TVDB. As a carrier approaches an upcoming 



8 



availability, representatives from the ship and planning agencies hold a work definition 
conference (WDC) to asses and screen work requirements. 



Each carrier has a representative MPM from PERA that is essentially a liaison 
between the ship, TYCOM, and the repair facilities. MPM(s) generally come from Navy 
backgrounds and thus bring a great deal of experience and tenure to the process. The 
MPM and the unit representative from the TYCOM staff coordinate the WDC to 
determine which work is necessary and feasible in the availability and which work will be 
deferred. The CBMP then prioritizes work and alterations. 

The effectiveness of this planning process is impaired when there are no 
documented history on the tanks and voids or no means of predicting the number of 
coating failures. Often, the status of a tank or void, and the degree of repairs to be 
conducted is unknown until it is accessed in the availability. This “open ended” method of 
repair planning is inefficient and costly. Vital budgetary dollars will be spent inspecting 




work | 

candidates Department 



Tank and Void 
Maintenance Planning 




Figure 1. Tank and Void Maintenance Planning Stage. 



9 



tanks that are satisfactory while other failures will be missed. Other tanks will be found to 
have coating failure and have to be deferred or result in growth work conducted at a 
higher expense. 

The MPM submits an Integrated Work Package (IWP) to the TYCOM for funding 
and approval of planned work screened through the WDC. The authorized IWP is the 
contractual document between the TYCOM and the shipyard for the work to be 
performed in the upcoming availability. Once the IWP has been authorized and approved, 
the work can be contracted out to the maintenance repair agencies. 

C. DISTRIBUTION OF TANK AND VOID REPAIR 

Figure 2 maps out the distribution of contracted tank repairs within the shipyard. 
It also provides insight into why a one-source comprehensive database has been difficult 
to establish. Cognizance of tank and void history is not centralized but distributed among 
the large number of military and civilian agencies involved. For example, the majority of 
repairs for CVN-65 since it transferred to the Atlantic Fleet in 1990 has been conducted at 
both public and private shipyards: PSNS and Mare Island, which are public shipyards, and 
SupShip San Francisco (SSSF), a private facility. 




Tank and Void Repair 

Figure 2. Distribution of tank and void work inside the shipyard. 



10 



During availabilities at private shipyards, maintenance may be contracted out, via 
the Supervisor of Shipbuilding (SupShip) to private contractors. In the case of a public 
shipyard, the work may be distributed between the public shipyard’s workforce and 
private contractors if the shipyard cannot fully support the maintenance. Ship’s force 
routinely provide “touch up” repairs and will paint tanks and voids that do not require grit 
blasting. The fact that the work has been so diffuse has prevented developing a repair 
tracking system that aids the planners in efficiently planning and scheduling tank and void 
work. 

D. CONFOUNDING FACTORS IN TRACKING TANK AND VOID DATA 

Methods of compiling tank and void work accomplished have only recently been 
established. Once the data are found, characteristics of the repair documentation and work 
accounting methods must be understood. Knowledge of these elements is central to 
discriminating actual tank and void coating failures and overhaul work within repair 
documentation. Additionally, issues that impact data collection capabilities must be 
considered. 

1. Documentation and Accounting Issues 

Work is aggregated in the IWP under the Expanded Ship Work Breakdown 
Structure (ESWBS) or Ship’s Work Line Item Number (SWLIN). This accounting 
system lists work to be performed at the system level by estimated man-hours and 
estimated cost aggregated over the system, not by individual component. In the context 
of tanks and voids, the resolution of work description is generally at the functional group 
level (e.g., JP-5, fuel oil). Specification of work and costs down to the component level 
(for this study, the individual tank) is held with the unit performing the actual work. For 
example, if the shipyard organization does the work then the information resides in the 
tank work package at the shipyard. Citing actual tank work packages from ten or more 
years back is not possible. Additionally, recovering work reports completed by private 
contractors is not possible. 



11 



IWP(s) do not necessarily reflect the actual work performed in the availability. 
During the course of the dry docking period, scheduled maintenance may be canceled, 
deferred until a subsequent availability, or revised due to new or growth work. Although 
the IWP is a contractual reference between the TYCOM and the shipyard, the docking 
period and the document itself is dynamic. Completion IWP and Departure Reports are to 
be generated by the shipyard to account for actual work performed at the conclusion of an 
availability. These documents are not available or do not exist in many cases. Even when 
these documents do exist, they rarely itemize work performed below the system 
(SWLIN/ESWBS) level. For example, rather than list each individual tank these 
documents usually aggregate costs by referencing a particular Job Control Number (JCN). 
The JCN contains the reference to the tank work packages that detail the maintenance 
performed. Resolving this issue returns to the individual tank work packages which are 
rarely kept long term. 

Tank and void material condition repairs may vary in scope. Repairs may range 
from a complete grit blast and re-coat, to a smaller level of preservation such as a re-coat 
or touch up. The lack of detail in many repair documents makes establishing a baseline for 
coating failures difficult. Additionally, the level of preservation will have significant 
impact on the coating lifetime of a renewed tank. 

2. Data collection issues 

The depot facilities have no mandate to provide long term storage of maintenance 
records for tanks and voids. Within the PERA organization, the ship’s planning manager is 
responsible for the whole ship; tanks and voids are just one system among hundreds. 
Personnel turnover causes a loss of valuable historical knowledge at eveiy link in the 
military - civilian maintenance network. Since militaiy personnel rotate to new 
assignments every few years their knowledge does not even extend across sequential 
availabilities. Shipyard inspectors, planners and painters retire, promote, or transfer to 
different departments. If a shipyard database exists (e.g., Automated Planning System 



12 



(APS) at NNSY), the contents of each database only reflects maintenance since program 
inception. Data from work contracted outside the shipyards is completely untraceable. 

Central to PERA’s approach to the data collection problem is that intrinsically 
(aboard ship) tanks and voids are not treated as a single system. Ownership of the 
various functional groups is delegated to the departments that operate them. For example, 
the fuels division (V-4) controls the JP system tanks while the damage control department 
maintains the damage and list control voids. Shipboard installation of the TVDB is 
intended to correct the lack of standardization in record keeping practices between 
departments, as well as between ships. Unfortunately, the TVDB has not been utilized to 
its potential, and many shipboard inspection results still go unrecorded. 

The result of such a convoluted network and dissemination of responsibility is one 
of the major reasons that there still does not exist a composite database of tank and void 
work. This chapter has addressed the tank and void maintenance process. The specifics 
of developing the history files for each carrier are given in the next chapter. 



13 




14 



m. DEVELOPING HISTORY FILES 



The categorization of tank and voids developed by Thomell (1996) is used in this 
study to partition the tanks and voids into separate functional groups. The commonality 
of fluid volume contained within these functional group provide a basis for structuring the 
history files. Four history files are developed for CVN-65 and three files for CV-67. The 
first two files for each ship contain records for the JP-5 (jet petroleum) and fuel oil 
(standard diesel marine) tank groups. Each tank group is comprised of the entire 
population of tanks that hold a particular fluid. For instance, the JP tank group contains; 
JP-5 service (JP serv), JP-5/Ballast (JB), and JP-5 Overflow/Ballast (JOB) tanks. The 
fuel oil tank group is similarly defined. The third file for both carriers combines the 
damage control (DC) and list control (LC) voids into a single group. CVN-65 Dry void 
and cofferdams are also aggregated into a common group. There is not sufficient data to 
support a study of the dry voids and cofferdams on CV-67. 

It is reasonable to assume that the coating failure rates of the groups are different 
since they are coated with different types of paint and contain different fluids. The JP 
tanks are undoubtedly the best maintained because of their high priority to an aircraft 
carrier's operational mission. Preventive Maintenance Scheduling (PMS) mandates 
periodic inspections of this group, thus they are closely monitored and routinely 
maintained. In addition, the JP-5 tanks are coated with a paint that has a zinc additive, 
which inhibits galvanic corrosion. In contrast, voids are painted with a high build epoxy 
and do not have as stringent a PMS requirement. 

The fluid type also affects corrosion rate. JP-5 and fuel oil are petroleum 
products and are thus natural preservatives. A tank maintained full of JP-5 or fuel oil is 
not subject to a corrosive environment. However, many tanks are filled with sea water 
for ballast as their volume is depleted. Sea water is highly corrosive due to the high free 
chloride content. Seawater compensation, as a practice, in JP system tanks was stopped in 
the 1980’s to preclude problems with fuel contamination and material corrosion. The JP 



15 



system is still subject to contamination from external sources such as replenishment from 
auxiliaries. Because of this, JP tanks are routinely sampled and stripped of contaminants. 
To maintain quality, JP-5 fuel from storage and ballast tanks pass through a purifier prior 
to transfer to service tanks. Additionally, fuel delivered to aircraft refueling stations pass 
through a filter assembly. As a final check, a sample is drawn from the aircraft fuel tanks 
and checked for any form of contamination (particulate or seawater) after fuel delivery. 
List control voids maintain a transient level of sea water as a matter of function. DC voids 
may supplement the list control voids for gross attitude and trim control or alternatively 
may be left dry. Ships use the DC voids differently, depending on design and class type. 
Dry voids and cofferdams are subject to corrosion due to moisture and condensation. 
Finally, the possible exposure to contamination due to leakage from adjacent 
compartments is a factor in the corrosion of the paint coating. 

A. HISTORY FILE BASIS 

The PERA Manday Summary provided in Appendix A.l provides the starting 
point for tracing repair history through the maintenance network. This document spans 
each ship’s service life and lists the where, when, and quantity of tank and void work 
performed during availability periods. Each ship must be considered individually because 
of different service age, home-port assignments, planning yards, and repair history. The 
majority of tank and void overhaul work is conducted at a depot level (shipyard) facility. 
Documentation of repair work and accounting procedures vary among the shipyards, 
particularly between the private and a public shipyards. The sources and references used 
to develop each ship’s history files are given in Appendix A.2. Data collected at the PERA 
library and from shipyards were cross-checked for consistency and compared to data 
available in the TVDB. The accumulation of these sources comprises the most exhaustive 
effort currently available towards developing a comprehensive database. 

The history files by group for each ship are provided in Appendix A. 3 through 
A.9. The majority of CV-67 repair availabilities where conducted at NNSY with the 



16 



exception of the 1993 COH which was conducted at PNSY. CVN-65 has a diverse 
history across both the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets. Early availabilities were conducted at 
PSNS and through Supervisor of Shipbuilding San Francisco (SSSF) as listed in Appendix 

A. 1. Upon transfer to the Atlantic Fleet in 1990, repair availabilities have been conducted 
atNNS. 

B. HISTORY FILE STRUCTURE 

By consolidating the historical repair documentation for each ship into a 
comprehensive data file a substantially improved record keeping system is attained. As 
new data are added the files can be readily updated in standard spreadsheet format. To 
conduct a life cycle or trend analysis the coating lifetimes must be interpreted from the 
data. The structure of the data files allows for the chronological extrapolation of these 
lifetimes. Coating failures are found by comparing the known conditions that are specified 
at the times annotated in the history files. Tank and void coating failures that are found at 
scheduled inspections fall into censoring intervals. 

1. Determining Censoring Intervals 

Let age t 0 = 0 represent the beginning of a tank coating lifetime upon initial 
painting or subsequent grit-blast and re-coat. Initial painting refers to the ships entry into 
fleet service (commissioning). The actual age (tj-) when coating failure occurs for a 

particular tank is not known. Failure ages are either right, left, or interval censored. A 
tank or void is inspected or entered for some reason at time (*j) and its condition noted. 

If the tank coating is discovered to have failed at t\ and the then the precise age of failure 

cannot be ascertained. The coating failure age is said to be left censored at age t\ or 

equivalently censored into the interval [0,fj]. The tank may not be entered again for 

several years (?2 ) to update its status. If the tank coating has subsequently failed within 

[ ^1 , ^2 ]» then again a precise failure age cannot be ascertained beyond the censoring 



17 



interval. Right censoring occurs when a tank has not failed over the service life of the 
ship, or has not failed since its most recent overhaul. The coating failure age is then right 
censored coincident to its age at the most recent inspection. Because repair and 
inspection periods are scheduled at fixed times, failures often fall into the same censoring 
interval. Further details of life data censoring classifications are found in Nelson (1982). 
Example line drawings illustrating the data censoring types are provided in Figure 3(a-c). 

* 0=0 



T 



h 



(3a). Example of an interval censored coating failure. In this instance, the age at 
which paint coating failure T occurs can only be resolved to be in the interval 
[0, ]. Note that if a tank has had a coating failure and subsequent re-coat 

then coating age will not be the same as ship age. 



t o (unknown) fj 




T 



(3b). There are many tanks and voids that have multiple recorded inspections. 
The coating failure was satisfactory at t and found failed at a later 
inspection t 2 . Similar to the first example, the coating failure age can only 
be resolved to be in the interval [f , J. In this instance the tank history is 
untraceable prior to t ^ , and the most optimistic assumption with respect to 
failure rate is that t Q = 0. 



18 



1 0 =0 



*1 



3 



(3c). There are also many tanks that are right censored at the coating age 

corresponding to their last inspection. In this instance the tank coating was 
found to be satisfactory at t y as well as ' 2 . 

Figure 3(a,b,c). Common Censoring Intervals found in Tank and Void Paint Coating Failure Data. 



2. Summary Interval Charts 



Figure 4 summarizes the history file for CV-67 fuel oil tanks by depicting the 
number of tanks that failed within an interval or similarly the number that were still 
satisfactory at the end of the interval (right censored). For example, Interval 1 indicates 
that 17 tank coatings failed between the tenth and sixteenth year of service life [10,16], 
with no failures before the tenth year based on inspection history. Interval 5 depicts 3 
tanks that were inspected at the ship’s age of twenty-five years and found to have good 
coating condition. Since the coatings on these three tanks have no recorded history of 
failure in the twenty-five year service life of the ship their lifetimes’ are right censored 
(suspended) at age 25 years. 



1 

2 

Interval 3 

4 

5 



0 



CV-67 Fuel Oil Tanks (129 tanks in group) 



I 1 


1 1 














5 






r 






87 














17 












3 



ok at end of interval 



failed within interval 



20 



25 



5 10 15 

Age of Tank Coating (Years) 

Figure 4. Summary Interval Chart of the CV-67 fuel oil tank group. 



19 



It is possible for the number of failures to exceed the number of tanks in the group. 
This occurs when tanks of a group have more than one recorded coating failure. Similar 
summaries for the remaining history files are located in Appendix B.l for CV-67 and 
Appendix B.2 for CVN-65. The intervals illustrated in these summaries are used for 
estimation of coating lifetime survival functions in the next chapter. 

3. Assumptions Made in History Files 

a. A coating failure is assigned to a tank if the results of an inspection 
listed in the TVDB for the tank top, bottom, and sides average condition 3 or higher. 
TVDB entry format is given in Womble (1994) per the Tank and Void Inspection Manual 
(TVIM) by Wheeler (PERA, 1993). 

b. In all cases, if a source document indicates that a tank was 
overhauled then the coating is considered to have failed. 

c. The length of the censoring intervals for groups are different based 
on functional criticality. As an example, JP-5 tanks have the highest priority thus 
criticality. The JP-5 fuel system has the most restrictive Preventative Maintenance System 
(PMS) requirements of all the tank and void functional groups (MIP 5420 MRC 18M- 
5/36M-3, October 1995). The result is that time between successive inspections and 
hence the censoring intervals tend to be smaller than those of other groups. Generally, it 
is assumed that overhaul of JP-5 tanks that have been found to have coating failure is 
done at the next docking availability. Deferment beyond the upcoming dry docking 
availability may limit or preclude use of the tank and is therefore assumed not to occur. 
See NavSea Technical Manual (NSTM 542) for material and quality control requirements. 

(L For Damage and List Control Voids, if a failure is indicated, the 
censoring interval is taken to be the age of the void between the time failure was noted 
and the last COH. These floodable seawater voids have high priority on the ship. It is 
reasonable to assume that if there is no indication of repair at the previous COH then its 
coating must have been in satisfactory condition at that time. This assumption is 



20 



consistent with the PMS requirement for the inspection of all Ballast Tanks and Floodable 
Voids as at least once eveiy seven years (MIP 1230 MRC 84M-1, September 1995) See 
NSTM 074 for material control requirements. 

e. MIP 1230 MRC 24M-2/48M-1, Februaiy 1988 directs the 
inspection of fuel oil service tanks eveiy twenty-four months and fuel oil stowage tanks at 
least once eveiy forty-eight months . Similar to the DC & LC void group, the censoring 
interval is taken to be the age of the void at the last COH to the age of the tank when the 
failure was detected. This assumption is made if there is no other documentation to 
support a smaller censoring interval. The criticality of the fuel oil tanks is different on the 
two ships reflecting the major difference in their propulsion systems. 

f. No assumptions are made about the dry void and cofferdam group 
since they have a low criticality factor and are inspected infrequently. The censoring 
intervals on this group tend to be the largest due to infrequent inspection and the scarcity 
of documented histoiy. In many instances the coating lifetimes are right censored, in this 
case suspended at the current service life of the ship or last documented inspection. 

4. CV-67 File Specifics 

The CV-67 group history files contain repair code legends at the top of the first 
page for each group. Specifying actual work performed is possible for maintenance 
availabilities of 1983 and later because of supporting documentation. As annotated in 
Appendix A.2, NNSY supplied their Advanced Planning System (APS) database for this 
study. The APS database details actual work package instructions for work to be 
accomplished. Additionally, a copy of the PNSY Tank and Void Status and Work Report 
for the 1993 COH was obtained. This document gives a full description of actual work 
performed by tank number. Further comments on CV-67 file structure follow: 

a. If the APS documentation does not list significant work on a tank 
group for an availability period, then that period does not appear in that group’s history 



21 



file. For example, the 1989 SRA is listed in the CV-67 fuel oil tank group file but not in 
the JP-5 or DC & LC file. 

b. The last inspection date and condition are taken from the TVDB 
and cross-referenced to the results listed in the PNSY Tank and Void Status and Work 
Report documentation. 

c. Specific documentation, by availability, is listed in Appendix A.2. 

5. CVN-65 File Specifics 

The level of detail in CVN-65 availability documentation allows specifying which 
tanks where overhauled within the docking period. It does not contain the level of detail 
in the work breakdown structure as given in the NNSY APS database for CV-67. 
Documentation of sources is given in Appendix A.2. 

a. The last inspection date and coating condition are taken from the 
TVDB and cross-referenced to sources listed in Appendix A.2 for 1990-1994 RCOH. 

b. A comments section is included in the history files (Appendix A. 6 - 
A.9) to indicate a specific reference used to make a determination on a particular tank. In 
addition, important assumptions in determining the censoring intervals or other pertinent 
information is included in the comments column. 

c. Fuel oil tanks on CVN-65 are not as critical as they are for CV-67 
since it operates a nuclear propulsion system. At the last RCOH (1990-1994), the fuel oil 
tanks on CVN-65 were converted to higher priority JP-5 stowage tanks. 

C. HISTORY FILE LIMITATIONS 

No documentation could be found within the PERA library or within the shipyards 
that documents tank and void work performed prior to 1979. Cost accounting by 
ESWBS is itemized by man-days expended and material cost. The PERA man-day 
summary (Appendix A.l) clearly shows a significant level of tank work prior to 1979. 
Initial attempts to aggregate the man-days and approximate the number of tanks 



22 



overhauled during an availability period were unproductive. For instance, man-days 
expended during an availability divided by the average number of man-days to overhaul a 
tank approximates the number of tanks overhauled in the availability. Consistent and 
reliable estimates of the average man-days expended to overhaul a tank could not be 
attained. This restricts identification of coating failures to those recorded 1979 or later. 
Approximations based on average man-day expenditures for pre-1979 availabilities are not 
included in the final version of the history files. A further problem that greatly restricts 
inclusion of failures based on non-itemized man-days is the inability to segregate overhaul 
expenditures from other non-overhaul type repairs. Estimating the average number of 
overhauls requires the assumption that all man-day expenditures are for overhaul work. 
This is not a valid assumption. Additionally, the data do not suggest a consistent ratio that 
can be applied to the expenditures to extract overhaul from non-overhaul repairs. 

With the lack of documentation on tank and void history prior to 1979 the history 
files are constructed under the assumption that no failures occurred between 
commissioning and 1979. This is a necessary, but optimistic approach to accommodating 
the data available for these two older carriers. It is optimistic because it effectively 
“allows” a coating to be older than it really is in instances where the tank had a prior 
coating failure and overhaul but no documentation exists. This effect is most pronounced 
in tanks that have coating ages that are suspended (right censored) at the full service age 
of the ship. With the exception of the dry void and cofferdam group, tanks and voids with 
coating ages suspended at the age of the ship must be considered somewhat suspect in that 
regard. 

The degree to which this lack of documentation impacts the analyses can be gained 
by looking at the PERA man-day expenditure summary. Pre-1979 coating and overhaul 
work corresponds to the first ten years of the USS Kennedy’s service life. Several 
significant expenditures (4368 man-days) are listed in the summary that are not accounted 
for in other documentation. For USS Enterprise, which is an older ship, 1979 marked the 
eighteenth year in service life. The PERA man-day expenditure summary lists significant 



23 



pre-1979 work (12074 man-days) in tank and void groups and the impact will be more 
pronounced. 

A further obstacle that prevents including pre-1979 work is the advances in paint 
coating technology. PERA has instituted programs to reduce corrosion rates using 
galvanic corrosion inhibitors, improved polymer epoxy paint coatings, and better paint 
application techniques. The goal of these programs is to increase the mean time to failure 
(MTTF) in the tank and void paint coatings thus providing a longer service life. 
Differences in MTTF due to changes in coating technology cannot be accounted for 
across the historical data for non detailed work expenditures. 

The impact of not incorporating pre-1979 coating failures and extending the 
censoring intervals to ship’s commissioning date will cause the estimated survival 
functions to over approximate actual coating lifetimes. This must be kept in mind when 
drawing conclusions from the study, as discussed in the next chapter. 



24 



IV. ANALYSIS 



The repair history files are structured such that the coating lifetimes can be 
ascertained. Each tank or void has its own history that may contain zero, one, or several 
coating renewals over the span of the ship’s service life. The summary interval charts then 
provide the means of aggregating the coating failures within a group of tanks or voids. 
This format lends itself to conducting a lifecycle analysis of the data and provides the 
opportunity to model the survival functions. In this chapter, survival functions are 
estimated for each group of tanks and voids based on these summary interval charts. The 
formulation to estimate the expected number of coating failures within an interval is 
developed for application in the next chapter. Cross-ship and same-ship comparisons of 
survival functions for these groups are discussed, which provide insight into the validity of 
prior assumptions, and give direction for future study. For example, an important result 
that can be obtained from this analysis is whether tanks and voids of the same functional 
type have similar coating failure patterns across different ships, or if the failures are better 
characterized by each ship’s particular maintenance history. 

A. MODELING FAILURE DATA 

There are a variety of methods available to aid in choosing a particular parametric 
probability distribution to model failure data. Standard goodness of fit tests can be used if 
the defining characteristics of the data are unknown or the model is to be chosen a priori. 
Alternatively, if experience or history suggests a particular distribution, statistical methods 
are available to estimate model parameters. Probability distributions commonly used to 
model life and failure data include: exponential, normal, lognormal, and Weibull. Each of 
these distributions possesses properties that capture characteristics inherent in the failure 
data. 

Properties most often compared in reliability studies are the survival function and 
the failure or hazard rate. The survival function is the probability that an item is 



25 



functioning at any time t, whereas the failure (hazard) rate provides a measure of risk 
associated with an item at time t. Generally, as a component or system ages with time it 
will become more susceptible to failure as it wears. Therefore, the structural and material 
engineering sciences require a probability distribution with a failure rate that increases with 
product age to model material corrosion or wear-out processes. The exponential 
distribution, with the “memoryless” property, has a constant failure rate and therefore is 
rarely applicable to these types of problems. The normal and Weibull distributions 
however can model data with an increasing failure rate. The lognormal distribution has a 
failure rate that increases initially and then decreases. Lognormal may be applicable to 
wear-out type problems if failures occur early in life, or distribution parameters are such 
that a lognormal is relevant over the range of the data. The lognormal does have the 
advantage that all possible outcomes (lifetimes) are positive. The normal distribution has a 
strictly increasing failure rate but can have negative lifetimes. This may be a problem if the 
mean lifetime is not sufficiently far from zero or greater than three times the standard 
deviation (to preclude negative outcomes). An alternative is to use a truncated normal 
distribution to remove the possibility of negative lifetimes. Nelson (1982) states that the 
popular distribution among engineers is the Weibull distribution, and recommends trying it 
first in fitting lifetime failure data. 

The Weibull distribution has the advantage of being extreme flexibility in 
empirically fitting data because it has a great variety of shapes. Outcomes from the 
Weibull are all positive, and both increasing and decreasing failure rates can be modeled. 
The Weibull distribution has been found to be the most applicable for modeling wear-out 
type failure, particularly when applied to the strength of materials. These characteristics 
of the Weibull make it very popular among engineers, and is a sound choice for modeling 
the tank and void coating failure data. A brief summary of Weibull distribution properties 
as detailed in Nelson (1982) is provided in Appendix C. 1 . 



26 



B. METHODOLOGY 



The survival functions modeled by the Weibull distributions should capture the 
trends in the coating failures for each group of tanks and voids. The shape of the 
distributions is determined by value of the model parameters. Since the actual value of 
the parameters that define the Weibull distributions are unknown, they must be estimated 
from the data. The accuracy of the models in representing the failure data can only be as 
good as the quality of the data allows. The classic statistical method of estimating 
probability distribution parameters is the method of maximum likelihood (MLE). Detailed 
MLE theory and the Newton-Raphson technique used to estimate the covariance matrices 
for the Weibull parameters can be found in Nelson (1982). Maximum likelihood 
estimation for calculating the Weibull model parameters for the tank and void data is now 
developed. 



1. Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Weibull Model Parameters 

Let tank lifetimes be represented by the random variables; X l ,...,X N , lifetimes 
are independent and identically distributed with distribution F and survival function 
S - 1 - F, parameterized byd l ,0 2 ,...0 k . Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is used 
for estimating model parameters for all groups. In the case of interval and right censored 
data, the likelihood function ( L ) can be expressed as: 

M N 

i(o 1 ,o„...e i )=n if («, y - Fo, )> n ■?(', >. 

i=l i-M +1 

where the observations are ordered so that X i are censored into the interval [/, , u i ] for 
i = 1 , . . . JX and right censored at /, for i = M+ Thus, the first M observations 

represent tanks that have failed between inspections with corresponding age u t and ( 
respectively. The remaining observations represent those tanks that have survived through 
their last inspection period and are right censored at /, , their age at the most recent 

inspection. The two parameter Weibull has scale and shape parameters (A,k). 



27 



Maximizing the likelihood function or equivalently the log likelihood function 
requires a numerical solution. Maple (Waterloo Maple, Inc.) was used to find the MLE 

A A 

(X y K) for the two parameter Weibull, with the Newton-Raphson method to obtain 
Fisher’s observed information matrix. The Maple source code for these solutions is given 
in Appendix C.2. An example illustrating the log likelihood function in the vicinity of 
the shape and scale estimates is given in Figure 5. 




K 



Figure 5. CV-67 Fuel Oil Tank Group log likelihood function. Log likelihood (InL) is plotted 
against the two Weibull parameters (X,k). 

The set of log-likelihood contour plots for all groups by ship are contained in 
Appendix C.3. These contour plots show the likelihood function is highly sensitive to the 
scale parameter X . On the other hand, the log-likelihood is relatively flat over a wide 

A 

range of K, indicating that the variance of K is large. 



28 



2. Estimating Confidence Regions for X, k 



A A | 

Let b =(/l,/c) be the vector of estimated parameters, and similarly let 

I 

3 = (A,k*) be the vector of the true parameters. A joint (1-a) 100% confidence region 
for P is given by (Greene, 1990): 

{ P ■ F\-a 2r - 2*\0>-P )'(Var[b])-'(b-/? )}, 
where F p/l/n is the p quantile of an F - distribution with n and m degrees of freedom 

A 

and Var[b] is the inverse of Fisher’s observed information matrix obtained in calculating 
the MLE. The number of degrees of freedom used in this case is: n = 2, the number of 
estimated parameters, and m — r-'l, the number of coating failures within the group minus 
the loss of two degrees of freedom from the estimated parameters. Here a represents the 
level of significance desired in obtaining the confidence region and should not be confused 
with the Weibull parameter for characteristic life, which is also often designated as a. 
Example source code and illustration of the 95% joint confidence regions are provided in 
Appendix C.4. 

C. SURVIVAL FUNCTIONS 

Estimated survival functions and hazard rates developed using the Weibull models 
are plotted in Appendix D for both CVN-65 and CV-67 groups. Figure 6 provides an 
example of these plots for the fuel oil tank group. The reliability (survival) function, and 
failure (hazard) rate are plotted over the expected fifty year service life of an aircraft 

A A 

carrier. In each graph, the black line is the function using (X,K) the estimated values of 
(\,k). The blue line plots the survival function using the lower bound for k and the upper 
bound for X from the joint 95% confidence regions. Similarly, the red line plots the 
survival function using the upper bound for k and the lower bound for X. As illustrated in 
Figure 6, the combinations of (X,k) give a worst case (blue line) and a best case (red line) 

scenario for tank reliability prior to the characteristic life ( cc = - 7 ) • 



29 



Reliability Reliability 



A A 

CVN-65 Fuel Oil Tanks : X = 0.0317, k = 2.40, Mean Life = 27.96 years 



1.0 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 



[ 0.0289 < X < 0 . 0345 ] 

95% Confidence Intervals: 

[ 1.43 < k < 3 . 36 ] 

Two parameter Weibull plots 



X = 0.0345 
k= 1.43 

X = 0.0317 
k= 2.40 

X = 0.0289 
k= 3.36 





CVN-65 Fuel Oil Tanks 





0.25 




0.225 




0.2 




0.175 


Q) 




ro 

an 


0.15 


0) 






0.125 


(5 




LL 


0.1 




0.075 




0.05 




0.025 



CVN-65 Fuel Oil Tanks 



0 5 . 10 . 15 . 20 . 25 . 30 . 35 . 40 . 45 . 50 . 

Time (Years) 



0 5 . 10 . 15 . 20 . 25 . 30 . 35 . 40 . 45 . 50 . 

Time (Years) 



A A 

CV-67 Fuel OH Tanks : X. =0.0468, k = 6.91, Mean Life = 19.97 years 



[ 0.0453 < A, < 0 . 0483 ] 

95 % Confidence Intervals: 

k < 8 . 27 ] 

Two parameter Weibull plots: 




X = 0.0483 
k= 5.55 

X = 0.0468 
k= 6.91 

X = 0.0453 
k= 8.27 



CV-67 Fuel Oil Tanks 





0 5 . 10 . 15 . 20 . 25 . 30 . 35 . 40 . 45 . 50 . 

Time (Years) 



Figure 6. Survival function and failure rate plots for the fuel oil tanks. 



30 



The plots in Figure 6 reveal the influence the shape parameter has on the reliability 
and failure rate for the Weibull distributions. Comparing the combinations of parameter 
estimates, a large shape parameter initially gives a higher reliability and a lower failure 
rate. However, the failure rate increases more rapidly with a larger shape parameter. In 
the vicinity of the mean coating life the failure rate with the higher shape parameter will 
exceed that with the smaller shape parameter. This eventually causes the survival function 
with the larger shape parameter to be less than the one with a smaller shape parameter. 
This can be seen in Figure 6 by the crossover of the red and blue lines. 

The accuracy in the estimated parameters for the Weibull models is only as good 
as the span of the censoring intervals. As the time between recorded inspections decreases 
the length of the censoring interval decreases as well. The actual age at which coating 
failure occurs can be more closely resolved as the censoring interval decreases. It follows 
then that the Weibull parameter estimates will be more accurate, and better reflect the 
survival functions as these censoring intervals become tighter. For many of the intervals 
depicted in the summary charts in Appendix B.l and B.2 the time between recorded 
inspections is ten or more years. A ten year censoring interval represents a very uncertain 
determination from the data as to when failure occurred. 

The assumptions outlined in the previous chapter detail how the data are 
interpreted in determining the length of the censoring intervals. These assumptions result 
in optimistic survival functions because coating failures are not assigned unless they could 
be verified. Preliminary analyses show that increasing the precision of the interval, by 
decreasing the uncertainty as to when failure occurs causes the shape parameter to 
increase and its estimated variance to decrease. This is consistent with the intuitive sense 
that as the width of the censoring interval decreases, the higher the failure rate is in the 
vicinity of the interval. Uncertainty is minimized by making the censoring interval widths 
as small as possible. Conversely, if the censoring interval is large, the shape parameter will 
be low since that the chance of failure must be distributed throughout the interval. This 
accuracy of the model parameters and hence the ability to predict coating lifetimes 



31 



underscores the need for a composite tank and void database encompassing all of the 
ship’s service life. 

D. ESTIMATING THE EXPECTED NUMBER OF FAILURES IN AN 
INTERVAL WITH CONDITIONAL SURVIVAL FUNCTIONS 

Once the survival functions have been determined the conditional survival 
functions and expected number of failures within an interval can be estimated as well. The 
uncertainty in the predictions caused by the variance in the survival functions and positive 
dependence among the coating failures is considered. The formulation for these functions 
are developed here and applied in the next chapter. 



1. Conditional Survival Function 



Paint coatings within a particular group of tanks have varying ages. Tanks with 
older coatings will be more likely to fail in the next operational cycle than those that have 
been painted more recently. Let T represent a tank coating lifetime; then the conditional 
survival function, S T , T > a (t), as defined in Leemis (1995), is the survival function of an 

item to age t that is functioning at age a: 

P[T>t,T>a] 5(0 



T\T>a 



(0 = 



P[T>a ] 5(a) ’ 



t >a. 



Thus the conditional survival function has the same shape as the remaining portion of the 
unconditioned survival function at time t, but is rescaled by the factor S{ci) . 



2. Estimating the Expected Number of Coating Failures 

The expected number of failures between maintenance cycles are estimated from 

the conditional survival functions. For the subset of N j tanks in a particular group 
with the same coating age a . , the expected number of tank coating failures between 

(<?;,?.) may be expressed as; 



32 



E[*(a,.,0]=Ar.(l 

Here, tj is the age that tanks in the subset will be if they survive to the end of 

the interval. Summation over all subsets within a group yields the total expected number 
of tank failures in that group; 

Em = ZE [X(a h t t )]. 

i 

Further summation across all groups for the ship will give the total expected number of 
tank and void failures between docking repair availabilities. 

The variance of the predicted number of failures is found with the assumption that 
the X(a j ,t i ) are independent and follow binomial distributions. Thus, the variance of the 
prediction for each group may be found by summing: 

Var[A-] = S Var[Z(a, ,(,)] = £>, Srira, (*,)(! -Sill*, (', )). 

i i 

The standard deviation is the square root of the variance. 

These standard deviations are biased low for two reasons. They do not take into 
account the variance of the estimated survival function and more importantly they are 
biased on the assumption of independence of coating failures between tanks. It is 
plausible that tank coating failures are positively dependent. Dependence in tank coating 
failures may be realized in the observation that overhaul repairs are frequently scheduled in 
clusters about the ship. Although Thomell ( 1996 ) addresses tank location in his 
stratification scheme, this attribute has not yet been significantly studied to quantify its 
significance to the tank and void problem. Clustering of repairs may be purely an 
aggregate scheduling device employed in the current planning process (i.e., repairing 
sections of the ship at a time) because other parts of the ship may be inaccessible for other 
reasons. Conversely, the clustering of repairs in a section of the ship may indicate that 
tank failures are related to location. Since it is infeasible to inspect all tanks within an 
availability due to the large number and resource limitations, quantifying the dependence 
in coating failures based on environmental or physical location factors is difficult. 



33 



The increased variance in the binomial assumption due to positive dependence will 
cause the prediction estimate to be less certain. Long term, thorough record keeping that 
tracks coating failures and overhauls will better distinguish the degree of positive 
dependence. Correlating area failures among ships of the same physical design type (i.e., 
Nimitz class) may provide valuable insight to the significance of the location factor. 

E. COMPARISONS 

Comparisons can be drawn regarding the survivability of like functional groups 
across the two carriers. The question of interest in these comparisons asks, “are the 
coating lifetimes in tanks of the same group modeled by a common survival function?” 
For example, if observed lifetimes from CV-67 JP-5 tanks can be modeled by the same 
distribution parameters as the JP-5 tanks on CVN-65, then there are potential fleet-wide 
implications regarding scheduling their repair. In this study, the two carriers are of 
different class type, but nonetheless the comparisons may be considered relevant towards 
developing inferences on the tank groups at the functional level. Alternatively, 
comparisons among tank groups of the same ship may be made that more closely examine 
tank usage and repair history factors that are specific to each ship. 

1. Methods for Comparing Survival Functions 

Lee (1992) provides methods for two sample comparisons of Weibull distributions. 
Initially, it is sufficient to test whether the shape parameters are significantly different 
^H 0 : K , =/£T 2 ) . Two sample shape parameter tests are conducted using the F test, or 

equivalently the confidence interval for K , I K 2 : 

A A 

^ 1 77 ^ 1 77 

”\-a/2j2r j ,2r 2 ? r a/2,2r ^ J2r 2 ’ 

A A 

K 2 K 2 



34 



where r { and r 2 are the number of failures in the first and second sample respectively. If 
the interval contains one, then the null hypothesis that the shape parameters are the same 
cannot be rejected. If this hypothesis is rejected, it is not necessary to test the scale 
parameters and it can be concluded within the tested significance that the distributions are 
not the same. If the hypothesis test for the shape parameters is not rejected then further 
tests are required. 

The Weibull-H- software package (ReliaSoft, Inc. 1994) was used to test the 

A 

hypothesis on the shape parameter. The test uses the statistic p , which is the estimate of 
P(X > Y ) , where X and Y are independent random variables from each of the two 

A 

Weibull distributions. The algorithm used by Weibull-H- to compute p was developed by 

Brown and Rutmiller (1973). For Weibull distributions with the same shape parameters, a 
P(X >Y) = 0.50 implies the two distributions are the same. 

2. Cross-ship Comparisons 

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the estimated model parameters for the group survival 
functions by ship. From these tables the cross-ship and same-ship comparisons will be 
made. 



Group 


A 

X 

[95% cq 


A 

K 

[95% cq 


Estimated 
Mean Life (years) 


Fuel Oil Tanks 


0.0468 

[0.0453 , 0.0483] 


6.91 

[5.55 , 8.27] 


19.97 


JP-5 Tanks 


0.0465 

[0.0409 , 0.0521] 


1.70 

[1.24 ,2.16] 


19.19 


Damage & List 
Control Voids 


0.0406 

[0.0380 , 0.0432] 


2.00 

[1.22 , 2.79] 


21.83 



Table 1. CV-67 Estimated Parameters with 95 percent confidence intervals (Cl). 



35 



Group 


A 

A 

[95% Cl] 


A 

K 

[95% Cl] 


Estimated 
Mean Life (years) 


Fuel Oil Tanks 


0.0317 

[0.0289 . 0.03451 


2.40 

[1.43 , 3.36] 


27.96 


JP-5 Tanks 


0.0334 

[0.0327, 0.0341] 


2.36 

[2.17,2.55] 


26.53 


Damage & List 
Control Voids 


0.0342 

[0.0330 , 0.03541 


1.48 

[1.04, 1.92] 


26.44 


Dry Voids & 
Cofferdams 


0.0333 

[0.0331 , 0.0335] 


4.66 

[3.85 , 5.47] 


27.46 



Table 2. CVN-65 Estimated Parameters with 95 percent confidence intervals (Cl). 



Hypothesis tests at a five percent level of significance are tabulated in Table 3. The 
Weibull++ software package fails to reject the null hypothesis that the distributions are the 

A 

same for 0.4 < p<0.6. From Table 3 it can be seen that the difference in shape 

parameters for the fuel oil groups is so large that it is immediately inferred the two models 
are different. For the JP-5 group the resulting confidence interval for AT CV _ 67 Ik cv N _ 65 , 

[0.536, 0.950] , is close enough to one to merit the second test. The second test for 
model comparison using the Weibull-H- software was used and the conclusion was the two 

A A 

models for the JP-5 groups are different, ( A cvn -65 = 0.0334, A C v -67 = 0.0465 ). Table 3 
shows that the shape parameters for the DC void group are the most similar of the three 
groups. The conclusion for the DC void comparison is that the failure distributions for the 
two ships are not significantly different. 



Initial Test 2 nd Test 



Groups 

compared 


K CV-67 


** CVN-65 


F-Test 

interval 


A 

P 


Conclusion 


Fuel Oil 


6.91 


2.40 


reject 

(2.04, 4.18) 


— 


different 


JP-5 


1.70 


2.36 


don’t reject 
(0.54, 0.95) 


0.68 


different 


DC Voids 


2.00 


1.48 


cannot reject 
(0.95, 1.85) 


0.55 


same 



Table 3. Results of Two Sample Comparisons (Cross-ship). 



36 



Cross-ship comparisons of like groups listed in Tables 1 and 2 show that CVN-65 
mean lives are greater than those on CV-67 in all cases. Since the two carriers are of 
different classes, one nuclear and one conventionally powered, we would expect their 
group survival functions to reflect operational and functional differences. The most 
dramatic difference is in the fuel oil group that most characterizes the structural 
differences in the two carriers. The mean life of CV-67 fuel oil tanks is eight years less 
than CVN-65 and has a much higher failure rate. This illustrates the functional differences 
in the way the ships use these tanks. The fact that CV-67 would have a greater usage for 
fuel oil tanks is characterized in that group’s survival function. In fact, CVN-65 uses fuel 
oil tanks only to fuel other ships in the carrier battle group, thus its volume is less 
transient, resulting in less seawater contamination. As a result of the low priority fuel oil 
tanks on CVN-65, the tanks were converted to highly critical JP-5 storage tanks at the 
last COH. 

3. Same-ship Comparisons 

The comparisons of groups on the same-ship yield survival functions that are much 
more similar than cross-ship. Mean life for CV-67 groups average 20.33 years and mean 
life for CVN-65 groups average 27.10 years. Thus average group mean lives are very 
similar within the same ship but differ by seven years across ship. This observation 
supports the conclusion that the use and maintenance history of the tanks and voids on 
each ship may result in unique failure patterns. This may be particularly true for ships of 
different class type. Undoubtedly these estimates are high as a result of the inability to 
include pre 1979 repairs, giving an overly optimistic survival rate. This effect is more 
pronounced in CVN-65 group means because by 1979, USS Enterprise had undergone 
several major availabilities which had included significant tank and void work. It can be 
reasonably assumed that the inclusion of the pre- 1979 repair data would lower the group 
means within ships as well as cause the group means between ships to be more similar. 



37 



F. 



SUMMARY 



Coating failures will be most likely be found during a maintenance period, 
regardless of the group. Therefore, all tank coating failures are clustered about the 
intervals corresponding to these periods, particular to each ship, causing mean tank lives 
to be similar within tank groups on the same ship. There are important implications of this 
result for the data analysis. To minimize the influence of differing repair histories, 
comparisons should be made between ships on similar repair schedules. For example, the 
newer Nimitz class aircraft carriers follow a much more structured repair schedule under 
the Incremental Maintenance Plan (IMP), in which the operational cycles between 
maintenance availabilities will be the same for all ships. Thus the intervals between 
inspections for the tank and void groups will be similar for ships of the Nimitz class. An 
analysis of the tank and void coating failures on the Nimitz class will provide a better 
indicator of whether coating failures are unique to each ship or are group/location related. 

Ultimately, the goal in the systematic progression of these studies is to give 
guidance to decision makers in determining maintenance strategies for the tanks and voids. 
The next chapter provides an example application of the CV-67 tank and void survivor 
functions as a predictive tool in estimating the expected number of coating failures at 
future availabilities. 



38 



V. CV-67 CASE STUDY 



The methodology developed in the last chapter is now used to analyze tank failures 
for each functional group and to evaluate a proposed repair schedule. Having a predictive 
tool to estimate the number of tank failures can provide a great benefit in both short term 
and long term repair planning. In the short term, resources (dollars, time) needed for each 
tank and void group for the next docking period can be approximated. In the long run, 
the distribution of tank and void failures over the lifetime of the ship can be estimated 
under various maintenance schemes. These estimates can be used by the planning agencies 
to schedule repair and inspections. 

In this chapter use of the survival functions is demonstrated for CV-67. The 
accuracy of the survival functions are checked against the known group histories to 
compare how well the models fit the data. Although the missing data and the resulting 
assumptions necessary to construct the history files limits the accuracy of the models, the 
demonstration shows the value of pursuing these predictive methods. The availability 
schedule obtained for CV-67 from PERA(CV) as of October 1996 lists a DSRA in 
October 1999 (2000) and a COH in January 2002. The expected numbers of tank coating 
failures by group are calculated in the interval between the last availability (1994 COH) 
and these next two docking periods. These computations take into account the most 
recent observed condition of each tank. 

Since USS Kennedy is beyond the midway point in her service life, alternative 
options can be considered. In particular, maintenance planners will want to know how 
many tanks to fix and when to plan to repair them. Cost considerations and the need to 
maximize the impact of budgetary dollars encourages minimizing the number of overhauls 
late in service life. A reasonable question for the planners to ask is, “What are the 
chances that tanks that are overhauled survive the remainder of ship’s service life?” 
Ideally, a tank overhauled late in service life will last until the ship is decommissioned. 
Some hypothetical repair scenarios are examined and these issues addressed. End of 



39 



service (EOS) for USS Kennedy is approximated as 2008 based on a forty year service life 
for conventional fueled carriers. 



A. CALCULATING CONDITIONAL SURVIVAL PROBABILITIES 



The formulation for the conditional survivability function developed in the last 
chapter is referenced to calculate the estimated survival probability. For example, in 1994 
there are three fuel oil tanks that are of age a = 25 years. To survive to the next DSRA in 
year 2000, these tanks need to survive past age t = 3 1 years. Thus, the chance that a tank 
in this group will survive to the next DSRA is estimated by: 

* , SC 31) 2.10 xlO' 6 

5 ri r>-24(31 ) =^ = 520 x io _ 2 , 

A 

where S is the estimated survival function for the fuel oil group found in the previous 
chapter. 

The summary charts in Figure 4 and Appendix B give the various lifetimes of tanks 
within a group. Within each summary chart are intervals containing tanks with surviving 
paint coatings of varying ages (a,). Table 4 provides the conditional survivability 
calculations for each interval. 





DSRA at year 2000 


COH at year 2002 


Group 


Interval 

(0 


Age 

(«*) 
at 1 994 


No. 

Tanks 

N, 


Percent 

of 

Group 


S(a,) 


AgeU,-) 


A 

ST\T>a. (t,-) 


Age (tj) 


A 

ST\T>a. (f f ) 


Fuel Oil 


1 


25 


3 


0.023 


0.052 


31 


0.00 


33 


0.00 


JP-5 


2 


9 


40 


0.610 


0.80 


15 


0.73 


17 


0.64 


3 


15 


4 


0.061 


0.58 


21 


0.66 


23 


0.56 


4 


25 


7 


0.106 


0.27 


31 


0.58 


33 


0.47 


DC/LC 


5 


9 


26 


0.464 


0.84 


15 


0.73 


17 


0.63 


6 


25 


7 


0.125 


0.25 


31 


0.48 


33 


0.36 



Table 4. Conditional survivability calculations for paint coatings surviving at age a ■ . Results for 
the next two dry docking periods are tabulated, [1994,2000] and [1994,2002]. 

From Appendix A-3 it can be seen that the remaining 126 of the 129 fuel oil tanks 

currently have tank coating failure. An immediate conclusion from Table 4 is that the 



40 



remaining three fuel oil tanks that are twenty five years old in 1994 will likely fail in the 
period [1994, 2000], We note that it is important to condition on the last known age of 
the tank. For example, the conditional survivability of a JP-5 tank to fifteen years given 

A 

that is has survived nine is estimated by Sr|r>9(15) = 0.73, where as the estimated 

A 

unconditional survivability is 5(15) = 0.58. By not taking into account the time a tank 
has survived, the chance that the tank will survive until the next availability is substantially 
underestimated. 

B. CALCULATING THE EXPECTED NUMBER OF COATING FAILURES 
AT AN AVAILABILITY 

Conditional survival probabilities calculated in Table 4 are used in Table 5 to give 
the estimated expected number of failures for each interval class that contain surviving 
tanks. Values are listed for the next two repair availabilities. 





DSRA at year 2000 


COH at year 2002 


Group 


Interval 

(0 


Estimated 

E[*(a, 


Estimated 

Em 

± std deviation 


Estimated 
E [*(«/.'/>! 


Estimated 

E[X] 

± std deviation 


Fuel Oil 


1 


3.0 


3.0 ±0.0 


3.0 


3.0 ±0.0 


JP-5 


2 


10.8 


15.1 ±5.0 


14.4 


19.9± 5.3 


3 


1.4 


1.8 


4 


2.9 


3.7 


DC/LC 


5 


7.0 


10.6 ±3.6 


9.6 


14.1 ±3.8 


6 


3.6 


4.5 


Estimated 
expected failures 
± std deviation 


28.7 ± 8.6 


37.0 ± 9.1 



Table 5. Estimated expected number of coating failures of tanks over the period 

Table 5 shows that 28.7 tanks are expected to have coating failure in [1994,2000], 
with an additional 8.3 coating failures in [2000,2002], The estimated expected number of 
failures at the year 2002 COH for the fuel oil group is lower than expected because there 
is no further accumulation in failed fuel oil tanks. A graphical summary of the results 



41 



tabulated in Tables 4 and 5 are provided in Figure 7. Coating failures at the 1994 COH 
represent the actual number of known failures within each group at that time. 



CV-67 Cummulative Group Coating Failures at Year of Availability 




Fuel Oil JP-5 DC/LC 

n=129 n=66 n =56 

Group 



Figure 7. Summary coating failure chart for CV-67 groups. 

It is important to recognize that the number of coating failures shown in Figure 7 
for the year 2000 DSRA and 2002 COH are predictions. The actual number of coating 
failures that occur in the operational cycles till these future availabilities will not be 
precisely these values. The uncertainty in the prediction estimates caused by the variance 
in the estimated survival functions and positive dependence in the coating failures must be 
kept in mind when viewing Figure 7. 

C. MODEL ACCURACY 

The estimated number of failures from the fitted Weibull models are now 
compared to the actual number of failures to check the Weibull modeling assumption. 
Comparisons are best done at those times for each group which represent a significant 
trend in the lifetime data. The comparison of the estimated to actual number of paint 
coatings to survive beyond twenty-five years is highlighted. These comparisons are 
reviewed for each group: 



42 



1 . 



CV-67 Fuel Oil Tanks (129 tanks in group) 



From Figure 4, of 129 tanks in this group, all survive beyond the ten year mark. 
Seventeen fail in [10,16], five fail in [10,18], eighty-seven fail in [16,24] and seventeen 
failures occur in [18,24], Three tanks survive beyond twenty-five years. Figure 8 graphs 
the associated actual and estimated number of tank coatings that survive through the 
represented intervals: 



Number of surviving tanks in Interval [a,t] 




[0,10] [10,16] [16,24] [0,25)+ 

Interval 



Figure 8. Comparison of Actual vs. Estimated surviving tank coatings for the fuel oil tank group. 

For this group the estimate of the number of tanks to survive beyond twenty-five 
years is 6.7 which over estimates the actual number of survivors (3). The survival rate 
estimated by the Weibull model appears to be optimistic beyond the mean life (21.8 years), 
but generally appears to capture the trends in the failure data. 



2. CV-67 JP-5 Tanks (66 tanks in group) 

This group has tanks with multiple lifetimes. The intervals containing the original 
tank lifetimes are used to compare actual survival rates with those projected by the model. 
From Appendix B.l, of 66 tanks in this group, five fail in [5,10], forty nine fail in [10,16], 
five fail in [18,24], and their are seven tanks that survive beyond twenty-five years. Figure 
9 graphs the associated actual and estimated number of tank coatings that survive through 
the represented intervals: 



43 



Number of surviving tanks in Interval [a,t] 




Interval 



□ Actual 
E2 Estimated 



Figure 9. Comparison of Actual vs. Estimated surviving tank coatings for the JP-5 tank group. 



Figure 9 reveals that the model grossly overestimates the number of surviving JP-5 
tank coatings beyond the first interval [5,10], Only seven tanks of sixty six actually 
survive beyond the twenty fourth year, while the fitted model shows a sustained 
overestimation at the sixteenth, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth years. This is likely a result 

A A 

of the small shape factor for this model (k = 1.70) compared to the fuel oil model (rc = 
6.91). Comparing the summary interval charts, the JP-5 group has some early failures, 
while those in the fuel oil group are more clustered about the mean life. Early life failures 
are captured in the Weibull distribution with a small shape factor. In contrast, the fuel oil 
model has a large shape factor to generate a steeper failure rate about the characteristic 
life. The lower shape factor results in a failure rate that is too small in the vicinity of the 
characteristic life and overestimates the survival rate. This is also depicted in the failure 
rate curves for the fuel oil and JP-5 groups in Appendix D. The failure rate curve for the 
JP-5 group is much more gradual than the very steep fuel oil curve. For this group the 
estimate of the number of tanks to survive beyond twenty-five years is 18.1 which over 
estimates the actual number of survivors (7). 

3. CV-67 Damage and List Control Voids (56 voids in group) 



This group also has tanks with multiple lifetimes. From Appendix B. 1, of 56 tanks 
in this group, first life coating failures are; thirty two failures at [10,16], and seven failures 
at [18,24], Seventeen voids survive beyond twenty-five years. Figure 10 graphs the 



44 



associated actual and estimated number of tank coatings that survive through the 
represented intervals: 



Number of surviving tanks in interval [a,t] 




[0,10] [10,16] [18,24] [0,25)+ 

Interval 

Figure 10. Comparison of Actual vs. Estimated surviving tank coatings for DC\LC voids. 

A 

The estimated shape factor for the DC/LC void group is a: =2.00. Figure 10 
reveals a similar situation as discussed for the JP-5 tank group but the problem is not 
nearly as severe. The shape factor is a little higher than the JP-5 group and there are no 
early failures. The model initially underestimates the survival probability and then like the 
JP-5 group overestimates the estimated number of surviving tanks at the [10,16] interval. 
For this group the estimate of the number of voids to survive beyond twenty-five years is 
14.1 which slightly under estimates the actual number of survivors (17). This model is 
generally reflective of the DC/LC lifetime data. 

D. MODEL APPLICATION 

A hypothetical repair scenario is examined in this section to illustrate how the 
survival functions can be employed in the repair planning process. The CV-67 fuel oil 
tank group is selected as the repair group candidate. The status of this group has the most 
certainty and the survival function model reasonably reflects historical failure data. 

For the purposes of this scenario it is assumed that the three tanks with coatings 
that survive beyond twenty five years will fail in the interval [1994,2000], Thus, at the 



45 



year 2000 DSRA, planning personnel will be faced with the issue of scheduling or further 
deferring tank overhauls for the fuel oil group. There are several options to be considered 
in conjunction with the time and budget constraints of the availability: 

Option 1 : Do nothing. Defer repairs to a later availability in favor of higher 
priority maintenance. 

Option 2 : Commit resources to repair a fraction of the fuel oil tanks at the year 
2000 DSRA and continue further overhauls at later docking 
availabilities (2002 COH, and beyond). 

With either option there are several issues that also require attention: 

Issue 1 : 100% of fuel oil tanks are expected to have coating failures by the 

2000 DSRA. 

Issue 2 : The 2000 DSRA is a short docking period (10/99-2/00), and may not 

allow for tank overhaul repairs. 

Issue 3 : The other groups also have tank failures that may have higher priority 

within the tank and void system, particularly the JP-5 tank group. 

With these issues and options in mind an example repair schedule is outlined as follows: 

• Overhaul the sixteen fuel oil service (FOS) tanks at 2000 DSRA. The 
FOS tanks having the highest priority within the fuel oil group. 

• Overhaul approximately one third (38) of the remaining failed tanks at 
the 2002 COH . This number is chosen arbitrarily, but is reasonable on 
the premise that it is very unlikely that all of the fuel oil tanks would be 
overhauled by the year 2000 COH. This still leaves an estimated 
seventy-five tanks in a failed state beyond the year 2002 COH. 

The methods developed in the previous sections may now be used to evaluate this 
policy. In particular: 

• For the sixteen FOS tanks overhauled at year 2000, 

N( 8) = (16)(1.00) = 16, therefore all repaired tanks are expected to 
survive to EOS. 



46 



• Likewise, for the thirty eight tanks overhauled at year 2002, 

N(6) = (38)(1.00) = 38 tanks expected to survive to EOS. 

With these projections, planners can consider repair choices during the remainder 
of ship’s life. As the ship gets nearer to decommissioning, the decision to overhaul a tank 
has a higher impact on the utilization of resources. For instance, many of the fuel oil tanks 
have remained in service with documented coating failures dating back to 1987. The main 
purpose of the paint coating is to provide corrosion protection of the metal surface. Since 
the fuel oil is a petroleum product itself, it is a corrosion inhibitor. Operational policy with 
the tanks and voids can be changed to reflect material status. For example, in those tanks 
with documented paint coating failures, minimize instances of seawater incursion (ballast). 
Paint coating failure does not imply structural failure but is certainly a precursor. Thus the 
rate of deterioration inside the fuel oil tanks with failed coatings may be slow enough to 
allow extended deferral in favor of higher priority tanks. Consideration of these options 
may allow for repairing a more critical group such as the JP-5 tanks. 

The predictive methods demonstrated in this section allow a more systematic 
approach to planning and scheduling repair by giving the maintenance planners more 
insight into the status of the tank and void system. This is a vast improvement over 
current methods that incorporate little learning to enhance the process as the ships age. 
With the history files in place, the survival functions can be continuously updated as new 
data is received. Modeling assumptions can then be assessed and revised to capture the 
characteristics of the coating failures. The reality of a CBMP can be effectively 
augmented to allocate resources and provide decision makers with a forecasting capability. 
Finally, options and scenarios can be assessed using the models to derive lifecycle costs 
which provide the basis for procuring funding. 



47 



48 



VL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



This thesis has provided significant contributions to the progression of study 
examining the tank and void repair process. The lessons learned in this study have led to 
recommendations to PERA(CV) that advance the progress in gathering tank and void 
repair data. Further, a follow on study suggested by this thesis has been endorsed and is 
currently in progress at the Navy Postgraduate School. Ultimately, the goal in the 
systematic progression of these studies is to give guidance to decision makers in 
determining maintenance strategies for the tanks and voids. 

A. CONCLUSIONS 

Comprehensive repair history files for the tanks and voids on USS John F. 
Kennedy (CV 67) and USS Enterprise (CVN 65) were developed which comprise all 
maintenance availabilities beyond 1978. These data files are the most complete record of 
tank and void repair history known to exist. Building this type of database has proved 
very difficult because the documentation is so dispersed across the maintenance history of 
the ships. The methods used to locate the repair data and the assumptions required to 
specify coating failures have been detailed to provide a template for building similar 
databases for other ships. 

The analysis of the data in the repair history files gives important implications to 
modeling tank and void coating failures. The aircraft carriers in this study are of different 
class type and have different repair histories. The estimated survival functions among the 
tank and void groups were more similar within a ship, than those between ships because 
the coating failures are clustered about the repair periods particular to each ship. This 
indicates that to minimize the influence of differing repair histories, comparisons should be 
made between ships on similar repair schedules. Alternatively, the comparisons show that 
the use and maintenance of the tanks and voids on each ship may result in unique failure 
patterns, particularly in ships of different class type. 



49 



Since all Nimitz class carriers will transition to the Incremental Maintenance Plan 
(IMP), they will be on similar repair schedules. The cross-ship comparisons of failure 
histories for this class may provide productive fleet wide decision criteria in tank and void 
repair and planning. For example, if tanks of the same functional group have similar 
failure patterns, regular inspection and repair schemes can be developed for the entire class 
and resources budgeted accordingly. This would be a major step in reducing undesired 
growth work and unnecessary inspections. 

The techniques used to develop the survival functions in this thesis provide an 
initial step toward the development of true predictive models. Although it was realized 
that the inability to include pre-1979 repairs would limit the accuracy of the models, a 
valuable demonstration in the predictive capabilities of these tools was demonstrated. 
Record keeping and tracking of tank and void status is a focal issue in the PERA 
organization. Tank and void entry for any reason has been designated as an opportunity 
to conduct an inspection and gather data. PERA’s goal is 100% recording of tank and 
void entries and the resulting inspections into the TVDB. These efforts will reduce the 
length of the censuring intervals and thereby reduce the uncertainty of when coating 
failure occurs. As new data becomes available the models can be updated and the 
modeling assumptions assessed. The overall effect will be a higher resolution in the fitted 
models, providing better input to the maintenance planners. 

B. RECOMMENDATIONS 

The opportunity to examine the potential of the reliability studies conducted thus 
far towards developing class-wide maintenance planning strategy for the tanks and voids 
lies with the Nimitz class aircraft carriers. Repair history files are currently being 
developed for the Nimitz class JP-5 tanks with a similar analysis of the tank coatings using 
the methods detailed in this study. This follow-on study will encompass those Nimitz 
carriers that have undergone extensive docking availabilities (CVN-68, CVN-69, CVN- 
70). These carriers have been in service long enough to have accumulated sufficient 



50 



inspection and repair history to support a study of the tank coatings. The JP-5 group was 
selected because it is the most critical tank group and accounts for the vast majority of the 
tank and void repairs conducted thus far on this class. In addition, the newer Nimitz 
carriers (CVN-71, CVN-72, CVN-73) tank and void inspection histories recorded in the 
TVDB will be utilized to asses early life coating failures. 

It is not anticipated that the limitations discussed in Chapter m will be a factor in 
this follow on study. Since the Nimitz class aircraft carriers are much younger than CVN- 
65 and CV-67 they have been through fewer docking availability periods, and therefore 
have fewer recorded coating failures and tank overhauls. Additionally, the data on the 
Nimitz class is more recent, has been better documented, and is more readily acquired. 
Resolution of the models and the estimated parameters will be of better quality because 
there should be significantly less ambiguity in the left censored intervals. Right censored 
intervals and coating age suspensions at the service age of the ship will be more valid 
given the age of the Nimitz class ships. Finally, because the repair data have been better 
managed, the censoring intervals will be tighter, allowing for a better fit to the data. 

Complete data sets on the JP-5 tank coating failures and overhauls should provide 
not only an improved estimate of this group’s survival functions but also allow for an 
effective cross-ship comparison analyses. Additional analyses into comparing the extent of 
same tank failures across ships by location may provide insight into the cluster effect and 
failure dependence issues raised in Chapter IV. This process of constructing history files 
and developing survival functions should be repeated for the other tank groups as well. 

As the Nimitz carriers age and go through maintenance availabilities, every effort 
should be made to collect and analyze the failure data. The positive steps implemented by 
PERA toward a fleet-wide comprehensive database have made this possible. Existing 
models can be updated or revised to track and predict tank and void failures. A more 
complex model than the two parameter Weibull may be required to effectively represent 
the lifetime data. For instance, an adaptable model that allows for both an increasing and 
decreasing failure rate depending on lifetime may be more suitable. 



51 



Another focus of continued study should be in the area of analyzing costing data to 
develop per-tank estimates of depot level manday expenditures. In this way the 
unaccounted repairs listed in PERA records can be incorporated into the models. Cost 
estimation techniques that exist within the shipyard planning divisions, whether public or 
private, were not available for this study. Once the cost estimation relationships are 
known, unit cost models need to be developed for each functional group. Tracking and 
predicting tank failures is just one portion of the whole problem. Projecting costs is the 
other. Together, the survival functions and unit cost models can provide life cycle costs of 
the tanks and voids. Life cycle costs are undoubtedly a focus of concern with the 
TYCOM(s), and project higher profile within the budgetary echelon. 

All efforts to provide a consolidated and comprehensive tank and void database 
should continue. At the writing of this thesis, there is discussion in regard to removing the 
TVDB from the ships because of lack of use. Removing the TVDB from the ships is not 
the answer to that problem. The TVDB will be more optimally used with proper training 
and centralization of responsibility. Effective management of the TVDB will also address 
the compartmentalization issue that prevents the tank and voids from being handled as a 
ship-wide system. Currently, cognizant “ownership” is broken down into the departments 
or divisions that directly operate a particular group of tanks. This causes a lack of 
standardization in inspection and recording. The likely result of removing the TVDB is a 
continuation or increase in missed inspection reports. Unrecorded entries into any tank or 
void have considerable negative consequences. Primarily, they generate the requirement 
for a scheduled inspection at some other time to determine the tank condition. These 
additional tank entries are generally only possible during a docking period and result in 
“open-ended” repair planning because the tank status is unknown. Depot level inspections 
of tanks and voids should be minimized due to the contracted cost. Depot level resources 
are better allocated for the purposes of repair based on previous documented inspections. 
These inspections should be conducted by shipboard personnel as much as possible, within 
the limitations that personnel manning allows. 



52 



REFERENCES 



Brown, Gerald G., and Rutemiller, Herbert C., Evaluation of Pr{x > y} “When 
Both X and Y are from Three-Parameter Weibull Distributions,” IEEE 
Transactions on Reliability, Vol. R-22, No. 2, pp. 78-82, June 1973. 

Greene, William H., Econometric Analysis, 2 nd edition, pp. 190-191, Prentice Hall, 
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990. 

Lee, Elisa T., Statistical Methods for Survival Data Analysis, 2 nd edition, pp. 
238-240, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1992. 

Leemis, Lawrence M., Reliability; Probabilistic Models cmd Statistical Methods, 
pp. 46, 88-91, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995. 

Nelson, Wayne, Applied Life Data Analysis, pp.; 36-38, 344-345, 389-391, John 
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1982. 

ReliaSoft Inc. ,Weibull++ Version 4 (1995), Tucson, Arizona. 

Thomell, Mark E., “An Adaptive Inspection Sampling Plan for Determining 
Coating Failure of Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier Tanks and Voids,” Naval 
Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, (Thesis) December 1996. 

Scallet, Joseph, “Failure Mode Analysis Tanks & Voids,” Reliability Engineering 
Report prepared for Commander Naval Air Force Atlantic, Code 434C, by 
American Systems Engineering Corporation, Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

Waterloo Maple Inc., Maple V Release 4.00a (1995), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 

Womble, Cynthia M., “A Critique of Aircraft Carrier Tank and Void 
Maintenance,” Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, (Thesis) 
September 1994. 

Wheeler, Robert G., “Carrier Life Enhancing Repair (CLER), Aircraft Carrier 
Tank and Void Inspection Manual,” NAVSEADET PERA(CV), Bremerton, 
Washington, May 1993. 



53 



APPENDIX A.l. PERA MANDAY EXPENDITURE SUMMARY 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


2 


Hull 


ESWBS 


Brief 


Avail Type 


Activity 


Fiscal Year 


Auth 


Expended 


3 


CV67 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


70 


0 


53 


4 


CV67 


12310 


TANK COORDINATION 


SRA 


NNSY 


71 


0 


139 


5 


CV67 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


73 


0 


56 


6 


CV67 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


COH 


NNSY 


74 


0 


742 


7 


CV67 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


COH 


NNSY 


74 


5663 


2817 


8 


CV67 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


COH 


NNSY 


74 


1048 


809 


9 


CV67 


12310 


TANK COORDINATION 


SRA 


NNSY 


76 


43 


19 


10 


CV67 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


NNSY 


76 


0 


18 


11 


CV67 


12311 


FUELOIL TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


77 


0 


327 


12 


CV67 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


COH 


NNSY 


79 


2021 


2183 


13 


CV67 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


COH 


NNSY 


79 


6500 


10858 


14 


CV67 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


81 


0 


55 


15 


CV67 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


81 


0 


49 


16 


CV67 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


NNSY 


81 


0 


186 


17 


CV67 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


83 


0 


114 


18 


CV67 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


83 


0 


1 


19 


CV67 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


NNSY 


83 


0 


57 


20 


CV67 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


COH 


NNSY 


85 


4508 


2052 


21 


CV67 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


COH 


NNSY 


85 


1163? . 


7733 


22 


CV67 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


COH 


NNSY 


85 


2673 


4726 


23 


CV67 


12311 


FUELOIL TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


87 


3895 


409 


24 


CV67 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


NNSY 


87 


9 


10 


25 


CV67 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


89 


90 


287 


26 


CV67 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


89 


33 


19 


27 


CV67 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


NNSY 


89 


0 


38 


28 


CV67 


12310 


TANK COORDINATION 


SRA 


NNSY 


91 


235 


232 


29 


CV67 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


91 


38 


278 


30 


CV67 


12310 


TANK COORDINATION 


COH 


PNSY 


93 


10407 


4800 


31 


CV67 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


COH 


PNSY 


93 


4192 


5000 


32 


CV67 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


COH 


PNSY 


93 


7560 


500 


33 


CV67 


12315 


LUBE OIL TANKS 


COH 


PNSY 


93 


21 


21 


34 


CV67 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


COH 


PNSY 


93 


1469 


3500 


35 




36 


CVN65 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


NNSY 


70 


0 


5085 


37 


CVN65 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


SRA 


HTPT 


72 


0 


767 


38 


CVN65 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


PSNS 


74 


0 


2363 


39 


CVN65 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


PSNS 


74 


0 


471 


40 


CVN65 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


SSSF 


75 


0 


2574 


41 


CVN65 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


SSSF 


75 


0 


814 


42 


CVN65 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


COH 


PSNS 


79 


10920 


10856 


43 


CVN65 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


COH 


PSNS 


79 


1678 


2776 


44 


CVN65 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


SRA 


SSSF 


83 


0 


156 


45 


CVN65 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


SSSF 


83 


0 


679 


46 


CVN65 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


SSSF 


83 


0 


2 


47 


CVN65 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


SSSF 


85 


174 


0 


48 


CVN65 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


SSSF 


85 


0 


2446 


49 


CVN65 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


DSRA 


SSSF 


87 


73 


0 


50 


CVN65 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


DSRA 


SSSF 


87 


8570 


1939 


51 


CVN65 


12316 


BALLAST TANKS 


DSRA 


SSSF 


87 


163 


0 


52 


CVN65 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


DSRA 


SSSF 


87 


0 


5215 


53 


CVN65 


12310 


TANK COORDINATION 


SRA 


SSSF 


89 


0 


217 


54 


CVN65 


12311 


FUELOIL TANKS 


SRA 


SSSF 


89 


462 


87 


55 


CVN65 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


SSSF 


89 


260 


267 


56 


CVN65 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


SSSF 


89 


100 


170 


57 


CVN65 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


RCOH 


NNS 


91 


2009 


1862 


58 


CVN65 


12316 


BALLAST TANKS 


RCOH 


NNS 


91 


553 


934 


59 


CVN65 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


RCOH 


NNS 


91 


5653 


7672 


60 


CVN65 


12311 


FUEL OIL TANKS 


SRA 


NNS 


95 


0 


91 


61 


CVN65 


12312 


JP-5 TANKS 


SRA 


NNS 


95 


101 


67 


62 


CVN65 


12322 


VOIDS AND COFFERDAMS 


SRA 


NNS 


95 


0 


6 



55 



APPENDIX A.2. HISTORY FILE RESOURECES AND REFERENCES 



A.2.1. CV-67 (COMMISIONED SEPTEMBER 1968) 

Ship ESWBS Repair Availability Manday Summary maintained at PERA(CV) 
offices, Bremerton, WA, used as the baseline reference document for determining 
potential data sources. Manday Summary is given in Appendix A. 1 . Mandays expended 
per ESWBS were cross referenced to available documentation. 

Summary 



• Notes : Tank and void history prior to 1 979 COH not found. ESWBS Manday 
Summary notes the following extensive expenditures that could not be tracked: 

• 1 974 COH conducted at NNSY: 

• 742 mandays of maintenance on fuel oil tanks 

• 2817 mandays of maintenance on JP-5 tanks 

• 809 mandays of maintenance on voids and cofferdams 

• 1 979 COH conducted at NNSY: 

• 1979 Authorized SARP for CV-67 extracted from PERA(CV) archives, 
Bremerton, WA. 

• 1985 COH conducted at NNSY: 

• NNSY Automated Planning System (APS) Database. 

• 1985 CV-67 COH Docking Report, Tank Preservation Data, extracted from 
PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 

• Authorized Work Package Control Document for CV-67 FY 85 COH, extracted 
from PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 

• 1987 SRA conducted at NNSY: 

• NNSY Automated Planning System (APS) Database. 

• Tank and Void Repair Status Matrix, USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67), 
NAVSEADET PERA(CV), Bremerton, WA, 1988. 

• 1989 SRA conducted at NNSY: 



56 



• NNSY Automated Planning System (APS) Database. 

• Authorized Integrated Work Package Control Document for CV-67 FY89 SRA, 
extracted from PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 



• 1991 SRA conducted at NNSY: 

• NNSY Automated Planning System (APS) Database. 

• Authorized Integrated Work Package Control Document for CV-67 FY91 SRA, 
extracted from PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 

• 1993-1994 COH conducted at PNSY: 

• USS Kennedy (CV 67) Tank and Void Status and Work Report, Code 378, 
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, April 7, 1995. 

• Tank and Void Inspection Database, Advanced Revelations Database 
Management, extracted at PERA(CV) office, Bremerton, WA. 

• Authorized Integrated Work Package Control Document for CV-67 FY93 COH, 
extracted from PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 



57 



APPENDIX A.2. HISTORY FILE RESOURECES AND REFERENCES 



A.2.2. CVN-65 (COMMISIONED NOVEMBER 1961) 

Ship ESWBS Repair Availability Manday Summary maintained at PERA(CV) 
offices, Bremerton, WA, used as the baseline reference document for determining 
potential data sources. Manday Summary is given in Appendix A.2. Mandays expended 
per ESWBS were cross referenced to available documentation. 

Summary 



• Notes : Tank and void history prior to 1979 COH not found. ESWBS Summary 
begins at 1970. Extent of tank and void work conducted prior to 1970 unknown. 
ESWBS Manday Summary notes the following extensive expenditures that could not 
be tracked: 

• 1970 SRA conducted at NNSY: 

• 5085 mandays of maintenance on JP-5 tanks 

• 767 mandays of maintenance on fuel oil tanks 

• 1974 SRA conducted at PSNS: 

• 2363 mandays of maintenance on JP-5 tanks 

• 1975 SRA conducted at PSNS: 

• 2574 mandays of maintenance on JP-5 tanks 

• 1 979 COH conducted at PSNS: 

• 1979 SARP USS Enterprise CVN-65, Work Package Control List, extracted from 
PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 

• 1983 SRA conducted at SSSF: 

• 1983 SARP USS Enterprise CVN-65, Work Package Control List, extracted from 
PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 

• 1985 SRA conducted at SSSF: 

• Completion Work Package Control Document, USS Enterprise (CVN-65) FY 85 
SRA 



58 



• Tank and Void Repair Status Matrix, USS Enterprise (CVN 65), NAVSEADET 
PERA(CV), Bremerton, WA., November 3, 1987. 

• 1987 DSRA conducted at SSSF: 

• Departure Report, USS Enterprise (CVN-65) FY DSRA Costs, extracted from 
PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 

• Authorized Work Package Control Document, USS Enterprise (CVN-65), FY 87 
DSRA, extracted from PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 

• Tank and Void Repair Status Matrix, USS Enterprise (CVN-65), NAVSEADET 
PERA(CV), Bremerton, WA, November 3, 1987. 

• 1989 SRA conducted at SSSF: 

• Integrated Work Package Control Document, USS Enterprise (CVN-65), FY 89 
SRA, extracted from PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 

• 1 991 -1 994 RCOH conducted at NNSY: 

• Integrated Work Package Control Document, USS Enterprise (CVN-65), FY 91 
RCOH, extracted from PERA(CV) archives, Bremerton, WA. 

• Tank and Void Inspection Database, Advanced Revelations Database 
Management, extracted at PERA(CV) office, Bremerton, WA. 

• CVN-65 Tank Paint Schedule (1991-1994 RCOH), NNSY 

• CVN-65 Tank Entry and Work Permits (1991-1994 RCOH), Stu Vreeland, Tank 
Inspector, NNSY 

• CVN-65 Tank and Void work status matrix, (1991-1994 RCOH), Stu Vreeland, 
Tank Inspector, NNSY 

• LT Jeffrey Wilcox, Assistant Damage Control Officer, USS Enterprise, 1992- 
1995. 



59 



APPENDIX A.3. CV-67 FUEL OIL TANK HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


c 


0 


E 


F 


1 G 


1 H | 1 


1 J 


1 K 


r~r~ 


| 


M 


1 












REPAIR CODE LEGEND 










2 

3 


PR = 


PIPING REPAIRS 






RL = REPAIR LEAK 


ER = ELECTRICAL REPAIR 




4 


INS = 


NSPECTION 






R = REPAIR 


l/R = INSPECTION & REPAIR 




5 


SR = STRUCTURAL REPAIRS 




WC = WHEELER CLEAN 


OVHL = OVERHAUL (BLAST a PAINT) 


6 


C = CLEAN 




















7 




























8 


SWLIN 


SERVICE 


TANK 


LAST INS DATE 


COND 


1979 COH 


1985 COH 


1987 7VMR 


1989 SRA 


1991 SRA 


1993 COH 


PAINTED 


INTERVALS 


9 


12311 


FO 


67-8-123-1-F 


5-Oct-94 


0 












C 




116,24) 


10 


12311 


FO 


67-8-123-2-F 


1 2-Aug-94 


0 






30 % bad paint (84) 






C 




116.24] 


11 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 23-3- F 


18- Aug-94 


0 




PR 


40% bad paint (85) 






c 




(16.24J 


12 


12311 


FO 


67 -8-1 23-4- F 


5-Oct-94 


0 




PR 


C. 100% corrosion (1987) 






c 




[10.18) 


13 


12311 


FO 


67-8-127-1-F 


29-Sep-94 


0 




PR 


40% bad paint (85) 






OVHL 


94 


[16.24] 


14 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 27-4- F 


15-Oct-94 


0 




PR 


C, 100% corrosion (1987) 






C 




(10.18) 


15 


12311 


FO 


67-8-131-1-F 


28-Sep-94 


0 




PR 


50% bad paint (85) 






C 




[10.16) 


16 


12311 


FO 


67-8-131-2-F 


1-Sep-94 


0 




PR 


C. 100% corrosion (1987) 






SR 




(10,18) 


17 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 31 -3-F 


19- Aug- 94 


0 












SR 




[16.24] 


18 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 62-1 -F 


6- Sep- 94 


0 




INS 


25% bad paint (84) 






C 




[16.24] 


19 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 62-2- F 


2-Oct-94 


0 












c 




[16.24) 


20 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 62-3-F 


13-Sep-94 


0 




PR 








c 




[16.24] 


21 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 62-4- F 


15-JUI-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


22 


12311 


FO 


67-8-162-5-F 


13-Sep-94 


0 












c 




[16,24] 


23 


12311 


FO 


67-8- 162 -6- F 


26-May- 94 


0 












c 






16.24] 


24 


12311 


FO 


67-8-172-1-F 


3- May-94 


0 




RL 


10% bad paint (84) 






c 






16.241 


25 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 72- 2-F 


17-Jun-94 


0 






10% bad paint (84) 






c 






16.24] 


26 


12311 


FO 


67-8-172-3-F 


22-Jurv>94 


0 








C 




c 






16.24] 


27 


12311 


FO 


67-8-172-4-F 


15-Jun-94 


0 




R 




C 




c 






16.24] 


28 


12311 


FO 


67-8-172-5-F 


13- May- 94 


0 












c 






16.24] 


29 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 72-6- F 


16-Jun-94 


0 




R 








c 






16.24] 


30 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 77-1- F 


2- Oct-9 4 


0 






10% bad paint (84) 




l/R 


c 






16.24] 


31 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 77-2-F 


27-JUF94 


0 






10% bad paint (84) 




l/R 


c 






16.24] 


32 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 77-3-F 


17-JUF94 


0 












c 






16.24] 


33 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 77-4- F 


16-Jun-94 


0 












c 






16.24] 


34 


12311 


FO 


67-8-180-1-F 


1-Jul-94 


0 












c 






16.24] 


35 


12311 


FO 


67-8-180-2-F 


22-Apr-94 


0 












c 






16.24] 


36 


12311 


FO 


67-8-185-1-F 


25-0 ct- 94 


0 








l/R 


l/R 


WC 






16.24] 


37 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 85-2-F 


5- Aug-94 


0 




R 




l/R 


PR 


SR 






16.24] 


38 


12311 


FO 


67-8-185- 3-F 


4- Jan-94 


1 






50% bad paint (85) 


l/R 


INSP 


c 






10.16] 


39 


12311 


FO 


67-8-185-4-F 


18- Aug-94 


0 




R 


40% bad paint (85) 


C 




c 




(16.24] 


40 


12311 


FO 


67-8-195-1-F 


21 -Oct- 94 


0 












WC 




(16.24] 


41 


12311 


FO 


67-8-1 95-2- F 


27-Jul-94 


0 












c 




(16.24] 


42 


12311 


FO 


67-8-205-1-F 


9-Jul-94 


0 












SR 




[16.24] 


43 


12311 


FO 


67-8- 20 5- 2-F 


9-JUI-94 


0 












SR 




[16.24] 


44 


12311 


FO 


67-8- 73- 2-F 


l3-Jan-96 


0 










maj PR 


c 




(16.24] 


45 


12311 


FO 


67-8-78-1-F 


l3-Jan-96 


0 










maj PR 


c 




M6.24] 


46 


12311 


FO 


67-8-78-2- F 


17-Jun-94 


0 




RL 






maj PR 


c 




116.24] 


47 


12311 


FO 


67-8-83- 1-F 


13- Jan-96 


0 




PR 


40% bad paint (1984) 




maj PR 


WC 




[16.24] 


48 


12311 


FO 


67-8-83-2- F 


l7-Jun-94 


0 




R 






maj PR 


c 




(16.24) 


49 


12311 


FO 


67-8- 88- 1-F 


14-Jan-96 


0 




INS 


30% bad paint (84) 




maj PR 


c 




[16.24] 


50 


12311 


FO 


67-8- 88- 2-F 


15-M ay-94 


0 










maj PR 


c 




[16.24] 


51 


12311 


FO 


67-8-92-1-F 


2-Aug-94 


0 






60% bad paint (1984) 




maj PR 


c 




(10,16] 


52 


12311 


FO 


67-8-92-2- F 


2-Aug-94 


0 






30% bad paint (84) 




maj PR 


c 




(16.24] 


53 


12311 


FO 


67-8-97-3-F 


25-Aug-94 


0 




PR 


40% bad paint (85) 




maj PR 


WC 




[16.24] 


54 


12311 


FO 


67-8-97-4- F 


30-Sep-94 


0 










maj PR 


WC 




[16.24] 


55 


12311 


FOB 


67-7-1 62-3-F 


15-JUI-94 


0 












c 




(16.24] 


56 


12311 


FOB 


67-7- 162 -4-F 


16-JUI-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


57 


12311 


FOB 


67-7-1 67-3-F 


23-Jun-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


58 


12311 


FOB 


67-7-167-4-F 


25-Jun-94 


0 












c 




J16.24] 


59 


12311 


FOB 


67-7-172-3-F 


26-May- 94 


0 












WC 




(16.24] 


60 


12311 


FOB 


67-7-172-4-F 


26-May- 94 


0 












WC 




(16.24] 


61 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 05-6-F 


lS-Jul-94 


0 








INSP 




c 




[18.24] 


62 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-105-7-F 


14-Jun-94 


0 






40% bad paint (85) 


l/R 




c 




_ (16.24) 


63 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 10-7-F 


17-Jun-94 


0 




PR 


50% bad paint (85) 


REPAIR 




c 




[10.16] 


64 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-11 0-8- F 


23- Aug-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


65 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 15-7-F 


24-Jun-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


66 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-115-8-F 


24-Jun-94 


0 








l/R 




c 




[16.24] 


67 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 36-8- F 


27-Jun-94 


0 






C, 8% bad paint (87) 






c 




[18,24] 


68 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 36-9- F 


23-Jurv94 


0 




PR 


C. 10% corrosion (87) 






c 




(18.24] 


69 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-140-5-F 


17-JUF94 


0 






C. 10% bad paint (87) 




INSP 


c 




[18.24] 


70 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-140-6-F 


12-NW-94 


0 






C. 15% bad paint (87) 


SR 




c 




[18.24] 


71 


12311 


FOB 


67 -8-1 49-1 0-F 


6-JUI-94 


0 






0% bad paint\corrosoin (87) 






c 




(18.24] 


72 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-149-7-F 


6- Sep- 94 


0 






15% corrosion (87) 




INSP 


c 




118.24] 



60 




APPENDIX A.3. CV-67 FUEL OIL TANK HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


K 


L 


M 


73 


SWLIN 


SERVICE 


TANK 


LAST INS DATE 


COND 


1979 COH 


1985 COH 


1987 TVMR 


1989 SRA 


1991 SRA 


1993 COH 


PAINTED 


INTERVALS 


74 


12311 


FOB 


67 -8-153- 5-F 


29-Jul-94 


0 








t/R 


INSP 


C 




[16,24] 


75 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 53-6- F 


19-JUI-94 


0 






55% corrosion (87) 






c 




[10.18] 


76 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 57 -7-F 


11 -Aug-94 


0 






20% corrosion (87) 


L/R 


INSP 


c 




[16.24] 


77 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 57-8- F 


16- Aug-94 


0 






7% corrosion (87) 






c 




[16.24] 


78 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-162-7-F 


26-May- 94 


0 








INSP 


INSP 


c 




[16.24] 


79 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 62-8- F 


17-JUF94 


0 








C 




c 




[16.24] 


80 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 77-7- F 


3- May-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


81 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 77-8- F 


3- May-94 


0 




R 


30% bad paint (85) 






c 




[16.24] 


82 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-1 81 -3-F 


5- May-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


83 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-181-4-F 


10-May- 94 


0 




R 


40% bad paint (85) 






c 




[16.24] 


84 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-181-5-F 


4- May-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


85 


12311 


FOB 


67-8- 181 -6- F 


10-M ay-94 


0 




R 


50% bad paint 






c 




[10,16] 


86 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-195-3-F 


28-Jun-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


87 


12311 


FOB 


67-8* 205- 3-F 


19-JUI-94 


0 












SR 




[16,24] 


88 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-73-1-F 


14-Mar-93 


0 










maj PR 


c 




[16.24] 


89 


12311 


FOB 


67-8- 83- 3-F 


22- Apr-9 4 


0 




ER 


60% bad paint (1984) 




maj PR 


c 




[10,16] 


90 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-83-4-F 


26-Apr-94 


0 










maj PR 


c 




[16,24] 


91 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-92- 3-F 


25- Apr-9 4 


0 










maj PR 


c 




[16,24] 


92 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-92-4-F 


3- Oct-93 


1 










maj PR 


c 




[0,24)+ 


93 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-97-5-F 


18-Jun-94 


0 










maj PR 


c 




[16,24] 


94 


12311 


FOB 


67-8-97-6-F 


1-Jul-94 


0 










maj PR 


c 




[16,24] 


95 


12311 


FOOB 


67-7-1 62-7-F 


15-Jun-94 


0 








l/R 


INSP 


c 




[16,24] 


96 


12311 


FOOB 


67-7-1 62-8- F 


15-Jun-94 


0 












c 




[16,24] 


97 


12311 


FOOB 


67-7-1 67-5-F 


25-Jul-94 


0 








C 




c 




[16.24] 


98 


12311 


FOOB 


67-7-1 67-6- F 


25-JUI-94 


0 








C 




c 




[16.24] 


99 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-101-5-F 


3-Jan-96 


0 






6% bad paint (84) 






c 




[16,24] 


100 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-1 01 -6-F 


11-Jan-94 


1 
















[0,24)+ 


101 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-119-7-F 


5-JUI-94 


0 




PR 


50% bad paint (85) 


C 




c 




[10.16] 


102 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-11 9-8- F 


2- Aug-94 


0 










PR 


c 




[16,24] 


103 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8* 123- 5-F 


5- Oct-94 


0 










INSP 


c 




[16.24] 


104 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-1 23-6- F 


20-JUI-94 


0 






5% bad paint/corrosion (1987) 






c 




[18.24] 


105 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-131-5-F 




0 
















[16.24] 


106 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8- 131 -6-F 


31 -Aug-94 


0 






1 00% corrosion (1 987) 






PR 




[10.18] 


107 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-145-7-F 


23- Aug-94 


0 




PR 


C, 20% corrosion (87) 






c 




[18.24] 


108 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-1 45-8- F 


13-Jul-94 


0 






5% bad paint/corrosion (1987) 


l/R 




c 




[18.24] 


109 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-167-1-F 


28-Jun-94 


0 








C 




c 




[16,24] 


110 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-1 67-2- F 


30-Jul-94 


0 












PR 




[16.24] 


111 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-172-7-F 


l8-Jun-94 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


112 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-172-8-F 


18-Jan-94 


0 












PR 




[16,24] 


113 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-1 77-5-F 


19-Scp-94 


0 








C 




C 




[16.24] 


114 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8- 177 -6-F 


25-Sep-94 


0 




R 


50% bad paint (84) 


c 




c 




[10.16] 


115 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-181-1-F 


19-Sep-94 


0 








c 




c 




[16.24] 


116 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-1 81 -2-F 


22-Jul-94 


1 








c 




c 




[0,24)+ 


117 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-1 95-4- F 


22 -Oct- 9 3 


0 












c 




[16.24] 


118 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-200-1-F 


22-Oct-93 


0 












OVHl 


25-JUI-94 


[16.24] 


119 


12311 


FOOB 


67 -8*78- 3-F 


21-JU0-94 


0 








c 


maj PR 


C 




[16.24] 


120 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8*78- 4-F 


24-JU0-94 


0 








c 


maj PR 


C 




[16.24] 


121 


12311 


FOOB 


67-8-88- 3-F 


3- Oct-93 


0 




PR 


30% bad paint (84) 


c 


maj PR 


wc 




[16,24] 


122 


12311 


FOOB 


67 -8* 88- 4-F 


9- May-94 


0 








c 


maj PR 


c 




[16.24] 


123 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-105-8-F 


30- Aug-94 


0 




PR/ER 


20% bad paint (84) 


l/R 




PR 




[18.24] 


124 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-105- 9-F 


20-Jun-94 


0 




RL 


60% bad paint (85) 


t/R 




C 




[10.16J 


125 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-1 10-10-F 


20-Jun-94 


0 




PR/ER 


50% bad paint (84) 






C 




[10.16] 


126 


12311 


FOS 


67-8*1 10-9-F 


20-Jun-94 


0 




PR 


95% bad paint (85) 






C 




[10.16] 


127 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-136-10-F 


23-Jurv94 


0 




PR 


C, 10% corrosion (87) 






c 




[18,24] 


128 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-136-11-F 


28-Jun-94 


0 






C. 5% bad paint (87) 






c 




[18.24] 


129 


12311 


FOS 


67-8*1 44-1 -F 


13-Sep-94 


0 






C, 25% corrosion (87) 






c 




[18.241 


130 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-144-2-F 


30-Jun-94 


0 






100% corrosion (87)] 


l/R 




c 




[10.16] 


131 


12311 


FOS 


67-8* 149-1 2-F 


l-Jul-94 


0 




PR 


3% bad paint\corrosion (87) 






c 




[18.24] 


132 


12311 


FOS 


67 -8*149- 9-F 


30-Jun-94 


0 




PR 


C, 8% corrosion (87) 




INSP 


c 




(1824) 


133 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-1 57-1 0-F 


11 -Aug-94 


0 




ER 


C. 5% corrosoion (87) 






c 




[18.24] 


134 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-157-9-F 


24- Aug-94 


0 




PR 


C 


l/R 


INSP 


c 




[16.24] 


135 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-97-7-F 


4-Jan-96 


0 




PR 


50% bad paint (84) 




maj PR 


c 




[10.16] 


136 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-97-8-F 


10-Jun-94 


0 




PR 


80% bad paint (84) 




maj PR 


c 




[10,16] 


137 


12311 


FOS 


67-8-118-1-F 


16-Jun*94 


0 




PR7RL 


80% bad paint (85) 




l/R 


c 




[10,16] 


138 


12311 


FOS 


67-81 18-2-F 


l8-Jun-94 


0 




PR/ER 


80% bad paint (84) 






c 




[10.16] 



61 



APPENDIX A.4. CV-67 JP-5 TANK HISTORY FILE 





A 1 B | C | D 1 E | F | G | H |I|J| K 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 


REPAIR CODE LEGEND 

OVHL = OVERHAUL (BLAST & PAINT) TLI = TANK LEVEL INDICATOR REPAIR 

WC = WHEELER CLEAN C= CLEAN 


6 


SWLIN 


SERVICE 


TANK 


LAST INS DATE 


COND 


1979 COH 


1985 COH 


1987 TVMR 


1993 COH 


PAINTED 


INTERVALS 


7 


12312 


JB 


67-7-1 90-1 -J 


17-Aug-94 


1 




OVHL 




C 




110.161 . (0,9)+ 


8 


12312 


JB 


67-7-1 90-2-J 


19-M ay-94 


1 




OVHL 


5% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


9 


12312 


JB 


67-8-12-0-J 


26-Oct-93 


1 






10% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[0,25)+ 


10 


12312 


JB 


67-8-16-0 *J 


23- Apr-94 


1 




OVHL 


15% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


11 


12312 


JB 


67-8-1 85-1 0-J 


l7-May-94 


1 




OVHL 


20% bad paint (84) 


C 


1 -Jan-85 


[10,161 . f0.9H 


12 


12312 


JB 


67-8-1 85-5-J 


24-Aug-94 










C 




r0.25)+ 


13 


12312 


JB 


67-8-1 85-6-J 


3-Aug-94 










C 




[0,25)+ 


14 


12312 


JB 


67-8-185-7^ 


19-Aug-94 


1 




OVHL 


10% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


15 


12312 


JB 


67-8-1 85-8-J 


21-Jun-94 






OVHL 


10% bad paint (84) 


c 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


16 


12312 


JB 


67-8-1 85-9-J 


1 9-Aug-94 


1- 






1% bad paint (84) 


c 




[0,25)+ 


17 


12312 


JB 


67-8-1 9-0-J 


11 -May-94 


1- 


OVHL 


C 


2% bad paint (84) 


c 




[5,101 . ro.isK 


18 


12312 


JB 


67-8-1 95-7-J 


18-Jul-94 


1 








c 




[0,25)+ 


19 


12312 


JB 


67-8-1 95- 8-J 


23-Nov-93 


0 




OVHL 


12% bad paint (84) 


OVHL 


94 


[10,16], [2,8] 


20 


12312 


JB 


67-8-23-0 -J 


25- Mar-94 


1 




OVHL 


0% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


21 


12312 


JB 


6 7-8-28-0 -J 


11 -Apr-94 


1 


OVHL 




0% bad paint (80) 


c 




[5,10] , [0,1 5)+ 


22 


12312 


JB 


67-8-28-1 -J 


7-May-94 


1 




OVHL 


0% bad paint (85) 


TLI 




[10,161 . [0,9)+ 


23 


12312 


JB 


67-8-28-2-J 


28- Apr-94 


1 




OVHL 


1% bad paint (85) 


OVHL 


94 


[10,16], [2,8] 


24 


12312 


JB 


6 7 -8-33-0 -J 


9-Jun-94 




OVHL 






C 




[5,10] . [0,15)+ 


25 


12312 


JB 


67-8-33-1 -J 


28-Mar-93 


1 




OVHL 




C 




[10,16] . [0,9)+ 


26 


12312 


JB 


67-8-33-2-J 


30-Mar-94 


1 




OVHL 




C 




[10,16] . [0,9)+ 


27 


12312 


JB 


6 7-8- 33-3 -J 


7-M ay-94 


1- 


OVHL 




4% bad paint/corrosion (88) 


C 




[5,10] . [0.1 5H 


28 


12312 


JB 


67-8-33-4 *J 


6- Apr-94 


1 




OVHL 


0% bad paint 


C 




[10,161 , [0,9>+ 


29 


12312 


JB 


67-8-43-1 -J 


30- Apr-94 


1 




OVHL 


5% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,161. [0.9H 


30 


12312 


JB 


67-8-48-1 -J 


20-May-94 


1 




INS 




OVHL 


94 


[18,241 


31 


12312 


JB 


67-8-48-2 -J 


IOun-94 


1 




OVHL 


8% bad paint (84) 


C 


1 -Jan-85 


[10,16] , [0,9h 


32 


12312 


JB 


67-8-53-3-J 


19-Mar-94 


1- 


INSP 


OVHL 


1% bad paint (84) 




1 -Jan-85 


[10,161 . [0,9>+ 


33 


12312 


JB 


67-8-53-4 -J 


11 -May-94 


1 




OVHL 


0% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


34 


12312 


JB 


67-8- 53-6 -J 


1 -Jul-94 


1 




OVHL 


0% bad paint (84) 


WC 




[10,16] JO, 9)+ 


35 


12312 


JB 


67-8-58-3-J 


28-Jun-94 


1 




OVHL 


15% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,161 . [0,9)+ 


36 


12312 


JB 


67-8-63-1 -J 


17-Mar-94 


1 




OVHL 


10% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,16] . [0,9)+ 


37 


12312 


JB 


67-8-63-4 -J 


29-Mar-94 


0 




OVHL 


3% bad paint (84) 


C 


1 -Jan-85 


[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


38 


12312 


JB 


6 7 -8-73-3 -J 


24-May-95 






OVHL 


8% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


39 


12312 


JB 


67-8-73-4 -J 


4-May-94 


1 




OVHL 


7% bad paint (84) 


c 


1 -Mar-94 


[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


40 


12312 


JB 


67-8-9-0-J 


21-Jun-94 


1- 






0% bad paint 


c 




[0,25)+ 


41 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-190-1-J 


29-Aug-94 


1 




OVHL 


15% bad paint (84) 


OVHL 


94 


[10,16] . [2,81 


42 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-1 90-2-J 


5- May-94 


1 








C 




[0,25)+ 


43 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-1 90- 3-J 


20-Jun-94 


1 




OVHL 


25% bad paint (84) 


OVHL 


94 


no. 161 . [2.81 


44 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-1 90-4-J 


31 -Jul-94 


1 






1% bad paint (84) 


OVHL 


94 


[18.241 


45 


12312 


JOB 


67-8- 200- 5-J 


14-Dec-93 


0 


OVHL 


PR 


1% bad paint (84) 


OVHL 


94 


[5,10] , [8,14] 


46 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-200-6-J 


31 -Jul-94 


1 




OVHL 


15% bad paint (84) 


OVHL 


94 


[10,161, [2.81 


47 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-43-2^1 


10-Nov-93 


1 




OVHL 


0% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10,161 . [0.9H 


48 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-48-3-J 


24-Jun-94 


1 




INS 




OVHL 


94 


[18,24] 


49 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-48-4-J 


15-Jun-94 


1 




OVHL 


0% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10.16] , [0,9)+ 


50 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-53-1 -J 


5-Sep-94 


1 




INS 




OVHL 


94 


[18,24] 


51 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-58-2-J 


2-N0V-93 


1 




OVHL 


4% bad paint (04) 


TLI 




[10.16] . [0.9H 


52 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-68-2-J 


22-Jul-94 


1 




OVHL 


4% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10,161 . [0,9)+ 


53 


12312 


JOB 


67-8-68-3^J 


26-Oct-93 


1 




OVHL 


10% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10,161 . [0,9)+ 


54 


12312 


JP 


67-8-38-0-J 


1 6-Sep-93 


0 




INS 




OVHL 


94 


[18,24] 


55 


12312 


JP 


67-8-43-0-J 


l7-Mar-94 






OVHL 


5% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,16] , [0.9)+ 


56 


12312 


JP 


67-8-48-0-J 


11 -Jul-94 


1- 


OVHL 




1% bad paint (84) 


C 


1 -Jan-85 


[10,16] . [0.9H 


57 


12312 


JP 


67-8-53-0 -J 


1 0-Nov-94 






OVHL 


10% bad paint (84) 


WC 




[10.161 . [0.9H 


58 


12312 


JP 


67-8-53-2^1 


5-Oct-94 


1 




OVHL 


15% bad paint (84) 


OVHL 


5-Oct-94 


[10,161, [2.81 


59 


12312 


JP 


67-8-58-0 -J 


220ul-94 


1 




OVHL 


20% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,16] , [0,9h 


60 


12312 


JP 


67-8-58-1*0 


14-Mar-94 






OVHL 


50% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


61 


12312 


JP 


67-8-63-2-0 


25-JUI-94 


1 




OVHL 


30% bad paint (84) 


C 




[10,16] , [0.9H 


62 


12312 


JP 


67-8-68-0 -J 


210ul-94 


1- 




OVHL 


10% bad paint (84) 


C 


1 -Jan-85 


[10,16] JO, 9K 


63 


12312 


JP 


67-8-68-1 


17-Apr-94 






OVHL 


0% bad paint (84) 


WC 




[10.161, [0.9H 


64 


12312 


JP SERV 


67-8-195-50 


21-Jun-94 


1 




OVHL 


5% bad paint (84) 


c 




[10,16] . [0,9>+ 


65 


12312 


JPSERV 


67-8-195-60 


26- Jul-94 


1 




OVHL 


5% bad paint (84) 


OVHL 


94 


[10,161,(2,8] 


66 


12312 


JP SERV 


67-8-200-30 


19-Jun-94 


1 




OVHL 


5% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10.16] , [0.9H 


67 


12312 


JP SERV 


67-8-200-40 


19-Jun-94 


1 




OVHL 


5% bad paint (84) 


OVHL 


94 


[10,16] , [2.8] 


68 


12312 


JP SERV 


67-8-38-10 


15-Nov-93 


1 




OVHL 


10% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10,16] , [0.9)+ 


69 


12312 


JP SERV 


67-8-38-20 


7-Dec-93 


1 




OVHL 


10% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10.161 . [0.9H 


70 


12312 


JP SERV 


67-8-43-30 


120ul-94 


1 




OVHL 


6% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10.16] . [0.9H 


71 


12312 


JP SERV 


67-8-4840 


10-Nov-93 


1 




OVHL 


5% bad paint (84) 


TLI 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


72 


12312 


JPSMTK 


67-8-210-20 


28-Dec-93 


0 




OVHL 


0% bad paint 


OVHL 


94 


[10,16] , [2,8] 



62 




APPENDIX A.5. CV-67 DAMAGE & LIST CONTROL VOID HISTORY FILE 





A 1 B 1 C ( ~ 1 E | F | G 1 H 1 i | 3 | K 


2 

3 

4 

5 


OVHL « OVERHAUL (BLAST & PAINT) FLD = FLOOD (VALVE) l/R = INSPECTION & REPAIR 

PR = PIPING REPAIR C = CLEAN WC = WHEELER CLEAN 

SR = STRUCTURAL REPAIR INSP - INSPECTION 


6 
























7 


SWLIN 


SERVICE 


TANK 


LAST INS DATE 


COND 


1985 COH 


1987 TVMR 


1991 SRA 


1993 COH 


PAINTED 


INTERVALS 


8 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-7-123-2-V 


ll-Jul-94 




OVHL 


15% bad painrt/corrosion (87) 




WC 




(10,16] , [0,9)+ 


9 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-7-1 23-3-V 


20-Dec-93 


0 


OVHL 


80% bad paint (in 1984) 




SR/WC 




(10,161, [0,9] 


10 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-1 01-7-V 


19-Jul-94 




C 


3% bad paint (84) 




replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


11 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-1 01-8-V 


30-Aug-94 




C 


5% bad paint (84) 




replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


12 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-105-1 1-V 


3-Jun-94 




C 


4% bad paint (84) 




replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


13 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-115-10-V 


22- Ju 1-94 




C/PR 


1% bad paint (84) 




replace fid valve 




(0,25)+ 


14 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-1 15-9-V 


1-Jul-94 




OVHL 


50% bad paint (in 1984) 




replace fid valve 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


15 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8- 1 19- 10- V 


10-Jun-94 




OVHL 


80% bad paint (In 1984) 




replace fid valve 




[10,16] , (0,9)+ 


16 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-1 36- 12-V 


14-NOV-94 










replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


17 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-136-1 3-V 


16-Jun-94 




OVHL 






replace fid valve 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


18 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-140-7-V 


8-Feb-94 


0 


C 


6% bad paint/corrosion (87) 




OVHL 


94 


(18,24] 


19 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-149-1 1-V 


19-Jul-94 




OVHL 


2% bad paint/corrosion (87) 




replace fid valve 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


20 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8- 149- 14-V 


IO-Sep-94 




OVHL 


3% bad paint/corrosion (87) 




replace fid valve 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


21 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-1 53-7-V 


31 -Aug-94 




C 


6% bad paint/corrosion (87) 




replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


22 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8- 157- 12-V 


16-Jurv94 




C 


8% bad paint/corrosion (87) 




replace fid valve 




[ 0, 25)-*- 


23 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-162-1 0-V 


18-NOV-94 




C 






replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


24 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-162-9-V 


15-Jurv94 




C 


8% bad paint (84) 




replace fid valve 




[0,25 )+ 


25 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-167-3-V 


19-Jun-94 




C 


1% bad paint (84) 




replace fid valve 




[0,25 )+ 


26 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-167-4-V 


3-Aug-94 




OVHL 


60% bad paint (1984) 




replace fid valve 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


27 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-65-2-V 


2-May-94 




OVHL 


25% bad paint (1984) 




replace fid valve 




[10,16], [0.9)+ 


28 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-6-65- 3-V 


2-Feb-94 




OVHL 


30% bad paint (1984) 


l/R 


replace fid valve 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


29 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-68-4-V 


25-Jarv94 




C/PR 


40% bad paint (1985) 




replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


30 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-68-5-V 


2-Feb-94 




C 


30% bad paint (1985) 


l/R 


replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


31 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-73-5-V 


2-Feb-94 




C 


30% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


32 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-7 3-6-V 


23-NOV-93 


0 


OVHL 


40% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


OVHL 


94 


[10,16] , [0,9] 


33 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-78- 5-V 


2- Feb-94 




C 


15% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[0,25)+ 


34 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-7 8- 6- V 


25-Jan-94 




OVHL 




maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[10,16] , [0.9)-+ 


35 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-S-83-5-V 


4-Feb-94 




OVHL 


20% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


36 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-83-6-V 






OVHL 


40% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[10,16] , [0,9)-+ 


37 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-8 3- 5-V 


4-Feb-94 




OVHL 


30% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


38 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-88-6-V 


20-M ay-94 




C 


25% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




(0,25)+ 


39 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-92-5-V 


26-M ay-94 




OVHL 


40% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


40 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-9 2-6- V 


9-Oct-93 


1 


OVHL 


70% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


41 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-97-1 0-V 


20-M ay-94 




OVHL 


40% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


42 


12321 


VOID DC 


67-8-97-9-V 


20-M ay-94 




OVHL 


40% bad paint (1984) 


maj PR 


replace fid valve 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


43 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4- 100- 1-V 


18-Jan-95 




OVHL 




maj PR 


WC 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


44 


12321 


VOiD LC 


67-4-1 15-3-V 


17-Dec- 94 




OVHL 






WC 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


45 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4-115-6-V 


18-Dec-94 




OVHL 




l/R 


WC 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


46 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4- 123- 12-V 


24- Jan-95 




OVHL 






C 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


47 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4- 136- 12-V 


19- Jan-95 




OVHL 






PR/WC 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


48 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4-1 36-7- V 


24- Jan-95 




OVHL 






WC 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


49 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4-149-5-V 


20- Jan-95 




OVHL 




INSP 


WC 




[10,16], [0,9)+ 


50 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4-149-8-V 


17-Dec-94 




OVHL 






WC 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


51 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4-162-3-V 


20-Dec-94 




OVHL 




INSP 


WC 




[10,16] , [0,9)+ 


52 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4-162-4-V 


15-Dec-94 




C/PR 






WC 




[0,25)+ 


53 


12321 


VOID LC 


67-4-1 77-4- V 


5-Jarv-95 




C 






WC 




[0,25)+ 


54 


12321 


VOID OW/DC 


67-8-1 23-7-V 


7-Nov-94 


0 




40 % bad paint (84) 




OVHL 


94 


[18,24] 


55 


12321 


VOID OW/DC 


67-8-1 23-8-V 


20-Oct-94 


0 




40 % bad paint (84) 




OVHL 


94 


[18,24] 


56 


12321 


VOID OW/DC 


67-8-1 27-5-V 


28-Sep-93 


0 


C 


50% bad paint (84) 




OVHL 


94 


[10,16], [0,9] 


57 


12321 


VOID OW/DC 


67-8-1 27-8-V 


20-Oct-94 


0 


C 


50% bad paint (84) 




OVHL 


94 


[10,161,(0,9] 


58 


12321 


VOID OW/DC 


67-8-1 3 1-7-V 


5- Oct-93 


0 


OVHL 


INS 1987 




OVHL 


94 


[10,16], [0,9] 


59 


12321 


VOID OW/DC 


67-8- 13 1-8- V 


1 7-Oct-93 


0 


OVHL 


INS 1987 




OVHL 


94 


[10,16], [0,9] 


60 


12321 


PEAK SWB 


67-7-0- 0-V 


10-Nov-93 


0 








OVHL 


94 


[18,24] 


61 


12321 


PEAK SWB 


67-8-0-0-V 


20- Nov-93 


0 








OVHL 


94 


[18,24] 


62 


12321 


PEAK SWB 


67-8- 5- 0-V 


IO-Nov-93 


0 


INSP/SR 






OVHL 


94 


-L 18 - 24 ! . 


63 


12321 


TRUNK 


67-7-3-0-T 


20- Nov-93 


0 








OVHL 


94 


[18,24] 


64 

























63 



APPENDIX A.6. CVN-65 FUEL OIL TANK HISTORY FILE 



~ 



hue 



G| 



2 


SWLIN 


SERV 


TANK 


INS date 


COND 


INS date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


3 








last known 




previous 










4 


12311 


FO 


65-8-1 06-01 -FF 


27 -Apr-95 


1 




0 




NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


5 


12311 


FO 


65-8-1 06-1 -FF 




1 


12-Oct-91 


0 




NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


6 


12311 


FO 


65-8-1 06-4-FF 


27-Apr-95 


1 


13-Oct-91 


0 




NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


7 


12311 


FO 


65-8-1 08-2-FF 


27-Apr-95 


1 


23-Oct-91 


0 




NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


8 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-102-1 Q-FF 


26-Apr-95 


1 


3-Jun-92 


0 




94 Vree land's matirx 


[21,301 


9 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-102-7-FF 


8-Jun-95 


1 


13-Aug-91 


1- 


1 -Jan-85 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0.1 0)+ 


10 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 02-8-FF 


26-Apr-95 


1 


3-Jun-92 


0 




94 Vreeland’s matirx 


[21 ,30] 


11 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 02- 9-FF 


8-Jun-95 


1 


13-Aug-91 


1- 


1985 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


12 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 06-1 2-FF 


10-Apr-95 


1 


14-Aug-91 


0 




NNS 1994 


[21 ,30] 


13 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 06-9-FF 


10-M ay-95 


1 


15-Aug-91 


1 


1 -Jan-85 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,1 0)+ 


14 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 11-10-FF 


11 -Apr-95 


1 


15-Aug-91 


1 






[0,34)+ 


15 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-11 1-7-FF 


8-Jun-95 


1 


13-Aug-91 


1 


1985 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


16 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-11 1-8-FF 


1 1 -Apr-95 


1 


3-Jun-92 








[0,34)+ 


17 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-11 1-9-FF 


9- May-95 


1 


13-Aug-91 


1 


1985 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


18 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 38-1 3- FF 


6- Apr-95 


1 


26-Jun-91 


1 


1986 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


19 


12311 


FOB 


65-8- 138-1 4-FF 


28-Apr-95 


1 


25-Mar-91 


1 






[0,34)+ 


20 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 43-1 0-FF 


31 -May-95 


1 


27- May-91 


1 






[0,34)+ 


21 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 43-1 1-FF 


12-Apr-95 


1 


15-Aug-91 


1 


1986 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


22 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-143- 8-FF 


2-May-95 


1 


30-M ay-91 


1- 




94 Vreeland’s matirx 


[21.301 


23 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 43-9-FF 


12-Apr-95 


1 


15-Aug-91 


1 


1986 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


24 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 48-1 0-FF 


11 -Apr-95 


1 


20-Aug-91 


1 






[0,34)+ 


25 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 48-8-FF 


2-May-95 


1 


4-Jun-92 


0 




94 Vreeland's matirx 


[21,30] 


26 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 48- 9-FF 


12-Apr-95 


1 


19-Aug-91 


1 


1986 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


27 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 52-12-FF 


6- Apr-95 


1 


4-Jun-92 








[0,34)+ 


28 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 52-1 3-FF 


5-May-95 


1 


2-Jun-92 


1 


1 -Jan-86 


87 RSM, TVDB 


[11,231, [0,10)+ 


29 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 52-1 4-FF 


19-Apr-95 


1 


28-Mar-91 


1 






[0,34)+ 


30 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 57-1 4-FF 


20-Apr-95 


1 


19-Jul-92 


0 




NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


31 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-1 5 7-9-FF 


5-May-95 


1 


22 -Oct-91 


1 


1 -Jan-86 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,1 0)+ 


32 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-97-1 0-FF 


26-Apr-95 


1 


1 9-Sep-90 


0 




94 Vreeland’s matirx 


[21,30] 


33 


12311 


FOB 


65-8-97-1 1-FF 


9- May-95 


1 


8-Jul-91 


0 


1985 


87 RSM 


[11,23], ro,io)+ 


34 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8-1 06-1 1-FF 


10-M ay- 95 


1 


13-Aug-91 


1 


1985 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,1 0)+ 


35 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8-1 06-1 4-FF 


11 -Apr-95 


1 


19-Jul-92 


0 




NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


36 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8-138-1 5-FF 


6- Apr-95 


1 


15-Aug-91 


1 


1986 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


37 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8-1 38-1 6-FF 


28 -Apr-95 


1 


25-Mar-91 


1- 




94 Vreeland's matirx 


. [21_,30] 


38 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8-1 49-1-FF 


19-Apr-95 


1 


19-Aug-91 


1 


1986 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


39 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8-1 52-1 1-FF 


19-Apr-95 


1 


9-Jun-92 


1 


1 - Jan-86 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,1 0)+ 


40 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8-157-1 1-FF 


5- May-95 


1 


22-Oct-91 


1 


1 -Jan-86 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 


41 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8-1 57-1 2-FF 


20-Apr-95 


1 


4-Jun-92 


0 




NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


42 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8- 97 -8-FF 


26-Apr-95 


1 


24-Oct-91 


0 




94 Vreeland’s matirx 


[21,30] 


43 


12311 


FOOB 


65-8-97-9-FF 


17-May-95 


1 


9-Jul-91 


1 


1985 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,1 0)+ 


44 


12311 


SUMP 


65-8-1 15-4-F 






7-Aug-9l 


0 


1979, 1994 


painted NNS 1994 


ni.i8i.ro.ioi 


45 


12311 


SUMP 


65-8-92-3-F 






6-Oct-91 


0 


1979, 1994 


painted NNS 1994 


[11, 181, [0,10] 


46 


12317 


COST 


65-8-96-3-FF 


12-Jun-95 


1 


1-Jun-92 


0 




NNS 1994 


[21.30] 


47 


12317 


COST 


65-8-1 48-7-FF 


12-Apr-95 


1 


18-Sep-91 




1986 


87 RSM 


[11,23], [0,10)+ 



48 



12317 COST 65-8-1 62-12-FF 



95 



9- Aug-92 1- 



al ready selected for overhaul by SF 



[21,30] 



64 




APPENDIX A.7. CVN-65 JP-5 TANK HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


1 


SWLIN 


SERV 


TANK 


INS date 


COND 


INS date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


2 








last known 




previous 










3 


12312 


COST 


65-8-204-2-J 




0 


16-Sep-91 


1 


1982 


2 failures (1 982,1995) already selected by SF 


[11,18],(10,13] 


4 


12312 


COST 


65-8-46-1-J 






1-Jun-92 


1 






(0,30)+ 


5 


12312 


COST 


65-8-4 6-2-J 






30-Sep-91 


1 


1 -Jan-89 


assume ok@ 79 COH 


(21,28) 


6 


12312 


COST 


65-8-57-3-J 






1 1-Oct-91 


1- 


1982 


>9 (1991-1982) now at 13*** 


[11,181,[0,9)+ 


7 


12312 


JB 


65-5-205-5- J 






92 


0 




per Jeff Wilcox, Nuclear qualified ADCA; 


[21,30] 


8 


12312 


JB 


65-5-2 10-1-J 






92 


0 




These 7th deck JB tanks are part of the 


[21,30] 


9 


12312 


JB 


65-6-1 86-8- J 






92 


0 




secondary shield. They were sea water 


[21,30] 


10 


12312 


JB 


65-7- 10 1-0- J 






92 


0 




compensated prior to 1992. They were overhauled 


[21,30] 


11 


12312 


JB 


65-7- 10 1-2- J 






92 


0 




and converted to fresh water tanks by NAVSEA08 


[21,30] 


12 


12312 


JB 


65-7-1 06-2-J 






28-May-92 


0 




shipalt (NR) 1990 COH. 


[21,30] 


13 


12312 


JB 


65-7-114-1-J 






28-May-92 


0 






[21,301 


14 


12312 


JB 


65-7- 11 5-0- J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


15 


12312 


JB 


65-7-11 5- 1-J 






92 


0 




ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


16 


12312 


JB 


65-7-121-1-J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


17 


12312 


JB 


65-7-1 24-0- J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


18 


12312 


JB 


65-7-124-1-J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


19 


12312 


JB 


65-7-129-1-J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


20 


12312 


JB 


65-7- 13 7-2- J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


21 


12312 


JB 


65-7-1 38-0- J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


22 


12312 


JB 


65-7-1 38-4- J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


23 


12312 


JB 


65-7-1 44-2- J 






2-Jun-92 


0 






[21,30] 


24 


12312 


JB 


65-7-147-0-J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


25 


12312 


JB 


65-7- 147- 2-J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


26 


12312 


JB 


65-7-15 1-3-J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


27 


12312 


JB 


65-7-1 52-0- J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


28 


12312 


JB 


65-7-1 52-1-J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


29 


12312 


JB 


65-7- 159- 1-J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


30 


12312 


JB 


65-7-1 62-0- J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


31 


12312 


JB 


65-7- 162- 1-J 






92 


0 






[21,30] 


32 


12312 


JB 


65-7-21 5-1-J 






1 1-Oct-91 


0 


1982 


not part of secondary shield 


[1 1, 18].[0, 10] 


33 


12312 


JB 


65-7-92-0-J 






assume 92 


0 






[21,30] 


34 


12312 


JB 


65-7-92-4-J 






assume 92 


0 






[21,30] 


35 


12312 


JB 


65-7-98-2-J 






assume 92 


0 






[21,30] 


36 


12312 


1 . ^ _ | 


65-8- 162-1 1-J 






4-Sep-92 


1 


1 -Jan-86 


ok @ 79 COH 


[19,24],[0,6)+ 


37 


12S12 




65-3-1 62- 14-J 


lO-Jun-92 






already selected by SF, ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


38 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 62-9- J 






4-Sep-92 


1 


1-Jarv86 


ok @ 79 COH 


[19,24],[0,6>+ 


39 


12312 


JB 


65-8- 163- 2-J 






20-Sep-91 


1- 






(0,30)+ 


40 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 67-1 2-J 






13-Sep-91 


1- 


1982 




[11,18], [0,9)+ 


41 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 67-9- J 






30-Sep-91 


0 


1986 


ok @ 79 COH 


[19,24] 


42 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 71-5-J 






15-Aug-91 


1 


1 -Jan-85 


Ok @ 79 COH 


[19,241,(0,6)+- 


43 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 7 1-6-J 






1 0-Jun-92 




1982 




[11,18] 


44 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 71-7-J 






1 -Jan-86 


1 


1986 


Ok @ 79 COH 


[19,24],[0,6)+ 


45 


12312 


JB 


65-8-171-8-J 






10-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


48 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 76-9- J 






IO-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


47 


12312 


JB 


65-8-181-3-J 






11-Jun-92 




1982 


**• 


[11.18] 


48 


12312 


JB 


65-8-181-4-J 






1 1-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


49 


12312 


JB 


65-8-181-5-J 






1 1-Jun-92 




1982 




[11,181 


50 


12312 


JB 


65-8-181-6-J 






11-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


51 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 86-7- J 






23- Sep- 91 


1 






(0,30)+ 


52 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 86-8- J 






28-Oct-91 


0 




— , ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


53 


12312 


JB 


65-8-191-1-J 






16-Sep-91 


1- 


1982 




[11,18], [0, 10)+ 


54 


12312 


JB 


65-8-1 91 -2-J 






17-Sep-91 


0 




— , ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


55 


12312 


JB 


65-8-205-1 1-J 






13-Sep-91 


1 






(0,30)+ 


56 


12312 


JB 


65-8-21 0-3- J 






1 1-Jurv92 








(0,30)+ 


57 


12312 


JB 


65-8-21 5-5- J 






13-Sep-91 


1- 


1982 




[11,18], [0,10)+ 


58 


12312 


JB 


65-8-21 5-7-J 






19-Sep-91 


1 


1982 




[11,18], [0,10>+ 


59 


12312 


JB 


65-8-22-0-J 






29-M ay-92 


1 


1989 


ok @ 79 COH 


[21,28] 


60 


12312 


JB 


65-8-47-5-J 






28-Jun-92 


1- 






(0,30)+ 


81 


12312 


JB 


65-8-47-6-J 






24-Jur>-92 


1 


1/1/1989,1982 




[11,18], [0,8] 


62 


“1231 5" 


JB 


65-8-52-7-J 






26-Sep-91 


0 


1982 




[11,18], [0,10] 


63 


12312 


JB 


65-8-52-8-J 






24-Jurv92 


1 


1982 




[11,18], (0,10)+- 


64 


12312 


JB 


65-8-57-4-J 






1 -Oct-91 


1 


1-Jan-89 


Ok @79 COH 


[21,28] 


65 


12312 


JB 


65-8-62-5-J 






lO-Jul-92 


1 






(0,30)+ 


66 


12312 


JB 


65-8-62-6-J 






1 -Jan-89 


1 






(0,30)+ 


67 


12312 


JB 


65-8-62-7-J 






12-Aug-92 


1 






(0,30)+ 


68 


12312 


JB 


65-8-62-8-J 






30-Sep-91 


1 






(0,30)+ 


89 


12312 


JB 


65-8-67-5-J 






29-Jul-92 


1 






(0,30)+ 


70 


12312 


JB 


65-8-67-6-J 






29- Ju 1-92 


1 


1982 




[11,18], [0,10)+- 


71 


12312 


JB 


65-8-72- 10-J 


12-Jur>-95 


1- 


5-Aug-92 


1 


l-Jan-89 


two failures (1989,1995) 


[21, 28], [3, 7] 


72 


12312 1 


JB 1 


65-8-72-5-J 1 


5-Jun-95 I 


1 


7-Aug-92 1 


1 1 






(0,30)+ 


73 


12312 | 


JB 


65-8-72-7-J | 


5-Jun-95 | 


1 | 


7-Aug-92 | 


JJ 






(0,30)+ 



65 



APPENDIX A.7. CVN-65 JP-5 TANK HISTORY FITE 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


74 


SWLIN 


SERV 


TANK 


INS date 


COND 


INS date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


75 








last known 




previous 










76 


12312 


JB 


S5-8-72-8-J 


7-Jun-96 


1- 


64tog-92 


1 


1982 


two failles (1982,1995) 


(11,181, [0.13] 


77 


12312 


JB 


65-8-77-5-J 


S-Jun-95 


1 


26-Sep-91 


1- 






(0,30)+ 


78 


12312 


JB 


65-8-77-7-J 






24-Oct-91 


0 




— * between COH's 


(21,301 


79 


12312 


JB 


65-8-77-8-J 






18-Jun-91 


0 




— between COH's 


(21,301 


80 


12312 


JB 


65-8-82- 10- J 


1-Jun-95 


1- 


20-Aug-9l 


1- 






(0,30)+ 


81 


12312 


JB 


65-8-82-1 1-J 






30- Sep- 91 


1- 






(0,30)+ 


82 


12312 


JB 


65-8-82-12-J 


1-Jurv95 


1- 


1&Oct-91 


o 




already selected by SF 


[21,30} 


83 


123121 JB 


65-8-82-9-J 


l 


30-Sep-91 


fi: 


1 


1 


1 <olo)i 


84 


12312 


JB 


65-8-87-S-J 


6-Jun-95 


1?? 


6-Sep-91 


0 




already selected by SF 


(21,30} 


85 


12312 


JB 


65-8-87-6-J 


l-Jun-95 


1- 


17-Oct-91 


0 




already selected by SF 


(21,30} 


86 


12312 


JB 


65-8-92-1 3- J 






9-Sep-91 


1 


1983 




[11,221, (0,8)+ 


87 


12312 


JB 


65-8-92-1 4- J 






10-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


88 


12312 


JB 


65-8-92-1 5- J 






10-Jun-92 








(0.30)+ 


89 


12312 


JB 


65-8-92-1 6- J 






24-Oct-91 


1- 






(0.30)+ 


90 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-1 67- 10-J 


7-Apr-95 


1- 


13-Sep-91 


1- 


1982 


rt censure @ 13 


(11,181, (0,13)+ 


91 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-167-7-J 


11 -Apr-95 


1- 


30-Sep-91 


0 


1986 


two failures (1986,1995) 


[19,251, [0.101 


92 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-1 76-1CKI 






10-Jun-92 








(0,30>+ 


93 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-176-11-J 


17-May-95 


1- 


10-Jun-92 




• 


already selected by SF 


[21,30} 


94 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-1 76-12-J 


21 -Apr-95 


1 


10-Jun-92 


I 1- 


1983 


rt censure @ 13 


[11,221, [0,1 3>+ 


95 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-1 86-5- J 


25- Apr-95 


1 


13-Sep-91 








[0,34)+ 


96 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-1 86-8- J 


10-May-95 


1- 


I9^ep-91 


1- 




already selected by SF 


[21,30} 


97 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-191-3-J 


5-Apr-95 


1- 


23-Sep-91 


1 ! 






[0,3-4)+ 


98 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-1 9 1-4-J 


17- May-95 


1 


1 9- Jul-92 


0 




already selected by SF 


[21,30] 


99 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-205- 13-J 


7-Apr-95 


1 


11-Jun-92 


1 


1982 


rt censure @ 13 


[11,18], [0,13}+ 


100 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-27-0-J 






29-May-92 


1 


1 -Jan-89 


ok @ 79 COH 


[21,28] 


101 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-57-5-J 






26-Sep-91 


1- 


1982 


*** 


[11,18], [0,13)+ 


102 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-57-6-J 






24-Jurv92 


1 


1/1/1989,1982 


two failures (1989, 1982)*** 


[11.18], [0,7] 


103 


12312 


JOB 


65-8- 6 7-3- J 






5-Aug-92 


1 






(0,30)+ 


104 


12312 


JOB 


65-S-67-4-J 






30-Sep-91 


1 


1/1/1989, 1983 


two failures (1983, 1989)*** 


[11.22], [0,7] 


105 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-77-6-J 






18-Jun-91 


1 - 






(0,30)+ 


106 


12312 


JOB 


65-8-87- 7-J 


10- Apr- 95 




15-Oct-91 


1 


already selected by SF 


[30,34] 


107 


12312 


JOB 


66-8-37-8-J 


S-Apr-95 


0 


15-Oct-91 


0 




already selected by SF 


[21,301 


108 


12312 


JP 


65* 5-205- 5-J 






174Dct-91 


~ 1 - 






(0,30>+ 


109 


12312 


JP 


65-8- 167- 1-J 






IO-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


110 


12312 


JP 


65-8-1 67-2- J 






10-Jurv92 








(0,30)+ 


111 


12312 


JP 


65-8-1 67-4- J 






10-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


112 


12312 


JP 


65-8-1 69-0- J 






IO-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


113 


12312 


JP 


65-8-176-1-J 






IO-Jun-92 


1 






(0,30)+ 


114 


12312 


JP 


65-8-1 76-2-J 






10-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


115 


12312 


JP 


65-8-1 76-3- J 






IO-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


116 


12312 


JP 


65-8-1 76-4- J 






13-Sep-91 


1 






(0,30)+ 


117 


12312 


JP 


65-8- 186- 1-J 






1 1-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


118 


12312 


JP 


65-8-1 86-2- J 






1 1-Jun-92 




1982 


*** 


[11.18] 


119 


12312 


JP 


65-8-1 86-3- J 






1 1-Jun-92 




1982 


*** 


[11.18] 


120 


12312 


JP 


65-8-1 8 6-4-J 






1 1-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


121 


12312 


JP 


65-8-32-0-J 






23-Sep-91 


1 


1982 


*** 


[11,18], [0,10)+ 


122 


12312 


JP 


65-8-37-0- J 






23-Sep-91 


1 


1982 


*** 


[11,18], [0,10)+ 


123 


12312 


JP 


65-8-42-0-J 






23-Jun-92 




1983 


— 


[11.22] 


124 


12312 


JP 


65-8-52- 1-J 






21 -Jul-92 


1 


1982 




[11,18], [0,10)* 


125 


12312 


JP 


65-8-52-2-J 






24-Jun-92 


1- 


1982 


*** 


[11,18], [0,10)* 


126 


12312 


JP 


65-8-62- 1-J 






l-Oct-91 


0 


1982 


two failures (1982, 1991)*** 


[11,18], [0,10] 


127 


12312 


JP 


65-8-62-2-J 






28- Oct-91 


0 


1982 


two failures (1982, 1991)*** 


[11,18], [0,10] 


128 


12312 


JP 


65-8-7 2-2- J 






IO-Aug-92 


0 


1982 


two failures (1982, 1991)*** 


[11,18], [0,10] 


129 


12312 


JP~ 


658-7SD-J 


1-Jun-95 


1?7 


12-Aug-92 


' "tl 




already selected by SF 


[28,32] 


130 


12312 


JP 


65-8-79- 1-J 






24-Oct-91 








(0,30)+ 


131 


12312 


JP 


65-8-82- 1-J 






10-Aug-92 


1 






(0,30)+ 


132 


12312 


JP 


65-8-82-2-J 


1994 




8- Jul-92 


0 


1994 


painted NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


133 


12312 


JP 


65-8-82-3-J 


31-May-95 


1-. ... 


5-Aug-92 


... . 




already selected by SF 


[28,32] 


134 


12312 


JP 


65-8-82-4-J 






IO-Aug-92 


1 




suspended at 20 (1991) 


(0,30)+ 


135 


12312 


JP cost 


65-8- 11 9-4- J 






IO-Jun-92 


1 


1986 




[19,24], [0,6)+ 


136 


12312 


JP FO 


65-8-1 29-1-J 


1994 








1994 


painted NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


137 


12312 


JP FO 


65-8-1 29-2-J 










1982 


— * 


[11.18] 


138 


12312 


JP FO 


65-8-1 30-2- J 


1994 




2-Jurv92 




1994 


painted NNS 1994 


[21,30] 


139 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 15-1 1-J 






IO-Jun-92 


0 


1 -Jan-85 


two failures (1985, 1991), painted NNS 1994 


[19,23], [0,7] 


140 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 15- 13-J 






IO-Jun-92 


0 


1 -Jan-85 


two failures (1985, 1991), painted NNS 1994 


[19,23], [0,7] 


141 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-115-14-J 






IO-Jun-92 




1983 


— 


[11,22] 


142 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 15-16-J 






19-Sep-91 


1 






(0.30)+ 


143 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 20- 1CKJ 






19-Sep-91 


1 






(0,30)+ 


144 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-125-10-J 






19-Sep-91 


1 






(0,30)+ 


145 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 25-7- J 






IO-Jun-92 


0 


1 -Jan-85 


two failures (1985, 1991), painted NNS 1994 


[19,23], [0.7] 


146 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 29-9- J 






23-Sep-91 




1 -Jan-85 




Ll£23] 



66 




APPENDIX A.7. CVN-65 JP-5 TANK HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


147 


SWLIN 


SERV 


TANK 


INS date 


COND 


INS date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


148 








last known 




previous 










149 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8- 1 30- 1 CKJ 






10-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


150 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 34-1 0-J 






20-Sep-91 


1 






(0,30)+ 


151 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 34-7- J 






10-Jun-92 




1982 


*** 


(11,18] 


152 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 34-8- J 






27-Sep-91 


1 






(0,30)+ 


153 


12312 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 34-9- J 






10-Jun-92 








(0,30)+ 


154 


12312 


JPFOOB 


65-8-1 20- 12-J 


25-May-95 


1 


19-Sep-91 


1 




rt censured @ 32 


(0,34)+ 


155 


12312 


JPFOOB 


6S-8-120-7-J 


25-May-95 


1 


1 0- Jun-92 


0 


1985 


two failures (1985, 1991), painted NNS 1994 


(19.23). [0,7] 


156 


12312 


JPFOOB 


65-8-1 20- 9-J 






1 -Jan-85 


1 


l-Jarv-85 


two failures (1985, 1991 ). painted NNS 1994 


(19.231. 10.7) 


157 


12312 


JPFOOB 


65-8-1 25-8- J 


4-Apr-95 


1 


19-Sep-91 


1 




rt censured @ 32 


(0,34)+ 


158 


12312 


JP FOOB 


65-8-129-1 1-J 


6-Apf-95 


0 


IO-Jun-92 




1965 


two faBures (1985,1995) already selected by SF 


[19,23], [0,10] 


159 


12312 


JPFOOB 


65-8-130-12-0 


21-Apr-95 


177 






• M&n 


already selected by SF 


[30.34] 


160 


12312 


JP5 SUMP 


65-8-1 38-5-F 










1982, 1994 


painted NNS 1994 


[11,18], [0,10] 


161 


12312 


JP5 SUMP 


65-8-152-2-F 










1982, 1994 


painted NNS 1994 


[11,18], [0,10] 


162 


12317 


COST 


65-8-204- 1-J 


13-Jun-95 


1 


16-Sep-91 


0 


1982 


2 failures (1982,1991) 


[11,18], [0,10] 


163 


12321 


JP FOB 


65-8-1 25-9- J 






20-Sep-9l 


1 


1 -Jan-85 




[19,23], [0,6)+ 


164 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8-1 95-10-J 






190ul-92 


0 


painted NNS 1994 


Ok @ 87 DSRA 


[26,30] 


165 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8-195-110 






19-JUI-92 


0 


painted NNS 1994 


Ok @ 87 DSRA 


[26,30] 


166 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8-195-120 


5-Apf-95 


1 


19-JUI-92 


0 


painted NNS 1994 


Ok @ 87 DSRA 


[26,30] 


167 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8- 195- 9- J 






19-JUI-92 


0 


1/1/1985, 1994 




[19,23], [0,8] 


168 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8-200- 3-J 


5-Apf-95 


1 


19-JUI-92 


0 


painted NNS 1994 


Ok @ 87 DSRA 


[26.30] 


169 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8-200-40 






19-JUI-92 


0 


1983, 1994 




[11 ,21 ).[0, 1 0] 


170 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8-200-50 






19014-92 


0 


painted NNS 1994 


already selected by SF 


(26.30] 


171 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8-200-6-J 






19-JUI-92 


0 


painted NNS 1994 


Ok @ 87 DSRA 


[26,30] 


172 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8-42-10 


3-Apr-95 


1 






8-Jul-91 


Ok @ 87 DSRA 


[26,30] 


173 


12312 


JP SERV 


65-8-42-20 






1 -Jun-92 


1 




Ok @ 87 DSRA 


[26,30] 


174 


12312 


JP SERV 


65-8-42-3-J 






1 -Jun-92 


1 


1982, 10/20/1991 




[11,181.(0.9] 


175 


12312 


JPSERV 


65-8-47-30 






280urv92 


1- 




already selected by SF 


[26,30] 


176 


12312 j 


f JP SERV I 65-8-47-4-J 1 


[ 1 


L j 


[ 24- Jun-92 


nrji 


\ 1/1/1989 1983 1 


1 [11.211(0.7! 


177 


12312 


JPSERV 


6543-52-5-J 


4-Apr-95 




IOOld-92 


1 


1982 


already selected by SF 


[11,18], [0,10] 


178 


12312 1 JPSERV i 


I 65-8-52-60 | 


\ 


f 1 -Oct-91 1 


h i i 


| 1/1/1989 1982 


intermediate L = 7yrs 


1 M1.19U0.81 



67 



APPENDIX A.8. CVN-65 DAMAGE & LIST CONTROL VOID HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


1 


SWLIN 


SERVICE 


TANK 


INS date 


COND 


INS date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


2 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-120-11-V 






1 -Jan-65 




1 -Jan-85 


dont assume(poss id in 79 coh) 


[0.231 


3 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 143-1 2- V 






25- May-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


4 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-143- 6-V 






24-Oct-91 


0 




paint in vary poor condition (vraaimnd) 


[21.30] 


5 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-1 57- 10- V 






1 9-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


[21.30] 


6 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-1 57-1 3-V 






1 -Jan-86 




1 -Jan-86 




[0.23] 


7 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 57-1 6-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


[21.30] 


8 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-1 57-5-V 






26- Apr- 91 


1- 


1986 




[0.23] 


9 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 57-7-V 






1 2-Jun-92 


1- 


1 -Jan-66 




[0.23] 


10 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-1 57-6- V 


17-May-95 


1 


19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 1982 




[0.18], [0.10] 


11 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 62-1 0-V 






4-Jun-91 


0 




assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 30] 


12 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-162-13-V 






3-Jun-91 


1- 


1986 




[0,241 . [0.5)+ 


13 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 162-1 6-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 




assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


14 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-1 62-7-V 






6-Jul-91 


1- 


1986 




[0.23] 


15 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 162- 6-V 






23-May-91 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


16 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-167-11-V 






18- Apr- 91 


0 


1986 




[0.23] 


17 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-1 67-1 4-V 






l9-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


18 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 67-3- V 






20-Jun-91 


1 


1986 




[0,23], [0,5)+ 


19 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 67-5-V 






17-Jun-91 


1- 


1966 




[0,23], [0.5)+ 


20 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-1 67-6- V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


Pi, 30] 


21 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 67-6-V 


3- May-95 


1 


19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


22 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-171-1-V 






1 -Jan-66 


0 


1986. 1994 




[0.231 


23 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-17 1-2-V 








0 


1979, 1994 




[0.18], [0,10] 


24 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 171-1 0-V 


3- May- 95 


1 


19-JuI-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


25 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 71 -3-V 






16-Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0,24], [0,5)+ 


26 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-171-4-V 


27-Apr-95 


1 


19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21.30] 


27 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-1 71 -9-V 






15-Aug-91 




1986 




10.23] 


28 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 76-1 3-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


29 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 76-1 4-V 


26-Apr-95 


1 


19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


30 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-176- 5-V 






1 9-Jul-92 


0 


1994 


assume ok © 79 COH 


pi ,30] 


31 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-176- 6-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


PI. 30] 


32 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 176 7-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 30] 


33 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-1 76 8-V 






5-Sep-91 


1 


1982 




[0.18] . [0.10)+ 


34 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-1 81 -1-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


35 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-3-1 81 -2-V 


3-May-OS 


0 


14-Sep-91 


0 


1991 (SF) 


riraacty ^alactad by SF. wrong {Mint 


PI .30] 


36 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 181 -7-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 30] 


37 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 181 -6-V 


26- Apr- 95 


1 


19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


38 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-166-10-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


39 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 186- 9-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


40 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 191 -5-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI ,30] 


41 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 191 -6-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


42 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 195-1 3-V 






19-JUI-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


43 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-195-14-V 


25-Apr-95 


0 


11 -Sep-91 


0 




assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .301 


44 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 200- 6-V 


25-Apr-95 


1- 


9-Sep-91 


0 


3-Oct-91 (SF) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 30] 


45 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-42-6V 






26-Jun-92 


1 


1 -Jan-69 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 28] . [0. 3)+ 


46 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-47- 7-V 






6-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


47 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-47-8-V 






22-Jun-92 


1 


1 -Jan-69 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 28] . [0. 3)+ 


48 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-52-1 0-V 






24-Jun-92 


1 


1 -Jan-69 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 28] . [0.3)+ 


49 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 52-3- V 






16-Aug-91 


1 


1981 




[0,18] . [0,10)+ 


50 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-52-4-V 


25-Apr-95 


1 


16-Aug-91 


1 


1981 




[0,18] . [0.10)+ 


51 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-52-9-V 






6-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


52 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-57-1 -V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


53 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-57-2-V 






16-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


54 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 57-7-V 






19- Aug-91 


1 






[0.30)+ 


55 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 57 -8-V 






24-Jun-92 


1 






[0.30)+ 


56 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 62- 3-V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


57 


12321 


VOID DC 


6 5-6- 62-4- V 






17-Jul-91 




1981 




[0.18] 


58 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-64- 1-V 






19-Aug-91 


0 




assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 30] 


59 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 64- 2-V 






29-Jul-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


60 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-67-1 -V 






5-Aug-92 


1 


1981 




[0.18] , [0,10)+ 


61 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-67- 2-V 






5-Aug-92 


1 


1981 




[0.18] . [0.10)+ 


62 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 67-7 -V 






6-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


63 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 67-6-V 






29-Jul-92 


1 


1 -Jan-69 


assume ok © 79 COH 


[21. 28] . [0,3)+ 


64 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-72-1 -V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 1983 




[0,22] . [0,10] 


65 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-72-1 2-V 






6-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 30] 


66 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-72-3-V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


67 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6- 72 -4-V 






5-Aug-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


68 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-72-6-V 






5-Auq-92 


1- 


1 -Feb-92 (SF) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


69 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-72-9-V 






6-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


70 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-77-1 -V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


71 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-77-10-V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI .30] 


72 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-6-77-2-V 






14-Aug-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


73 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 77 -3-V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok © 79 COH 


PI. 30] 



68 




APPENDIX A.8. CVN-65 DAMAGE & LIST CONTROL VOID HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


74 


SWLIN 


SERVICE 


TANK 


INS date 


COND 


INS date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


75 


12321 


VOID DC 


65577-4-V 






14-Aug-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


76 


12321 


VOID DC 


65577-9-V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


77 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-82-1 5V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


78 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-82- 14-V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok 79 COH 


[21,30] 


79 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-82- 5-V 






8-Ju!-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


80 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-82-6-V 






5Mar-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


81 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-82-7-V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


82 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-82-8-V 






5Mar-91 


0 






[21,30] 


83 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-87-1 -V 






IO-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok 79 COH 


[21,30] 


84 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-87- 10-V 






15Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


85 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-87-2-V 






10-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


86 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 87- 3-V 






15Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,301 


87 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 87- 4- V 






15Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,301 


88 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8- 87-9- V 






10-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


89 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-92- 10-V 






15Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,301 


90 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-92-1 2- V 






IO-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


91 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-92-1 8-V 






10-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


92 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-97-1 2-V 






1 1 -Jun-92 




1 -Jan-79 




[0,18] 


93 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-97-4-V 


5May-95 


1 


ll-Jun-92 




1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


94 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-97-6-V 






1 50ct-91 


1- 






[0,30) + 


95 


12321 


VOID DC 


65-8-97- 7-V 






12-Aug-92 


1 


1985 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 


96 


12313 


PEAK SWB 


65-8-5-0-W 






25 May-92 


0 


1991, 1975 


like 5C-0-W 


[0,14] , [0,16] 


97 


12313 


PEAK SWB 


65-8- c-aw 


1 5May-95 


1 


25May-92 


0 


1991, 1/1979, 1968 


more like floodable void 


[0,7] , [0,11], [0,10] 


98 


12321 


DC/OW 


65-8-134-1 1-W 










1 -Jan-79 




[0,181 


99 


12321 


DC/OW 


65-8-134-1 2-V 










1 -Jan-79 




[0,18] 


100 


12321 


DC/OW 


65-8-1 34- 3-W 










1 -Jan-79 




[0,18] 


101 


12321 


DC/OW 


65-8-1 34- 4-W 










1-Jan-79 




[0,18] 


102 


12321 


DC/OW 


65-8-1 34-5W 










1 -Jan-79 




[0,18] 


103 


12321 


DC/OW 


6 5-8- 134- 6- W 










1 -Jan-79 




[0,18] _____ 


104 


12321 


FW BLST 


65-8-1150-W 






25May-92 




1979, 1991 


Reactor space 


[0,18], [0,10] 


105 


12321 


FWBLST 


658-1151-W 






25May-92 




1979, 1991 


Reactor space 


[0,18], [0,10] 


106 


12321 


FW BLST 


65-8-1 38- 0-W 






25May-92 




1991 


Reactor space 


[21.30] 


107 


12321 


FWBLST 


658- 138- 4-W 






25May-92 




1979, 1991 


Reactor space 


[0,18], [0,10] 


108 


12321 


FWBLST 


658-1 52-0-W 






25May-92 




1979, 1991 


Reactor space 


[0,181, [0,10] 


109 


12321 


FWBLST 


65-8-152-1 -W 






25May-92 




1979, 1991 


Reactor space 


[0,18], [0,10] 


110 


12321 


FWBLST 


65-8-92- 0-W 






25May-92 




1979, 1991 


Reactor space 


[0,18], [0,10] 


111 


12321 


FWBLST 


65-8-92- 4-W 






25May-92 




1979, 1991 


Reactor space 


[0,18], [0,10] 


112 


12313 


FWBLST 


65-8-1150-W 










1979 


Reactor space 


[0,18] 


113 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-102-1 1-V 






15Aug-91 


0 


2-Jan85 




[0.231. [0,71 


114 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-102-12-V 






11 -Jun-92 


1 


1982 




TO, 181.r0, 10)+ 


115 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-102-5V 






15Aug-91 


1 


1985 




[0,23], [0,7) + 


116 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-1 02-5V 






10-Jul-91 


1 


1 -Jan 85 




[0,23], [0,7)+ 


117 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-102-5V 






150ct-91 


0 




assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


118 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-10510-V 


17-May-95 


1 


IO-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


119 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65510515V 






25Jul-91 


1- 


1985 




[0,23], [0,6) + 


120 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65510515V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


121 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-1055V 






IO-Jul-92 


0 


1/1/1985 




[0,23] . [0.7] 


122 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-1057-V 






10-Aug-92 


1 - 


1985 




[0,23], [0,6)+ 


123 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-1 055V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1/1/1979, 1994 




[0,18]. [0,101 


124 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


658-111-11-V 






1 2-Aug-92 


1 


1985 




[0,23], [0,6)+ 


125 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-51 11-1 2-V 






11 -Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


126 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


655111-5V 






1-Jan85 


1 


1-Jan-85 




[0,23], [0,6)+ 


127 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-51 11 -4-V 


5May-95 


1 


25May-92 


1 


1/1/1979 




[0,181 , [0,10)+ 


128 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-511 1-5V 






12- Aug-92 


1 


1-Jan85 




[0,231 . [0.7)+ 


129 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


655111-5V 






11 -Jun-92 


1- 






[0,30)-*- 


130 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-51 1515V 






1 -Mar-91 


1 - 






[0,30)+ 


131 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551 151 2-V 






12-Aug-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


132 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65511515V 






1 -Jan-85 




1 -Jan-85 




[0.23] 


133 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65511515V 














[0,30)+ 


134 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551157-V 






1-Jan85 




1-Jan85 




[0.23] 


135 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551159-V 






1-Jan85 




1 -Jan-85 


vp cond (v reeland) 


(0-23) ■ IP.73 


136 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551 251 4-V 






5May-91 


1 - 






[0,30)+ 


137 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551255V 






8-Jul-92 


1 


1-Jan-85 




[0.23] , (0,7)+. 


138 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551255V 






11 -Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


139 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551255V 






1 2-Aug-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


140 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65512511-V 






1 2-Aug-92 


1 


1985 




[0,23] . [0,7)+ 


141 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551 251 2-V 






1 4-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


142 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551255V 






8-Jul-92 


1 


1 -Jan-85 




[0,23] . [0,7)+ 


143 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551254-V 






1 -Mar-91 


1 


1-Jan-85 




[0,23] , [0,7)-*- 


144 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551255V 






1-Jan85 


1 - 


1-Jan85 




[0,23] . [0,7)+ 


145 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


6551255V 






IO-Jul-91 


1 - 






[0,30)+ 


146 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


655129- 15V 






15Auq-91 


1- 


1985 




[0,23] . [0,7)+ 



69 



APPENDIX A.8. CVN-65 DAMAGE & LIST CONTROL VOID HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


| 


J 


147 


SWLIN 


SERVICE 


TANK 


INS date 


COND 


INS date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


148 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 29-5-V 






1 -Jan-85 


1- 


1 -Jan-85 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 


149 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 29-7-V 






12-Aug-92 


1 


1 -Jan-85 




[0.23] , [0,7)+ 


150 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 30-1 4- V 






11-Jun-92 








[0,30)+ 


151 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8- 130- 6- V 






11-Jun-92 








[0,30)+ 


152 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-130- 8-V 






1 1 -Jun-92 








[0,30)+ 


153 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 38-1 0-V 






12-Jun-92 




1994 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


154 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-138-1 1-V 






15-Aug-91 


1- 


1986 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 


155 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-138-12-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


156 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-138-17-V 






15-Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 


157 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-138-18-V 






8-Mar-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


158 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 38-9-V 






15-Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0,23] , [0,7)-*- 


159 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 43-1 8-V 






15-Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0.23] , [0,7)-*- 


160 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 43-5- V 






15- Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 


161 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-143-7-V 






15-Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0.23] , [0,7)+ 


162 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-148-1 1-V 






20- Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0.23] , [0.7)-*- 


163 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 48-1 2- V 






20-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


164 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 48- 3-V 


16- May-95 


1- 


19-Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 


165 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 48-4- V 






5-Mar-91 


0 


1994 




[0,30)+ 


166 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 48- 5- V 






30-Jul-91 


1- 


1986 




[0.23] , [0,7)+ 


167 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8- 148- 6- V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


168 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 52-1 0-V 






3-Jun-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


169 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 52- 15-V 






19-Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 


170 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 52-1 6- V 






12-Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


171 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 52-7-V 






19-Aug-91 


1 


1986 




[0,23] , [0,7)-*- 


172 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 52-8-V 






3-Jun-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


173 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-1 52-9-V 






4-Jun-91 


0 


1986 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 


174 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-92-1 1-V 


27-Apr-95 


1 


10-Jul-92 


0 


1982, 1994 (NNS) 




[0,18] , [0,10] 


175 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-92-1 7-V 






10-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


176 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-92-9-V 






10-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


assume ok @ 79 COH 


[21,30] 


177 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-97-1 3-V 






13-Aug-91 


1- 


1985 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 


178 


12321 


VOID DC(LC) 


65-8-97-5-V 






13-Aug-91 


1 


1985 




[0,23] , [0,7)+ 



70 




APPENDIX A. 9. CVN-65 DRY VOID & COFFERDAM HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


c 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


1 


SWLIN 


SERV 


TANK 


INS Date 


COND 


INS Date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


2 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 02-1 -V 






2-Oct-91 


0 




Machinery Box 


[0.30] 


3 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 02- 2-V 






26-M ay-92 




1994 


Machinery Box 


(0,30] 


4 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 08-2- V 






28-Oct-91 


0 


1994 




[0.30] 


5 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 06-3- V 






lO-Oct-91 


0 


1982 


Machinery Box 


[0,1 8] .[0,10] 


6 


12321 


CD 


65- 8-106- 6-V 






13-Oct-91 


0 


1985, 1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,24].[0,6] 


7 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 11-1-V 






IO-Oct-91 


0 


1982 


Machinery Box 


[0,1 8], [0,10] 


8 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 11 -2-V 






11 -Oct-91 


0 




Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


9 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 13-0-V 






27-Oct-91 


0 


1994 




[0.301 


10 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 15- 5-V 










1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


11 


12321 


CD 


65-8-11 5-8- V 






1 -Oct-91 


0 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


12 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 20-1 -V 










1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


13 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 20-4- V 






7-Oct-91 


0 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


14 


12321 


CD 


65- 8-125-1- V 










1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


15 

16 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 25- 2-V 






20-Aug-9l 


1 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 29-0-V 










1994 




[0.30] 


17 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 29-3-V 






17-Oct-91 


0 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


18 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 30- 4- V 






2-Jun-92 




1994 




[0.30] 


19 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 34-1 -V 






7-Oct-9l 


0 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


20 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 34-2- V 










1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


21 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 36-2-V 
















22 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 38-7-V 






4-Sep-91 


0 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


23 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 38-8-V 










1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


24 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 43-2-V 










1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


25 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 43-3-V 






5-Oct-91 


0 




Machinery Box 


[0.30] 


26 


12321 


CD 


65-8-148-1-V 






5-Oct-91 


0 




Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


27 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 48- 2-V 












Machinery Box 




28 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 52-5-V 












Machinery Box 




29 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 52-6-V 






4-Oct-91 


0 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


30 


12321 


CD 


65- 8- 157 -3- V 










1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


31 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 57 -6-V 






5- Oct -91 


0 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


32 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 62-3- V 






12-Jun-92 




1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,301 


33 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 62-6-V 






5-Oct-91 


0 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0.30] 


34 


12321 


CD 


65-8-1 67-0-V 






11 -May-93 










35 


12321 


CD 


65-8-90-2-V 






10-JuI-92 


0 


1994, 1982 




[0,18], [0,10] 


36 

37 


12321 


CD 


65-8-92-7-V 






2-Oct-91 


1 




Machinery Box 


[0,30)+ 


12321 


CD 


65-8-92-8-V 










1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


38 


12321 


CD 


65-8-97-2-V 










1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


39 


12321 


CD 


65-8-97-3-V 






3-Oct-91 


0 


1994 


Machinery Box 


[0,30] 


40 


12321 


V 


65-8-72-01 -G 










1994 


old AVGAS 


[0.30] 


41 


12321 


V 


65-8-73-0-J 










1994 


old AVGAS 


ro,3oi 


42 


12321 


V 


65-8-74-0-J 










1994 


old AVGAS 


[0,30] 


43 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 02-1 -V 






13- Aug-91 


0 


3-Sep-91 (SF) 


bottom totally gone! 


[0.30] 


44 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 02-2-V 


5- May-95 


1-?? 


2-Apr-91 


0 






[0,30] 


45 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 02-3- V 






12-Feb-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


46 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 02-4- V 






22-Feb-91 


1 


1994 




[0,30] 


47 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 02-5- V 


8-Jun-95 


1 


8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


48 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 02-6-V 


27- Apr-95 




21 -Feb-91 


1- 


1994 


wrong paint 


[0.30] 


49 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 06-1 0-V 


17-Apr-95 


1- 


14- Aug-91 


0 


1994 


wrong paint 


[0.30] 


50 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 06-5-V 






28-M ay-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


51 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 06-6-V 






28-M ay-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


52 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 06-7-V 






13-Aug-91 


0 


7-Oct-91 (SF) 




[0,30] 


53 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 06-8-V 


l7-May-95 


1- 


15-Oct-91 


0 


1994 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


54 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 06-9-V 


l0-May-95 


1- 


15- Aug-91 


1- 


1994 


wrong paint 


[0.301 


55 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 07-2-V 
















56 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 07-3- V 
















57 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 11-1-V 






28-M ay-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


58 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 11 -2-V 


5- May-95 


1- 


28-May-92 


1 






(0,34)+ 


59 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 11 -3-V 






13- Aug-91 


1 


3-JUI-91 




[0,30)+ 


60 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-111-4-V 






28-May-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


61 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 11 -5-V 


9- May-95 


1 


13- Aug-91 


1 


7/22/1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0.301 


62 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 11 -6-V 


17- Apr-95 


1 


15- Aug-91 


1 


1991 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


63 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-11 5- 1-V 






14-Feb-91 


1- 


1994 




[0.30] 


64 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 15-1 0-V 






3-Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


65 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 15-1 2-V 






3-Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


66 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 15-3-V 






15-Oct-91 


0 


1991 




[0,30] 


67 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 15- 5-V 






15-Oct-91 


0 






[0,30] 


68 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 15- 8-V 






29-Jan-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


69 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 20-1 -V 






8-Jul-92 


1 






[0.30)+ 


70 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 20-3- V 






8-Jul-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


71 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 20-4- V 






1 -Feb-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


72 


12321 


VOID 


65- 4-120- 5-V 


18- May-95 


1 


28-May-92 




1982, 1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,18], [0,10] 


73 


12321 


VOID 


65- 4-120- 6-V 






30-Jan-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 



71 



APPENDIX A.9. CVN-65 DRY VOID & COFFERDAM HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


c 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


74 


SWLIN 


SERV 


TANK 


INS Date 


COND 


INS Date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


75 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 20- 8- V 


18-M ay-95 


1 


14-Aug-91 


1 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


76 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 25- 1-V 






12-Jun-91 


0 


1991?? 




[0,30] 


77 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 25-2-V 






31 -Jan-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


78 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 25-3-V 






20-Aug-91 


0 


1991?? 




[0,30] 


79 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 25- 4-V 






2-Jul-91 


1 






[0,30) + 


80 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 25- 5- V 






16-Aug-91 


0 


1991 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


81 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 25-6-V 


18- Apr-95 


1 


14-Aug-91 


1 


1991 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


82 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 29-1 0-V 
















83 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 29-3-V 






16-Aug-91 


1- 






[0,30) ♦ 


84 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 29-4-V 
















85 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 29-5-V 






28-May-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


86 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 29-6-V 






7-May-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


87 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 29-7-V 


17-Apr-95 


1 


15-Aug-91 


0 






[0.30] 


88 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 29-8-V 


21 -Apr-95 


1 


9-Apr-91 


1 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


89 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 34-1 -V 






14-Feb-91 


0 






[0,30] 


90 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-134-3-V 






14-Aug-91 


0 


9- Sep-91 (SF) 




[0,30] 


91 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 34-4-V 






4-Feb-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


92 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 34-5-V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 




[0,30] 


93 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 34-6-V 






9-Apr-91 


1 


1982 




[0.18] 


94 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 34-8- V 






30- May-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


95 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-138-1 1-V 


17-Apr-95 


1 


15-Aug-91 


0 


6/25/1991 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0.30] 


96 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 38-2-V 






28-M ay-92 




1991 




[0.30] 


97 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 38-4-V 






15-Feb-91 


1- 


1991 




[0,30] 


98 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 38- 6-V 


28- Apr-95 


1 


15-Feb-91 


1- 


1991 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0.30] 


99 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 38-7- V 






15- Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


100 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 38- 9-V 






15-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


101 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 43-1 -V 






15-Aug-91 


1 






ro.30)+ 


102 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 43- 3-V 






15-Aug-91 


1 


2-Jul-91 




[0,30] 


103 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 43-4-V 






14-Feb-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


104 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 43-6-V 






14-Feb-91 


1 


1982, 1991 




[0,18], [0.10] 


105 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 43-8-V 


2-May-95 


1 


15-Feb-91 


1- 


1991 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


106 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 48-1 -V 






19-Aug-91 


1 


22-Jun-91 




[0.30] 


107 


12321 


VOID 


65.4-1 48- 2-V 






5-Feb-91 


0 


1991 




[0.30] 


108 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 48-3-V 






19-Aug-91 


1 


1991 




[0,30] 


109 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 48-4-V 






3-Jun-91 


1 


1991 




[0.30] 


110 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 48- 5-V 


19-Apr-95 




19-Aug*91 


1 


1982, 1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,18], [0,10] 


111 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 48-6-V 


18-Apr-95 




20-Aug-91 


0 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


112 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 52-1 -V 






19-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


113 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-152-1 0-V 






5-Feb-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


114 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 52-1 2-V 


19-Apr-95 


1 


5-Feb-91 


1- 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


115 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-152-3-V 






19-Aug-91 


1 


1991 




[0,30] 


116 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 52-5-V 


19- Apr-95 


1 






1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


117 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 52-8-V 






8-Apr-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


118 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 57-1 -V 






20- Feb-91 


1- 


1991 




[0,30] 


119 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 57-3-V 










1991 




[0,30] 


120 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 57-4-V 


17-M ay-95 


1- 


6-Feb-91 


1- 






[0,34)+ 


121 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-157-5-V 


5-May-95 


1 




1- 


1991 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


122 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 57-6-V 






6-Feb-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


123 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 57-8- V 


20- Apr-95 


1 


8-Jul-92 


0 


1991 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


124 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 62-2-V 






7- May-91 


0 






[0,30] 


125 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 62-3-V 






22- Feb-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


126 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 62-4-V 






28- May-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


127 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-162-5-V 






ll-Feb-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


128 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 62-6-V 


12-Jun-95 


1 


8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 




[0,30] 


129 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 62-7-V 






13-Feb-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


130 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 67-4-V 






6-Feb-91 


0 






[0,30] 


131 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 67-5- V 






13-Feb-91 


0 


26-Jun-91 




[0,30] 


132 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 67-6-V 


3-May-95 


1- 


20-Aug-91 


1 


1991 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


133 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 67-7-V 






13-Feb-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


134 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 67-8- V 


18-Apr-95 


1 


8-Feb-91 


0 


1991 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


135 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 71 -2-V 






20-Aug-91 


0 






[0.30] 


136 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 71 -3-V 






20-Feb-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


137 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 71 -4-V 


27-Apr-95 


1 - 


20-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


138 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 71 -5-V 






16-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


139 


12321 


VOID 


65-4- 171 -6-V 






28-M ay-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


140 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 76-2- V 






5- Sep-91 


1- 






[0.30)+ 


141 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 76- 3-V 






5- Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


142 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 76-4-V 






5- Sep-91 


1 






[0.30)+ 


143 


12321 


VOID 


65-4- 176- 5-V 






5- Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


144 


12321 


VOID 


65-4- 181 -1-V 
















145 


12321 


VOID 


85-4-1 81 -2-V 


11 -Apr-95 


0 








already selected by SF 


ro,30] 


146 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 81 -3-V 




5-Sep-91 


1 


1994 




[0.30] 



72 




APPENDIX A.9. CVN-65 DRY VOID & COFFERDAM HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


c 


D 


~n — f — 


G 


H 


1 


J 


147 


SWLIN 


SERV 


TANK 


INS Date 


COND 


INS Date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


148 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 8 1-4-V 


4-M ay-95 


1- 


17-Sep-91 


1 


1991 




10,30] 


149 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 8 1-5-V 






5-Sep-91 


0 


23-Sep-91 




(0,30] 


150 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 86- 2-V 
















151 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 86- 3-V 
















152 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 86- 4-V 


10-M ay-95 


1 


19-Sep-91 


1 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


153 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 86-5-V 


25-Apr-95 


1 


16-Sep-91 


1 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0.30] 


154 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 86-7-V 






5-Sep-91 


0 






[0,30] 


155 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-191-1-V 
















158 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 91-2-V 
















157 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 91 -3-V 






16-Sep-91 


0 






[0,30] 


158 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-191-4-V 






17-Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


159 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-195-1-V 
















180 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 95-2-V 
















181 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-1 95-3-V 






12-Sep-91 


0 






[0,30] 


162 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-200-1-V 


13-Jun-95 


1 


1 6-Sep-9 1 


0 






[0,30] 


163 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-200-2-V 






16- Sep-91 


0 






[0,30] 


164 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-220-1-V 






28-M ay-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


165 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-220-2-V 
















168 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-255-1 -V 
















167 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-255-2-V 
















188 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-42-1-V 
















189 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-42-2-V 






12-Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


170 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-42-3-V 


17-Apr-95 


1- 


19-Aug-91 


1 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


171 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-4 2-4-V 






18-Jul-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


172 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-4 7-3- V 


17-Apr-95 


1 


16-Sep-91 


1 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


173 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-47-4-V 






11 -Oct-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


174 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-52- 1-V 






16-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


175 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-52-2-V 


24-Apr-95 


1- 


16-Aug-91 


1 


1982 




[0,18], [0, 13)+ 


176 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-52-3-V 


17-Apr-95 


1 


16-Aug-91 


1 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0.30] 


177 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-52-4-V 






16-Jul-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


176 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-57- 1-V 






16-Aug-91 


0 






[0.30] 


179 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-57-2-V 






16-Aug-9 1 


1 


1982, 1991 




[0,18], [0,10] 


180 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-57-3-V 


19-May-95 


1 


l3-Aug-9 1 


0 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


161 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-57-4-V 






16-JUI-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


182 


12321 


VOID 


6 5- 4-62-3- V 






16-Aug-9 1 


0 






[0,30] 


183 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-62-5-V 






23-JUI-91 


0 






[0,30] 


184 


12321 


VOID 


6 5-4-62- 6- V 






17-JUI-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


185 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-62-8-V 






16-JUI-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


186 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-67-2-V 






17-JUI-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


187 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-67-3-V 






16- Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


188 


12321 


VOID 


65- 4-67 -4-V 






12-Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


169 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-67-5-V 






22-JUI-91 


0 






[0.30] 


190 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-72-1 -V 






12-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


191 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-72-3-V 






12-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


182 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-72-4-V 






l2-Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


193 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-72-6-V 






12-Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


194 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-77-1 -V 






12-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


195 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-77-3-V 






l2-Aug-9 1 


1 






[0,30)+ 


196 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-77-4-V 






23- Jan-91 


0 






[0,30] 


197 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-77-6-V 






14-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


188 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-8 2-2 -V 






24-Jan-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


199 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-8 2-4-V 






23-Jan-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


200 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-8 2-5-V 






12-Aug-9 1 


0 






[0,30] 


201 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-82-7-V 






12-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


202 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-87-1-V 






12-Aug-91 


0 






[0,30] 


203 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-87-2-V 






14-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


204 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-87-3-V 






7- Feb-91 


1- 


15-Jul-91 




[0,30] 


205 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-87-4-V 






24-Jan-9l 


1 


19-Juf-91 




[0,30] 


206 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-87-5-V 
















207 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-92-1 1-V 


l3-Jun-95 


1 


8-JUI-92 


0 


1994 




[0,30] 


208 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-92-2-V 






20-Aug-9l 


1 


3-Jun-91 




[0,30)+ 


208 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-92-4-V 






14-Aug-91 


0 






[0,30] 


210 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-92-6-V 






8-JUI-92 


0 


1994 




[0,30] 


211 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-92-7-V 






13-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


212 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-92-9-V 


27-Apr-95 


1 


13-Aug-9 1 


1 


6/18/1991 (NNS) 




[0,30] 


213 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-97-2-V 
















214 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-97-3-V 






13-Aug-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


215 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-97-4-V 


5-May-95 


0 


21-Feb-91 


1 


1972 


already selected by SF 


[0,10] , [0,22] 


216 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-97-5-V 






13-Aug-9 1 


1 


19-Jun-91 




[0,30] 


217 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-97-6-V 


26-Apr-95 


1 


15-Oct-91 


1- 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


218 


12321 


VOID 


65-4-9 7-7-V 


9-M ay-95 


1 


13-Aug-91 


0 


7/27/1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


219 


12321 


VOID 


65-5-205-4-V 






28-Oct-9 1 


0 






10.30) 



73 



APPENDIX A.9. CVN-65 DRY VOID & COFFERDAM HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


220 


SWLIN 


SERV 


TANK 


INS Date 


COND 


INS Date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


221 


12321 


VOID 


65-5-205-6-V 






23-Oct-91 


1- 






[0.30)+ 


222 


12321 


VOID 


65-5- 21 0-2- V 






1 7-Oct-91 


0 






[0.30] 


223 


12321 


VOID 


65-5-32-1 -V 
















224 


12321 


VOID 


65- 5-32-2- V 
















225 


12321 


VOID 


65-6-181-1-V 
















226 


12321 


VOID 


65-6- 181 -2-V 


12- Apr-95 


1 










[0,34)+ 


227 


12321 


VOID 


65-6-1 86-2-V 






17-Oct-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


228 


12321 


VOID 


65-6-1 86- 3-V 






17-Oct-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


229 


12321 


VOID 


65-6-1 86-4-V 






21 -Oct-91 


1- 






[0.30)+ 


230 


12321 


VOID 


65- 6-186- 5-V 






24-Oct-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


231 


12321 


VOID 


65-6-1 91 -2-V 






28- May-92 


1 






[0.30)-*- 


232 


12321 


VOID 


65-6-191-3-V 






16-Sep-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


233 


12321 


VOID 


65- 6-195- 5-V 






28- May-92 


1 






ro,30)+ 


234 


12321 


VOID 


65-6-1 95- 8- V 
















235 


12321 


VOID 


65-6-1 95-9-V 
















236 


12321 


VOID 


65-7-183-1 -V 
















237 


12321 


VOID 


65-7-21 5- 0-V 






1-Jun-90 


1 






TO, 30)+ 


238 


12321 


VOID 


65-7-21 5- 2-V 






17-Oct-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


239 


12321 


VOID 


65-7-225- 0-V 


19- May-95 


0 


17-Oct-91 


0 


1991 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


240 


12321 


VOID 


65-7-225- 1-V 


19-M ay-95 


1- 


17-Oct-91 


0 


1991 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


241 


12321 


VOID 


65-7-32-1 -V 










1994 




[0.301 


242 


12321 


VOID 


65-8- 11 5-1 8- V 






17-Jun-91 


1- 






[0.30)+ 


243 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 3-0- V 






8-Jul-92 


0 


1994 




[0.30] 


244 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 37-0-V 
















245 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 37-2-V 
















246 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-148-1 1-V 










1 -Jan-86 




f0.25] 


247 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 62-1 6- V 










1994 




[0.30] 


248 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 7-0-V 


5- May-95 


1 


19-May-92 


1 


1/1/1989, 1991 (SF) 


wrong paint, bad shape 


[0.30] 


249 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-17-1-V 






19-May-92 


0 




bad shape 


[0,30] 


250 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 7-2- V 






19-May-92 


1 


13-Feb-92 




[0.30] 


251 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 89-1 -V 






12-Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


252 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 89-2- V 






12-Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


253 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 95-1 -V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 




[0.30] 


254 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 95-2-V 






11-Sep-91 


0 






[0.30] 


255 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 95-3-V 






12-Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


256 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 95-4-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 




[0.30] 


257 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-195- 5-V 






12- Jun-92 




1994 




[0.30] 


258 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-1 95-6- V 






12- Jun-92 




1994 




[0.30] 


259 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-195-7-V 






12-Sep-91 


1- 


1-Jan-79 




[0.18] 


260 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-195- 8-V 






28- May-92 




1 -Jan-79 




[0.181 


261 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-200-1 -V 






12-Jun-92 




1994 




..[0,30] __ 


262 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-200-2-V 






12-Jun-92 




1994 




[0.30] 


263 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-205- 1-V 






12-Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


264 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-205-1 0-V 






9- Sep-91 


1 






ro,30)+ 


265 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-205-1 2-V 






28- May-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


266 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-205-1 4-V 






23-Oct-91 


0 






[0.30] 


267 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-205- 2-V 






9-Sep-91 


0 






[0.30] 


268 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-205- 3-V 






ll-Sep-91 


1 






[ 0 , 30 )* 


269 


12321 


VOID 


65- 8- 205- 4-V 






9-Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


270 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-205- 5-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 




[0.30] 


271 


12321 


VOID 


65- 8-205- 6-V 






12-Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


272 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-205-7-V 






12-Jun-92 


1 






[0.30)-*- 


273 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-205-8-V 






9- Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


274 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-21 0-2- V 






11-Sep-91 


1 






[0,30) + 


275 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-215-1-V 






14- Sep-91 


0 






[0.30] 


276 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-21 5- 2-V 






14-Sep-91 


1 






[0.30)+ 


277 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-215- 3-V 






1 2- Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


278 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-21 5- 4-V 






13-Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


279 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-21 5- 6-V 






14- Sep-91 


1 






[0,30)+ 


280 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-21 5-8- V 






13-Sep-91 


0 






[0.30] 


281 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-22-2-V 








1 






ro.30)-*- 


282 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-225- 1-V 






26-May-92 


1 






[0.30)+ 


283 


12321 


VOID 


65- 8-225-1 0-V 


23-May-95 


0 


14-Sep-91 


1 




wrong paint 


[0.30] _ 


284 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-225-2-V 






26-May-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


285 


12321 


VOID 


85-8- 225- 3-V 


1 9-May-95 


_0 


14-Sep-91 


1 




_ already selected by SF 


[0.32] 


286 


12321 


VOID 


65- 8-225- 4-V 


19-M ay-95 


1- 


14-Sep-91 


1- 




[0,34)+ 


287 


12321 


VOID 


65- 8-225- 5-V 


23-May-95 


1- 


14-Sep-91 


0 






[0,30] 


288 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-225- 6-V 


7-Jun-95 


1 


12- Jun-92 




1964 


wrong paint, cond 3 or 4 under deckplate 


[0.30] 


289 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-225-7-V 


7-Jun-95 


1 


19-Jul-92 


0 


1994(NNS) 


no change in cond in 3 yrs 


[0.30] 


290 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-225- 8-V 


7-Jun-95 


1 


19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 


no change in cond in 3 yrs 


ro.3oi 


291 


12321 


VOID 


65- 8-225- 9-V 


8-Jun-95 


1- 


13-Sep-91 




1994 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


292 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-235- 1-V 


12-M ay-95 


0 


12- Jun-92 




1994 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 



74 




APPENDIX A.9. CVN-65 DRY VOID & COFFERDAM HISTORY FILE 





A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


1 


J 


293 


SWLIN 


SERV 


TANK 


INS Date 


COND 


INS Date 


COND 


PAINTED 


COMMENTS 


INTERVALS 


294 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-235-2-V 


l2-May-95 


1- 


1 3-Sep-9 1 


0 


1994 (SR 


wrong paint 


10,30] 


295 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-235- 3-V 


12-M ay-95 


1- 


13-Sep-91 


1 


1994 (SF) 


wrong paint, no change in cond in 4 yrs 


[0,30] 


296 


12321 


VOID 


65-8- 235-4 -V 


12-M ay-95 


1- 


13-Sep-91 


1 


1994 (SF) 


wrong paint, no change in cond in 4 yrs 


[0,30] 


297 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-235- 5-V 






13-Sep-91 


1- 






[0,30)+ 


298 


12321 


VOID 


65-8- 235- 6-V 


12-M ay-95 


1- 


13-Sep-91 


1 


1994 (SF) 


wrong paint, no change in cond in 4 yrs 


[0,30] 


299 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-235- 7 -V 






12-Jun-92 


1 






[0,30)+ 


300 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-235-8-V 






19-Jul-92 


0 


1994 (NNS) 




[0,30] 


301 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-245-1 -V 


1 0-May-95 


1 


13-Sep-91 


1- 


10/15/1991 (SR 


wronq paint 


[0.30] 


302 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-245-2-V 


10-M ay-95 


1 


13-Sep-91 


1- 


1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


303 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-245-3-V 


10-Mav-95 


0 


13-Sep-91 


1- 




already selected by SF 


[0.321 


304 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-245-4-V 


10-May-95 


^ 0_ 


13-Sep-91 


z tr^ “i. • > 


already selected by SF 


[0,32] 


305 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-245-5-V 


10-M ay-95 


1 


13-SepS1 


0 


1994 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


306 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-2 45-6- V 


11 -May-95 


1 


13-Sep-91 


1 


10/4/1991 (SF) 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


307 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-245-7-V 


10-M ay-95 


1- 


12-Jun-92 




1994 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0,30] 


308 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-2 45-8- V 


10-M ay-95 


1 


13-Sep-91 


1 


1994 (SR 


wrong paint 


[0.30] 


309 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-250-1 -V 


10-May-95 


1 


1 2-Jun-92 




1994 (SR 


wronq paint 


[0,30] 


310 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-250-2-V 


12-M ay-95 


1 


12-Jun-92 




1994 (SR 


wrong pint 


[0,30] 


311 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-255-0-V 


12-May-95 




13-Sep-91 


0 




already selected by SF 


[0.30] 


312 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-2 7-2-V 








1 






[0,30)+ 


313 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-47-2-V 






22-Jun-92 


1 


1981 




[0.18] , [0,10)+ 


314 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-62-1 0-V 






19-Aug-91 


1 


1 -Jan-90 




[0.30] 


315 


12321 


VOID 


65-8-62-9-V 






29-Jul-92 


1 






[0.30)+ 



75 



APPENDIX B.l. CV-67 SUMMARY INTERVAL CHARTS 



Interval 



Interval 



CV-67 JP-5 Tanks (66 tanks in group) 




Age of Tank Coating (Years) 



CV-67 Damage and List Control Tanks (56 tanks in group) 




ok at end of Interval 



failed within interval 



Age of Tank Coating (Years) 



77 



APPENDIX B.2. CVN-65 SUMMARY INTERVAL CHARTS 



CVN-65 Fuel Oil Tanks (45 tanks in group) 




Age of Tank Coating (Years) 



Interval 



CVN-65 JP-5 Tanks (172 tanks in group) 




78 



APPENDIX B.2. CVN-65 SUMMARY INTERVAL CHARTS 



CVN-65 Damage and List Control Voids (175 tanks in group) 




ok at end of interval 



failed within interval 



Age of Tank Coating (Years) 



CVN-65 Dry Voids and Cofferdams (310 tanks in group) 



Interval 



11 









































































1 1 1 I 1 1 


1 




T l 1 1 i 1 1 







ok at end of interval 



failed within interval 



10 15 20 25 

Age of Tank Coating (Years) 



30 



35 



79 





80 



APPENDIX Cl. TWO PARAMETER WEIBULL DISTRIBUTION PROPERTIES 

The Weibull probability density function (pdf) is: 

m = *x{Xt) K - l e-( Xt 'f , t > 0, 

where X is the scale parameter, and k is the shape parameter. Both X and k are positive. 
The Weibull distribution parameters are frequently expressed with the inverse of the scale 

parameter, —= a. a is called the “characteristic life”, and is approximately the 63.2th 

percentile (Nelson, 1982). For the special case k = 1, the Weibull reduces to the simple 
exponential. For shape parameters 3 < k < 4 , the Weibull’s shape resembles the normal 
distribution. 

The Weibull cumulative distribution function (cdf) is: 

F(t) = \-e~^^ K , t> 0. 

The conjugate cdf is also the survivor function S(t). Thus the reliability at time / can be 
expressed as: 

S(t) = e ~( Xt ^ K , t> 0. 

The Weibull hazard function (failure rate), instantaneous failure rate at any age t, 
is: 

h(t) = ^ = XK(Uf- X , t> 0. 



81 



For values of k > 1 , the Weibull will have an increasing failure rate, and decreasing 
for*: < 1 . 

The Weibull distribution has mean: 

E(T) = aT[\ + (\ I k)]. 



and variance: 



Var(T ) = a 2 {r[l + (2 Ik )] - {F[l + (1 /r:)]} 2 } , 
where T is the complete gamma function. 



82 



APPENDIX C.2. EXAMPLE MAPLE CODE FOR MLE (CVN-65 JP-5 GROUP) 



> a : = (exp ( - (4*la) "k) 

> simplify (a) : 

> aa:=log( ! ' ) : 

> simplify (aa) : 

> dif f ( " , la) : 

> aaa: =simplify ( M ) : 

> b : = (exp ( - (5*la) "k) 

> simplify (b) : 

> bb:=log(" ) : 

> simplify (bb) : 

> diff (" , la) : 

> bbb:=simplify (") : 

> c : = (exp (- (10*la) "k) 

> simplify(c) : 

> cc:=log( M ) : 

> simplify(cc) : 

> diff ( " , la) : 

> ccc:=simplify (" ) : 

> d:= (exp (- (14*la) "k) 

> simplify (d) : 

> dd: =log ( " ) : 

> simplify (dd) : 

> diff (” , la) : 

> ddd: =simplify ( " ) : 

> e := (exp (- (14*la) "k) 

> simplify (e) : 

> ee : =log ( " ) : 

> simplify (ee) : 

> diff (" , la) : 

> eee:=simplify (") : 

> f : = (exp ( - (19*la) "k) 

> simplify(f) : 

> ff :=log(") : 

> simplify(ff) : 

> diff ( " , la) : 

> fff :=simplify( ,f ) : 

> g : = (exp ( - (24* la) "k) 

> simplify(g) : 

> gg:=log (" ) : 

> simplify (gg) : 

> diff ( ” # la) : 

> ggg: =simplify ( " ) : 

> h:= (exp (- (26*la) "k) 

> simplify (h) : 

> hh: =log ( " ) : 

> simplify (hh) : 

> diff (" , la) : 

> hhh:=simplify ( " ) : 

> j : = (exp ( - (30*la) ~k) 



(exp ( - (7*la) "k) ) ) "10: 



(exp ( - (10*la) "k) ) ) "14: 



(exp (- (I3*la) "k) ) ) "2 : 



(exp ( - (I8*la) "k) ) ) "34: 



(exp ( - (22*la) "k) ) ) "6 : 



(exp ( - (24*la) "k) ) ) "16: 



(exp ( - (28*la) "k)))"5: 



(exp (- (30*la) "k) ) ) "52 : 



(exp ( - (34*la)"k)))"4: 



83 



> simplify ( j ) : 

> j j : =log ( " ) : 

> simplify(jj) : 

> diff (",1a) : 

> j j j : =simplify ( " ) : 

> diff (aa,k) : 

> ppp: =simplify (" ) : 

> diff (bb, k) : 

> qqq:=simplify ( " ) : 

> diff (cc, k) : 

> rrr :=simplify ( " ) : 

> diff (dd, k) : 

> sss : =simplify (" ) : 

> diff (ee, k) : 

> ttt :=simplify ( " ) : 

> diff (ff , k) : 

> uuu:=simplify (") : 

> diff (gg,k) : 

> wv: =simplify ( M ) : 

> diff (hh,k) : 

> www := simplify (" ) : 

> diff (j j , k) : 

> xxx: =simplify ( n ) : 

> exp ( - (6*la) ~ (7*k) ) *exp(- (10*la) ~ (ll*k) ) *exp(- (13*la) ~ (4*k) ) *exp ( - 
(30*la) ~ (50*k) ) *exp ( - (34*la) ~ (4*k) ) : 

> log(” ) : 

> lnrtcensored: =simplify ( " ) : 

> lncensordla : =dif f ( " , la) : 

> partiallnLdla : =lncensordla+aaa+bbb+ccc+ddd+eee+f f f +ggg+hhh+ j j j : 

> diff (lnrtcensored, k) : 

> lncensordk: =simplify ( " ) : 

> partial InLdk : =lncensordk+ppp+qqq+rrr+sss+ttt+uuu+wv+www+ xxx: 

> partiallnLdk : =simplify ( ” ) 

> partial21nLdla2 : =diff (partiallnLdla, la) : 

> partial21nLdk2 : =dif f (partiallnLdk, k) : 

> mixedpartiallnLdlak:=diff (partiallnLdk, la) : 

> InL: =lnrtcensored+ aa + bb + cc + dd + ee + ff + gg + hh + j j : 

> subs (la=0 . 0334 , k=2 .360 , partiallnLdla) : 

> f irstpartialla: =evalf (" ) ; 

> subs(la=0.0334,k=2.360 / partiallnLdk) : 

> f irstpartialk : =evalf ( 11 ) ; 

> subs (la=0 . 0334 , k=2 .360 , partial21nLdla2) : 

> secondpartialla: =evalf (”) ; 

> subs(la=0.0334,k=2.360,partial21nLdk2) : 

> secondpartialk : =evalf ( n ) ; 

> subs (la=0 . 0334 , k=2 . 360 , mixedpartiallnLdlak) : 

> mixedpartial :=evalf (") ; 

> solve({- (secondpartialla) *al - (mixedpartial) *bl= firstpartialla,- 
(mixedpartial) *al- (secondpartialk) *bl=f irstpartialk} , {al,bl}) ; 

> subs (la=0 . 0334 , k=2 . 360 , InL) : 

> evalf (" ) ; 



84 



Mil I 



APPENDIX C.3. CV-67 GROUP MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD PLOTS 



CV-67JP-5 Tanks 



CV-67 Fuel Oil Tanks 






CV-67 Damage and List Control Voids 



Log Likelihood is plotted against the two Weibull parameters (X, k) 



85 



APPENDIX C.3. CVN-65 GROUP M AXIMUM LIKELIHOOD PLOTS 



CVN-65 JP-5 Tanks 



CVN-65 Fuel Oil Tanks 






CVN-65 Damage and List Control Voids 




Log Likelihood is plotted against the two Weibull parameters (A., k) 



86 



APPENDIX C.4. EXAMPLE MAPLE CODE FOR OBTAINING JOINT 
CONFIDENCE REGIONS (C VN-65 JP-5 GROUP) 

> first :=array(l. .2,1. .1) : 

> first [1,1] :=0.0334-bl: 

> first [2,1] : =2 . 36-b2 : 

> second :=array(l . .2, 1 . .2) : 

> second[l,l] :=1.64*10~7: 

> second [1,2] : =31. 683: 

> second [2,1] :=31.683: 

> second[2,2] :=199 .64 : 

> with (linalg) : 

> multiply (transpose (first) , second) : 

> multiply (", first) : 

>f:= (547834 .7719 -16400. 00*bl- 31. 683*b2) * ( .334e-l-bl) + (472.2 086 - 
31 . 683*bl- 199 . 64*b2) * (2 . 36-b2) : 

> f f : = exp and (f) : 

> subs (b2=2 .360, ff) : 

> solve ("=7 .588, bl) : 

> subs (bl=0 . 0334 , f f ) : 

> solve ("=7 .588, b2) : 

> with (plots) : 

implicitplot (f f =7 . 588 , bl=0 . 032 . . 0 . 035 , b2=2 . 1 . .2.6) ; 




X 

Circular joint confidence region illustrates approximately no correlation between parameters. 



87 



APPENDIX C.4. EXAMPLE MAPLE CODE FOR OBTAINING JOINT 
CONFIDENCE REGIONS (CV-67 JP-5 GROUP) 



> f irst : =array (1 . . 2 , 1 . . 1) : 

> f irst [1 , 1] : =0 . 0465-bl : 

> f irst [2 , 1] : =1 . 70 -b2 : 

> second : =array ( 1 . . 2 , 1 . . 2 ) : 

> second [1,1] : =2 .529*10^5 : 

> second[l,2] :=1201.12: 

> second [2,1] : =1201 . 12 : 

> second [2 , 2] : =36 . 121 : 

> with(linalg) : 

> multiply (transpose (first) , second) : 

> multiply (", first) : 

>f : = (13801 .754 00 - 252900. 000*bl- 1201. 12*b2) * ( .465e-l-bl) 
+ (117. 257780- 1201. 12*bl- 36. 121*b2) * (1.70-b2) : 

> ff : = exp and (f ) : 

> subs (b2=l . 70, ff ) : 

> solve ( ” =7 . 8 0 , bl ) : 

> subs (bl=0. 0465, ff) : 

> solve (" =7.80, b2) : 

> with (plots) : 

implicitplot (ff =7.80, bl=0. 0400. . 0 . 0530 , b2=l . 15 . .2.25) ; 




Elliptical joint confidence region illustrating a higher degree of correlation in the variance of the 
parameters than in the previous circular plot for CVN-65 JP-5 tank group. 



88 



Reliability 



APPENDIX D. SURVIVAL FUNCTIONS (FUEL OIL GROUPS) 



A A 

CVN - 65 Fuel Oil Tanks: X = 0.0317, k = 2.40, Mean Life = 27.96 years 



[ 0.0289 < X < 0 . 0345 ] 

95% Confidence Intervals : 

[ 1.43 < k < 3 . 36 ] 

Two parameter Weibull plots 




X = 0.0345 
k= 1.43 

X = 0.0317 
k = 2.40 

X = 0.0289 
k = 3,36 



A A 

CV - 67 Fuel Oil Tanks: X = 0.0468, k = 6.91, Mean Life = 19.97 years 



[ 0.0453 < X < 0 . 0483 ] 

95 % Confidence Intervals: 

[ 5.55 < k < 8 . 27 ] 

Two parameter Weibull plots: 



X = 0.0483 
k = 5.55 

X = 0.0468 
k = 6.91 

X = 0.0453 
k = 8.27 



CV-67 Fuel Oil Tanks 




CV-67 Fuel Oil Tanks 




89 



Reliability Reliability 



APPENDIX D. SURVIVAL FUNCTIONS (JP-5 GROUPS) 

A A 

CVN - 65 JP - 5 Tanks: X = 0.0334, k - 2.36, Mean Life - 26.53 years 



[0.0327 < X < 0.0341] 

95% Confidence Intervals : [2.17 < K < 2.55] 

Two parameter Weibull plots 



X = 0.0341 
k = 2.17 

X = 0.0334 
k = 2.36 

X = 0.0327 
k = 2.55 



CVN-65 JP-5 Tanks 





0 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 40. 45. 50. 

Time (Years) 



A A 

CV - 67 JP - 5 Tanks: X = 0.0465, k = 1.70, Mean Life = 19.19 years 



95 % Confidence Intervals: 
Two parameter Weibull plots: 



[0.0409 < A <0.0521] 
[1.24 < k <2.16] 



X = 0.0521 
k = 1.24 

X = 0.0465 
k = 1.70 

X = 0.0409 
k = 2.16 



CV-67 JP-5 Tanks 




CV-67 JP-5 Tanks 




90 



Reliability Reliability 



APPENDIX D. SURVIVAL FUNCTIONS (DC & LC VOID GROUPS) 

A A 

CVN - 65 Damage and List Control Voids: X = 0.0342, k = 1.48, Mean Life = 26.44 years 



[0.0330 < /l <0.0354] 

95% Confidence Intervals : ^ ^ “ K ~ 

Two parameter Weibull plots 



X = 0.0354 
k= 1.04 

X = 0.0342 
k= 1.48 

X = 0.0330 
k= 1.92 




Time (Years) 




Time (Years) 



A A 



CV - 67 Damage and List Control Voids: X = 0.0406, k = 

[0.0380 < A <0.0432] 



)5 % Confidence Intervals: 
Two parameter Weibull plots: 



[1.22 < k <2.79] 



2.00, Mean Life = 21.83 years 

X = 0.0432 

k= 1.22 

X = 0.0406 

k = 2.00 

X = 0.0453 
k = 2.79 





91 



APPENDIX D. SURVIVAL FUNCTIONS (DRY VOID GROUPS) 



A A 

CVN - 65 Dry Voids and Cofferdams: X = 0.0333, k = 4.66, Mean Life = 27.46 years 



95% Confidence Intervals : 
Two parameter Weibull plots 



[0.0331 < A < 0.0335] 
[3.85 < k <5.47] 



X = 0.0335 
k = 3.85 

X = 0.0333 
k = 4.66 

X = 0.0331 
k = 5.47 



CVN -65 Dry Voids and Cofferdams 





0 5 . 10 . 15 . 20 . 25 . 30 . 35 . 40 . 45 . 50 . 

Time (Years) 



92 



INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 



1. Defense Technical Information Center 2 

8725 John J. Kingman Road., Ste 0944 

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218 

2 . Dudley Knox Library 2 

Naval Postgraduate School 

411 DyerRd. 

Monterey, California 93943-5101 

3 . Professor Lyn Whitaker, Code OR/Wh 2 

Department of Operations Research 

Naval Postgraduate School 
Monterey, California 93943-5002 

4. Professor Arnold Buss, Code OR/Bu 1 

Department of Operations Research 

Naval Postgraduate School 
Monterey, California 93943-5002 

5. Professor Donald Gaver, Code OR/Gv 1 

Department of Operations Research 

Naval Postgraduate School 
Monterey, California 93943-5002 

6. Commander, Naval Air Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet 2 

Code 43 

Norfolk, Virginia 23511-5188 

7. Naval Sea Systems Command Detachment 3 

PERA CV Code 1822 

Attn: R. Wheeler 
1305 Ironsides Avenue 
Bremerton, Washington 98310-4924 

8. LT Charles R. Cordon 2 

1004 Kinne Street 

East Syracuse, New York 13057 



93 



DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY 
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL 

Monterey ca 93943-5101 



DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY 



3 2768 00335814 4