Daryl:

Being on the IEEE Standards Authority, and other standards committees, I will only comment on this: A standard only carries the weight that the user of the standard puts on it, regardless of who writes the standard. A standard is not meant as a position of authority that removes opinion.

As a matter of fact, my concern with standards is quite known within the groups that I deal with. For instance, it used to be that IEEE standards were developed primarily by the power industry and end-users of processes that were tried in the field. Now, you will find that committees are increasingly made up of vendors who sell the products and want to make sure that they are included in the standard and that they have an 'authorative' position over their competitors.

So, in the case of SAE, the authority of the standard is the authority given by the user of the standard, not by the committee that developed it. Standards are not law.

Again, using the IEEE SA, as an example: We periodically review existing standards to see if they are used or have value. If there is no sponsorship (ie: a committee cannot be formed) or not enough people show interest to vote on the standard, then it is retired.

My take on any standard, including the SAE RCM standard, is that the user of the standard must be aware of what the standard states and what the implication of the standard is for THEIR APPLICATION. Just citing the standard as a requirement, without understanding it, is just the same as applying a condition monitoring instrument to every system that it fits in a plant. It can be ineffective and expensive.

It can also be a way to ensure that a client's requirements are easily communicated. For instance, if I were to cite that I contractually require a vendor to meet the SAE standard, then I have communicated a contractual requirement. If I set up my own specifcation as to what I expect a vendor to perform in RCM (or whatever else), then I have communicated a contractual requirement.

The importance of standards then come into play, at this point. I am more apt to find vendors that can meet the standard than the specification. I have also ensured that as many 'holes' as possible are covered for that, similar or larger processes.

And, that leaves my position the same: If you cite a standard, make sure it meets your functional needs. If the standard is excessive for your requirements, then you will pay far more than what is required, making it ineffective. And, a standard only has the weight that end-users put on it, no more and no less.

Howard

Daryl

What you view as an "attack" on the SAE standard would seem to be better defined that my viewpoint does not fit into some rigid thought box.

Again - I support the standard and the 7 questions - I make one simple request - rename the process it seeks to define.

Fact - RCM derivations that do not meet the SAE standard existed before SAE created the standard.

Fact - Those RCM derivations are validated by the user.

Fact - They are now and forever will be RCM.

Those facts should not held as an attack on the SAE Standard.

SAE should have more carefully considered this factor if they share your desire to have one standard. They should not have used those three little letters:

R-C-M

It seems to me they could have easily renamed the process to avoid all of this - however several of the key committee players held commercial interests and felt they had some sort of "right" to the term.

Let go of the three letters and name this wonderful process that SAE defines something else and the whole debate is over.

Nowlan and Heap did not copyright the term - it is in the public domain. That means anyone and everyone can use and define it as they see fit. Pre SAE and post SAE.

You should join the SAE working committee and urge them to adopt a new name - Effective Maintenance Management (EMM) (sorry Vee), Reliability Centered Process (RCP), System Funcational Analysis (SFA), Functional Assurance System (FAS), Function Centered Maintenance (FCM), Machinery Centered Maintenance(MCM) etc....

(That paragraph reminds of the Johnny Cash song - A Boy names Sue - where he says that if he has a child he will name it Bill, Joe, Charlie - anything but Sue!).

Then the whole world could rally around - even those who dare to practice non-compliant RCM. Then your dream that there would be "one way forward" - a "universal method" that would be effective for all plants - large or small - budget or no - skilled workforce or not - would be consitant in approach.

Lighten up Daryl - the RCM derivations provide benefit - many plants need those benefits. They are not going away or changing their trademark names.

Get SAE to change the name if you want your dream to be fulfilled.

Terry O

I like the idea of unity in diversity, not uniformity but it requires a lot of tolerance.

What happens if something bad happens and the client defenced themselves that they have proper maintenance program installed including rcm. Then the inquiry audits the rcm and concluded it's a mere formality like the worst incident in the Northsea where the HSE system was evaluated.

In case of rcm, maybe the client will say we have answered all the 7 questions but the inquiry will look how effectively have them been answered. The client then said this consultant has done it for us.

Sorry for the digression and I intend not to add more fuel into the fire but is a consensus based on minimum standard criteria possible?

I have difficulty with the fact that the rcm derivations have been validated by the user. The word user here refers to whom, the provider of the rcm derivations or the client? If it's the client, can we put in a standard contractual clause ie The client's inspection or validation in this case shall not relieve the contractor/vendor from his total responsibility for the goods or services provided (which is normally used for fabrication or project works eg pressure vessels).

For HSE, I think we have to prepare the safety case (by law if not mistakenly) for installations to demonstrate all risks have been properly identified, assessed and control measures put in place. Are we going to wait for the law into effect?

Also I understand the ASME B&PV code originated following a series of explosions. Engineers came to the rescue, didn't they? Salute to the original 15 pages which I would like to have a copy if anybody got it. Are we waiting for something to happen for rcm?

How much safety factor do we have if we answer the 7 rcms questions?

Just my thoughts after reading this debate...

Josh,

An incident can occur if the right work is not done, or not done properly, or not done on time. We have to prove to the Regulator that we have done ALL of these.

To find out what work to do and when to do it, we can use RCM. That leaves the question relating to compliance and quality to be answered, but RCM cant help us there, because that is an 'execution' issue.

As to RCM itself, we need to answer the seven questions fully. That means we must be able to address the timing of work properly. In turn, this means we need to understand how the failure takes place (physically and statistically) - that is what I mean by the R in RCM.

Safety incidents are often related to hidden function failures. RCM shows us a clear way to resolve these, by identifying the right failure-finding (or detective) tasks, AND when to do them. To do this properly, we need failure rates, and the risk levels we are willing to tolerate (hence the probability of failure on demand). Some members take a different view from me about gathering reliability data. I do not wish to start another discussion on that, but want to emphasize that it is an essential RCM step (in my view).

Your question/comment implies that we need to find somebody to blame if things go badly wrong. In my view, The Company can never escape responsibility, whether or not the Consultant misled them. But surely 'blame' is not the point, we need a process that when implemented correctly will remove the need to blame.

V.Narayan.

Howard, (I take your point and will speak to it during this week)

Terry,

You miss the point. The RCM standard is called the RCM standard because it defines the minimum criteria that a proces must comply with to be called RCM.

Why should they have called it anything else, did you not read the blurb I placed on the other page regarding why this actually came about?

I will repost the quote int he last posting here:

quote:

...However, in the development of some of these documents, key elements of the process have been ommitted or misinterpreted. Due to the growing popularity of RCM, other processes have emerged that have been given the name "RCM" by their proponents, but that are not based on Nowlan and Heap at all. While most of these processes may achieve some of the goals of RCM, a few are actively counterproductive, and some are even dangerous.
...

So I would make one simple request, rename your annual convention to reflect what it is, a get together on developing maintenance analyses, not only those of compliant RCM methods.

Cal it what you will, call it Asset improvement conference, reliability improvement initiatives or whatever, but how can you truly call it "RCM" whatever if there is anything and everything there.

(I dont see what you are doing as a bad thing, quite the contrary, but the point remains)

Fact - The international community in maintenance needs standards, this is a frequent theme in every trade and asset management conference that I attend arond the world.

Fact - An internationally recognised standard exists for this purpose.

Fact - Those frequently coming out against this standard are usually doing so for personal commercial reasons.

There are a few people who, based on their extensive experience in applying the method do have differences of opinions that are forged from their unique experiences. This is not the case here I would suggest.

So what is the case here?

Most do agree on the seven questions in that sequence. I think this goes without saying.

Fact - There are a myriad of standards that exist throughout the world that touch on areas of engineering and of asset management. Is your advice to "not fall goose stepping into line" on all of these. Or just this one?

Of course they should have called it RCM, this is what it defines despite anybodies efforts to place it under a bad light.

Who actually are you defending here Terry? As I understand things (and I do not claim to be an expert on what does and does not comply with the standard)the vast majority of internationally "named" RCM methods do comply with the standard. E.g.

• Smiths "Classical" RCM is I believe compliant
  
• Pluncknette (Sincere apologies if I have spelled that incorrectly) has RCM Blitz which is compliant (I believe)
  
• The Aladon people with RCM2 are compliant (I believe)
  
• The RCM Analyst method is fully compliant (Our method)
  
• Processes within various utilities and rail institutions which are in-house "brands" (for want of a better word are compliant
  

So which actually are these methods that are not compliant with the seven questions, in that specific order? And how exactly are they not compliant?

From this point we actually have something of value to begin to debate here, rather than continuing to go backwards and forwards between the experience I have gained, and the opinions that you have formed.

I did some work with non-compliant methods in the early nineties, as well as a long time with MPDS which I don't believe was compliant at the time when I was working with it. But that no longer exists in its past form, and the stuff I was doing was myself personally.

My last question to you remains unanswered, if this standard (which we both agree is internationally recognised) is not used to define the minimum criteria (note: not HOW TO DO IT)then what does?

Is it anything with an FMEA in it? Is it anything with a decision diagram regardless of its formation? And who should decide this? Anything with a cherry on it? The problem is obvious.

And how, please tell me, do people compare the results of apples with lemons?

Those with non-compliant methods are free to call them what they like (whoever these phantoms are) but users are now able to use a guide to define what the minimum criteria for RCM are, and these will obviously fall short.

I realise it is in your commercial interests to have this apeal to the widest possible audience, but there are some significant consequences of this int erms of the methods that people are using that may call themselves RCM. (Again, I have no clue which these are by the way)

Do lighten up yourself Terry, I am stating opinions here and ewvery time I do on this issue you rush to attack the standard and all that went on before it piqued your interest. You have asked me to provide verifiable evidance rather than accepting my word as happens with everybody else here. (And that did realy surprise me, really)

There is no dream here Terry, there is a standard, and there is the gaping void that you are staunchly defending for your own reasons. I am sorry if the existance of this standard offends you so much, but it still exists. And it exists for those with compliant methods and for those with non-compliant methods. (Whoever they are. Who are they anyway?)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Ozgipsy>,

Terry,

I just wnat to speak to the verification by the user point.

As you would have read in the articles on your site, or in the interviews you conduct or in talking to professionals in the game, most will tell you that RCM is generally not something that people can merely apply directly without some form of training.

There is a reason for this. The basic issues regarding use of an FMEA and following a decision diagram are pretty straight forward.

But the intense stuff such as the probabilistic analysis of human error, (Also a part of the R in reliability Vee, and by the way also a part of the M for maitnenance) the derivation of optimum cost for hidden functions with operational consequences, the derivation of correct frequencies to perform failure finding intervals while sustaining a level of risk.. and a great deal more (Heaps more in fact) as well as how to implement the beast.

These are complex items, without which the method is just a shell. And when I meet people for the first time they generally have little or no knowledge of these issues, let alone the depth of information history and thought ouyt debates that have occurred to get them to the stage that they are at.

So, without taking anything away from end users, how exactly are they supposed to make decisions regarding the validity or lack thereof of a method to deliver the full range of benefits indicated within Nowlan and Heap?

For this reason clients are able to cite the internationally accepted and recognised standard within their contractual agreements with vendors on this subjst. Thus giving them some of the comfort that the method is at least based on something that was assembled by experts in the field. (As most standards are)

Terry,

Last one.. its 10 pm here and I have a 4 am start tomorrow.

Your comment:

quote:

It seems to me they could have easily renamed the process to avoid all of this - however several of the key committee players held commercial interests and felt they had some sort of "right" to the term.

Is a bit of veiled smoke and mirrors really isn't it. Of course there were some there with commercial interests.

As you have seen in this forum, and as well on the Plant-Maintenance forum, not everybody got their way all of the time and it is an insult to the committee to state that any one person was able to ram through their opinions and beliefs.

Even a cursory look at the standard and the guide proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There are, I would suggest, at least one or two people at the RCM Scorecard workshop who just may have had some commercial interests. (And possibly believed that it belonged to them...?(No!! You say... well just maybe!!))

And there may even be a commercial interest in not accepting the standard by organisers of an annual event... but arguing these points is just heresay and gets us away from the facts of the matter. (Everybody has different opinions, lets keep this to fact I suggest, by the questions in my previous posting as a starting point)

Vee,

Surely you dont really mean what I believe you mean in stating this...

quote:

To find out what work to do and when to do it, we can use RCM. That leaves the question relating to compliance and quality to be answered, but RCM cant help us there, because that is an 'execution' issue.

The M in RCM, as well as the R in RCM are about "all the actions that are required to ensure the asset does what the end users require of it".

Surely in your opinion this includes management procedures, quality procedures, safety procedures, maintenance procedures, asset management methods, as well as the "grease the motor" activities that used to be the only things associated with Maitnenance.

Or have I read you wrong here?

Later post: On reading this back I get what you were talking about. But I would still say that the execution processes could be covered in an RCM analysis... but then they still need to be done properly. (Your point is taken here)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Ozgipsy>,

The Company can never escape responsibility.

True and I dislike blaming too but the court will find faults. As you are aware, OSHA has identified various parties eg principal includes employer/owner & employee, third parties like consultants, vendors etc. We are all liable, ain't we? Hope no need to blame, just do rca & finish. Surely it wasn't so simple for the Occidental & Longford incidents.

I heard 1 doer of PM (derived from rcm by OEM?) got jailed for not removing a transparent plastic wrap over an aircraft height-detecting transmitter (if not mistakenly) which caused it to crash. The OEM paid millions compensation and don't know what happened to the employer of the PM doer.

So any more tips on how to answer the 7 rcm questions fully so that don't have to worry about the content proper of the rcm results and ready for implementation? what are the SAE rcm std minimum criteria?

There is an appendix in NH's rcm report entitled rcm audit. Wonder whether it was meant to address the issue debated here for the aricraft industry?

Wondering why SAE produced rcm std faster than organizations like API, ASME etc?

P/s similarly how to qa/qc IPF study (IEC-compliant?) or RBI (API-compliant?) which are complementary for maintenance where necessary.

Josh,

Everytime I post to your points I get no feedback from you as to whether it was useful for you or not. However, I will have a go again.

I suggest that you really do try to get a hold of the standard and, more importantly, the guide to the standard (SAE JA1012) for answering your questions here. Furthermore I would suggest that training could assist you greatly and there are a number of professionals within your part of the world who can offer you assistance on compliant RCM.

All your contributions are useful to me and those who is trying to comprehend rcm.

However, our reqt for rcm is at near future, so extensively exploring the maintenance & reliability strategies now (for mental preparedness).

Appreciate if you could list down the SAE rcm minimum criteria for the benefits of all forum memebers who are curious as to the basis of your position in this debate. Added: Hasn't SAE publish a review article on this rcm standard like like some notable organizations to instroduce it to the public?.

I agree training can help but I like to know the subject first (at least roughly) and the real training is the hands on doing rcm under the supervision of the rcm master analyst like your goodself etc.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Josh,

I agree with Josh, this discussion is going way out of hands, and difficult for the mere mortals to follow.
Show us some "hard" data about SAE (rcm) x others, so we can form also our opinions.

Josh,

John Moubray used to call RCM 'thoughtware', and I am a firm follower of this approach.

RCM is a process, a methodology that is structured and systemetic, that will help us think through and understand failure, its causes, whether it matters and how to reduce its frequency or consequences. It is not a formula or chemical equation, else we could program a computer to do our analysis instead of people. Various decisions have to be made along the way, but these are based on what we accept are the facts. The people who do the RCM apply their knowledge, experience and thought, after being trained in the process and under the guidance of an expert. The answers are theirs, not that of the expert. The expert is responsible for making the analysts follow the process correctly and validate the steps, but the anaylisis team is responsible for the outcome.

At the risk of repetition - once you have identified what to do and when to do it, it is not the end of the story. You still have to do it, do it on time, and do it to the right quality standards, for which you are responsible.

Getting an 'approved' RCM process does not give us a silver bullet to banish our problems forever. Following the correct process does help us plan the work properly; if we get that wrong, the impact of quality and compliance on reliability is also reduced.

V.Narayan.

I can't tell you all how much I have enjoyed all the points discussed here and through out the rest of the forums and I look forward to seeing all fo you who will be attending RCM-2006.
See you there.

Ahmed,

Thank you for bringing us back to the original subject. I look forward to meeting you there.

V.Narayan.

Terry/Others,

Intersting discussion on the SAE standard. I just found this thread and don;t know if anyone is still reading but I can't resist clearing up some misinformation. As one of the original 5 or six people who started the SAE standard and one of the few who saw it through to completion, I believe I'm fairly qualified to comment.

SImply put, DOD requsted that SAE come up with a commercial standard to replace MIL-STD-2173 because it was being cancelled due to a DOD initiative to save money by using commercial standards instead of Military Standards (the idea was that the commercial world somehow knew how to do everything faster, better, and cheaper). There was at the time NO commercial interest in the SAE standard other than a few aircraft OEMs who wanted to stay on top of what they would be forced to comply with in selling new airplanes. They knew very little about RCM themselves.

The reason the standard was important to NAVAIR was that with all of the things being called "RCM", they could not contract for RCM and be sure they'd get what they expected unless they had a "standard" to reference in contracts. Terry, I don't understand your argument about SAE using a different name. Nowan and Heap coined the term for a specific process why should a document that tries to remain true to the original concept change its name while others jumping on the bandwagon with completely different processes get to keep it? Why should someone with process completely different than the one that coined the term be allowed to use it but someone else who tries to remain true to the orginal process not be allowed to use it. Frankly, that doesn't make sense to me.

To continue with the history lesson... Late in the development of JA1011, John Moubray got involved and most certainly had some commercial interest in its involvement. However, the majority of the players, who were NAVAIR government employees (which included me at the time), went out of their (our) way to make sure the standard wasn;t hijacked for commercial purposes. And to John's credit, for the most part, he gave an honest attempt to lay out the concepts that he thought were the original tenets of N&H. He did afterall work with Stan Nowlan. We all at various times had to be reigned in from including ideas that we thought were "improvements" in order to be true to the intent of the standard. Essentially what we did was turn N&H into a standard, how could we not call that RCM? That is what it is. Period. No, the term isn't trademarked (althought pretty soon every letter and number combination with RCM in it will be) so anyone can use it.

Having said all of this, most of us that wrote the standard were not the RCM zealots that many seem to think. The NAVAIR people at least, know that a standard is simply a measuring stick. It may or may not be the best process to use in any given situation. In fact, many military standards contain explicit directions for "tailoring" or modification for a particular situation. We expected SAE JA1011 to be used similarly. Most of us who wrote the standard do not share John's and others opinion that a rigorous and comprehensive JA1011 analysis is the right thing or only thing for every situation. But when you buy an aircraft and the vendor says "yes we did RCM", you want to know that the vendor did something like what you expected on didn't just consult the magic 8 ball and call it RCM. For the most part, we don't really care if others call their processes RCM, because we can reference a JA1011 compliant RCM. That is the only point of the standard. If want to use RCM based on the original N&H methodology, use a JA1011 compliant RCM process; if you don't, use something else. And by all means, call it whatever you want.

Sorry to be so long winded, but it sometimes gets discouraging to have our hard work so misunderstood.

Excellent explanation JC - thank you.

My comment about using another acronym is not a statement about the validity or value of the SAE JA1011. It simply relates to history - just like your lesson above.

1) Nowlan and Heap write the original report titled Reliability Centered Maintenance

2) People like Mac Smith and John Moubray (and others) began applying RCM concepts in industrial settings and adding their own adaptations - for the most part staying true to N&H report (at least in the early days).

3) My understanding is that groups like the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) began to promote RCM in Nuclear then Fossil plants

4) many of these plants found RCM to be overwhelming and impractical (I am not addressing the causes in this post)

5) EPRI sponsored research into a streamlined RCM methodology which eventually became commercialized

6) Simultaneously - others developed streamlined, brief or abbreviated forms of RCM

7) Some implemented the original RCM, others streamlined RCM and other abbreviated RCM. There were successes for each and failures for each methodology

8) As you mention - dozens (if not hundreds) of RCM derivations were now being marketed and many were trademarked

9) People like Jack Nicholas has made a career out of studying each and every RCM methodology and in his days as an RCM consultant - often used blended techniques

10) SAE forms a committee (see above) and develops an RCM standard

I am fine with all of that - where I differ is that some RCM zealots (yes - they do exist) and other well intentioned RCM supporters - seem to think we can turn the clock backwards and make point 10 above happen as if it were point 2 above. If that were the case - then it would be fair to tell other RCM derivations to change the name and stop using the RCM acronym.

That was pretty long winded as well but the reality is that the RCM name was a "cat let out of a bag" and now everyone is using it and it means as many different things to people as there are derivation of methodology.

So to make a short story long - when I say that SAE would have been better served renaming the methodology - I am simply stating the reality that too many people are already using the term RCM and there is no way to put Pandora back in the box.

From a pragmatic standpoint - a different name would have been a shorter path to success.

A rose by any other name...

My 2 cents.

Terry O

PS: I sure hope we see everyone who is interested enough to read all of these RCM posts at RCM-2006. If you are interested enough to read these discussions, that is the event for you!

JC and Terrence,

Thank you both for the clarity of your explanations.

Terrence, I am of the view that N&H's concepte have been corrupted by some promoters of RCM-variations, while others still maintain the original intent and form. While N&H based their work on a lot of detailed reasearch and thought, I am not convinced that tjose who followed did comparable or original work, so 'lifting' the title while following a different path is to my mind, not ethical. Had N&H copyrighted or trade-marked the original RCM, these 'followers' would not have been able to use the name. Even those who allegedly follow the original path pay lip service to some aspects, especially the R in RCM.

Back to history. JA 1011 is a done deal. Commercial exploiters of the RCM name are here to stay. Some have the right to call it RCM, others dont, at least as N&H defined it. People will continue to be misled by incomplete RCM processes, because they are 'cheap'. If they ask for validation with e.g., JA 1011, they may catch the differences and make a conscious decision.

And if they dont work, its all RCM's fault. I see your point that every shoe does not fit every foot. Enlightened people can tell the difference between the shoes. But people who are looking for quick fixes and instant gratification dont or wont take the time to learn the difference. The hand we have been dealt is the one with which we can play, there is no chance for a new deal.

Forums such as these can help educate people about the differences. If we dont take strident positions, they may even listen to our views. And in the long run, maybe, just maybe, we can get the message across. But dont hold you breath, Gresham's law may still apply!

V.Narayan.

Gentlemen:

This seems to happen to all kinds of successes:

"Perhaps predictably, reengineering quickly became a bandwagon that everyone tried to jump on; but, problematically, not everyone know precisely what it was he or she was getting involved in. 'Give me reengineering, whatever it is, and give it to me fast,' was the command from many UNINFORMED chief executives. This was a situation ripe for disaster. Reengineering came to be viewed as an easy panacea that the CEO can simply delegate. And these are erroneous conclusions. Many managers did not want to read the book, consider seriously what the term meant or make difficult and significant choices. Instead, they looked for simple ways to reengineer and found a plethora of equally UNINFORMED consultants who were eager to help." - from Reengineering the Corporation by the founders of Reengineering, Michael Hammer and James Champy.

In the Motor Diagnostics and Motor Health Study, we discovered the same problems in the development of motor management, energy programs, etc.

There are just too many who want to find the easy way out, and too many who will help them get there.

Howard

Terry,

I appreciate you perspective and understand where you are coming from but I must respectfully disagree (what fun would it be if we all thought the same). I also don't think you are in any way attacking the standard.

A couple points:

In your list JA1011 was started somewhere between 5-7 not at 10. And it was written because DOD wanted to continue buying RCM, as it knew it, as opposed to all the new processes coming along. Why would it change the name of the process it developed and wanted to continue to use?

In fact the process you laid out is exactly how most standards get written:
1. Someone develops a product or process
2. Product or process gains acceptance and usage
3. Others copy/adapt/change process or product
4. Murder/mayhem/mass chaos follows (added for effect!)
5. At some point someone decides to "standardize" process
6. Standards are written

I'll illustrate with a little anecdote... DOD actually at one time had a military-standard for canned corn (yes the vegetable). Now I have no idea who originally decided they needed this standard, but I'll bet a weeks salary that it went something like this:

Military decides to buy corn. Bob in purchasing figures he can get a really good deal by buying large quantities. Vendor lowballs the bid to get big goverment contract. Drought in midwest, corn prices skyrocket. Vendor decides that since there is no definition for what constitutes a "can of corn" he puts less and less in each can filling the rest with water. Pretty soon a "can of corn" consists of a few corn parts in water. Other vendors come in selling "green corn" which is actually peas. Government decides it needs a "standard" to define what a can of corn is. Smart "standards people" convene. In order to address potential future problems, They decide to address things other than minimum percent by weight of actual corn kernels; they also decide what color and size kernels must be, where the corn must be grown ( probably added by the senator from Iowa), etc. etc. Corn now costs the DOD $8000 per can. Meanwhile people in grocery stores are still paying .49....

Sorry about that... I hope some find it humorous.