Defense Management: Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion of	 
Prepositioned Military Assets Could Achieve Cost Savings	 
(14-JUN-06, GAO-06-709).					 
                                                                 
The military services store prepositioned stocks of equipment and
material on ships and land in locations around the world to	 
enable the rapid fielding of combat-ready forces. GAO's prior	 
work has shown that the readiness and safety of military	 
equipment can be severely degraded by corrosion and that the	 
Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars annually  
to address corrosion. GAO was asked to review the impact of	 
corrosion on prepositioned assets. GAO's specific objectives were
to assess (1) the measures taken by the Army and the Marine Corps
to reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and (2)
the availability of corrosion-related data to the Army and the	 
Marine Corps to support corrosion prevention and mitigation	 
efforts for prepositioned assets.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-709 					        
    ACCNO:   A55525						        
  TITLE:     Defense Management: Additional Measures to Reduce	      
Corrosion of Prepositioned Military Assets Could Achieve Cost	 
Savings 							 
     DATE:   06/14/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Combat readiness					 
	     Comparative analysis				 
	     Corrosion						 
	     Data collection					 
	     Defense capabilities				 
	     Equipment maintenance				 
	     Equipment management				 
	     Maintenance costs					 
	     Military inventories				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-709

     

     * Results in Brief
     * Background
     * Army and Marine Corps Have Taken Some Measures to Reduce Imp
          * Prepositioned Equipment Deployed for Military Operations Was
          * Humidity-Controlled Facilities Have Helped Reduce Corrosion
          * Army Is Storing a Sizeable Portion of Its Land-Based Preposi
          * Temporary Shelters May Be a Feasible Option
     * Lack of Corrosion Data Impairs Army and Marine Corps Ability
          * Army and Marine Corps Are Not Collecting Corrosion Data on P
          * Corrosion Data Could Be Used to Support Additional Preventio
     * Conclusions
     * Recommendations for Executive Action
     * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Scope and Methodology
     * GAO Contact
     * Acknowledgments
     * GAO's Mission
     * Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
          * Order by Mail or Phone
     * To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * Congressional Relations
     * Public Affairs

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2006

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion of Prepositioned Military Assets
Could Achieve Cost Savings

GAO-06-709

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 5
Army and Marine Corps Have Taken Some Measures to Reduce Impact of
Corrosion on Prepositioned Assets, but the Army Could Increase Its Use of
Storage Facilities 6
Lack of Corrosion Data Impairs Army and Marine Corps Ability to Support
Prevention and Mitigation Efforts and Achieve Long-term Cost Savings 11
Conclusions 15
Recommendations for Executive Action 15
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16
Scope and Methodology 17
Appendix I Military Services' Prepositioning Programs 21
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 24
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 27

Table

Table 1: Description of Prepositioning Programs 21

Figure

Figure 1: Locations of Army (USAR), Marine Corps (USMC), Navy (USN), and
Air Force (USAF) Prepositioned Stocks 23

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

June 14, 2006

The Honorable Thad Cochran Chairman The Honorable Robert C. Byrd Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Appropriations United States Senate

The Honorable Jerry Lewis Chairman The Honorable David R. Obey Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives

The Army and the Marine Corps store prepositioned stocks of equipment and
material on ships and land in locations around the world to enable the
rapid fielding of combat-ready forces. These prepositioned stocks are a
strategic asset for projecting military power and have been used
extensively to support military operations in Southwest Asia. The Army
stores sets of brigade equipment and supporting supplies at land sites in
several countries as well as aboard prepositioning ships in the Pacific
and Indian Oceans. Each of the Army's prepositioned brigade sets is
designed to support 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers. The Marine Corps stores
equipment and supplies for its forces aboard squadrons of maritime
prepositioning ships around the world as well as in Norway. Each of the
Marine Corps' three prepositioning squadrons is designed to support 13,000
Marines for up to 30 days. We have previously raised concerns about the
oversight and direction of military prepositioning programs.1 For example,
we have reported that the services lacked sufficient information on the
inventory level and maintenance condition of some prepositioned stocks. In
addition, future plans for prepositioned assets are likely to be affected
by the availability of funding, spare part and equipment stocks shortages,
and the effects of transformation.2

1GAO, Defense Logistics: Better Management and Oversight of Prepositioning
Programs Needed to Reduce Risk and Improve Future Plans, GAO-05-427
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2005).

Because prepositioned assets are critical to the readiness of combat
forces, the military services must keep these items in good operating
condition. Among the challenges the services face in keeping their
equipment and supplies in good operating condition is corrosion caused by
exposure to the environment.3 Corrosion, if left unchecked, can degrade
the readiness and safety of equipment and has been estimated to cost the
Department of Defense (DOD) billions of dollars annually. The military
services have established programs aimed at minimizing the impact of
corrosion on their assets, and DOD has developed a long-term corrosion
prevention and mitigation strategy.

This report responds to a request in the Conference Report accompanying
the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill that we review the impact
of corrosion on prepositioned assets.4 Our specific objectives were to
assess (1) the measures taken by the Army and the Marine Corps to reduce
the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and (2) the availability
of corrosion-related data to the Army and the Marine Corps to support
corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts for prepositioned assets.

Our review focused on prepositioned stocks managed by the Army and Marine
Corps because these two services have the largest amounts of prepositioned
equipment and provided most of the equipment used in current operations in
Southwest Asia. To conduct our work, we reviewed the services' policies,
procedures, and practices for managing and maintaining prepositioned
assets; analyzed various reports on these assets, including inspection and
maintenance reports; visited selected maintenance facilities and
prepositioning sites; and discussed corrosion issues with officials
responsible for managing and maintaining prepositioned assets and for
managing corrosion prevention and mitigation programs. We determined that
the data used were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted
our work from May 2005 through February 2006 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. The scope and methodology section
contains more detailed information on the work we performed.

2Among recent changes, the Army is reconstituting prepositioning stocks in
Southwest Asia and recently completed a significant effort to repair
prepositioned items in South Korea. In addition, the Army plans to cut its
afloat prepositioning capability in half (from two brigade sets to one)
and is planning to reduce the contractor workforce at Goose Creek, South
Carolina, where maintenance is performed on the equipment.

3Corrosion is defined under 10 U.S.C. Section 2228 as the deterioration of
a material or its properties caused by a reaction of that material with
its chemical environment.

4H.R. Conf. Rpt. 108-622, at 98.

                                Results in Brief

The Army and the Marine Corps have taken some measures for reducing the
impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets, primarily through the use of
humidity-controlled storage facilities on ships and in some land-based
locations, but a substantial portion of Army land-based prepositioned
assets are stored outdoors and, therefore, are left relatively unprotected
from moisture, sand, and other elements that contribute to corrosion. When
prepositioned equipment was drawn by Army and Marine units for military
operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom during 2003, it was reported to be
in good operating condition and was not degraded by corrosion. Most of
this equipment had been stored in humidity-controlled facilities. However,
the Army is currently storing a significant amount of its land-based
prepositioned assets outdoors. In contrast, all Marine Corps prepositioned
assets are stored in humidity-controlled facilities both on ships and in
caves in Norway. Under Army policy, the preferred method for storing
prepositioned assets is in humidity-controlled facilities because outdoor
storage makes equipment more susceptible to corrosion that degrades its
condition and increases maintenance requirements and costs. One Army study
showed that sheltering equipment in a humidity-controlled facility had a
return on investment, at minimum, of $8 for every $1 invested. In South
Korea, the Army has recently completed an intensive effort to repair
prepositioned assets and correct some long-standing problems, but almost
one-third of prepositioned assets, including brigade-set and sustainment
stocks, continue to be stored outside rather than in shelters. Similarly,
as the Army reconstitutes its prepositioned equipment in Southwest Asia,
thousands of Army prepositioned equipment items in Kuwait are stored
outdoors in harsh environmental conditions, requiring more frequent
maintenance than would be the case if shelters were used. The Army's
prepositioned afloat maintenance facility in South Carolina also lacks
humidity-controlled storage for equipment awaiting upload to ships, and
equipment is stored outside anywhere from 1 to 3 months, on average. Army
officials cited a number of factors, primarily competing funding
priorities, as reasons for not providing indoor storage for all land-based
prepositioned assets. However, temporary shelters may be a feasible option
to address immediate storage needs. The Army has used temporary shelters
and humidity-controlled storage for some prepositioned assets.

Although Army regulations require corrosion-related data to be collected
for equipment items and Marine Corps officials believe them to be
beneficial, corrosion-related data that could enhance efforts to prevent
and mitigate corrosion of prepositioned assets are not available. They are
not available because the Army and Marine Corps consider this information
to be a low priority and therefore do not systematically collect it.
Without these data, the services are not in a position to identify the
underlying causes of corrosion, support efforts to more effectively
prevent and mitigate corrosion, and achieve long-term cost savings. Army
and Marine Corps documents we reviewed include information on the
maintenance condition, repair actions, and costs for prepositioned
equipment, but provide little data regarding the extent and nature of
corrosion found during the maintenance process. Army and Marine Corps
officials said corrosion is routinely treated as part of the overall
maintenance process and, given its low priority, corrosion-related data
are not tracked separately. Although the Army and Marine Corps are not
collecting data about the current costs to prevent and mitigate corrosion
of prepositioned assets, the services have estimated that about 25 percent
of overall maintenance costs are corrosion related and perhaps as much as
one-third of these costs could be reduced through more effective corrosion
prevention and mitigation. At our request, the Army conducted a limited
review of maintenance records for about 2,000 pieces of prepositioned
stock in South Korea and found that about $8.7 million (31 percent) of the
estimated $28 million spent to restore this equipment to serviceable
condition was used to address corrosion-related problems. Information that
would be obtained through the collection of corrosion data could support
the Army's and Marine Corps' efforts to more effectively prevent and
mitigate corrosion and achieve long-term cost savings. The Army has had
previous success using corrosion data on non-prepositioning equipment
programs to support corrosion prevention and mitigation actions. Two
examples where such actions resulted in cost savings are the Army National
Guard's humidity-controlled shelter program and the Army's Hellfire
missile program.

To reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and support
additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts, we are
recommending that the Army examine the feasibility of using temporary
shelters to store land-based prepositioned assets currently stored
outdoors and that the Army and Marine Corps enhance their efforts to
collect corrosion-related data on prepostioned assets. In commenting on a
draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendations. DOD's
response is reprinted in appendix II.

                                   Background

Prepositioned equipment and supplies are strategic assets, along with
sealift and airlift, for projecting military power. These assets include
combat equipment, spare parts, and sustainment supplies that are stored on
ships and on land in locations around the world to enable the rapid
fielding of combat-ready forces. (App. I provides an overview of the
military services' prepositioned assets and their locations.) DOD has made
significant investments in its military prepositioning programs, totaling
several billion dollars in annual acquisition costs. In addition, the
services have collectively used an average of over $1 billion each year to
operate and maintain these assets. For example, in fiscal year 2005, the
Army spent $386.1 million for storage and maintenance of prepositioned
assets, including $76.5 million for assets in South Korea and $38.3
million for assets in Southwest Asia. Prepositioned assets have been used
extensively to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marine
Corps used equipment from two of its three prepositioned squadrons to
support these operations. The Army used nearly all of its prepositioned
ship stocks and land-based stocks in Kuwait and Qatar, in addition to
drawing some equipment from Europe.

Military equipment and infrastructure are often located in corrosive
environments that increase the deterioration of assets and shorten their
useful life. The extensive and long-term deployments of U.S. troops in
Southwest Asia are likely to magnify the effects of corrosion on military
equipment, including prepositioned assets, because of the region's harsh
operating environment. Higher rates of corrosion result in increased
repairs and replacements, drive up costs, and take critical systems out of
action, reducing mission readiness. Corrosion can also reduce the safety
of equipment items. Although reliable cost data are not available,
estimates of corrosion costs DOD-wide have ranged from $10 billion to $20
billion annually. We have found in our prior work that DOD and the
military services did not have an effective management approach to
mitigate and prevent corrosion.5 We recommended that DOD develop a
departmentwide strategic plan with clearly defined goals, measurable
outcome-oriented objectives, and performance measures. DOD concurred and
in December 2003 issued its corrosion strategy.6

5GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and
Increase Readiness, GAO-03-753 (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2003).

6Office of the Secretary of Defense, Long-Term Strategy to Reduce
Corrosion and the Effects of Corrosion on the Military Equipment and
Infrastructure of the Department of Defense (December 2003).

According to DOD's corrosion strategy, knowing the costs of corrosion is
essential to adequately implementing the strategy, and having corrosion
data helps the department learn what works so it can be more effective in
reducing corrosion. In addition, the Defense Science Board in 2004 stated
that "accurate and objective corrosion data collection and new incentives
to reward life-cycle cost reduction efforts must be implemented" as part
of an effective corrosion control program and that such data are critical
"not only to understand the depth of the problem, but to enable a
quantitative corrosion mitigation strategy, which is founded on fact." 7

Army and Marine Corps Have Taken Some Measures to Reduce Impact of Corrosion on
Prepositioned Assets, but the Army Could Increase Its Use of Storage Facilities

The Army and Marine Corps have taken some measures to reduce the impact of
corrosion on prepositioned assets, but the Army could increase its use of
storage facilities for land-based assets. Prepositioned equipment drawn by
Army and Marine Corps units for military operations in Iraq during 2003
had mostly been stored in humidity-controlled facilities and was reported
to be in good operating condition and was not degraded by corrosion. The
primary measure taken to reduce corrosion and achieve this good operating
condition was the use of humidity-controlled storage facilities. However,
we identified several locations where the Army is currently storing a
substantial portion of its prepositioned equipment outdoors. Temporary
shelters may be a feasible option to address immediate storage needs.

Prepositioned Equipment Deployed for Military Operations Was Reported to Be in
Good Operating Condition

When prepositioned equipment was drawn by Army and Marine Corps units in
military operations in Iraq during 2003, it was reported to be in good
working condition and was not degraded by corrosion. Army officials from
the 3rd Infantry Division have stated that with the exception of rubber
seals on some vehicles, prepositioned equipment entering Southwest Asia
was in good shape and had minimal, if any, corrosion. These officials said
they did not experience any corrosion that affected their ability to
perform operations. Similarly, officials with the 1st and 2nd Marine
Expeditionary Forces who used or observed the use of prepositioned
equipment in Southwest Asia found it was in a high state of readiness and
could not recall any instance where corrosion affected their ability to
perform operations. Furthermore, officials with the 3rd Marine
Expeditionary Force said the equipment on the prepositioning ship USNS
Lummus that was used in a 2004 training exercise in South Korea was
generally in the same good operating condition it was when first uploaded
about 2 years previously. These officials stated that subsequent
maintenance in August 2005 confirmed that the equipment continued to be in
good operating condition based on a detailed examination of about 200
pieces of this equipment. They told us that with the exception of minor
hydraulic leaks and o-ring deterioration, the equipment was generally free
of corrosion problems.

7Defense Science Board, Report on Corrosion Control (October 2004).

Humidity-Controlled Facilities Have Helped Reduce Corrosion

The primary measure to reduce corrosion of Army and Marine Corps
prepositioned assets has been the use of humidity-controlled storage
facilities. Most of the prepositioned equipment drawn for military
operations in Iraq during 2003 had been stored, either afloat or on land,
in such facilities. Under Army policy, the preferred method for storing
prepositioned assets is in humidity-controlled facilities because such
storage is considered highly effective in preserving equipment.
Maintaining low humidity levels reduces corrosion because moisture is a
primary cause of corrosion. Similarly, Marine Corps policies indicate that
equipment should be sheltered in climate-controlled facilities to the
greatest extent possible. Army and Marine Corps officials told us that the
use of humidity-controlled facilities is effective at minimizing equipment
corrosion and maintaining high readiness levels.8 Army equipment on
prepositioning ships is stored below deck in humidity-controlled cargo
space. In addition, the Army stores some of its land-based prepositioned
equipment in humidity-controlled warehouses. Marine Corps prepositioned
assets are stored in humidity-controlled facilities either on ships or in
caves in Norway. Humidity levels, particularly on ships, are required
under Army and Marine Corps guidelines to stay within a specific range on
a continuous basis and are closely monitored.

In addition to humidity-controlled storage, the Army and Marine Corps have
taken other measures intended to help reduce the impact of corrosion on
prepositioned assets. Army and Marine Corps policies require that repaired
equipment be restored to good condition before being placed in
prepositioned status. Specifically, Army maintenance regulations require
prepositioned equipment to be maintained at "10/20" standards,9 the
highest standard the Army has for equipment maintenance. Army maintenance
regulations also provide for the use of lubricants and preservatives, as
well as regular inspections. Marine Corps policy indicates that all
equipment generally will be in "Code A" condition at the time it is placed
in storage.10 Code A means the equipment is serviceable without any
limitation or restriction. Marine Corps officials told us equipment
meeting this standard would have little to no corrosion. Marine Corps
maintenance guidance for prepositioned equipment consists of a variety of
corrosion prevention and mitigation measures, including visual inspections
for leaks, corrosion removal and recoating, and preservation.11 For
equipment stored on the prepositioned ships, inspections are conducted on
a periodic basis. Both Army and Marine Corps officials said corrosion is
routinely treated as part of the maintenance process for restoring
equipment to meet standards.12

8With regard to readiness, for example, on October 24, 2005, the Army
reported high readiness levels for prepositioned assets stored on ships in
Army Strategic Flotilla II (Diego Garcia). Similarly, as of January 31,
2006, the Marine Corps reported high readiness levels for equipment stored
on its prepositioning ships.

Army Is Storing a Sizeable Portion of Its Land-Based Prepositioned Assets
Outdoors

We identified several locations where the Army is storing a significant
amount of land-based prepositioned assets outdoors without adequate
sheltering. Specifically, we found equipment being stored outdoors at Camp
Carroll, South Korea; Camp Arifjan, Kuwait; and Goose Creek, South
Carolina. At these locations, assets are left relatively unprotected from
moisture, sand, and other elements that contribute to corrosion. Army
officials noted that unprotected equipment corrodes faster and will more
quickly fall below required maintenance condition standards. At Camp
Carroll in South Korea, about 30 percent of the Army's Heavy Brigade
Combat Team equipment-mostly sustainment stock-is stored outdoors in an
often damp and humid region. The remaining equipment is stored in
humidity-controlled facilities. Army officials told us that the equipment
had been poorly maintained and, as a result, experienced many significant
defects and readiness shortfalls, with corrosion being one of the primary
problems.13 These officials said some of the equipment corroded faster and
more severely because of being stored outside and, as a result, the Army
incurred additional maintenance costs. Army officials in South Korea noted
that it costs more to maintain equipment that is stored outside in part
because the equipment needs to be inspected three times more often than
equipment in humidity-controlled storage. Large amounts of Army
prepositioned equipment are also stored outside in Kuwait where, according
to DOD and Army officials, the environment is highly corrosive because of
the humid climate, sand with high salinity levels, and strong winds.  As
of April 2006, the Army was storing outside nearly all of its
prepositioned assets (numbering about 11,000 items) in Southwest Asia.14
At the Army's prepositioning afloat facility in Goose Creek, South
Carolina, equipment is stored outside during the time it is not undergoing
maintenance because of a lack of storage facilities. The amount of time
equipment is stored outside ranges, on average, from 1 month to more than
3 months. In some cases, equipment is stored outside well over 3 months.
For example, 44 M1A1 tanks and 10 fuel tankers sat outdoors for more than
a year after undergoing maintenance and experienced a total of $1.2
million in corrosion-related damage. Army officials said that prolonged
periods of outdoor storage as happened in this case rarely occur, but that
some period of outdoor storage is expected for equipment waiting upload.

9Army Technical Manual 38-470. 10/20 refers to the suffix found on Army
technical manuals pertaining to vehicle and equipment maintenance
practices.

10Marine Corps Headquarters, Prepositioning Programs Handbook (March
2005).

11The Marine Corps' Prepositioning Programs Handbook describes the process
used to maintain prepositioned equipment and supplies that are stored by
subjecting them to periodic quality assurance inspections, replacement or
rotation, and logistic support to maintain the highest state of combat
readiness. See also Corrosion Control Procedures; Depot Maintenance
Activities for Marine Corps Equipment (TM-3080-50); Organizational
Corrosion Prevention and Control Procedure for USMC Equipment
(TM-4795-12/1); and U.S. Marine Corps Maritime Prepositioning Force
Operations, Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-32/Navy Tactics,
Technicians, and Procedures 3-02.3.

12We visited maintenance facilities and spoke with personnel responsible
for equipment maintenance, including treatment for corrosion, but we did
not review how effective the services were in meeting maintenance
standards.

Army officials acknowledged having an immediate need for additional
sheltering, preferably with humidity control capability, for prepositioned
equipment located in South Korea, Kuwait, and South Carolina. However,
under current construction plans, additional storage facilities will not
be available at all three sites until 2012 at the earliest. In South Korea
and Kuwait, Army officials said that even with the additional planned
storage facilities, substantial amounts of equipment will still be stored
outdoors. For example, officials estimated about 20 percent of equipment
in Kuwait will remain outside. Officials cited competing funding
priorities as the primary reason for not providing indoor storage for all
land-based prepositioned assets. Army officials also cited uncertainties
regarding the number and type of equipment and length of time it is
stored, which make it difficult to accurately define storage requirements
and justify funding for construction of additional storage facilities. In
South Korea, Army officials told us the lack of available land limits
their ability to construct new, or expand existing, facilities. These
officials also said that estimating storage needs is difficult because of
uncertainties regarding the consolidation and reconfiguration of U.S.
Forces Korea facilities related to future force restructuring. Army
prepositioning afloat officials said that the Goose Creek facility
primarily is a maintenance facility and is not meant for the storage of
equipment, which makes it difficult to justify the building of new storage
space.

13Until recently, the equipment located in South Korea suffered from
serious maintenance deficiencies and readiness shortfalls because of
long-standing management problems. The Army implemented an intense effort
to address these deficiencies and reported that all equipment was restored
to required maintenance standards by the end of fiscal year 2005. See GAO,
Defense Logistics: Better Planning and Accountability Needed to Ensure
Mission Capability of Army Prepositioned Stocks in South Korea, GAO-05-751
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2005).

14These data, in addition to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, include smaller
prepositioning sites in Qatar and Afghanistan.

Although building additional storage will require Army investment, the use
of humidity-controlled storage in general has been shown to provide a
substantial return on investment. According to a study by the Army Cost
and Economic Analysis Center, sheltering Army National Guard equipment in
a humidity-controlled facility had a potential return on investment of a
minimum of $8 for every $1 invested. The Army National Guard also
estimates that it will have achieved a total of over $1.2 billion in cost
savings by fiscal year 2010. Most of the projected savings is based on
having to perform less maintenance on equipment that is being preserved
better in humidity-controlled facilities. The humidity-controlled
sheltering program includes combat vehicles, trailers, radar systems, and
other equipment located at Guard facilities in 45 states and U.S.
territories. According to Army storage and maintenance guidelines, storage
of equipment in facilities without humidity control-particularly in open
storage without protection-not only invites greater and more rapid
deterioration because of corrosion but requires increased surveillance,
inspections, and maintenance. For example, whereas combat vehicles in
humidity-controlled facilities need to be exercised and road tested every
30 months, vehicles stored without humidity control require exercising
every 12 months. One of the benefits of humidity control is avoiding or at
least minimizing these increased maintenance requirements.

Temporary Shelters May Be a Feasible Option

Given the competing funding priorities and other constraints cited by Army
officials in providing additional storage facilities for prepositioned
equipment, temporary shelters may be a feasible option to address
immediate storage needs. Temporary shelters are available in a range of
sizes, materials, and features, including humidity control. For example,
"K-SPAN" temporary shelters are steel structures constructed on-site and
set over a concrete foundation. These shelters may be dismantled,
packaged, and relocated. Army officials told us that temporary shelters
are used primarily in situations where immediate storage is required but
may be durable enough to last for several years. Furthermore, they can be
acquired faster than permanent facilities, which may take several years to
plan, fund, and build. The military services have made prior use of
temporary shelters in several locations, for both prepositioned and
non-prepositioned equipment. For example, the Marine Corps uses temporary
humidity-controlled facilities in Florida to store some of its
prepositioned assets awaiting maintenance and upload to ships. In
addition, the Army has stored prepositioned equipment in temporary
shelters located in Livorno, Italy, and Camp Carroll, South Korea. The
Marine Corps has also used temporary shelters to store non-prepositioned
equipment in Hawaii.

    Lack of Corrosion Data Impairs Army and Marine Corps Ability to Support
      Prevention and Mitigation Efforts and Achieve Long-term Cost Savings

The lack of available corrosion data impairs the ability of the Army and
Marine Corps to achieve long-term costs savings through corrosion
prevention and mitigation efforts. The Army and Marine Corps consider
collection of corrosion data on prepositioned assets to be a low priority
and, consequently, do not systematically collect them. These data could be
used to support additional prevention and mitigation efforts that achieve
long-term cost savings, similar to the Army's previous success using
corrosion data regarding non-prepositioning programs.

Army and Marine Corps Are Not Collecting Corrosion Data on Prepositioned Assets

Corrosion-related data that could enhance efforts to prevent and mitigate
corrosion of prepositioned assets is unavailable because the Army and
Marine Corps consider collection of this information to be a low priority
and, consequently, do not systematically collect it. Army regulations
require units to collect corrosion-related data as part of their equipment
maintenance and storage programs, while the Marine Corps generally lacks
requirements for collection of corrosion-related data.15 For example, the
Army's Corrosion Prevention and Control Program regulation includes a
requirement for a corrosion-related survey of all divisions and separate
combat brigades to be conducted at least every 4 years.16 In addition,
Army policy on reporting equipment quality deficiencies includes a
requirement to report problems that are corrosion related.17 The Marine
Corps, on the other hand, does not require the collection of corrosion
information for all equipment, but believes it to be beneficial. The
mission of the Marine Corps' Corrosion Prevention and Control Program is
to reduce maintenance requirements and costs associated with corrosion,
and the program seeks to identify and assess current and projected
corrosion problems for all tactical ground and ground support equipment.
Marine Corps officials said that the desire for the collection of
corrosion information applies to all Marine Corps activities, including
prepositioning programs, but acknowledge that data are not collected on
prepositioned assets because they have a low priority. Corrosion data
could be used to help identify underlying causes of maintenance problems
and obtain a better understanding of the costs of corrosion and the extent
it affects readiness.

Despite Army corrosion data collection requirements and the establishment
of corrosion prevention and control programs in the Army and Marine Corps,
we found that information about corrosion of prepositioned assets is
generally lacking in both services. We reviewed a wide range of reports
and other documentation on Army and Marine Corps prepositioned equipment
and found these to be almost devoid of corrosion-related data. For
example, we examined information on the maintenance condition and repair
actions for prepositioned equipment from the Army Maintenance Management
System, but this system did not contain information regarding the extent
and nature of equipment corrosion. Likewise, the cost data on
prepositioned equipment contained in the Marine Corps' Standard
Accounting, Budgeting and Reporting System, which contains total
maintenance and repair costs for all prepositioned equipment, also did not
include information specifically on corrosion costs. We also asked the
Army and Marine Corps for information regarding the impact of corrosion on
maintenance costs, equipment deficiencies, inventory levels, and readiness
rates. In almost every instance, this corrosion information was not
available. As we have previously reported, DOD and the military services
generally have a limited amount of corrosion data related to cost
estimates, readiness, and safety data.18

15Marine Corps mishap and safety recordkeeping and reporting guidance
requires the collection and reporting of mishap causes, including some
information on corrosion, if relevant. For example, when a mishap occurs,
corrosion problems, such as corroded parts, corrosion control inadequacies
or preservation failures, should be listed in the mishap report if they
were causes of the mishap. OPNAVINST 5102.1D.

16According to Army Regulation 750-59, these surveys are to include an
assessment of the condition of equipment, to include prepositioned
material; an evaluation of program management and procedures; and the
development of corrective action plans.

17According to Department of the Army Pamphlet 738-750, Functional Users
Manual for The Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS), quality
deficiencies, such as those caused by corrosion, are to be reported when
the defect may cause death, injury, or severe illness; would cause loss or
major damage to a weapon system; or critically restricts combat readiness
capabilities.

According to Army and Marine Corps officials, corrosion information on
prepositioned assets is unavailable primarily because it has low priority.
Although Army guidance for documenting equipment maintenance includes
detailed instructions for reporting corrosion issues, Army officials said
most of those responsible for documenting the maintenance action do not
want to take the extra time to include corrosion information because they
see it as having minimal value and have no incentive to collect it.
Similarly, Marine Corps officials stated that there is minimal incentive
to capture and report corrosion costs for prepositioned equipment because
maintenance costs are typically managed at more general levels, such as
the costs to repair or replace a piece of equipment. Officials from both
the Army and the Marine Corps said that corrosion is routinely treated as
part of the overall maintenance process, and corrosion-related data are
not tracked separately. For example, Army officials at Camp Carroll, South
Korea, told us that corrosion observed on the engine blocks in 5-ton
trucks would be repaired during maintenance performed on the entire engine
and would not be noted in the maintenance logs. Instead, documentation of
the maintenance actions would include a description of the equipment or
component and why it was not functional-such as being broken or
cracked-but would not include the reason for the repair, such as
corrosion. According to Marine Corps officials, corrosion information has
value but not enough to be included with more critical information, such
as the amount of equipment in the inventory and amount in serviceable
condition.

18 GAO-03-753 .

Although the Army and Marine Corps are not collecting data about the
current costs to prevent and mitigate corrosion of prepositioned assets,
the military services have estimated that at least 25 percent of overall
maintenance costs are corrosion related and that as much as one-third of
these costs could be reduced through more effective corrosion prevention
and mitigation. Army and Marine Corps officials told us that this estimate
applies to both prepositioned and non-prepositioned assets because
corrosion affects both types of equipment in similar ways. Because of the
lack of available cost data, the Army, at our request, conducted a limited
review of maintenance records for about 2,000 pieces of prepositioned
stock in South Korea. The Army determined that about $8.7 million (31
percent) of the estimated $28 million spent to restore this equipment to
serviceable condition was used to address corrosion-related problems. As
another indication of corrosion costs, Marine Corps officials estimated
that corrosion costs make up at least 50 percent of the $110,000 needed,
on average, to repair motorized lighterage19 prepositioned equipment.

Corrosion Data Could Be Used to Support Additional Prevention and Mitigation
Efforts That Achieve Long-term Cost Savings

The additional information that would be obtained through the collection
of corrosion data could support the Army's and Marine Corps' efforts to
more effectively prevent and mitigate corrosion and achieve long-term cost
savings, which could be significant given the resources the military
services devote each year to addressing corrosion-related problems.
Corrosion prevention measures may reduce the amount of maintenance needed,
thereby extending the availability of equipment items over their life
cycle. The Army has had previous success using corrosion data regarding
non-prepositioning programs to support corrosion prevention and mitigation
efforts that achieved long-term cost savings. For example, the Army
National Guard began the initial phase of a humidity-controlled storage
program for its vehicles and equipment in 1994. Guard officials told us
that they collected and analyzed an extensive amount of information on
corrosion and its cost impacts on selected pieces of equipment and
estimated that a significant amount of corrosion-related costs could be
avoided by using humidity-controlled storage facilities. Program officials
currently estimate that the sheltering and preservation effort will save a
total of about $1.2 billion through fiscal year 2010, which reflects a 9
to 1 return on investment. Army officials cited similar results after
collecting corrosion data on Hellfire missile launchers. The types and
areas of the launchers that were most prone to corrosion-such as missile
safety/arming switches-were identified and documented. Based on this
research, maintenance technicians knew better to look for corrosion and
how to control it before it worsened. The Army Missile Command's tactical
missile program executive office attributed a large portion of its $3.2
billion overall long-term life cycle savings to the Hellfire corrosion
prevention measures. Collection of corrosion data for prepositioned
equipment could better enable the Army and Marine Corps to support similar
corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts in their prepositioning
programs.

19Lighterage is small craft-powered and nonpowered-designed to transport
cargo or personnel from ship to shore. Lighterage includes amphibious
vehicles, landing craft, causeways, and barges. Marine Corps officials
estimate that at least 50 percent of the $35,000 needed to repair the
average nonmotorized lighterage equipment is used to address
corrosion-related damage.

                                  Conclusions

Effectively addressing corrosion on prepositioned stocks of equipment can
enable the services to achieve significant cost savings and increase
readiness and safety for rapidly fielding combat-ready forces around the
world. Although the Army and Marine Corps have taken measures to reduce
the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets, there are immediate
opportunities for taking additional action. Sheltering assets-especially
sheltering in humidity-controlled facilities-has been shown to be a key
anticorrosion practice, yet large amounts of Army land-based prepositioned
assets are stored outdoors without adequate sheltering. This practice is
wasteful given the large investment in acquiring the equipment and the
annual costs of maintaining it. Furthermore, while the Army and Marine
Corps do not collect corrosion data for prepositioned equipment, the
collection of such data could provide additional information to identify
the underlying causes of maintenance problems and develop solutions to
address these problems. Without such data, the services may lack the
incentive to support efforts to more effectively prevent and mitigate
corrosion and achieve long-term cost savings. Until the Army and Marine
Corps take additional actions to prevent corrosion, such as implementing
use of temporary shelters to the greatest extent feasible and collecting
corrosion-related data, prepositioned equipment stored outdoors will
continue to corrode at an accelerated pace and the services will continue
to incur unnecessary costs for maintaining equipment and repairing
corrosion damage.

                      Recommendations for Executive Action

To reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and support
additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts, we recommend that
the Secretary of Defense take the following three actions:

           o  Direct the Secretary of the Army to examine the feasibility of
           using temporary shelters, including humidity-controlled
           facilities, to store land-based prepositioned assets currently
           stored outdoors, and if such use is determined to be feasible, to
           take appropriate actions to implement the use of shelters to the
           maximum extent possible.

           o  Direct the Secretary of the Army to collect corrosion-related
           data, as required in existing Army regulations, and use these data
           to support additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts.

           o  Direct the Commandant of the Marine Corps to require the
           collection of corrosion-related data and use these data to support
           additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts.

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to specify the
department's planned actions, milestones, and resources for completing an
Army feasibility study on the use of temporary shelters to store
land-based prepositioned assets and for collecting and using Army and
Marine Corps corrosion-related data to support additional corrosion
prevention and mitigation efforts.

                       Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our
recommendations that the Army consider the feasibility of using temporary
shelters, including humidity-controlled facilities, to store land-based
prepositioned assets currently stored outdoors and that the Army and
Marine Corps collect and use corrosion-related data to support additional
corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. However, DOD did not provide
specific information on planned actions, milestones, and resources for
implementing the recommendations. With respect to the Marine Corps, DOD
stated that collection of adequate data is not a matter of being a low
priority but a funding issue. As noted in our report, we were told by
Marine Corps officials that collection of these data has been a low
priority. We believe that funding and priorities should be aligned to the
greatest extent possible to provide greater assurance that the
department's resources are being used prudently. As stated in our report,
DOD can achieve long-term cost savings by investing in additional
corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. In addition, investments in
corrosion prevention measures may reduce the amount of maintenance needed
on equipment items, thereby extending the availability of equipment items
over their life cycle. On the basis of our evaluation of DOD's comments,
we have added a recommendation that DOD specify actions, milestones, and
resources for implementing our recommendations to the Army and the Marine
Corps.

DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix II.

                             Scope and Methodology

We focused our review on the prepositioned assets managed by the Army and
Marine Corps because these two services have the majority of the
military's prepositioned assets, and these services provided most of the
equipment used in current operations in Southeast Asia.

To assess the measures taken by the Army and Marine Corps to reduce the
impact that corrosion has on prepositioned assets, we met with DOD and
service command officials responsible for managing and maintaining
prepositioned assets; obtained their assessments and perspectives on
corrosion prevention and mitigation programs and strategies; and obtained
and reviewed DOD and service policies, procedures, and practices,
including technical orders and manuals, for managing and maintaining
prepositioned assets. We met with DOD officials involved with developing
DOD's long-term strategy to prevent and control corrosion. We also
discussed additional actions that could be taken to further prevent and
mitigate corrosion. In addition, we visited selected prepositioning
locations and maintenance facilities, including the Army's facilities in
Goose Creek, South Carolina, and Camp Carroll, South Korea, and the Marine
Corps Logistics Command in Albany, Georgia, and Blount Island Command in
Jacksonville, Florida.

To assess the availability of corrosion-related data to the Army and
Marine Corps to support corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts for
prepositioned assets, we met with DOD and service command officials
responsible for managing and maintaining prepositioned assets, and
obtained and reviewed DOD and military service policies and procedures for
collecting and reporting maintenance costs and related equipment material
condition information. We obtained and analyzed various cost and
maintenance reports on these assets, including inspection and maintenance
logs, databases and assessments, and after-action reports. In particular,
we discussed the barriers that exist to identifying and quantifying the
impact of corrosion on prepostioned assets' maintenance costs and material
condition, and the metrics and related information systems needed to
better collect, track, report, and manage efforts to prevent and mitigate
corrosion as well as quantify the related funding requirements to address
this issue.

We interviewed officials and obtained documentation at the following
locations:20

           o  Office of the Secretary of Defense

                        o  Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office

           o  Joint Chiefs of Staff

                        o  Director of Logistics

           o  Army

                        o  Headquarters, Department of the Army
                        o  U.S. Army Materiel Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia
                        o  Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren,
                        Michigan, and Rock Island, Illinois
                        o  U.S. Army Field Support Command, Rock Island,
                        Illinois
                        o  U.S. III Army Corps, Fort Hood, Texas
                        o  U.S. Army Field Support Battalion Afloat, Goose
                        Creek, South Carolina
                        o  U.S. Forces Korea and Eighth U.S. Army, Yongsan
                        Garrison, South Korea
                        o  U.S. Army Field Support Battalion Far East, Camp
                        Carroll, Waegwan, South Korea
                        o  Materiel Support Center Korea, Camp Carroll,
                        Waegwan, South Korea
                        o  19th Theater Support Command, Camp Walker, Daegu,
                        South Korea
                        o  U.S. Army Pacific, Fort Shafter, Hawaii

           o  Marine Corps

                        o  U.S. Marine Corps Headquarters
                        o  U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific, Hawaii
                        o  I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton,
                        California
                        o  II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejune, North
                        Carolina
                        o  III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan
                        o  Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia
                        o  Marine Corps Logistics Command, Albany, Georgia
                        o  Blount Island Command, Jacksonville, Florida
                        o  Office of the Inspector General of the Marine
                        Corps

           o  Navy

                        o  Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
                        o  Naval Facilities Engineering Command
                        o  CNA Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia
                        o  U.S. Navy Inspector General
                        o  Naval Air Systems Command, Office of the Inspector
                        General, Patuxent River, Maryland
                        o  Naval Audit Service
                        o  Naval Medical Logistics Command, Fort Detrick,
                        Maryland
                        o  Navy Expeditionary Medical Command, Cheatham
                        Annex, Williamsburg, Virginia
                        o  Military Sealift Command

           o  Air Force

                        o  Headquarters, Seventh Air Force, South Korea

           o  Unified Commands

                        o  United States Pacific Command
                        o  United States Forces Korea

20Unless otherwise noted, the officials listed have their offices in the
Pentagon or at locations in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.

We conducted our work from May 2005 through February 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. We reviewed
available data for inconsistencies and discussed the data with DOD and
service officials. We determined that the data used for our review were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Army, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this
report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov
.

If you or your staffs have any questions, please contact me at (202)
512-8365. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and
Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

William M. Solis, Director

Defense Capabilities and Management

Appendix I: Military Services' Prepositioning Programs

The military services have prepositioning programs to store combat or
support equipment and supplies near areas with a high potential for
conflict and to speed response times and reduce the strain on other
mobility assets.

The Army's program involves three primary categories of stocks: combat
brigade sets, operational projects, and war reserve sustainment stocks
stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships around the world. The
Marine Corps also prepositions equipment and supplies aboard
prepositioning ships and at land sites in Norway. The Navy's
prepositioning efforts are comparatively small, used mainly to support the
Marine Corps' prepositioning program and deploying forces. The Navy
prepositions equipment and supplies at land sites and aboard the maritime
prepositioning ships. The Air Force prepositions stocks of war reserve
equipment and supplies to meet initial contingency requirements and to
sustain early deploying forces. The Air Force's prepositioned war reserve
stocks include bare base sets; vehicles; munitions; and a variety of
consumable supplies, such as rations, fuel, support equipment, aircraft
accessories, and medical supplies. The services' prepositioning programs
are briefly described in table 1.

Table 1: Description of Prepositioning Programs

Service     Types of stocks         Description                         
Army        Combat brigade sets        o  Stored at land sites and      
                                          aboard prepositioning ships      
                                          o  Sets are designed to support  
                                          3,000 to 5,000 soldiers          
                                          o  Heavy weaponry, such as tanks 
                                          and Bradley fighting vehicles    
                                          o  Support equipment, such as    
                                          trucks and High Mobility         
                                          Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles   
                                          o  Spare parts and other         
                                          sustainment stocks to support    
                                          the early stages of a conflict   
               Sustainment stocks         o  Stored at land sites and aboard
                                          prepositioning ships             
                                          o  Replacement equipment for losses
                                          in early stages of operations or 
                                          until resupply is established    
                                          o  Includes major end items, such
                                          as aircraft engines and tracked  
                                          vehicles                         
                                          o  Secondary items, such as meals,
                                          clothing, petroleum supplies,    
                                          construction materials, ammunition,
                                          medical materials, and repair parts
               Operational project        o  Stored at land sites and aboard
               stocks                     prepositioning ships             
                                          o  Authorized material above unit
                                          authorizations designed to support
                                          Army operations or contingencies 
                                          o  Equipment and supplies for    
                                          special operations forces, bare  
                                          base sets, petroleum and water   
                                          distribution, mortuary operations,
                                          and prisoner-of-war operations   
Navy/Marine Maritime prepositioning    o  Consists of 16 prepositioning 
Corps       force                      ships organized into three       
                                          squadrons                        
                                          o  Each squadron supports about  
                                          15,000 Marines for up to 30 days 
                                          o  Includes combat systems,      
                                          communications systems,          
                                          construction equipment,          
                                          munitions, medical supplies, and 
                                          sustainment stocks               
               Prepositioning program-    o  Several land sites located in 
               Norway                     central Norway                   
                                          o  Designed to support 13,000    
                                          Marines for up to 30 days        
                                          o  Includes vehicles, weapons,   
                                          munitions, rations, and other    
                                          equipment that will be used to   
                                          support any geographic combatant 
                                          command                          
               Navy prepositioned         o  Assets are stored aboard      
               assets                     maritime prepositioning ships and
                                          at land sites                    
                                          o  Equipment to offload          
                                          prepositioning ships, including  
                                          material handling equipment, ramps
                                          and barges, landing and amphibious
                                          craft, and bulk fuel             
                                          o  Construction equipment, such as
                                          cranes, forklifts, trucks, and   
                                          tractor trailers                 
                                          o  Includes six 500-bed fleet    
                                          hospitalsa                       
Air Force   Bare base sets             o  Base operating support        
                                          equipment used to house forces,  
                                          and equipment and supplies       
                                          needed to support airfield       
                                          operations                       
               Vehicles                   o  Includes trucks, buses, and High
                                          Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled   
                                          Vehicles                         
               Other support equipment    o  Includes materiel handling    
               and supplies               equipment, rations, fuel, fuel   
                                          support equipment, aircraft      
                                          accessories, and medical supplies
                                          at land sites and munitions aboard
                                          four prepositioning ships        

Source: GAO.

Notes: In addition to the services' programs, the Defense Logistics Agency
prepositions food and bulk fuel to support a range of contingency
operations and training exercises. The Special Operations Command relies
on the military services to preposition common support items for its
forces, such as base support items and vehicles.

aThe Navy is in the process of transitioning from 500-bed fleet hospitals
to smaller modular units.

The military services store these stocks of equipment and supplies at
several land sites and aboard prepositioning ships around the world. Most
of the military services store equipment and supplies in Southwest Asia,
the Pacific theater, Europe, and aboard prepositioning ships. Figure 1
shows the major locations of prepositioned stocks.

Figure 1: Locations of Army (USAR), Marine Corps (USMC), Navy (USN), and
Air Force (USAF) Prepositioned Stocks

Note: DOD also prepositions smaller stocks of equipment and supplies at
other locations not identified on this map.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Now on p. 18.

Now on p.18.

Now on p.18.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                                  GAO Contact

William M. Solis (202) 512-8365 or [email protected]

                                Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Gosling, Assistant
Director; Larry Bridges; Renee Brown; Lisa Canini; Amy Sheller; Allen
Westheimer; and Tim Wilson were major contributors to this report.

(350648)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-709 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact William Solis at (202) 512-8365 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-709 , a report to congressional committees

June 2006

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion of Prepositioned Military Assets
Could Achieve Cost Savings

The military services store prepositioned stocks of equipment and material
on ships and land in locations around the world to enable the rapid
fielding of combat-ready forces. GAO's prior work has shown that the
readiness and safety of military equipment can be severely degraded by
corrosion and that the Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of
dollars annually to address corrosion. GAO was asked to review the impact
of corrosion on prepositioned assets. GAO's specific objectives were to
assess (1) the measures taken by the Army and the Marine Corps to reduce
the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and (2) the availability
of corrosion-related data to the Army and the Marine Corps to support
corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts for prepositioned assets.

What GAO Recommends

To reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and support
additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts, GAO is
recommending that the Army examine the feasibility of using temporary
shelters to store land-based prepositioned assets currently stored
outdoors and that the Army and Marine Corps enhance their efforts to
collect corrosion-related data on prepostioned assets. DOD concurred with
GAO's recommendations.

The Army and Marine Corps have taken some measures to reduce the impact of
corrosion on prepositioned assets, primarily through the use of
humidity-controlled storage facilities on ships and in some land-based
locations, but a substantial portion of Army land-based prepositioned
assets are stored outdoors and are left relatively unprotected from
elements that contribute to corrosion. When equipment was drawn for
military operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom during 2003, it was
reported in good operating condition and not degraded by corrosion. Most
of this equipment had been stored in humidity-controlled facilities.
However, whereas all Marine Corps prepositioned assets are stored in
humidity-controlled facilities, the Army currently stores a significant
amount of its land-based prepositioned assets outdoors. Under Army policy,
the preferred method for storing prepositioned assets is in
humidity-controlled facilities because outdoor storage makes equipment
more susceptible to corrosion and increases maintenance requirements and
costs. One Army study showed that sheltering equipment in a
humidity-controlled facility had a return on investment, at minimum, of $8
for every $1 invested. In South Korea, the Army has recently completed an
intensive effort to repair prepositioned assets and correct some
long-standing problems, but almost one-third of the assets continue to be
stored outside. Similarly, as the Army reconstitutes its prepositioned
equipment in Southwest Asia, thousands of Army equipment items in Kuwait
are stored outdoors in harsh environmental conditions. Army officials
cited competing funding priorities and other factors as reasons for not
providing indoor storage for all land-based prepositioned assets. However,
temporary shelters may be a feasible option to address immediate storage
needs. The Army has used temporary shelters and humidity-controlled
storage for some prepositioned assets.

Although the Army requires corrosion-related data collection for equipment
items and Marine Corps officials believe them to be beneficial, data that
could help reduce corrosion of prepositioned assets are not available.
They are not available because the services consider this information to
be a low priority and do not systematically collect it. Without these
data, the services are not in a position to identify causes of corrosion,
support efforts to more effectively reduce corrosion, and achieve
long-term cost savings. Army and Marine Corps documents include
information on the maintenance condition, actions, and costs for
prepositioned equipment, but provide little data on corrosion. While cost
data are limited, the services have estimated that about 25 percent of
overall equipment maintenance costs are corrosion related and perhaps as
much as one-third of these costs could be reduced through more effective
corrosion prevention and mitigation. An Army review of maintenance records
for about 2,000 pieces of prepositioned stock in South Korea found that
$8.7 million (31 percent) of the estimated $28 million spent to restore
this equipment was used to address corrosion. The Army has had previous
success using corrosion data on non-prepositioned equipment programs to
support corrosion prevention and mitigation.
*** End of document. ***