Corrosion can also reduce the safety  of equipment items. 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.”

	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. 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. 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. Marine Corps  prepositioned assets are stored in humidity-controlled facilities either on  ships or in caves in Norway. At these locations, assets are left relatively unprotected  from moisture, sand, and other elements that contribute to corrosion. Officials cited competing funding priorities as the  primary reason for not providing indoor storage for all land-based  prepositioned assets. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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:   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. Most  of the military services store equipment and supplies in Southwest Asia,  the Pacific theater, Europe, and aboard prepositioning ships.
Why GAO Did This Study

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 Found

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.