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.  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.
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.”

	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.

		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.  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, 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.  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.   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.

		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.  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.   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.
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.
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.  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.  In addition,  Army policy on reporting equipment quality deficiencies includes a  requirement to report problems that are corrosion related.  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.
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.
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 lighterage 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.

	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:   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.
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.
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:   Office of the Secretary of Defense    Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office    Headquarters, Department of the Army    U.S. Army Materiel Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia    Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Michigan,  and Rock Island, Illinois    U.S. Army Field Support Command, Rock Island, Illinois    U.S. III Army Corps, Fort Hood, Texas    U.S. Army Field Support Battalion Afloat, Goose Creek, South    U.S. Forces Korea and Eighth U.S. Army, Yongsan Garrison, South    U.S. Army Field Support Battalion Far East, Camp Carroll,    Materiel Support Center Korea, Camp Carroll, Waegwan, South  Korea   19th Theater Support Command, Camp Walker, Daegu, South Korea     U.S. Army Pacific, Fort Shafter, Hawaii   U.S. Marine Corps Headquarters    U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific, Hawaii   I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California   II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejune, North Carolina   III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan    Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia    Marine Corps Logistics Command, Albany, Georgia    Blount Island Command, Jacksonville, Florida    Office of the Inspector General of the Marine Corps   Bureau of Medicine and Surgery    Naval Facilities Engineering Command    CNA Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia    U.S. Navy Inspector General    Naval Air Systems Command, Office of the Inspector General,    Naval Audit Service    Naval Medical Logistics Command, Fort Detrick, Maryland    Navy Expeditionary Medical Command, Cheatham Annex,    Headquarters, Seventh Air Force, South Korea   United States Pacific Command    United States Forces Korea  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.

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.
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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	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.

Summary:
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.