GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 27, 2014

Congressional Committees

Defense Infrastructure: DOD’s 2013 Facilities Corrosion Study Addressed Reporting 

Elements

In 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported spending an estimated $20.8 billion 

annually to prevent and mitigate corrosion of its assets, including military equipment, weapons, 

and facilities and other infrastructure.1 While the vast majority of these costs are related to 

corrosion issues on military equipment and weapons, the cost of corrosion at DOD facilities and 

other infrastructure2 was estimated to be about $1.9 billion annually.3 Corrosion is defined in 

Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code as the deterioration of a material or its 

properties due to a reaction of that material with its chemical environment. DOD manages more 

than 555,000 facilities—including barracks, commissaries, data centers, office buildings, 

laboratories, maintenance depots, storage tanks, and piers—and linear structures, such as 

pipelines, roads, and runways, at more than 5,000 sites that cover more than 28 million acres. 

In its report accompanying HR 1540, a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012,

4 the House Armed Services Committee directed DOD’s Director of the Office of 

Corrosion Policy and Oversight (hereafter referred to as the Corrosion Office) to conduct an 

evaluation of corrosion matters related to the department’s facilities and infrastructure, 

specifying that the study should (1) identify the key cost drivers5 for corrosion associated with 

facilities and infrastructure and recommend strategies for reducing their effect; (2) review a 

sampling of facilities that are representative of facility type, military department, and facility age; 

(3) include an assessment of at least one planned facility construction program; and (4) include 

information obtained from site visits and the examination of program documentation, including 

maintenance and facility engineering processes.

In the same report, the House Armed Services Committee directed that we provide the 

congressional defense committees an assessment of DOD’s facilities and infrastructure 

 1

This cost estimate, which was produced by a DOD contractor and is based on data from fiscal years 2006 through 

2010, is the latest estimate available on DOD corrosion costs. 

2

Infrastructure is defined in Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code as all buildings, structures, airfields, 

port facilities, surface and subterranean utility systems, heating and cooling systems, fuel tanks, pavements, and 

bridges. 

3

The estimate of the annual cost of corrosion for DOD facilities and other infrastructure was produced by a DOD 

contractor and is based on data from fiscal years 2007 and 2008. This is the latest estimate available on DOD 

corrosion costs for facilities and other infrastructure. 

4

H.R. Rep. No. 112-78.

5

For the purposes of its study, DOD defines cost drivers as costs that have already been spent for corrosion-related 

maintenance, including labor, material, and preventive and corrective actions.
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 2

evaluation study.6 This report assesses whether DOD addressed the House committee’s

reporting elements. 

Scope and Methodology

To conduct our review, two analysts independently reviewed and assessed DOD’s report to 

determine whether it contained information on the four elements specified in the House 

committee report. The analysts did this by comparing the House committee report’s elements to 

findings in DOD’s report to determine whether the report addressed each of the four elements.

The analysts agreed on whether or not the report addressed each of the elements. Additionally, 

we obtained and reviewed previous DOD studies on corrosion costs and other documents to 

understand the relevant issues regarding DOD’s corrosion prevention and control program. We 

also interviewed officials from DOD’s Corrosion Office, members of the Facilities and 

Infrastructure Corrosion Evaluation Study team,

7 and Corrosion Control and Prevention 

Executives8 from the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, to obtain further information about the 

evaluation and to clarify various aspects of the report. Our focus was not on evaluating the 

assumptions, methods, or data used in DOD’s report but rather on whether or not DOD’s report 

addressed the elements specified in the House report.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 through March 2014 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Results in Brief

Our review found that DOD’s July 2013 report addressed the four elements specified in the 

House report. Specifically, the report by the Director of DOD’s Corrosion Office addressed the 

following elements related to corrosion of facilities and infrastructure: (1) identification of key 

drivers of corrosion costs and recommended strategies for reducing their effect; (2) review of a 

sampling of facilities that are representative of facility type, military department, and facility age; 

(3) assessment of at least one planned facility construction program; and (4) information from 

30 locations (15 site visits and 15 teleconferences) and the examination of program 

documentation from all the locations, including maintenance and facility engineering processes. 

Regarding the first element on key drivers of corrosion costs at facilities and infrastructure, DOD 

identified 36 objects on which corrosion-related maintenance costs had been expended. DOD 

referred to these 36 objects as cost drivers for corrosion, and among them were factors that 

 6

Department of Defense, Department of Defense Facilities and Infrastructure Corrosion Evaluation Study Final 

Report (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2013).

7

At the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Director of the 

Corrosion Office assembled a study team of representatives from the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and subjectmatter experts from other stakeholder organizations to evaluate the costs, technology, and sustainment issues 

associated with the corrosion of DOD facilities and infrastructure. 

8

Section 903 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. No. 110-417) 

required the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to each designate a Corrosion Control and Prevention 

Executive to be the senior official in each military department with responsibility for coordinating department-level 

corrosion prevention and control program activities.
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 3

may influence or drive corrosion costs, such as facility age, as well as equipment, facilities, or 

other infrastructure with the highest corrosion costs, such as air conditioning units and bridges. 

Officials also described new technologies that helped develop strategies or solutions to address 

corrosion. For example, in 2006, DOD applied an epoxy coating system to a hangar and 

another structure at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, and monitored the coating system for over a

year to determine whether the technology could be used across the department. DOD found 

that applying the coating system to metal structures helped prevent corrosion and provided 

resistance to fire. For the second element, to review a sampling of facilities, DOD selected 30 

locations to examine site-specific corrosion issues and identify best practices, as appropriate. 

The locations DOD selected varied by type, military department, and facility age. Regarding the 

third element, to assess at least one planned construction program and determine whether 

corrosion prevention and control decisions were considered during the planning, design, and 

construction phases, DOD officials selected the Guam Naval Hospital and provided their

rationale that the new facility is to be built in one of the harshest environments that can cause 

corrosion, including ocean spray and typhoons. The study team’s assessment was that 

throughout each phase, corrosion prevention and control requirements were documented and 

included to address corrosion issues, such as the harsh tropical environment. For the fourth 

element, DOD officials included information obtained from site visits and teleconferences by

surveying installation officials at the 30 selected locations about how they implemented

corrosion prevention, control, and mitigation strategies in their facilities and infrastructure. In 

addition, they examined program documentation including maintenance and facility engineering 

processes related to corrosion prevention and mitigation. 

Background

Congress has taken a series of legislative actions aimed at enhancing DOD’s ability to 

effectively address corrosion prevention and mitigation and provide Congress with greater 

transparency over the department’s efforts. In 2002, Congress passed legislation that required 

the creation of the Corrosion Office within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The Corrosion Office is responsible for the prevention 

and mitigation of the corrosion of military equipment and infrastructure.9

In the past decade, we issued a number of reports on DOD’s corrosion-control program,

including the department’s actions to fund related efforts for facilities and other infrastructure. In

Since then, the 

Corrosion Office has taken a number of actions to provide guidance for corrosion prevention 

and control within DOD. To accomplish its oversight and coordination responsibilities, the 

Corrosion Office (1) hosts triannual corrosion forums; (2) conducts cost-of-corrosion studies; (3) 

operates two corrosion websites; (4) publishes an electronic newsletter; (5) works with industry 

and academia to develop training courses and new corrosion technologies; and (6) provides 

funding for corrosion-control demonstration projects proposed and implemented by the military 

departments. Additionally, the statute requires the Secretary of Defense to annually submit, 

along with the defense budget materials, a report to Congress on corrosion funding, including 

funding requirements for the long-term strategy. 

 9

The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 required the Secretary of Defense to 

designate an officer, employee, board, or committee as the individual or office with this responsibility. See Pub. L. No. 

107-314, § 1067 (2002) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2228). The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

amended this requirement by designating the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight as the official with these 

responsibilities. See Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 371 (2008).
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 4

our most-recent report, issued in May 2013,

10 we reported on DOD’s need to improve the 

tracking, reporting, and communication strategies for corrosion projects related to facilities and 

other infrastructure. We recommended five actions. DOD partially concurred with three

actions—to improve project reporting and tracking, the accuracy of DOD’s return-on-investment 

data, and DOD’s communication with stakeholders on corrosion-control activities for facilities 

and other infrastructure. DOD did not agree with our recommendations to implement possible 

options for addressing reasons cited by project-management offices for not meeting reporting 

milestones, and revising guidance to hold the departments’ project-management offices 

accountable for submitting infrastructure-related reports in accordance with DOD’s strategic 

plan. However, DOD plans to implement a web-based tracking tool to improve data timeliness 

and standardization, among other actions.

In July 2013, the Corrosion Office issued its report to Congress on its study about corrosionrelated challenges for DOD facilities and infrastructure. The report evaluated challenges and 

described findings of a small sampling of DOD installations. The report also detailed the 

methods that the study team used to address the specific elements, as outlined in House Report 

112-78. 

DOD’s 2013 Facilities and Infrastructure Corrosion Report Addressed the Elements 

Specified in the House Report

Our review found that DOD’s July 2013 report addressed the elements specified in the House 

report. Specifically, the report by the Director of DOD’s Corrosion Office provided information to 

address the following four elements: 

1. Identify key drivers of corrosion costs associated with facilities and infrastructure and 

recommend strategies for reducing their effect. DOD’s report listed objects it 

identified as key cost drivers and examples of new technologies and best practices 

that have helped develop strategies or solutions to address corrosion. Regarding 

cost drivers, DOD listed 36 objects11 that are associated with facilities and 

infrastructure. The objects included bridges, generators, air conditioning units, 

pavements, plumbing, and water pipes. According to DOD’s report, policymakers 

and installation officials can use these key cost drivers as reference points for 

improvements and sustainment of their installations.12 To identify the cost drivers, 

DOD used the military services’ maintenance data and confirmed the information 

with installation officials during selected site visits and teleconferences. DOD officials 

determined that these cost drivers accounted for more than 75 percent of the 

corrosion-related costs for facilities and infrastructure. 

To address the recommended strategies that reduce the effect of corrosion costs, 

DOD described numerous examples of new technologies—as well as best 

practices—that may help develop strategies or solutions that can reduce 

maintenance costs, minimize life-cycle costs, and extend the life of facilities and 

 10GAO, Defense Infrastructure: DOD Should Improve Reporting and Communication on Its Corrosion Prevention and 

Control Activities, GAO-13-270 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2013).

11DOD refers to the examples as “unique maintenance objects.”

12See enc. I for a list of the 36 objects that DOD identified as key cost drivers. 
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 5

infrastructure. One example of a successful solution, the report noted, was to apply

an epoxy coating system to metal structures to prevent corrosion and provide fire 

resistance. In 2006, DOD applied an epoxy coating system to a hangar and another 

structure at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, and monitored the coating system for over a 

year to determine whether the technology could be used across the department. 

DOD found that the epoxy coating required virtually no maintenance and could 

withstand extreme environmental conditions, such as high temperatures. Another 

example DOD described was the Navy’s development of a tool that was first 

demonstrated in 2006 to detect and identify hidden corrosion on guy wires 

(tensioned cables designed to add stability to freestanding structures) for all large 

guy-supported structures. As noted in DOD’s report, through demonstration and 

development of the system, DOD learned that visual inspection of the guy wires was 

not efficient nor did it guarantee that critical corrosion would be found. The report 

noted that the tool, once fully developed, will provide a repeatable and more-efficient 

way to identify corrosion, and the results from the inspection will help to develop a 

replacement schedule for the guy wires based upon corrosion and useful life of the 

guy wires. Additionally, DOD included in its report a list of best practices to prevent 

or control corrosion that were cited by surveyed installation officials, such as the 

practices of monitoring water usage to detect possible leaks and using deicing spray 

instead of salt. As another best practice, surveyed installation officials suggested 

using a community of practice to improve communications. A community of practice, 

the report stated, would improve the dissemination of best practices and accelerate 

acceptance and implementation of new technologies.

2. Review a sampling of facilities that are representative of facility type, military 

department, and facility age. For its study, DOD selected 30 locations to examine 

site-specific corrosion issues and demonstrate best practices, as appropriate. The 

locations DOD selected varied by type and included operating bases, depots, and 

regional commands of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The selected 

locations also varied by age, ranging in establishment from 1767 to 1961.13 DOD’s 

approach for selecting its locations began with a universe of 5,211 DOD sites listed 

in the Facilities Asset Database.

14

 13See enc. II for a map of 30 locations DOD selected for its facilities and infrastructure corrosion study.

The study team then narrowed the list by 

excluding thousands of sites listed in the database that were not relevant or were not 

within the scope of the study because the sites either were parcels of raw land or 

were tenants of larger installations. Subsequently, DOD also decided to select only 

major installations that host numerous tenants. For example, the Army Reserve 

Center at Fort A.P. Hill was ruled out as a separate site of interest because it was a 

tenant to a major installation (Fort A.P. Hill) and therefore was included as part of 

that larger installation. Through this selection process, DOD reduced the universe of

5,211 sites to a list of 772. From the 772, DOD selected 30 major installations to 

sample for its study. In addition to selecting sites that varied by military department, 

type, and date of establishment, DOD explained in its report that the study team’s

selection of 30 sites aimed to emulate the distribution of environmental conditions of 

14The Facilities Asset Database, also known as the Base Structure Report, is a consolidated summary of the military 

departments’ annual real-property inventory data. 
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 6

all DOD installations by using the environmental severity index zone.

15 The 

Corrosion Office provided an environmental severity index zone for each installation 

and considered the index zone in selecting the 30 sites.16 However, the 30 sites 

DOD selected for its study are not statistically generalizable to all DOD sites.

3. Include an assessment of at least one planned facility construction program. For the 

report, DOD officials selected the Guam Naval Hospital as the planned facility 

construction program to assess and determine whether corrosion prevention and 

control decisions were considered during the planning, design, and construction 

phases. DOD officials explained to us that they chose the Guam Naval Hospital—

estimated by DOD to cost $446 million to replace—because the facility was the 

largest ongoing military construction project in one of the harshest environments that 

can cause corrosion. The naval hospital is exposed to corrosive elements, such as 

constant ocean spray, torrential rains, and typhoons. The study team evaluated the 

facility’s planning, design, and construction phases to assess the extent to which 

corrosion prevention and control considerations were documented throughout the 

phases of this project. The study team’s assessment was that throughout each 

phase, corrosion prevention and control requirements were documented and

included to address corrosion issues, such as the harsh tropical environment. 

4. Include information obtained from site visits and from an examination of program 

documentation, including maintenance and facility engineering processes. DOD’s 

report included information on guidance, strategies for corrosion prevention and 

control, and policies and procedures from visits to 15 of the 30 locations selected for 

the study and from teleconferences with installation officials at the other 15 

locations.

17

 15The environmental severity index is derived from a database developed by the research firm Battelle with the 

corrosion rates of various metals exposed to different environmental conditions found at military bases throughout the 

world. The DOD Corrosion Office, for its fiscal year 2012 cost of corrosion study of DOD facilities and other 

infrastructure, used corrosion rates for steel and developed an environmental severity index on a scale of 1 through 

20 to show the impact of corrosion in different locations, with 1 being least severe and 20 being the most severe 

environmental conditions.

DOD officials conducted a survey at the 30 selected locations to obtain 

information from installation officials on how they implement corrosion prevention, 

control, and mitigation strategies in their facilities and infrastructure, and examined 

program documentation including maintenance and facility engineering processes 

related to corrosion prevention and mitigation. The report noted that while most 

survey responses were location-specific, the responses from installation officials 

were also indicative of the across-the-board issues that most installations experience 

regardless of service, installation mission, or geographic location, such as use of 

criteria, training, and communication. For example, installation officials stated that 

they use aggressive preventive maintenance programs to ensure early detection of 

deficiencies and reduce corrosion deterioration, and request engineering analysis 

and potential solutions to address any critical issues about the extent of corrosion at 

facilities and infrastructure. Regarding maintenance and facility engineering 

documentation and processes, the report noted maintenance-related corrosion 

16See enc. III for DOD’s 30 selected sites and their assigned Environmental Severity Index zone.

17According to DOD officials, they were able to visit only 15 of the 30 locations because of time and resource 

constraints. 
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 7

policies issued by each military service, such as a Navy instruction that identifies 

operations and maintenance related to facilities and infrastructure; an Air Force 

instruction that assigns maintenance responsibilities and requirements for electrical 

grounding systems on Air Force installations; Army technical manuals that address a 

broad range of facilities and infrastructure–related design, engineering and problem

solving related to corrosion issues; and a Marine Corps standard that focuses on 

engineering and construction requirements.

DOD also identified and reported installation officials’ concerns, such as the need for additional 

training and communication, as well as funds to implement new technology. DOD noted that 

large numbers of facilities and infrastructure professionals, including those with corrosion 

expertise, are eligible to retire, leading to a need to address training and knowledge transfer 

before those professionals retire. DOD’s report identified a lack of communication among 

facilities and infrastructure professionals.18 DOD also noted effective communication is 

necessary to assist with knowledge transfer, and to expand the use of best practices, latest

technologies, and criteria. Additionally, DOD found that installation officials are reluctant to 

implement technologies, except for the most mature, because of the inherent risk of failure and

fear of losing scarce resources. 

Agency Comments 

We are not making recommendations in this report. We provided a draft of this report to DOD

for advance review and comment. DOD provided technical comments, which we incorporated 

as appropriate.

- - - - -

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and to the 

Secretary of Defense. Also, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

 18In GAO-13-270, we found communication issues within the facilities and infrastructure community including that 

many relevant service officials did not receive key corrosion-control information because their Corrosion Control and 

Prevention Executives did not have targeted communication strategies and accompanying action plans. 
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 8

Should you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Carleen Bennett, Assistant 

Director; Mark Wielgoszynski, Assistant Director; Clarine Allen; Mark Dowling; Nicole Harris;

Carol Petersen; Richard Powelson; Terry Richardson; and Amie Steele. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

report. 

Zina D. Merritt 

Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures (3)
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 9

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe 

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Tim Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Mark Kirk

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Culberson

Chairman

The Honorable Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 10

Enclosure I: Department of Defense’s Cost Drivers of Corrosion Spending

To identify key cost drivers, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent questionnaires to 

installation officials at the 30 selected sites to obtain their perspectives on the root causes of 

corrosion spending. The responses identified 36 objects (DOD’s report refers to them as

“unique maintenance objects”) that DOD identified as cost drivers for corrosion (see table 1).19

Table 1: List of Objects That the Department of Defense (DOD) Identified as Cost Drivers 

Related to Corrosion at Facilities and Infrastructure 

 Boiler, heat exchange  Fuel distribution  Plumbing

 Bridge  Fuel storage  Roof

 Building exterior—paint  Generator  Signage

 Compressor  Hot water tank  Spillway

 Cooling, chiller  HVACa  Staircase

 Culvert, ditch  Hydrant  Steam and distribution

 Electrical enclosure  Insulation  Swimming pool buildings

 Exterior electric  Ladder  Tank, tower

 External facilities, structure  Lighting, etc.  Valve

 Facility ageb  Mold  Wash rack

 Fence  Nonpotable water storage 

and distribution

 Water pipe

 Fire suppression  Pavement, concrete  Waterfrontc

Source: DOD.

Notes: Data are from Department of Defense, Department of Defense Facilities and Infrastructure Corrosion Evaluation Study Final 

Report (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2013). 

a

HVAC: heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. 

b

DOD’s report notes that because age is not an object that can be maintained, age-related costs cannot be isolated from the other 

35 objects. As such, DOD’s 36 objects include equipment, facilities and other infrastructure at which corrosion costs are occurring 

as well as factors that may influence (or drive) corrosion costs.

c

Waterfront includes dry docks, piers, and wharfs. 

 19DOD’s 36 objects include equipment, facilities, and other infrastructure at which corrosion costs are occurring as 

well as factors that may influence or drive corrosion costs.
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 11

Enclosure II: Locations Selected for the Department of Defense’s Facilities and 

Infrastructure Corrosion Study, by Location, Military Department, and Date of 

Establishment

Note: Dates listed indicate the date that the installation was established.
GAO-14-337R Defense Infrastructure

Page 12

Enclosure III: Sites Selected by the Department of Defense and their Assigned 

Environmental Severity Index Zone

Sites Selected for Department of Defense (DOD) Study

Assigned Environmental Severity Index 

(ESI) Zone a

Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia 8

Fort Detrick, Maryland 7

Fort Hood, Texas 6

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 5

Fort Sill, Oklahoma 5

Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii 2

Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 19

Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania 6

Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas 19

Naval Air Station Crane, Indiana 8

Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi 5

Naval Air Station North Island, California 14

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia 11

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Washington 18

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California 6

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona 1

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California 14

Marine Corps Base Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii 19

Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia 8

Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Georgia 8

Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana 9

Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas 7

Robins Air Force Base, Georgia 10

Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri 7

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 9

Joint Base Andrews (U.S. Air Force), Maryland 7

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (U.S. Air Force), Alaska 2

Joint Region Marianas (U.S. Navy), Guam 19

Joint Base Pearl Harbor/Hickam (U.S. Navy), Hawaii 19

Joint Base San Antonio (U.S. Air Force), Texas 6

Source: DOD.

Note: Data are from Department of Defense, Department of Defense Facilities and Infrastructure Corrosion Evaluation Study Final 

Report (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2013).

a The Corrosion Office provided an environmental severity index zone for each installation. The environmental severity index is 

derived from a database developed by the research firm Battelle with the corrosion rates of various metals exposed to different 

environmental conditions found at military bases throughout the world. The DOD Corrosion Office, for its fiscal year 2012 cost of 

corrosion study of DOD facilities and other infrastructure, used corrosion rates for steel and developed an environmental severity 

index on a scale of 1 through 20 to show the impact of corrosion in different locations, with 1 being least severe and 20 being the 

most severe environmental conditions.

(351858)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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.
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.