type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'Audit\nReport\n ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTROL OF MATERIEL\n AT THE TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT\n\n\n\nReport No. D-2002-003 October 4, 2001\n\n\n\n Office of the Inspector General\n Department of Defense\n\x0c Additional Copies\n\n To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Inspector General, DoD, Home Page at\n www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports or contact the Secondary Reports Distribution Unit of the\n Audit Followup and Technical Support Directorate at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or\n fax (703) 604-8932.\n\n Suggestions for Audits\n\n To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Audit Followup and Technical\n Support Directorate at (703) 604-8940 (DSN 664-8940) or fax (703) 604-8932. Ideas and\n requests can also be mailed to:\n OAIG-AUD (ATTN: AFTS Audit Suggestions)\n Inspector General, Department of Defense\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n\n Defense Hotline\n\n To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact the Defense Hotline by calling (800) 424-9098; by\n sending an electronic message to Hotline@dodig.osd.mil; or by writing to the Defense\n Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1900. The identity of each writer and\n caller is fully protected.\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\nASRS Automated Storage and Retrieval System\nCECOM Communications-Electronics Command\nIOC Industrial Operations Command\nMSFS Maintenance Shop Floor System\nPCN Program Control Number\n\x0c\x0c Office of the Inspector General, DoD\n Report No. D-2002-003 October 4, 2001\n (Project No. D2000LH-0285)\n\n Accountability and Control of Materiel at the\n Tobyhanna Army Depot\n\n Executive Summary\n\nIntroduction. This is one in a series of reports being issued by the Inspector General,\nDoD, that discusses accountability and control of materiel at DoD maintenance depots.\nThe report discusses conditions identified in prior audits concerning the accountability\nand control of materiel but remain uncorrected. The DoD FY 2001 budget for depot\nmaintenance was about $14.2 billion. The Army portion of that amount was about\n$1.57 billion for operation of five maintenance depots. A significant portion of the\nArmy depot maintenance budget was for materiel used in repair and overhaul processes\nat the depot maintenance facilities.\n\nDepot maintenance facilities need effective inventory control systems to ensure that an\nadequate supply of materiel, parts, and supplies are on hand to maintain efficient levels\nof operation and to meet the demands of customers. An effective system is also\nimportant to disclose defective and obsolete goods; prevent loss through damage,\npilferage, or waste; and ensure existence of physical quantities and values shown on\ninventory records. Through inventory control, materiel not needed for requirements at\na depot can be made available to inventory managers for redistribution for other known\nrequirements.\n\nObjectives. Our overall audit objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of policies\nand procedures that were used to account for and control materiel used by the\nTobyhanna Army Depot located at Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania. We also evaluated the\nmanagement control program as it related to the overall objective.\n\nResults. The Tobyhanna Army Depot maintained materiel that exceeded requirements.\nAlso, significant levels of inventory were not on accountable records. As a result,\nTobyhanna Army Depot could have $23.5 million of the $30 million of materiel that\nwas in excess of requirements. Further, 595 pallets of materiel transferred from the\nSacramento Air Logistics Center and 96 boxes of computer equipment were unpriced\nand not included in the value of materiel onhand. Storage of large quantities of unused\nmateriel makes maintenance inventories difficult to manage. Materiel stored for long\nperiods of time may become lost, obsolete, stolen, or unserviceable, resulting in\nincreased maintenance costs to customers (finding A).\n\nThe Tobyhanna Army Depot did not effectively manage or control materiel stored in\nthe Automated Storage and Retrieval System. In addition, the\nCommunications-Electronics Command has neither issued policies or guidance\nregarding management of maintenance materiel at the Tobyhanna Army Depot nor\nrequired the Tobyhanna Army Depot to submit reports for management review. As a\nresult, inventory records at the Tobyhanna Army Depot had an estimated count error\nrate at about 10.1 percent of the storage locations; materiel may become lost, obsolete,\n\x0cstolen, or unserviceable; and proper management decisions over the use of materiel\nhave been hampered. Further, the lack of effective management controls at the\nTobyhanna Army Depot contributed to inventories that were stored for an excessive\nperiod of time and lack of accurate inventory valuations (finding B). See Appendix A\nfor details on our review of the management control program as it relates to\nmanagement of materiel at the Tobyhanna Army Depot.\n\nSummary of Recommendations. We recommend that the Army Deputy Chief of Staff\nfor Logistics reassess guidance that requires depots to limit requisitioning and storing of\nfabrication maintenance materiel to a 60-day level and determine the appropriate\nnumber of days. We also recommend that the Commander, Communications-\nElectronics Command, issue guidance regarding management of the Automated Storage\nand Retrieval System and direct the Commander, Tobyhanna Army Depot, to price\nmateriel and limit the storage of materiel under overhead accounts in the Automated\nStorage and Retrieval System. Further, we recommend that the Commander,\nCommunications-Electronics Command, issue guidance regarding reports that should be\nsubmitted for management review and direct the Tobyhanna Army Depot to perform a\nreconciliation of the Automated Storage and Retrieval System records and the\nMaintenance Shop Floor System records.\n\nManagement Comments. We provided a draft of this report on May 29, 2001.\nComments on the draft report were received too late to be considered in preparing this\nfinal report. If the Army does not submit additional comments by December 3, 2001,\nwe will consider the comments received as the response to the final report.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\nIntroduction\n Background 1\n Objectives 3\n\nFindings\n A. Stockage of Materiel at the Tobyhanna Army Depot 4\n B. Accounting For and Controlling Materiel 12\n\nAppendixes\n A. Audit Process\n Scope and Methodology 17\n Management Control Program Review 20\n Prior Coverage 20\n B. Report Distribution 22\n\x0cBackground\n This is one in a series of reports being issued by the Inspector General, DoD,\n that discusses accountability and control of materiel at DoD maintenance depots.\n The DoD FY 2001 budget for depot maintenance is about $14.2 billion. The\n Army portion of that amount is about $1.57 billion for operation of five\n maintenance depots. A significant portion of the Army depot maintenance\n budget is for purchasing materiel used in repair and overhaul processes at depot\n maintenance facilities.\n\n Tobyhanna Army Depot. Tobyhanna Army Depot (Tobyhanna), located at\n Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, is the largest full-service communications-electronics\n repair, overhaul, and fabrication maintenance facility in DoD. Tobyhanna\xe2\x80\x99s\n mission includes design, manufacture, repair, and overhaul of hundreds of\n communications and electronics systems. Communications-electronics systems\n that are supported by Tobyhanna include communications, command and\n control, surveillance and target acquisition, airborne electronics, intelligence\n and electronic warfare, electronic support equipment, and power systems.\n\n Materiel Classification. Materiel used at maintenance depots is generally\n classified as consumables or reparables. Consumables are supplies consumed\n during use, such as repair parts and fabrication materiel. Once in use, those\n items lose a separate identity. Reparables are secondary items or subassemblies\n that can be restored to a serviceable condition through depot-level maintenance.\n Reparables are normally exchangeable on a one-for-one basis. For each\n reparable issued to maintenance for repair or overhaul, a serviceable reparable\n should be returned to the supply system.\n\n Accounting For and Controlling Materiel. Inventory control is defined as the\n control of materiel and goods in process by accounting and physical methods.\n Accounting control involves proper recording and reporting of inventories.\n Physical control involves a physical movement of inventories and consists of\n proper safeguards for receiving, storing, handling, and issuing. The purpose of\n a physical inventory is to determine the condition and quantity of items by\n physically inspecting and counting the items.\n\n Materiel Control. Materiel control is important because materiel not needed\n for the requirements at a depot can be made available for redistribution of other\n known requirements. Each maintenance facility is required to record\n on-hand materiel balances on shop stock records. Shop stocks are identified as\n demand-supported repair parts or consumable items stored within the\n maintenance activity that supports workloads. For accounting purposes, shop\n stocks are considered consumed; however, depots are required to maintain shop\n stock records to show on-hand inventory balances.\n\n Management Oversight. On October 1, 1995, the Army Industrial Operations\n Command (IOC) became fully established as a permanent Army Materiel\n Command major subordinate command and the office of primary responsibility\n for maintenance depots within the Army. On October 1, 1998, the IOC\n\n\n 1\n\x0ctransferred full command and control of Tobyhanna to the\nCommunications-Electronics Command (CECOM), headquartered at\nMonmouth, New Jersey.\n\nThe IOC issued a policy memorandum, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement and Operations Policy for\nAutomated Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS) and Standard Depot System\n(SDS) Maintenance at Industrial Operations Command Maintenance Depots,\nRevision 3\xe2\x80\x9d (IOC ASRS policy memorandum), August 1, 1996. ASRS is a\nmechanized storage system and is used for storing shop stocks.\n\nThe IOC ASRS policy memorandum includes the following inventory\nmanagement requirements:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 All materiel stored in ASRS, at a minimum, will be identified by the\n owning cost center; national stock number/part number; program\n control number (PCN); quantity; acquisition source code;\n nomenclature; and condition code.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Items stored in mission stocks must represent a bona fide potential\n requirement for the performance of a maintenance or fabrication\n requirement.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Availability of materiel from previously completed fabrication orders\n must be determined before placing new requisitions.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reclaimed materiel, materiel removed from assets in maintenance,\n and work in process may be stored until reutilized on the\n maintenance program. Excess reclaimed materiel will be turned in\n or transferred to a valid funded program.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Prior to closing a depot maintenance program, all associated\n remaining repair parts, spares, and materiel on hand will be\n transferred to an ongoing program or a program that will begin\n within 180 days or turned in to the installation supply support activity\n within 15 days.\n\n - The gaining program must be funded, open, and valid.\n\n - The transferred materiel must be a bona fide potential requirement\n of the gaining program.\n\n\nPersonnel at the Army Materiel Command advised us that because the IOC\nASRS policy memorandum regarding management of ASRS was not canceled\nwhen full command and control of Tobyhanna was transferred to CECOM in\nOctober 1998, the policy memorandum remains in effect until CECOM issues\nits own policy.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cObjectives\n The overall objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and\n procedures that were used to account for and control materiel used by\n Tobyhanna. We also evaluated the management control program as it related to\n the objective. See Appendix A for a discussion of the audit scope and\n methodology, review of the management control program, and prior coverage\n related to the audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c A. Stockage of Materiel at the\n Tobyhanna Army Depot\n Tobyhanna maintained materiel that exceeded requirements. Also,\n significant levels of inventory were not on accountable records. The\n excess stockage levels occurred because Tobyhanna did not comply with\n the Army guidance regarding stockage levels of materiel, did not\n evaluate materiel to determine whether the materiel was required, and\n did not perform the required quarterly reviews of stockage levels of\n materiel. Also, the timing of purchased materiel and storage of materiel\n categorized as overhead PCNs contributed to excessive materiel on hand.\n Further, the lack of oversight and policy by CECOM contributed to\n excess materiel on hand. As a result, Tobyhanna could have as much as\n $23.5 million of materiel in excess of requirements. Storage of large\n quantities of unused materiel makes inventories difficult to manage.\n Materiel stored for long periods of time may become lost, obsolete,\n stolen, or unserviceable, resulting in increased maintenance costs to\n customers.\n\n\nDepot Maintenance Materiel Guidance\n Army Regulation 750-2, \xe2\x80\x9cArmy Materiel Maintenance Wholesale Operations,\xe2\x80\x9d\n October 27, 1989, states that procurement of repair parts necessary to support\n maintenance of programmed reparable assets will be based on approved depot\n maintenance requirements (section 5-8, page 18). The Regulation does not\n address stockage of expendable supplies and repair parts at maintenance depots.\n\n The Army issued interim guidance to Army Regulation 750-2 on November 28,\n 1994, that requires depots to limit maintenance and requisitioning of fabrication\n materiel at 60-day levels. That guidance remains in effect.\n Army Regulation 710-2, \xe2\x80\x9cInventory Management Supply Below the Wholesale\n Level,\xe2\x80\x9d October 31, 1997, states that support maintenance facilities are\n authorized a limited amount of expendable supplies and repair parts required for\n efficient operations. Each shop stock item must be reviewed, at a minimum,\n quarterly.\n\n The IOC ASRS policy memorandum states the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The purpose of ASRS is for short-term storage of maintenance\n materiel, which includes work in process.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Items are not to be stored for long periods in ASRS without known\n requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Projects will be reviewed at the 50-percent, 75-percent, and\n 90-percent completion stages to determine if a need exists for\n materiel still in storage.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Materiel will not be stored in ASRS in an overhead account.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Depots using the Standard Depot System maintenance will review all\n materiel that has a date of last activity more than 6 months old and\n verify on a monthly basis the PCN, national stock number, and\n condition codes.\n\nProgram Control Number. Tobyhanna assigns each job a PCN for scheduling\nwork and tracking costs. The PCN exists for the life of the job. Materiel is\nordered for a specific PCN and continues to be identified with that PCN until\nconsumed, transferred to another PCN, or disposed. Once the PCN is closed,\nthe associated remaining repair parts, spares, and materiel on hand should be\ntransferred to an ongoing program or a program that will begin within 180 days\nor turned in to the installation supply support activity within 15 days.\n\nAutomatic Storage and Retrieval System. ASRS is a mechanized storage\nsystem within maintenance directorates and is used for storing maintenance shop\nstock and end-item subassemblies used for maintenance and fabrication\nprograms. Tobyhanna uses the ASRS to store and account for depot\nmaintenance materiel. ASRS maintains on-hand inventory balances and\nlocations of the inventory. Materiel stored in ASRS is considered consumed for\naccountability purposes and identified to specific projects. At Tobyhanna,\nmateriel is stored by PCN and stock number and is issued only at the request of\nmaintenance shops. In compliance with the IOC ASRS policy memorandum,\nmateriel stored in ASRS should be stored for short periods. As the materiel is\nused it should be dropped from the ASRS records.\n\nMaintenance Shop Floor System. Materiel issued to maintenance activities\nfrom the supply support activity is also controlled by the Maintenance Shop\nFloor System (MSFS), which is an on-line computer system that tracks\nmaintenance activities for shop personnel. The MSFS interfaces offline with the\nASRS through nightly batch processing. The MSFS records issue and receipt of\nmateriel, and shows on-hand balances by stock number of materiel stored in\nASRS. The MSFS also shows the dollar value of the materiel stored in ASRS.\nThe on-hand quantities of materiel stored in the ASRS should agree with the\nbalances in the MSFS. The MSFS does not interact with the depot supply\nsupport activity systems and stock accounts because the MSFS is not linked to\ndepot supply and accounting records. Therefore, quantities that are on hand are\nnot reported in the depot financial statements.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cStockage Levels of Materiel\n Tobyhanna maintained maintenance materiel that exceeded requirements. Also,\n significant levels of inventory were not on accountable records. Tobyhanna\n could have as much as $23.5 million of materiel stored in ASRS even though\n requirements for the materiel at Tobyhanna may not exist.\n\n Inventory Value. On January 12, 2001, the ASRS inventory totaled\n 16,586 lines of materiel, reported to be valued at about $30 million. However,\n the about $30 million value of the materiel is understated because a significant\n amount of materiel stored in ASRS had no extended dollar value. For example,\n materiel was stored in ASRS under 244 PCNs. Of the 244 PCNs, we identified\n 172, for which an extended dollar value was maintained. The about $30 million\n value of materiel was reported from those 172 PCNs. However, 72 PCNs were\n recorded in ASRS without extended dollar amounts. We were unable to\n determine the value of materiel in the remaining 72 PCNs.\n\n Overhead PCNs. Of the 72 PCNs without extended dollar amounts, 13 were\n unpriced overhead PCNs. Storage of materiel in overhead PCNs helped\n contribute to the accumulation of excessive materiel on hand. The IOC ASRS\n policy memorandum states that materiel should not be stored in ASRS in\n overhead PCNs. The number of overhead PCNs should be limited, and the\n materiel stored in overhead PCNs should be limited to low dollar value items or\n materiel that can be used on many programs.\n\n Communications-Electronics Equipment. Under the Defense Base\n Realignment and Closure of 1995, the common-use ground-communications\n electronics maintenance mission was transferred from the Sacramento Air\n Logistics Center in Sacramento, California, to Tobyhanna. That transfer\n included the workload, required equipment, and maintenance materiel related to\n cryptographic/communications security, electro-optics and night vision,\n electronics warfare, navigational aids, radar, radio communications, satellite\n control/space sensors, and wire communications.\n\n The equipment and maintenance materiel were shipped from the Sacramento Air\n Logistics Center to Tobyhanna between FY 1998 and FY 2000 and are\n represented by 595 pallets of materiel stored in ASRS. The 595 pallets of\n materiel are stored in ASRS under a number of the 13 unpriced overhead PCNs,\n which is not in compliance with the IOC ASRS policy memorandum. Because\n the pallets have not been inventoried, the content of the pallets and condition or\n value of the materiel stored on the pallets was unknown.\n\n Computer Equipment. The ASRS at Tobyhanna also contained 96 boxes of\n computer equipment not recorded on the ASRS inventory records. The\n computer equipment had been stored in ASRS for more than 2 years. The\n computer equipment was identified as components of the Tactical Army Combat\n Computer System. The 96 boxes of computer equipment are valued at about\n $586,000. The value of the computer equipment was obtained from the Federal\n Logistics Information Record. As of January 12, 2001, the equipment had not\n\n 6\n\x0c been inventoried; therefore, the condition of the computer equipment is\n unknown. We were advised by Tobyhanna personnel that no requirement for\n the computer equipment existed at the depot. However, the computer\n equipment should be inventoried and turned in to the supply system.\n\n Long-Term Storage. Materiel was stored in ASRS at Tobyhanna for long\n periods of time, even though the IOC ASRS policy memorandum states that the\n purpose of ASRS is for short-term storage and that materiel is not to be stored\n for long periods of time in ASRS without a bona fide requirement. Also, prior\n to closing a depot maintenance program, all of the associated remaining repair\n parts, spares, and materiel on hand shall be transferred to an ongoing program\n that will begin within 180 days or shall be turned in to the installation supply\n support activity within 15 days. The ASRS data show when materiel was stored\n in the system and the dates of the last transaction. When Tobyhanna personnel\n aged the materiel stored in ASRS, data showed that at least $23.5 million\n (72 percent) of the about $30 million of materiel had been stored in ASRS in\n excess of 180 days. We believe that the $23.5 million of materiel could be\n excess to known requirements because some materiel had been stored in ASRS\n for as long as 13 years. Also, Tobyhanna personnel had not performed a review\n of materiel with a date of last activity more than 6 months old. Further, because\n the about $30 million value of the inventory is understated, we also believe that\n the $23.5 million in potential excess inventory may be understated.\n\n Repeat Condition. The excessive accumulation of materiel was also reported\n by the Army Audit Agency. Army Audit Agency Report No. NR 89-6, \xe2\x80\x9cDepot\n Automated Storage and Retrieval System,\xe2\x80\x9d March 24, 1989, states that materiel\n stored in ASRS was not adequately accounted for. The Army Audit Agency\n estimated the Army-wide amount of unaccounted for materiel to be as high as\n $120 million.\n\n Army Audit Agency Report No. AA 97-161, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement of Repair Parts for\n Maintenance,\xe2\x80\x9d March 17, 1997, states that the processes used to obtain, store,\n and issue parts for maintenance and fabrication programs did not provide the\n most cost-effective support to maintenance operations. The report also states\n that Tobyhanna had about $36 million of materiel stored in ASRS, of which\n some of the materiel had been stored for more than 7 years.\n\nManaging Depot Maintenance Materiel\n Excessive materiel stockage levels accumulated at Tobyhanna because personnel\n did not comply with Army guidance regarding stockage levels of materiel, did\n not evaluate materiel to determine if the materiel was required, and did not\n perform the required quarterly reviews of stockage levels of materiel. Also, the\n timing of purchased materiel and storage of materiel in overhead PCNs\n contributed to excessive materiel on hand. Further, the lack of CECOM\n oversight and policy guidance contributed to the excessive materiel on hand.\n\n Army Guidance. As a result of mediation regarding a recommendation in\n Inspector General, DoD, Report No. 94-117, \xe2\x80\x9cAccountability and Control of\n Materiel at Army Depots,\xe2\x80\x9d June 3, 1994, the Army issued interim guidance to\n\n 7\n\x0cArmy Regulation 750-2 that requires depots to limit maintenance and\nrequisitioning of fabrication materiel to a 60-day level. The Army agreed that\nexceptions for exceeding a 60-day level must be approved by the head of the\nrepair facility on a case-by-case basis, and that the Army would maintain a list\nof those exceptions. The guidance was issued in a message on November 28,\n1994. We found no written exception to the 60-day allowable limit for storing\nmateriel in ASRS. When we inquired about the interim guidance at Tobyhanna,\nwe were advised that Tobyhanna personnel were not aware of any interim\nguidance.\n\nAlthough the Army issued interim guidance to Army Regulation 750-2 in\nNovember 1994, the regulation has not been revised. Confusion at Tobyhanna\nexists regarding whether Army Regulation 750-2 is applicable for managing\ndepot maintenance materiel, especially for storage of fabrication materiel.\nPersonnel at Tobyhanna believed that because much of the work is on\nfabrication programs, a 180-day limit for storing materiel would be more\nappropriate. Army Regulation 750-2 applies to a wholesale activity, but\nTobyhanna personnel believe that the depot is a retail activity. We were advised\nby the Army Materiel Command that Tobyhanna is a wholesale activity and that\nArmy Regulation 750-2 is applicable to Tobyhanna. However, to resolve the\nissue of a 60-day requirement versus a 180-day requirement, the Army should\nreassess the requirement and determine the number of days that should be\nappropriate for storing fabrication materiel.\n\nQuarterly Reviews. Tobyhanna personnel were not performing quarterly\nreviews on materiel stored in the ASRS as required by Army Regulation 710-2.\nArmy Regulation 710-2 requires that shop stock items be reviewed quarterly, at\na minimum, to determine if requirements still exist. Failure to perform\nquarterly reviews resulted in an accumulation of the excessive materiel that was\non hand. Tobyhanna personnel advised us that quarterly reviews were not\nperformed because of a shortage of personnel.\n\nPurchasing Materiel. Tobyhanna purchased required materiel at the beginning\nof projects and stored that materiel for the life of the project, even though some\nof the materiel may be used over a multiple-year period. Records were not\navailable to show that Tobyhanna personnel reviewed projects at the 50-percent,\n75-percent, and 90-percent completion stages to determine if a need existed for\nmateriel in storage. Also, records were not available to show the availability of\nmateriel from previously completed fabrication projects before placing new\nrequisitions. Further, records were not available to show how Tobyhanna\naccounted for materiel that was reclaimed from repaired components or\nremoved from assets in maintenance. Purchasing the materiel more in line with\nconsumption would reduce the excess inventories, especially because program\nrequirements can change.\n\nCommunications-Electronics Command Oversight and Policy. The lack of\noversight regarding the management of maintenance materiel by CECOM also\ncontributed to the problem. CECOM has not issued any policy for management\nof materiel or required that reports be prepared for management review.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cMonetary Benefits\n Tobyhanna maintained materiel valued at $23.5 million for an excessive period\n of time. No activity was recorded for that materiel. Therefore, Tobyhanna\n could have $23.5 million of potential monetary benefits. The exact amount\n cannot be determined until Tobyhanna identifies inventory excess to prevailing\n requirements and determines if the excess materiel can be used to satisfy other\n known requirements.\n\n\nConclusion\n Tobyhanna did not comply with Army guidance relating to the level of the\n stockage of maintenance materiel stored in ASRS and did not effectively manage\n the materiel. As a result, the depot has an undetermined amount of materiel that\n has been stored for an excessive period of time, some held as long as 13 years,\n which exceeds requirements. Storage of large quantities of unused materiel\n makes maintenance inventories difficult to manage. Materiel stored for long\n periods of time may become lost, obsolete, stolen, or unserviceable. The\n materiel should be evaluated to determine if a need exists, and materiel with no\n known requirement should be made visible to item managers for known\n requirements, with excess materiel turned in. Because the materiel stored in\n ASRS is considered as consumed, the materiel loses visibility and is not\n available to the supply system item managers to meet other requirements.\n\n A lack of accountability and control of materiel at maintenance depots is an\n ongoing problem at Tobyhanna. The condition was first reported in 1989 by the\n Army Audit Agency. The Inspector General, DoD, reported a similar condition\n in 1994. Our audit showed that the problem continues to exist. The Army\n should establish updated guidance for the accountability and control of materiel\n at maintenance depots, and CECOM should take a more active role in\n monitoring management of materiel at Tobyhanna and issue guidance on\n materiel management.\n\n\nRecommendations\n A.1. We recommend that the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics reassess\n guidance regarding the 60-day storage and requisitioning of fabrication materiel\n at maintenance depots and revise Army Regulation 750-2. The guidance should\n state the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The appropriate number of days depots should be allowed for storing\n and requisitioning fabrication materiel.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Quarterly reviews should be performed to determine if materiel is\n still required.\n\n\n 9\n\x0cA.2. We recommend that the Commander, Communications-Electronics\nCommand, issue guidance regarding management of the Automated Storage and\nRetrieval System at Tobyhanna. The guidance should include the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 All materiel stored in the Automated Storage and Retrieval System\n shall be, at a minimum, identified by owning cost center; national\n stock number/part number; program control number; quantity;\n acquisition source code; nomenclature; and condition code.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A review of any materiel with a date of last activity more than\n 6 months shall be performed.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An annual physical inventory of any materiel stored in the Automated\n Storage and Retrieval System shall be performed.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Items stored in mission stocks must represent a bona fide potential\n requirement for performance of a maintenance or fabrication\n requirement.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Availability of materiel from previously completed fabrication orders\n must be determined before placing new requisitions.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Projects shall be reviewed at the 50-percent, 75-percent, and\n 90-percent completion stages to determine if a need exists for\n materiel still in storage.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reclaimed materiel, materiel removed from assets in maintenance,\n and work in process may be stored until reutilized on the\n maintenance program. Excess reclaimed materiel shall be turned in\n or transferred to a valid funded program.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Materiel shall not be stored in Automated Storage and Retrieval\n System in an overhead account.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Quarterly reviews shall be performed on materiel stored in the\n Automated Storage and Retrieval System to determine if\n requirements still exist.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Prior to closing a depot maintenance program, any associated\n remaining repair parts, spares, and materiel on hand shall be\n transferred to an ongoing program or a program that will begin\n within 180 days or turned in to the installation supply support activity\n within 15 days.\n\n - The gaining program must be funded, open, and valid.\n\n - The transferred materiel must be a bona fide potential requirement\n of the gaining program.\n\nA.3. We recommend that the Commander, Communications-Electronics\nCommand, direct Tobyhanna to immediately:\n\n\n 10\n\x0c a. Price the materiel stored in the Automated Storage and Retrieval\n System that has no extended dollar value or that has been added to the physical\n inventory, identify the value of inventory excess to prevailing requirements, and\n notify the Inspector General, DoD, of the corrected dollar value of the inventory\n and value of inventory excess to the requirements.\n\n b. Limit the storage of materiel in the Automated Storage and Retrieval\n System under overhead accounts. Specifically, remove materiel obtained from\n the Sacramento Air Logistic Center from the overhead account program control\n numbers.\n\n c. Record the Tactical Army Combat Computer System equipment on\n accountable records and inventory and turn in the computer equipment to the\n supply system because no requirement for the equipment exists at Tobyhanna.\n\n\nManagement Comments Required\n Comments on the draft report were received too late to be considered in\n preparing this final report. If the Army does not submit additional comments,\n we will consider the comments received as the response to the final report.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c B. Accounting For and Controlling\n Materiel\n Tobyhanna did not effectively manage or control materiel stored in the\n ASRS, which occurred because Tobyhanna did not perform annual\n physical inventories and reconciliation for quantities and values of\n materiel stored in the ASRS with MSFS records. In addition, CECOM\n has neither issued any policies or guidance regarding management of\n maintenance materiel at Tobyhanna nor required Tobyhanna to submit\n reports for management review. That condition occurred because\n CECOM has not exercised its duties as the office of primary\n responsibility for Tobyhanna. As a result, inventory records at\n Tobyhanna had an estimated count error rate at about 10.1 percent of the\n storage locations; materiel may become lost, obsolete, stolen, or\n unserviceable; and proper management decisions over the utilization of\n materiel have been hampered. Further, the lack of effective management\n controls at Tobyhanna contributed to excessive inventories and the lack\n of accurate inventory valuations as noted in Finding A.\n\n\nSafeguarding Maintenance Materiel\n DoD Regulation 4140.1-R, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Materiel Management Regulation,\xe2\x80\x9d May 20,\n 1998, provides policies for DoD Components regarding management of\n materiel. The regulation states that the DoD Component that has physical\n custody of materiel is responsible to care and safeguard the materiel and shall\n maintain quantitative balance records by individual storage location. Also, the\n DoD Components shall conduct annual physical inventories and shall take\n appropriate actions to ensure that the on-hand quantity and total item property\n record agree.\n Army Regulation 735-5, \xe2\x80\x9cPolicies and Procedures for Property Accountability,\xe2\x80\x9d\n January 31, 1998, states that any property acquired by the Army from whatever\n source, whether paid for or not, must be accounted for on formal records from\n the time of acquisition until the ultimate consumption or disposal of the property\n occurs. Also, the Army Regulation requires that all on-hand property shall be\n inventoried annually.\n\n The IOC ASRS policy memorandum includes the following inventory\n management requirements:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An annual physical inventory of all materiel stored in ASRS.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A reconciliation between the ASRS and MSFS files, at a minimum\n monthly, to determine if files are accurate.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c Similarly, the IOC ASRS policy memorandum includes the following\n management reporting requirements:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A monthly total dollar roll-up for materiel stored in ASRS.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Items stored in ASRS with no demand in the last 180 days.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Materiel stored in ASRS against closed PCNs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Materiel stored against overhead PCNs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Potential excess materiel by PCN.\n\n\nAccounting and Controlling\n Tobyhanna did not effectively manage or control maintenance materiel stored in\n the ASRS. That condition occurred because Tobyhanna did not perform annual\n physical inventories in compliance with DoD and Army regulations. Also,\n Tobyhanna did not perform reconciliation of quantities and values of materiel\n stored in the ASRS with MSFS records.\n\n Accuracy of Inventory. The inventory records for accountability and control\n of materiel stored in ASRS at Tobyhanna were inaccurate. For our physical\n inventory, we statistically selected 923 locations from a universe of\n 23,195 locations to determine if quantities that were on hand matched those\n quantities identified in the ASRS records. We compared the balance shown on\n the ASRS record with a physical count of items stored in ASRS.\n\n The inventory records and our physical count showed an estimated error rate of\n about 10.1 percent of the storage locations. By applying appropriate statistical\n weighting to the sample, we calculated that the number of errors in the universe\n of locations to be about 2,341 (10.1 percent). An estimated 3.6 percent of the\n storage locations was overstated (ASRS records showed more than the physical\n count) and an estimated 6.5 percent of storage locations was understated (ASRS\n records showed less than the physical count).\n\n Performing Physical Inventories. Tobyhanna was not correcting the errors in\n ASRS records regarding quantities and values of on-hand inventories because\n annual physical inventories of materiel stored in ASRS were not performed.\n DoD Regulation 4140.1-R, Army Regulation 735-5, and the IOC ASRS policy\n memorandum require that annual physical inventories be performed.\n DoD Regulation 4140.1-R states that appropriate actions shall be taken to ensure\n that the on-hand quantity and total item property records agree.\n\n Annual physical inventories of materiel stored in ASRS were not being\n performed. According to Tobyhanna management officials, the annual physical\n inventories were not performed because the depot did not have sufficient\n personnel to perform them. We were advised that the last annual physical\n inventory was performed in 1998, but the results of the inventory were not\n\n 13\n\x0c documented. Although resources may not be available to perform annual\n wall-to-wall inventories, physical inventories are still required to be performed\n to care and safeguard materiel. Alternatives that could be used are an annual\n random statistical sample of inventory or some type of cyclic inventory.\n Reducing the size of the inventory, as cited in Finding A, would greatly reduce\n the effort involved in performing required inventories.\n\n Reconciling the ASRS and the MSFS. Tobyhanna was not reconciling the\n ASRS records with MSFS records. The IOC ASRS policy memorandum states\n that to enhance the control of materiel stored in ASRS, a reconciliation between\n the ASRS and MSFS files is required.\n\n We were advised that the reconciliations were not being performed because of\n resource requirements. Reconciliations required too much computer time and\n ASRS would not be available for normal mission functions during the\n reconciliations. Nevertheless, reconciliation between the two files should be\n performed at a minimum of once each month. If a variance between the two\n files is found, an inventory should be performed to correct the imbalance.\n Tobyhanna should consider performing the reconciliations after normal business\n hours.\n\n Reporting Requirements. Tobyhanna was not reporting the results of\n reconciliation reviews to higher level management because such reviews were\n not performed. The IOC ASRS policy memorandum requires that depots submit\n quarterly reports concerning the management of the ASRS inventories. We\n were advised that quarterly reports were not being prepared because of resource\n constraints. Nevertheless, quarterly reports were required so that the office of\n primary responsibility could monitor inventory levels and ensure accountability\n and control of materiel.\n\n\nManagement Oversight of Materiel\n CECOM has neither issued any policies or guidance regarding management of\n maintenance material at Tobyhanna nor required Tobyhanna to submit reports\n for management review. That condition occurred because CECOM has not\n exercised its duties as the office of primary responsibility for Tobyhanna.\n\n DoD and Army Regulations. DoD and Army Regulations collectively require\n that depots maintain quantitative balance records, account for materiel on formal\n records from the time of acquisition until the ultimate consumption or disposal\n of the property occurs, conduct annual physical inventories, and take\n appropriate actions to ensure that the on-hand quantity and total item property\n records agree. Those requirements were issued to ensure the care and\n safeguarding of materiel.\n\n Industrial Operations Command Policy. The IOC ASRS policy memorandum\n requires depots to perform a reconciliation between ASRS and MSFS files and\n annual physical inventories of materiel stored in ASRS. In addition, to ensure\n\n\n 14\n\x0c adequate oversight regarding the management of ASRS, the IOC ASRS policy\n memorandum requires that the following reports be provided for management\n review:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A monthly total dollar roll-up for materiel stored in ASRS.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Items stored in ASRS with no demand in the last 180 days.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Materiel stored in ASRS against closed PCNs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Materiel stored against overhead PCNs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Potential excess materiel by PCN.\n\n Communications-Electronics Command. On October 1, 1998, the IOC\n transferred full command and control of Tobyhanna to CECOM. However,\n since October 1998, CECOM has not issued any policies or guidance\n concerning implementation of DoD, Army, and IOC policies noted above or for\n the overall management of materiel at Tobyhanna. Further, CECOM has not\n been actively involved in management of the maintenance materiel at Tobyhanna\n nor has CECOM required Tobyhanna to submit reports concerning management\n of maintenance materiel for CECOM review. We do not believe that CECOM\n has exercised its duties as the office of primary responsibility for Tobyhanna.\n\n\nConclusion\n Tobyhanna did not effectively manage or control maintenance materiel stored in\n the ASRS and CECOM has not issued any policies or guidance regarding the\n management of maintenance materiel at Tobyhanna or required Tobyhanna to\n submit reports for management review. We believe that effective management\n of maintenance materiel requires, at a minimum, Tobyhanna to perform physical\n inventories, reconcile ASRS and MSFS records, and prepare quarterly reviews\n of inventory levels. Further, we believe that CECOM should take an active role\n in monitoring the management of materiel at Tobyhanna. CECOM should also\n issue policy and guidance concerning management steps noted above and any\n additional policy and guidance deemed necessary for the effective management\n of materiel at Tobyhanna.\n\n Because those management actions were not performed, inventory records at\n Tobyhanna had an estimated error rate either overstated or understated of about\n 10.1 percent in the storage locations. Additionally, materiel may become lost,\n obsolete, stolen, or unserviceable; and proper management decisions over the\n utilization of material have been hampered. Further, the lack of effective\n management controls at Tobyhanna contributed to excessive inventories and the\n lack of accurate inventory valuations as noted in Finding A.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cRecommendations\n B.1. We recommend that the Commander, Communications-Electronics\n Command, issue guidance regarding reports that should be submitted to\n management for review. The guidance should require the following reports:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 An annual physical inventory of all materiel stored in Automated\n Storage and Retrieval System.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A reconciliation between the Automated Storage and Retrieval\n System and Maintenance Shop Floor System files, at a minimum\n monthly, to determine if files are accurate.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A physical inventory should be performed to correct any\n deficiencies. Reports should be prepared for management review.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A monthly total dollar value for materiel stored in the Automated\n Storage and Retrieval System.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Items stored in the Automated Storage and Retrieval System with no\n demand in the last 180 days.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Materiel stored in the Automated Storage and Retrieval System\n against closed program control numbers.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Materiel stored against overhead program control numbers.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Potential excess materiel by program control number.\n\n B.2. We recommend that the Commander, Communications-Electronics\n Command, direct the Tobyhanna Army Depot to immediately perform a\n physical inventory and reconcile the Automated Storage and Retrieval System\n records with the Maintenance Shop Floor System records to verify the accuracy\n of inventory records and submit report for review.\n\n\nManagement Comments Required\n Comments on the draft report were received too late to be considered in\n preparing this final report. If the Army does not submit additional comments,\n we will consider the comments received as the response to the final report.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cAppendix A. Audit Process\n\nScope and Methodology\n We performed the audit at the Tobyhanna Army Depot. We contacted the\n Army Materiel Command, the CECOM, and the Defense Logistics Agency.\n We concentrated on accountability and control of repair parts and consumable\n materiel. Our audit covered inventory records as of January 12, 2001. At the\n time of our audit, Tobyhanna reported a total inventory balance in the ASRS of\n about $30 million.\n\n We reviewed the DoD and Army regulations concerning policies,\n responsibilities, and procedures for managing repair parts and consumable\n materiel at the depot maintenance facility. To determine if repair parts and\n consumable materiel were accurately accounted for and controlled on depot\n property records, we inventoried a random sample of materiel on hand at the\n maintenance depot. We used the most current records available for performing\n the inventory. We statistically selected 923 of 23,195 sample locations for\n review. We determined unit prices by using the Defense Logistics Agency\n consolidated materiel data list, which provides data such as the item name,\n national stock number, and the unit price; Federal Logistics Information\n Record; and supply records.\n\n We reviewed FY 1998, FY 1999, and FY 2000 management control\n certifications, required by the Federal Managers\xe2\x80\x99 Financial Integrity Act of\n 1982, that were submitted by the depot. We reviewed the certifications to\n determine whether responsible managers were identifying and reporting material\n weaknesses concerning accounting for and controlling maintenance materiel in\n the annual management control certifications. We also followed up on\n implementation of recommendations from prior audit reports.\n\n DoD Functional Area Reform Goals. Most major DoD functional areas have\n also established performance improvement reform objectives and goals. This\n report pertains to achievement of the following functional area objective and\n goal.\n\n Logistics Functional Area. Objective: Minimize logistics costs while meeting\n warfighters requirements. Goal: Reduce the logistics cost per selected weapon\n system per year compared to FY 1997 baseline as follows: 7 percent by\n FY 2000; 10 percent by FY 2001; and a stretch target of 20 percent by\n FY 2005. (LOG-6.1)\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cHigh-Risk Area. The General Accounting Office has identified several\nhigh-risk areas in DoD. This report provides coverage of the Defense Inventory\nManagement high-risk area.\n\nUse of Computer-Processed Data. We relied on computer-processed data\nfrom the ASRS and the MSFS for determining the accuracy of inventory\nrecords. Our review of system controls and the results of data tests showed an\nerror rate that casts doubt on the data\xe2\x80\x99s validity. Further, we believe that the\nmonetary valuation of materiel was understated because a significant amount of\nmateriel stored in ASRS had no extended dollar value. However, when the data\nare reviewed in context with other available evidence, we believe that the\nopinion, conclusions, and recommendations in this report are valid.\n\nSample Design. The ASRS has four general types of storage. We used a\nstratified random sample design, selecting simple random samples of locations\nreported as of January 12, 2001, within each type of storage, as listed below:\n\n\n Population and Sampling\n\n Type Locations in Locations in Retrieval\n Storage System Sample Mode\n\n Unit Load 4,560 180 Automated\n Mini-load 13,224 398 Automated\n Cantilever 5,200 300 Warehouse worker\n Floor \xe2\x80\x93 R 186 20 Warehouse worker\n Floor \xe2\x80\x93 E/W 25 25 Warehouse worker\n\n Total 23,195 923\n\n Floor\xe2\x80\x93R - Floor Rack\n Floor\xe2\x80\x93E/W - Floor East/West\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cSample Results. The following table reports projections that are based on our\nsample data. The No Materiel locations are those that ASRS reported as empty\nand our audit verified as empty. When ASRS reported a location as empty, but\nwe found materiel stored there, we treated that location as \xe2\x80\x9cunderstated.\xe2\x80\x9d The\nsample results are as follows:\n\n Projections\n\n Point Lower Upper\n Projection Estimate Bound Bound\n\n Overstated (Audit < System) 832 (3.6%) 543 1,121\n Understated (Audit > System) 1,509 (6.5%) 1,133 1,884\n Accurate Count 4,464 (19.2%) 3,872 5,055\n No Materiel at Location 16,391 (70.7%) 15,714 17,067\n\n Total 23,195 (100%) n/a* n/a*\n\n*Not applicable.\nNote: Numbers do not sum evenly because of rounding.\n\n\nThe table reports the 95 percent confidence intervals. For example, the\ninterpretation of the results for locations with overstated counts is that, with\n95 percent confidence, we estimate that between 543 and 1,121 locations of the\ntotal 23,195 locations would have overstatements. Our best single measure,\n832 locations, is the midpoint of that range.\n\nUse of Technical Assistance. Statisticians from the Analysis, Planning, and\nTechnical Support Directorate, Quantitative Methods Division, Office of the\nAssistant Inspector General for Auditing, provided assistance in designing a\nrandom statistical sampling plan for performing a physical inventory and in\nevaluating results of the physical inventory.\n\nAudit Type, Dates, and Standards. We performed this economy and\nefficiency audit from September 2000 through May 2001 in accordance with\ngenerally accepted government auditing standards, except we were unable to\nobtain an opinion on our audit system of quality control. The most recent\nexternal control review was withdrawn on March 15, 2001, and we will undergo\na new review.\n\nContacts During the Audit. We visited or contacted individuals and\norganizations within DoD. Further details are available on request.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cManagement Control Program Review\n DoD Directive 5010.38, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 26,\n 1996, and DoD Instruction 5010.40, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program\n Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d August 28, 1996, require DoD organizations to implement a\n comprehensive system of management controls that provides reasonable\n assurance that programs are operating as intended and to evaluate the adequacy\n of the controls.\n\n Scope of the Review of the Management Control Program. At Tobyhanna,\n we reviewed the adequacy of management controls regarding storage and\n disposition of maintenance materiel at the depot. We also reviewed\n management\xe2\x80\x99s self-evaluation applicable to those management controls.\n\n Adequacy of Management Controls. We identified material management\n control weaknesses for Tobyhanna as defined by DoD Instruction 5010.40.\n Tobyhanna management controls for managing depot maintenance materiel were\n not adequate because managers stored for long periods materiel not needed for\n current requirements. Also, annual physical inventories were not performed as\n required. Additionally, quarterly reviews to determine if materiel was needed\n were not performed, especially for materiel stored for long periods of time.\n Recommendations A.1., A.2., A.3., B.1., and B.2., if implemented, will\n improve management of materiel. A copy of the report will be provided to\n senior officials responsible for management controls within the Army.\n\n Adequacy of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Self-Evaluation. Tobyhanna officials did not\n identify management of maintenance materiel as an assessable unit and,\n therefore, did not identify or report the material management control\n weaknesses identified by this audit. However, if management takes action on\n the recommendations in this report, noted deficiencies will be corrected.\n\n\nPrior Coverage\n During the last 5 years, the Inspector General, DoD has issued one report\n discussing management of repair parts for maintenance. The Army Audit\n Agency has also issued one report discussing management of repair parts for\n maintenance. In addition, we discussed one Army Audit Agency report that was\n more than 5 years old and that report discusses the use of the ASRS.\n\nInspector General\n Inspector General, DoD, Audit Report No. D-2001-186, \xe2\x80\x9cAccountability and\n Control of Materiel at the Tobyhanna Army Depot \xe2\x80\x93 Stockage of\n Communications-Electronics Materiel,\xe2\x80\x9d September 21, 2001\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cArmy\n Army Audit Agency, Audit Report No. AA 97-161, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement of Repair\n Parts for Maintenance,\xe2\x80\x9d March 17, 1997\n\n Army Audit Agency, Audit Report No. NE 89-6, \xe2\x80\x9cDepot Automated Storage\n and Retrieval System,\xe2\x80\x9d March 24, 1989\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cAppendix B. Report Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense\nUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics\n Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness)\n Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Maintenance Policy, Programs,\n and Resources)\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)\n Deputy Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget)\n\nJoint Staff\nDirector, Joint Staff\n\nDepartment of the Army\nUnder Secretary of the Army\nAssistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology)\nAssistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller)\nDeputy Chief of Staff (Logistics)\nDirector, Army Materiel Command\nCommander, Communications-Electronics Command\n Commander, Tobyhanna Army Depot\nAuditor General, Department of the Army\n\nDepartment of the Navy\nNaval Inspector General\nAuditor General, Department of the Navy\n\nDepartment of the Air Force\nAssistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller)\nAuditor General, Department of the Air Force\n\nOther Defense Organizations\nDirector, Defense Logistics Agency\n\nNon-Defense Federal Organizations\nOffice of Management and Budget\n\n\n 22\n\x0cGeneral Accounting Office\n\nCongressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and\n Ranking Minority Member\nSenate Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Committee on Armed Services\nSenate Committee on Governmental Affairs\nHouse Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Committee on Armed Services\nHouse Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and\n Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International\n Relations, Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, Committee on\n Government Reform\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cAudit Team Members\nThe Readiness and Logistics Support Directorate, Office of the Assistant Inspector\nGeneral for Auditing, DoD, prepared this report. Personnel of the Office of the\nInspector General, DoD, who contributed to the report are listed below.\n\n Shelton R. Young\n Raymond D. Kidd\n Robert M. Murrell\n Joseph M. Austin\n Sheela M. Javeri\n Douglas P. Ickes\n William E. Shimp\n Charlisa D. Trahan\n Lieutenant Commander Patrick E. Protacio, U.S. Navy\n Henry D. Barton\n Dharam V. Jain\n\x0c'


text:
Overenskomstdækkede funktionærer kunne ikke anlægge sag om usaglig afskedigelse i medfør af funktionærlovens § 2 b ved de almindelige domstole
 Højesteret har afsagt dom i en sag, som to overenskomstdækkede funktionærer havde anlagt ved de almindelige domstole vedrørende funktionærlovens § 2 b. Sagen blev afvist af Højesteret.
 Sagen var anlagt af HK på vegne af to medlemmer, og sagen blev ført af Schebye Jacobsen.
 De to funktionærer blev opsagt fra deres statslige arbejdsplads i 2001 under henvisning til besparelser. Funktionærerne var omfattet af Fællesoverenskomsten mellem Finansministeriet og STK. Overenskomsten indeholder en bestemmelse om, at sager om usaglig afskedigelse ” kan” føres ad fagretlig vej og afgøres ved faglig voldgift. Der blev afholdt forhandling imellem HK og arbejdspladsen i henhold til overenskomsten den 30. juli 2001, hvor HK forbeholdt sig at videreføre sagerne om opsigelsernes saglighed i medfør af funktionærlovens § 2 b.
 Herefter overgik sagen til HK Forbundet, der begærede mægling afholdt i henhold til fællesoverenskomstens bestemmelser herom.
 Der blev herefter afholdt mæglingsmøder den 16. oktober 2001 og den 17. juni 2002 under henvisning til fællesoverenskomstens § 26.
 HK forbeholdt sig ret til at videreføre sagen i henhold til fællesoverenskomstens § 26.
 I bemærkningerne til mæglingsmødereferat anførte HK, at man, for så vidt angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der var forvaltningsretlige mangler (partshøring) samt opsigelsernes saglighed, forbeholdt sig ret til at videreføre de to spørgsmål til retslig/fag-retlig afgørelse.
 Herefter blev der rejst krav over for arbejdsgiveren i henhold til funktionærlovens § 2 b og forvaltningslovens § 19.
 Der blev udtaget stævning ved Byretten i Aalborg i februar 2003.
 Sagerne ønskedes ført samlet ved de civile domstole, fordi man fandt det mest hensigtsmæssigt, at kravene blev behandlet samlet et sted.
 Først i forbindelse med afgivelse af svarskrift blev der påstået afvisning vedrørende den del af kravet, der relaterede sig til funktionærlovens § 2 b. Dette skete under henvisning til, at det fremgik af fællesoverenskomstens § 26’s bestemmelser om beskyttelsen mod usaglig afskedigelse, at sådanne sager skulle føres ved faglig voldgift.
 Byretten i Ålborg afsagde dom den 3. september 2003, hvorved denne del af sagen blev afvist fra de civile domstole.
 Vestre Landsret afsagde tilsvarende dom i sagen den 18. februar 2004.
 Herefter blev der indgivet begæring om 3. instansbevilling, hvilken begæring blev imødekommet af Procesbevillingsnævnet.
 Højesteret karakteriserer den fagretlige tvistløsningsordning ved, at den enkelte arbejdstagers interesser varetages af den pågældendes fagforening. Uoverensstemmelser skal søges løst ved forhandling – først lokalt og derefter på centralt organisationsniveau – og tvister, som ikke løses ved forhandling, og som en af overenskomstparterne ønsker videreført, skal indbringes for en faglig voldgiftsret, jf. arbejdsretslovens § 22.
 I den i sagen gældende fællesoverenskomst er der truffet aftale om en afskedigelsesprocedure i overensstemmelse med de sædvanlige principper for fagretlig tvistløsning.
 I Højesterets afgørelse U2002.18H - der angik et overenskomstbaseret krav om en helt tilsvarende ordning - udtalte Højesteret, at ordningen for det enkelte medlem indebærer en retlig prøvelse, som må anses for retssikkerhedsmæssigt fuldt betryggende. Det fremgår endvidere af denne afgørelse, at afskedigelsesproceduren indebærer, at såvel fagforeningen som det enkelte medlem er bundet til at lade en afskedigelses saglighed bedømme ved faglig voldgift, medmindre der foreligger omstændigheder, som giver medlemmet ret til i medfør af arbejdsretslovens § 11, stk. 2 at få spørgsmålet behandlet ved de almindelige domstole.
 Højesteret fandt, at afskedigelsesproceduren efter den gældende overenskomsts bestemmelse også omfatter ansatte, der er funktionærer i henhold til funktionærloven og dermed omfattet af funktionærlovens § 2 b. Efter Højesterets opfattelse forelå der ikke i sagen uoverensstemmelse om fortolkningen af funktionærlovens § 2 b, men alene tvist om afskedigelsernes saglighed. Det forhold, at godtgørelseskravene ikke blev støttet på overenskomsten, men på funktionærlovens § 2 b - der ikke ved aftale kan fraviges til skade for funktionæren - kan ikke i strid med den indgåede aftale om tvistløsning ved faglig voldgift give ret til indbringelse for domstolene. Højesteret henviser her til forarbejderne til funktionærlovens § 2 b.
 Højesteret lagde herefter til grund, at de to af sagen omfattede medlemmer af HK kun ville kunne anlægge sag ved de almindelige domstole vedrørende krav om godtgørelse for usaglig afskedigelse, såfremt de kunne godtgøre, at HK havde valgt ikke at forfølge deres krav.
 HK havde ikke opgivet at forfølge de to medlemmers krav, men valgt at lade kravene forfølge ved domstolene.
 De to medlemmer havde derfor haft mulighed for at få deres krav prøvet, enten ved faglig voldgift eller – såfremt betingelserne herfor i arbejdsretslovens § 11, stk. 2 havde været opfyldt – ved de almindelige domstole.
 Højesteret tiltræder derfor, at afvisning af domstolsbehandling af kravene ikke kan anses at indebære en krænkelse af den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 6, stk. 1.
 Herefter tiltrådte Højesteret, at de to medlemmer ikke havde ret til at få kravene vedrørende usaglig afskedigelse behandlet ved domstolene.
 Højesteret anser også det enkelte medlem af en faglig organisation for bundet af en overenskomstbestemmelse om at lade en afskedigelses saglighed bedømme ved faglig voldgift, også selv om kravet støttes på ufravigelig præceptiv lovgivning – her funktionærlovens § 2 b – og altså ikke overenskomstens bestemmelser. Højesteret lader således i denne sag organisationsfuldmagten række til også at omfatte medlemmernes individuelle, lovbaserede krav og må derfor i øvrigt anse betingelserne for, at organisationerne også på medlemmets vegne har indgået en bindende voldgiftsaftale på dette punkt for at være opfyldt.
 Konsekvensen af dommen er – blandt andet – den uhensigtsmæssige, at man fremover på det offentlige, overenskomstdækkede område i sager, der føres på det dobbelte retsgrundlag ( usaglighed og forvaltningsretlige mangler ), er nødsaget til at anlægge sagen i to fora, henholdsvis ved faglig voldgift og ved de almindelige domstole, hvilket vil medføre både fordyrelse og forlængelse af sagerne.
 Opmærksomheden henledes iøvrigt på, at det indenfor LO/ DA’s område er anerkendt af overenskomstparterne, at en sag om usaglig afskedigelse også kan føres ved de almindelige domstole efter funktionærlovens § 2 b, uanset Hovedaftalens bestemmelser om behandling ved Afskedigelsesnævnet, hvis sagen fra starten føres i dette spor.
 Højesterets dom er afsagt den 26. marts 2007 og kan rekvireres ved henvendelse til receptionist Birte Fisker
 Spørgsmål i sagen kan rettes til advokat Ulla Jacobsen SJLaw@sjlaw.dk


text:
Nõuded saasteainete sisalduse regulaarsele mõõtmisele jäätmepõletus- ja koospõletustehastest väljuvates gaasides ning heitvees – Riigi Teataja
 Nõuded saasteainete sisalduse regulaarsele mõõtmisele jäätmepõletus- ja koospõletustehastest väljuvates gaasides ning heitvees
 Nõuded saasteainete sisalduse regulaarsele mõõtmisele jäätmepõletus- ja koospõletustehastest väljuvates gaasides ning heitvees - sisukord
 § 2 Üldnõue mõõtmisele
 § 3 Nõuded väljuvate gaaside saasteaine sisalduse mõõtmisele
 § 4 Väljuvate gaaside saasteaine sisalduse mõõtmise tulemuste teisendamine
 § 5 Heitvee saasteaine sisalduse mõõtmise nõuded
 § 6 Heljuvaine sisalduse mõõtmine
 RT I, 26.06.2013, 16
 Nõuded saasteainete sisalduse regulaarsele mõõtmisele jäätmepõletus- ja koospõletustehastest väljuvates gaasides ning heitvees1
 Vastu võetud 20.06.2013 nr 39
 Määrus kehtestatakse tööstusheite seaduse § 104 lõike 3 alusel.
 Määrus kehtestab nõuded jäätmepõletus- ja koospõletustehastest väljuvate gaaside ning heitvee saasteainete sisalduse regulaarsele mõõtmisele.
 § 2. Üldnõue mõõtmisele
 Väljuvate gaaside ja heitvee saasteainete sisalduse määramiseks tehtavad mõõtmised peavad olema esinduslikud ning vastama tööstusheite seaduse § 104 lõikes 2 sätestatud nõuetele.
 § 3. Nõuded väljuvate gaaside saasteaine sisalduse mõõtmisele
 (1) Jäätmepõletus- või koospõletustehasest väljuvates gaasides määratakse pidevalt järgmiste saasteainete sisaldus:
 1) lämmastikoksiidid, juhul kui lämmastikoksiidide heite piirväärtused on kehtestatud;
 3) tahkete osakeste üldsisaldus;
 4) orgaanilise süsiniku üldsisaldus (Total Organic Carbon – edaspidi TOC);
 (2) Ööpäeva heite keskmiste piirväärtuste korral ei tohi saasteaine sisalduse üksiku mõõtmistulemuse 95%-lise usaldusvahemiku väärtused ületada tööstusheite seaduse § 100 lõike 1 alusel kehtestatud heite piirväärtuste järgmisi protsendimäärasid:
 1) süsinikoksiid – 10%;
 2) vääveldioksiid – 20%;
 3) lämmastikdioksiid – 20%;
 4) tahked osakesed, üldsisaldus – 30%;
 5) TOC – 30%;
 6) vesinikkloriid – 40%;
 7) vesinikfluoriid – 40%.
 (3) Kui käitaja tõendab, et vesinikkloriidi, vesinikfluoriidi ja vääveldioksiidi heide ei saa mingil juhul ületada nende saasteainete piirväärtusi, mis on kehtestatud tööstusheite seaduse § 100 lõike 1 alusel, võib nende saasteainete sisalduse pideva mõõtmise asemel määrata loas perioodiliste mõõtmiste tegemise kohustuse käesoleva paragrahvi lõikes 6 sätestatud ajakava kohaselt või regulaarseid mõõtmisi üldse mitte nõuda.
 (4) Kui enne tööstusheite seaduse jõustumist kompleksloa alusel tegutsev käitaja, kelle jäätmepõletus- või koospõletustehas töötab nimivõimsusega alla kuue tonni jäätmeid tunnis, tõendab, et lämmastikoksiidi heite omadusi käsitlevate andmete, kasutatava tehnoloogia ja lämmastikoksiidide heite seire tulemuste põhjal ei saa lämmastikoksiidide heide mingil juhul ületada tööstusheite seaduse § 100 lõike 1 alusel kehtestatud piirväärtusi, võib loas nende saasteainete sisalduse pideva mõõtmise kohustuse asemel määrata perioodiliste mõõtmiste kohustuse käesoleva paragrahvi lõikes 6 sätestatud ajakava kohaselt.
 (5) Kui käitaja tõendab, et vesinikkloriidi töödeldakse gaasipuhastusseadmes nii, et vastavalt puhastusseadme tehnilistele parameetritele on tööstusheite seaduse § 100 lõike 1 alusel kehtestatud vesinikkloriidi heite piirväärtuse ületamine välistatud ja taotleb seire ulatuse vähendamist, võib loa andja väljuvates gaasides vesinikfluoriidi sisalduse pideva mõõtmise kohustuse asendada perioodilise mõõtmise kohustusega vastavalt käesoleva paragrahvi lõikes 6 sätestatud ajakavale.
 (6) Vähemalt kaks korda aastas määrab käitaja raskmetallide, dioksiinide ja furaanide sisalduse väljuvates gaasides, kusjuures esimese 12 käitamiskuu jooksul tehakse mõõtmisi vähemalt iga kolme kuu järel.
 (7) Loa andja võib loas määrata kohustuse teostada raskmetallide sisalduse mõõtmine iga kahe aasta järel ning dioksiinide ja furaanide mõõtmine kord aastas järgmistel juhtudel:
 1) jäätmete põletamisel või koospõletamisel tekkiv heide on igal juhul väiksem kui 50% heite piirväärtusest, mis on kehtestatud tööstusheite seaduse § 100 lõike 1 alusel;
 2) põletatavad või koospõletatavad tavajäätmed ei sobi ringlusse ning käitaja suudab asjakohaste jäätmete omadusi käsitleva teabe ja heiteseire andmete põhjal tõestada, et raskmetallide, dioksiinide ja furaanide sisaldus on igal juhul oluliselt väiksem tööstusheite seaduse § 100 lõike 1 alusel kehtestatud heite piirväärtustest.
 (8) Pidevalt määratakse järgmisi käitamisparameetreid:
 1) jäätmete põletamisel tekkiva gaasi temperatuuri kolde seina juures või kolde mõnes muus loa andja määratud punktis;
 2) väljuvate gaaside hapnikusisaldust, rõhku, temperatuuri ja veeaurusisaldust. Veeaurusisaldust ei mõõdeta, kui väljuvate gaaside proov enne selle analüüsimist kuivatatakse.
 (9) Jäätmete põletamisel tekkiva gaasi koldes viibeaega, samuti vähimat temperatuuri ja hapnikusisaldust mõõdab käitaja tehase kasutusse võtmisel ja ebasoodsate käitamistingimuste korral.
 § 4. Väljuvate gaaside saasteaine sisalduse mõõtmise tulemuste teisendamine
 (1) Väljuvate gaaside saasteainesisalduse mõõtmise tulemused teisendab käitaja järgmistele tingimustele vastavaks:
 1) tehasest väljuvate gaaside temperatuur 273,15 K, rõhk 101,3 kPa, hapniku sisaldus mahu järgi 11%, kuiv gaas;
 2) vanaõli väljuvate gaaside temperatuur 273,15 K, rõhk 101,3 kPa, hapniku sisaldus mahu järgi 3%, kuiv gaas;
 3) jäätmete põletamisel või koospõletamisel hapnikuga rikastatud keskkonnas teisendatakse mõõtmiste tulemused loa andja sätestatud hapnikusisaldusele vastavaks, võttes arvesse iga üksikjuhtumi korral rikastusastet ning muid tehnilisi parameetreid;
 4) koospõletamisel viiakse mõõtmistulemused vastavusse hapniku üldsisaldusega, mis kohaldub asjaomasele jäätmepõletus- või koospõletustehasele tööstusheite seaduse § 100 lõike 1 alusel kehtestatud korras;
 5) hapnikusisalduse mõõtmistulemused teisendatakse, kasutades käesoleva määruse lisas esitatud valemit.
 (2) Kui ohtlikke jäätmeid käitleva tehase väljuvates gaasides vähendatakse saasteainete sisaldust nende gaaside töötlemise abil, teisendatakse saasteainete sisalduse mõõtmistulemused vastavaks käesoleva paragrahvi lõike 1 punktis 1 sätestatud hapnikusisaldusele üksnes siis, kui hapnikusisaldus, mida on mõõdetud samal ajavahemikul saasteainete sisaldusega, ületab lõike 1 punktis 1 nimetatud hapnikusisaldust.
 § 5. Heitvee saasteaine sisalduse mõõtmise nõuded
 (1) Väljuvate gaaside puhastamisel tekkiva reovee käitlemise tulemusena tekkiva heitvee väljutamiskohas:
 1) mõõdetakse pidevalt pH, temperatuuri ja vooluhulka;
 2) määratakse heljuvaine sisaldus pistelises proovis või esinduslikus keskmistatud proovis, mida võetakse kord ööpäevas proportsionaalselt ööpäevase vooluhulgaga;
 3) määratakse vähemalt kord kuus ööpäevase vooluhulgaga proportsionaalses keskmistatud proovis elavhõbeda, kaadmiumi, talliumi, arseeni, kroomi, plii, vase, nikli ja tsingi sisaldus;
 4) mõõdetakse vähemalt kord kuue kuu jooksul ja esimese 12 käitamiskuu kestel vähemalt üks kord kolme kuu jooksul dioksiinide ja furaanide sisaldust.
 (2) Väljuvate gaaside puhastamisel tekkiva reovee käitlemise tulemusena tekkiva heitvee saasteainete sisaldus määratakse tehase heitvee suubla väljalaskmekohas või ühiskanalisatsiooniga liitumise kohas.
 (3) Kui väljuvate gaaside puhastamisel tekkivat reovett puhastatakse tehase ühises reoveepuhastis koos muu kohapeal tekkiva reoveega, mõõdab käitaja reovee saasteainete sisaldust:
 1) väljuvate gaaside puhastamisel tekkivas reovees enne selle reovee suunamist ühisesse reoveepuhastisse;
 2) muus reovees enne selle reovee suunamist ühisesse reoveepuhastisse;
 3) kohas, kus reoveepuhasti heitvesi suublasse lastakse, või ühiskanalisatsiooniga liitumise kohas.
 (4) Käesoleva paragrahvi lõikes 3 nimetatud juhul teeb käitaja massibilansi arvutused, et määrata kindlaks väljuvate gaaside puhastusveest tulenev reovee saasteainete sisaldus. Arvutused esitatakse loa andjale tema nõudmisel.
 (5) Kui väljuvate gaaside puhastamisel tekkiva reovee käitlemise tulemusena tekkivat heitvett puhastatakse väljaspool tehast üksnes seda laadi reovee puhastamiseks mõeldud puhastusseadmes, määratakse saasteainete sisalduse vastavus tööstusheite seaduse § 102 lõike 3 alusel kehtestatud piirväärtustele puhastusseadmest väljuvas heitvees.
 (6) Kui tehasevälises puhastusseadmes puhastatakse ka muud reovett, teeb käitaja käesoleva paragrahvi lõigete 3 ja 4 kohased mõõtmised ja massibilansi arvutused, et kindlaks määrata väljuvate gaaside puhastusveest tulenev reovee saasteainete sisaldus. Arvutused esitatakse loa andjale tema nõudmisel.
 § 6. Heljuvaine sisalduse mõõtmine
 Heljuvaine sisaldus mõõdetakse vastavalt Vabariigi Valitsuse 29. novembri 2012. a määrusele nr 99 „Reovee puhastamise ning heit- ja sademevee suublasse juhtimise kohta esitatavad nõuded, heit- ja sademevee reostusnäitajate piirmäärad ning nende nõuete täitmise kontrollimise meetmed”.
 Lisa Hapnikusisalduse teisendamine saasteaine sisalduse arvutamisel