Corrosion Control

The Pentagon released a report to Congress this week assessing the impact of corrosion on Defense Department facilities and infrastructure.

"The enclosed facilities and infrastructure corrosion evaluation study identified key corrosion cost drivers, assessed a planned facility construction program, and examined documentation of maintenance and facility engineering processes in regards to corrosion," Defense Department acquisition chief Frank Kendall writes in the cover letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees.

While the report's evaluation team "found the military services are doing what they can in the areas of corrosion prevention and control (CPC) . . . opportunities for improvement exist throughout DOD," the report states, adding: "The study team also noted that corrosion is often perceived as rust and oxidation of metals, rather than the more comprehensive definition in congressional language. Discussions of corrosion challenges became more fruitful after a clear definition of corrosion was understood. That lack of awareness did not diminish the compelling need of the facilities and infrastructure community to address materials degradation."

Among the report's main findings:

* The study team identified key cost drivers using maintenance databases. These cost drivers were then confirmed during site visits. Policy makers and facilities maintainers can use these cost drivers as a reference point for addressing strategic enhancements in the sustainment of their installations.

* Installations located in severe environments (as measured by the Environmental Severity Index, or ESI) are subject to greater corrosion costs, as indicated by a recent cost-of-corrosion study.

* After an extensive review of DoD facilities and infrastructure policies and criteria5 in relation to corrosion mitigation, the study team compiled a list of guidance documents that specifically address CPC in the acquisition, development, and long-term management of DoD facilities and infrastructure. The study team noted considerable variability in the awareness and implementation of these CPC policies and guidance.

* Congress requested an assessment of a planned facility construction program. The D, CPO selected a construction program in an extreme ESI to assess CPC considerations during the planning, design, and construction phases. The study team noted that several design-phase requirements from that project included CPC material and installation criteria that were drawn from established DoD guidance and the experiences of the design community. The study team's assessment demonstrated that appropriate CPC planning and decisions made during the planning phase directly enhance a facility’s life cycle—a good model of military construction from a CPC perspective.

* Maintenance and facility engineering processes in relation to CPC vary to some degree from installation to installation; however, most sites included in the study had similar CPC processes and practices, despite differences in mission and facility objectives.

* Resource constraints were a consistent concern at all sites included in the study. Compliance with required programs (such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED], Anti-Terrorism Force Protection, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) reduces the funding an installation commander has available to eliminate or control the negative effects of corrosion.

* The study team noted several opportunities to improve the content and delivery of CPC training for the facilities and infrastructure community. Increased on-the-job and formal CPC training of facilities and infrastructure personnel would result in better corrosion-related decision making and help balance investments in preventive and corrective maintenance.

* Corrosion mitigation technology in the buildup of future facilities is purposefully explored by the military services, with some research and development funding provided by the D, CPO. The study team found that installations are reluctant to implement all but the most mature technologies, because of the inherent risk of failure and fear of losing scarce resources. These concerns can be alleviated somewhat; only proven and mature corrosion mitigating technologies are transitioned into the design and construction criteria.

* The process of transitioning new technology into criteria can be cumbersome and time consuming, resulting in large time lags before the new technology can be easily included in a contract.

* The study team believes better cross-installation communication would improve the dissemination and sharing of CPC best practices and accelerate the acceptance and implementation of new technologies.

* Effectiveness of contracting for facilities and infrastructure maintenance and repair varied across the services and installations. Where contracting personnel were familiar with facilities and infrastructure requirements, better CPC outcomes were achieved. Where contracting personnel were not familiar with facilities and infrastructure requirements, improved outcomes were not achieved. User involvement in the contracting process (from public works and engineering staff) improved the identification of CPC requirements and delivery of effective contracting solutions.