What is the progress of the program, General? What do you see for it in the future?

General WRAY. Sir, of course, we are just now starting to let contracts. Fiscal year 1976 was the first year that money was awarded for that. We are very pleased with the program and certainly think that it will do much to decrease the total energy use throughout our installations. You know that the cost of energy is going up greatly. So, in addition to saving net fuel or energy for the United States, this work also reduces somewhat the rising cost of operating our installation and paying for the utilities involved.

Senator LEAHY. A number of these, I understand, were solar energy projects. Is that correct? Or, that they will be solar energy projects? General WRAY. Yes, sir. We do have some solar energy projects. We are working with ERDA on a number of those projects.

For example, we have one at Fort Hood that has been under design for the past year. It is a battalion headquarters and classroom building that is part of a large barracks complex there. The battalion headquarters classroom building itself is under construction. The solar energy part of the project will provide hot water and some of the heating for it and it will be starting in August of this year. That will be an add-on to that particular project.

We also have some domestic water heating projects for family housing at three of our installations-at Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, and Fort Riley which are under design. Now these also are demonstration projects.

Most of what we are doing at the present time really are demonstration projects. Recognizing that the cost of solar equipment is somewhat high at present time, we will make sure that we find out more about the efficiency and how it works before getting into larger scale use of solar energy.

Senator LEAHY. Do you think solar energy is going to prove to be a viable substitute for fossil-fuel energy sources?

General WRAY. I certainly do not think it is the be-all end-all. It is certainly not going to solve all of our problems. But I think that as the years go along, and particularly as solar equipment becomes, let's say, mass produced and we get into the second and third generations of equipment, there are many, many of our installations where this will save us considerable time, expense, and money.

Senator LEAHY. When you design the facilities, do you make it a point to incorporate more energy-efficient concepts into the designs, the SOP?

General WRAY. Yes, sir. We do. There are many, many new criteria that have been put out to our design personnel with specific directions to incorporate additional insulation, less window area, to site our facilities so that the exposure to the sun is the optimum from the standpoint of energy conservation, that we use the kinds of automatic controls on our boiler equipment and air conditioning equipment that will save us energy-just almost every idea that one could think of has been provided to the field for guidance and use in designing our new facilities.

Senator LEAHY. What has been the trend in utilities consumption and cost within the Army over the past several years? Would you pro vide for the record, overall Army utility cost and consumption figures and then show figures for several typical installations in different parts of the country.

General WRAY. Fiscal year 1973 has been used as the base for comparative studies in establishing energy conservation goals. In comparison to fiscal year 1973, the trend has been a reduction in consumption and an increase in costs. The overall Army heating fuel and electrical consumption and cost data, and the same data for several typical installations for fiscal year 1973, fiscal year 1974, and fiscal year 1975 will be provided for the record.

[The information follows:]

Senator LEAHY. The energy investment program appears to be a random collection of projects ranging from storm windows to complete utility systems. Project costs range from $118,000 to $6.7 million. Explain how this program was developed.

General WRAY. The energy investment program required that eac installation survey each building and energy consuming system to determine those practicable modifications to those facilities which coul! be expected to achieve the objective energy reduction and savings in order to amortize the project within 10 years-5 years for the fiscal year 1976 program. The installation survey considered alterations to reduce heating and air-conditioning loads, such as installation of solar screening, insulating materials, thermostatically controlled attic exhaust fans, additional air handling and cooling equipment controls. modifications to air-conditioning equipment, systems, and facilities topermit use of economy cycle, use of run-around systems, heat pipes, and regenerative heat recovery wheels. Installation of timeclock controls for automatic off peak hour water tank filling and night, weekend, and holiday temperature setback or cutoff, was also considered.

Requirements for Army installations were forwarded from the installations through appropriate major command channels for inclu sion into the energy conservation investment program. Program amounts for each fiscal year were established by the DOD and the Army program consisted of the best prospective projects, based on amortization times.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Senator LEAHY. The Congress has supported the Department of Defense in its pollution abatement effort since fiscal year 1968. Please recap the Army's expenditures since that time and discuss your ac complishments.

General WRAY. From the initiation of the air pollution abatement program through fiscal year 1976, 101 projects have been programed and funded in the amount of $85,367,000. Of these MCA projects. 55 have been completed, 16 are under construction, 21 are under design. and 9 have been discontinued. Air pollution abatement actions have mostly consisted of fuel conversions to less polluting fuels, installation of precipitators and separators, installation of incinerators for disposing of refuse and contaminated or explosive waste, and special fume abatement or emission control equipment at ammunition plants.

Water pollution abatement: The water pollution abatement program from fiscal year 1968 through fiscal year 1976 has included a total of 163 projects for a funded amount of $192,489,000. Of these projects, 85 have been completed, 38 are under construction, 34 are under design, and 13 have been canceled. In addition, 3 projects are awaiting agreement with local authorities relative to connection to their systems. Water pollution abatement projects of all types have been included consisting of industrial and domestic waste treatment facilities and collection systems.

I will provide a chart on expenditures for the record. [The information follows:]

Senator LEAHY. Is there an end in sight to this program? Provide for the record the future of this program as you see it now.

General WRAY. There is no end in sight in the foreseeable future. Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, requires the best available technology by 1983. This requirement has not been adequately defined as yet. On the assumption that the requirement will mean some form of advanced waste treatment, it has been estimated that Army expenditures would approach $500 million. This figure is a very gross estimate and should not be treated as anything more than just that-a gross estimate. Only as we progress toward 1983 and as finite requirements become known will we be able to develop more accurate forecasts of future costs for water pollution control.

The air pollution abatement program of the Army is expected to continue beyond fiscal year 1983 at a total estimated cost exceeding $100 million. The principal requirements are for contaminated and explosive waste incinerators. This type incinerator is needed because State laws restrict open burning, and contaminated and explosive waste cannot be landfilled.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Senator LEAHY. You note in your justification books, that in accordIance with the Environmental Policy Act of 1969, you have made assessments of the environmental impact of all projects in the current bill. How are these assessments made and by whom?

General WRAY. Assessments are made by the installation requesting each project.

Senator LEAHY. How are these assessments made and by whom?

General WRAY. All Army commanders are responsible to assess the environmental consequences of their actions and programs. Installations or activities commanders must assess the impact of projects they request.

These assessments are accomplished by interdisciplinary staff action in accordance with a format in the Army regulation entitled "Environmental Protection and Enhancement." It is customary that the Director of Facilities Engineering staff accomplish the assessment for military construction projects.