abandon it, they say look, this is how the Government operates. Of course, it actually happens in private business, too, especially if something is not completely financed. We have some of them around Washington, but they do not see it that way. So, I hope that the figure stays as low as you can make it, and I know you agree with that. Admiral MARSCHALL. We certainly do, Mr. Chairman. Senator SYMINGTON. On energy conservation, as you know, that is a big point. Last year for the first time the Department of Defense requested and the Congress supported an energy investment program. Has that been making progress? Admiral MARSCHALL. Mr. Chairman, it certainly has. We will have awarded $24 million of the $29 million authorized and appropriated last year by June 30. I had a rather interesting report from one of my EFD-that is, one of my engineering field division commanders-just this morning. We contracted with a firm to go around and discuss with the engineers at the various engineering field divisions certain energy saving techniques and methods. I always look at these things with a certain amount of trepidation. I think we often try to reinvent the wheel; but it was an excellent report saying that they had obtained quite a lot of valuable information from this team. sort of reorienting the thinking of our engineers. I think that the energy business is foremost in our minds all over the Navy now. We hope we can come in with some excellent projects to save energy in the future. We have some in this year's program that will pay back in less than 5 years; in ensuing programs the payback period might be a little longer, but they will still be valid projects. Senator SYMINGTON. All of the figures I have seen about what you could do the most surprising results come from organized efforts to save energy. The percentage reduction is beyond belief. I am delighted you are all interested in it. As I recall, you had several projects designed to make use of solar energy. What is the status of these projects, roughly? Admiral MARSCHALL. We have several, none of which is really significant as yet. In Hawthorne, Nev., we are trying solar collectors for heating and hot water in a duplex house. As part of a joint Department of Defense-ERDA demonstration, we are including solar heating in 16-family housing units in Charleston, New Orleans, New London, San Diego; construction ought to be accomplished there this year. At Cecil Field, Fla., the military construction project for the new dental clinic includes solar collectors and storage for domestic hot water. This should go on the street very shortly. Two projects in the 1977 program will include solar energy features. Naval magazine, LuaLuaLei, and the naval submarine training facility at San Diego are currently designed for solar heating and or hot water. In 1978 we have several more coming along. One of the problems with solar energy in general is that the highinitial cost of collectors and systems in the past has vitiated any at tempt to move ahead with it, because energy costs were lower in those days. It is becoming more and more attractive, and we are looking harder at it. Senator SYMINGTON. You probably consider it in the design new facilities? Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir. But again, you must balance off the costs. What we look for in cost is the least annual cost. Senator SYMINGTON. The trend in utility consumption and costs within the Navy over the past several years, of course, is interesting. Would you provide for the record the overall cost of Navy consumption figures and then show figures for several typical installations in different parts of the country? Would you do that? Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir. We would be happy to do that. [The information follows:] Prior to 1973, Navy utilities energy use rose at a rate of approximately 3% per year and costs increased at roughly 9%% per year. This means of course that prior to 1973 that costs were rising more rapidly than consumption but far less than the current spiral of energy costs. The figures below reflect that since 1973, consumption has decreased but costs have more than doubled. Overall cost and consumption figures are shown below. Totals include all energy use in shore utilities regardless of appropriation : Senator SYMINGTON. This is a subject that ties into a lot of other things and is constantly coming up. The Congress has supported the Department of Defense in its pol lution abatement effort since fiscal year 1968. Would you, for the record, recap the Navy's expenditures since that time, and discuss your accomplishments? Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] The following table delineates congressional appropriations by fiscal years: Since 1970, the Navy has eliminated or diverted to an acceptable treatment facility over 1,000 points sources of pollution. In 1970, 66% of wastewater treatment was either secondary treatment or connection to a municipal system. In 1975, that figure had risen to 85% (100 MGD out of 120 MGD). Through pier sewer construction, which is on schedule, coupled with ship alterations, the Navy should eliminate all discharges of sanitary wastes into our territorial waters by 1981, in time to meet Federal regulations. Oily waste reclamation facilities are under construction at major port complexes to treat and reclaim waste oil in an environmentally acceptable manner. Air emissions have been reduced by construction of electrostatic precipitators, gasoline vapor controls at fuel transfer areas, and modifications to firefighting schools. Senator SYMINGTON. Is there any end in sight in this program? Admiral MARSCHALL. My personal belief is that there is no end because each year we get different standards or technological changes. I think it all falls within the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, and we have to watch and see what communities, States, and governments establish in the way of regulations which will require more investment on our part. It is a dynamic situation. Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you. Would you provide for the record the details of this future program. as you see it now? Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] Future programs are greatly dependent upon evolving laws and regulations and, in some instances, court decisions. It is estimated that at least $225 million will be required over the next five years to meet existing and anticipated rules and regulations. New regulations requiring monitoring of air pollutant emissions will require new equipment and associated correction projects. Solid waste recycling regulations now being promulgated will require facilities for refuse disposal and reclamation. Evolving guidelines, with emphasis on 1983 "best available technology economically feasible" will require additional funds for sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment systems. Pretreatment of industrial waste will be necessary in many manufacturing processes. Municipalities will also be passing on costs to the Navy as regional treatment plants are improved to meet new standards. As noise pollution standards are firmed up, projects to eliminate noise at the source or shield the public from the noise will become more prevalent. Senator SYMINGTON. I have a group of other questions here from Senators Thurmond and Tower. I will have them presented to you and ask that you answer them for the record. Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THURMOND [Questions submitted by Senator Thurmond. Answers supplied by Department of the Navy:] Question. Admiral Marschall, what is the status of your plans for an East Coast refit facility of POSEIDON submarines to TRIDENT I? Answer. The Navy is conducing an extensive survey of potential Atlantic Coast sites which can best meet the operational and explosive safety requirements of the planned TRIDENT I (C-4) Backfit force a well as the POSEIDON submarines which must be relocated from Rota, Spain. Assessment of the environmental impact of strategic submarine siting is an integral part of this survey. To date, 60 separate East Coast locations have been considered. No sites are eliminated at this time. Final site selection is expected in summer or fall of 1976. Question. When will this facility be needed by the Navy? Answer. This facility is required to support the Initial Operating Capability of the TRIDENT I (C-4) Backfit Program in August 1979 as well as the relocation of the POSEIDON submarines from Rota, Spain by 1 July of that year. Question. What are the primary requirements for this site? Answer. A site is required to support TRIDENT I (C-4) Backfit submarines as well as POSEIDON submarines relocated from Rota, Spain. Further, the site selected should meet strategic site requirements into the 21st century. Question. Who is in charge of the site selection process? Answer. The Chief of Naval Material is conducting the survey of potential East Coast sites under the direction of the Chief of Naval Operations. Question. When do you expect a decision to be made? Answer. Final site selection is expected in the summer or fall of 1976. Question. Admiral, what is the status of the site selection process for a TRIDENT facility on the East Coast? Answer. The Navy is not specifically looking for an East Coast TRIDENT submarine base since no plans have been made, to date, as to the siting for TRIDENT submarines beyond the first ten. The TRIDENT Support Site at Bangor, Washington can be expanded to support twenty submarines or additional submarines beyond ten could be based in the Atlantic as replacements for our aging POSEIDON submarines. In any case, Atlantic siting studies will consider provisions for TRIDENT submarine basing since this could become a future option. Question. Would the TRIDENT facility be located at the same site as the POSEIDON refit facility? Answer. Facilities required to support a future option for Atlantic deployment of TRIDENT are part of the ongoing strategic submarine siting study. The possible location of such facilities must await completion of this study which is expected prior to September 1976. Question. What are the main requirements for a TRIDENT facility? Answer. Should a decision be made to base TRIDENT submarines in the Atlantic as replacements for our aging POSEIDON submarines, facilities to support the TRIDENT System would be required in the mid to late 1980's. Question. Is the Navy inclined toward an entirely new base for TRIDENT or is the plan to enlarge a current base? Answer. The requirements for, and location of, facilities to support the deployment of TRIDENT in the Atlantic, should such a deployment decision be made, must await completion of the ongoing strategic submarine siting study which is expected prior to September 1976. Question. What do you estimate to be the cost for the refit and the TRIDENT base? Answer. Construction requirements and costs of the proposed facility to support the TRIDENT I (C-4) Backfit force and POSEIDON submarines relocated from Rota, Spain are functions arising out of the environmental impact assessment and explosive safety review for a specific site. Consequently, this data will not be available until a site is selected in the summer or fall of 1976. No decision has been made to base TRIDENT submarines in the Atlantic. The cost of the Atlantic TRIDENT base must await such a decision as well as the time frame for Atlantic TRIDENT support and the force level which will be supported should such a decision be made. Question. Are any funds in the bill for either of these facilities? Answer. The Navy is not requesting any funds in FY 1977 for either an Atlantic base to support the TRIDENT I (C-4) Backfit submarines and POSEIDON submarines relocated from Rota, Spain, or facilities to support TRIDENT submarines in the Atlantic. Question. Would you describe for the record in detail how the 1.3 million dollars will be used for the Historical Center Project at the Washington Navy Yard? Answer. The 1.3 million dollars will be utilized to convert 3 buildings into spaces for a library; operational archives; photo, art and artifact storage; historical research; a historical foundation; and administrative areas. The work involves building alterations including fire protection systems; lighting; modifications to floors, partitions, windows, ceilings; and improved air conditioning and humidity control. Question. Admiral, I understand the subway construction is still taking place in the Navy Yard and this will be a very opportune time to make the necessary improvements for the Historical Center. How quickly could this work be started if these funds are approved? Answer. The work is currently under design. A construction contract could be awarded in December if an appropriation bill is enacted by 1 October as currently scheduled. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOWER [Questions submitted by Senator Tower. Answers supplied by Department of the Navy :] Question. What manpower and personnel related functions have already been moved or set up in New Orleans? Answer. In 1975 the Navy consolidated, at Naval Support Activity, New Orleans, several field activities that had been geographically separated for many years. These activities are located in the F. Edward Herbert Defense Complex at Naval Support Activity, New Orleans (East Bank). The Enlisted Personnel Management Center (EPMAC), was formed by the consolidation of the Enlisted Personnel Distribution office, Pacific (EPDOPAC), at San Diego, California; the Enlisted Personnel Distribution office, Atlantic. (EPDOLANT) at Norfolk, Virginia, and elements of the Bureau of Naval Personnel at Washington, D.C. EPMAC performs the functions of centralized personnel in accordance with the overall personnel management policies established by the Chief of Naval Personnel (CHNAVPERS) and the manning policies of the Manning Control Authorities, and such other functions as may be directed by CHNAVPERS. The Personnel Management Information Center (PERMIC) was formed by the consolidation of the Personnel Accounting Machine Installations (PAMI's) 10cated at Bainbridge, Maryland; Norfolk, Virginia; and San Diego, California. PERMIC performs the functions of providing centralized management of the enlisted personnel field accounting functions, Manning Control Authority Agents, automated data processing functions and computer operations. In July of 1976 the PERMIC will be subsumed by EPMAC with Commanding Officer, EPMAC assuming those duties. The Naval Reserve Personnel Center (NRPC) was formed by the consolidation of the Naval Reserve Manpower Center (NRMC) at Bainbridge, Maryland and the Naval Officer Records Support Activity, (NORSA) at Omaha, Nebraska. The function of the NRPC is to plan and direct the procurement, distribution and administration of personnel and records for the Naval Reserve inactive force components, and to perform such other functions or tasks as may be directed by the Chief of Naval Personnel. Question. What manpower and personnel functions will now remain in Washington? Answer. The functions of enlisted and officer distribution, career development, service record maintenance and related support, originally envisioned for relocation to New Orleans, will remain in Washington. Question. Does the Navy plan to collocate the New Orleans and Washington functions at any time in the near future? Answer. There are currently no plans to relocate from Washington to New Orleans those functions of personnel distribution, career development and personnel administration. Plans are underway to consolidate the computer operations of the Bureau of Naval Personnel with the EPMAC in New Orleans. This will |