MIFASS

Question. General Franklin, the MIFASS system has recently run into serious problems during testing. Would you explain thèse problems and how the Marine Corps is proceeding to resolve them? Answer. The Marine Integrated Fire and Air Support System > (MIFASS) experienced computer-throughout problems at the beginning of the formal Operational Test-II (OT-II). As a result, the decision was made to conduct an Operational Assessment (OA) in place of OT-II, under the auspices of the Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Agency (MCOTEA). This less rigid form of operational testing allows for flexibility in evaluating the entire system, to include equipment, training, and procedures, in a demanding field environment. The assessment is scheduled to be completed at the end of April 1987. Soon thereafter, the OA results will form one of the bases for a Marine Corps decision concerning the future of MIFASS development.

ORGANOTIN

Question. The Navy recently selected Mayport, Florida and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii as case study harbors for the use of highly toxic organotin hull paints. Would you explain how these particular harbors were selected, and how much toxic material will be put into these harbors during the research period?

Answer. The Navy selected Mayport, Florida, and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, because both harbors are "Navy harbors" with little presence of other shipping. The result is the Navy can account for the sources and inputs of tributyltin which is impossible in harbors impinged by commercial ships, pleasure craft marinas, or commercial shipyards.

The Navy expects to paint a total of three ships in Pearl Harbor and at most one ship home-ported in Mayport in fiscal 1987. Leaching of tributyltin during the next twelve months in the Mayport home port is estimated to be 1 pound of tributyltin per ship. The release from Pearl Harbor dry docks is expected to be less than half a pound of tributyltin per ship.

Question. Is there any danger of adverse health impacts in these areas resulting from this research?

Answer. No, when Navy procedures are used in application. With regard to the food chain:

fish metabolize organotin,

up food chain metabolization is faster,

clams and oysters accumulate to certain level then depurate, organotin would then rapidly degrade.

Question. The Navy's FY 1988 budget requests a lifting of restrictions in the Appropriations Bill regarding the use of these paints. What is the Navy's position on this issue?

Answer. The Navy's position is that use of low leach rate organotin paints and strict application procedures pose no significant threat to the environment and health. The Navy's usage of these paints is very low and the environmental impacts, if any, are primarily due to pleasure craft. Therefore, the Navy sees no reason for a denial of use of organotin paints for their intended purpose by the Navy.

Question. Has EPA issued to the Navy a "Finding of No Significant Impact" from use of these paints?

Answer. The EPA has not issued to the Navy a "Finding of No Significant Impact." The EPA has stated that the Navy is a minor user of organotin paints.

Question. Has EPA concluded its Special Review of these toxic compounds, and if not, when is the estimated completion date?

Answer. The Navy is in regular contact with EPA. The review process is ongoing, and could last up to several years. This does not preclude interim action, however, which is an EPA prerogative. EPA has not identified a definite date for the conclusion of the study.

Question. Only a few weeks ago, the State of Virginia issued an emergency ban on the use of these paints. What is your understanding of why this action was taken?

Answer. It is most probable that the State is protecting its interest in water quality. The restriction passed by the state of Virginia prohibits the use of paints with leach rates above 5 micrograms of tributyltin per square centimeter per day. This is based on Navy research data provided to the State. It prohibits the use of these paints on pleasure craft. The law does allow aluminum hulls to be painted with tributyltin paints. The Navy concurs with the exemption on aluminum hulls and sees no difficulty in meeting the leach rate in the State action. An identical law is expected to be enacted by Maryland. These laws would have no effect on the Navy because our paints meet the Virginia criteria.

Question. Why should Congress lift the restrictions, given an emergency ban in one state and an ongoing federal review?

Answer. The restriction enacted in Virginia and anticipated in Maryland basically allows the Navy to use tributyltin on ships as long as leach rate limits are not exceeded. There is a clear consensus that the primary source of tributyltin in coastal waters is pleasure craft and not the Navy or other ocean going ships. The EPA Special Review is not going to change the observed facts that pleasure craft are the primary source of tributyltin in coastal waters. The Navy does not expect that the Special Review by the EPA will result in the denial of the use of the low leach rate paints used by the Navy.

Question. Will final results from the Navy's ongoing research allow a decision on whether to implement fleetwide use of organotin paints, and specifically, will these results provide adequate data to determine impact in the Chesapeake Bay area?

Answer. The results from the Navy research are directed to provide useful data to the EPA for their Special Review. The legislative actions and plans of Virginia and Maryland indicate that the Navy is no longer viewed as the primary contributor of tributyltin paint in the environment. This conclusion applies to the Chesapeake Bay area. The Navy has evaluated its impact in Virginia waters and believes that it has no significant effect on the environment.

Question. When does Navy expect to make such a decision?

Answer. The Navy can make the decision on fleetwide implementation after the evaluation of the test program results at Pearl Harbor and Mayport. The decision can be made by 1 August 1987.

The Navy would comply to the water quality standard in the Navy Environmental Assessment or that established by EPA, when it becomes available.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-End of questions submitted for the record.]

Mr. CHAPPELL. Gentlemen, thank you very much. We thank you for a very fine job. The committee will stand in recess until 1:30.

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1987.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION

Mr. CHAPPELL. The Committee will please come to order. Pursuant to a motion duly made and passed, this hearing will be held in Executive Session because of the classification of materials to be discussed.

The Committee this afternoon will receive testimony relevant to the fiscal year 1988 budget request of the Defense Agencies for RDT&E funds.

Those agencies to be heard today include the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA; the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation; and representatives of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to discuss NATO and other Allied Cooperative RDT&E programs.

Testimony on the Strategic Defense Initiative, which comprises almost 60 percent of this budget account, has been received in a separate hearing earlier this month.

The fiscal year 1988 budget for non-SDI programs totals $3.6 billion, which represents real growth of minus six percent over the fiscal year 1987 level.

The witnesses today are Dr. Robert C. Duncan, Director of DARPA; Mr. John E. Krings, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation; Major General Donald W. Jones, Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Development Test and Evaluation; and Mr. Everett D. Greinke, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for International Programs and Technology.

Gentlemen, this Committee offers you a special welcome here today, and especially those of you who appear before the Committee for the first time.

Your prepared statements will be placed into the record at the appropriate points.

Due to time constraints, we are planning to allow approximately 45 minutes each for DARPA and Mr. Krings, and a total of 45 minutes for the Cooperative RDT&E efforts.