mates. Other than this experience, our estimates of costs for both construction and repairs have been very close; we haven't had any serious problems with cost increases.

Senator LONG. At A.C. & I. No. 15 you describe the 327-foot-high endurance cutters as having been built in 1936.

Were all of them built in 1936?

Admiral SMITH. They were spread over a period of about 2 years, but they were all built about the same time.

Senator LONG. You state that the amortized cost to extend the service life of these cutters for 10 years or more is about 27 percent of the cost of building new cutters.

Does that calculation take into account the increased capability and productivity of the new cutters?

Admiral SMITH. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. Really what we are saying here is that this is about what it costs us to keep these ships operating with a slightly improved capability, but basically their present capability to do the jobs they have to do.

Senator LONG. You have been authorized medium-range recovery aircraft each fiscal year since 1966. How many of these do you need and what is the anticipated life of these aircraft?

Admiral SMITH. Mr. Chairman, with respect first to their anticipated life, we haven't had enough experience with the turbine-powered helicopters to have a very good feeling for this. I would hate to express a number in years until we do know a little bit more about the machine. We anticipate that it will be a very durable machine and will serve us for a good many years.

With respect to the replacement program, 28 of these have been funded, and we have, of course, six in this year's budget. Under our present projection for our aviation plan, to continue our replacement program we need 22 additional ones in the future years.

Senator LONG. In the past, the committee has often requested and received for the record the original request for acquisition, construction, and improvement funds submitted by the Coast Guard to the Department of Transportation, and the request submitted from the Department to the Bureau of the Budget. This has been useful to the committee in fulfilling its obligation to review these matters.

Admiral Smith, do you have any objection to submitting the Coast Guard's original request for the record?

Admiral SMITH. No, sir. We could provide that for the record. Senator LONG. Mr. Beggs, do you have any objection to submitting the Department's request?

Mr. BEGGS. No, sir.

Senator LONG. I think it might be helpful for us to know what you requested and what the Bureau permitted you to come up here and testify for.

(The following information was subsequently received for the record :)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-U.S. COAST GUARD-ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS, FISCAL YEAR 1971 PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-U.S. COAST GUARD-ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS, FISCAL YEAR 1971 PROGRAM-Continued

In preview estimates and Department request "Engineering and Logistic Support for Construction projects" is included in each project's cost estimate.

7 Grand totals of preview estimate and Department request were $201,500,000 and $176,700,000, respectively. These totals included $10,704,000 and $6,100,000, respectively, for the alteration of obstructive bridges over navigable waterways, which is now to be funded through a separate approp:iation.

Senator LONG. I have a number of additional questions. I think I will only ask one or two now and then I will submit the rest.

Would you tell us what the latest situation is with regard to that spill in Tampa Harbor? I think you had a problem trying to clean that

up.

Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, just to review for a moment, you recall that this vessel grounded on last Friday, and when she went aground she spilled about 6,000 gallons of oil as a result of a rupture in her side. We became aware of that within a period of about 2 hours. The ship was floated and moved on to a final berth, and further oil spill was prevented there by a combination of booms and off-loading the ship.

The oil that had spilled in the water drifted over to the St. Petersburg beaches. It had spread out too much in the bay to be able to do any effective job of containment out in the open bay.

So, our captain of the Port of Tampa enlisted the support of the local people and the city of St. Petersburg, and they responded very vigorously, so that right now they are completing some final cleanup of the beaches. The oil spill itself has dissipated and moved offshore, and for all practical purposes it has disappeared.

There are still a few pockets of oil here and there that have been contained and will be recovered and picked up. We haven't received any assessment as far as damages that have resulted from this spill. We know there were a number of birds that were caught in the oil, and we know that it did get on the beaches, but not in great quantities.

Senator LONG. Some of these things that occur you can't do much about. I know in our part of the country we are moving a lot of oil around, and from time to time you are going to have a spill, and you just have to do the best you can under the circumstances.

Goodness knows, I have spent some days in the amphibious force, and this thing of hitting something that you didn't intend to hit is a calculated risk when you are out at sea. Nobody intended that Navy ship to knock down that bridge from Norfolk across the bay there, did they? Whose ship was that?

Admiral SMITH. That was a Navy ship, a Navy cargo ship.

Senator LONG. That didn't take any private enterprise; the Government succeeded in doing that all by itself.

I understand how those kinds of things can happen. Every now and then down our way we have some fellow who gets sleepy at the controls and knocks down one of the supports in the causeway. It is a parallel problem, but it doesn't have the same magnitude when it happens to us.

Also, in spite of the best we can do about it, there are occasions when somebody runs one of his barges into the piers across the Mississippi River. Fortunately, we haven't had a bridge knocked in, but we have had a causeway put out of service occasionally by someone smashing into it. Those kinds of things will happen from time to time despite your best efforts to prevent it, will they not?

Admiral SMITH. Yes; they will, Mr. Chairman, but a good deal of our effort is devoted to trying to find ways to reduce the possibility of collisions or accidents to the lowest number that we can.

As you are fully aware, many of our programs in merchant marine safety and in aids to navigation and in port safety matters are designed to move this traffic without accident and the safest way it can be done. We certainly realize, even with the best efforts, occasionally you are going to have accidents.

Senator LONG. I want to commend you for selecting that Mississippi test site for some of your development and research work. I think if someone will help carry the housekeeping cost of it, you are planning to use that and the computer center down in Slidell, La., to help you develop some of your new buoy tenders and safety programs on the

open seas.

Isn't that according to your present planning if it is available?

Admiral SMITH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is part of our national data buoy program. If the facilities are available, we are planning to move a sizable part of our operation down to the Mississippi test site facility.

Senator LONG. Thank you very much.

(The following written questions were submitted by Senator Long so that they may be answered for the record:)

QUESTIONS FOR UNDER SECRETARY Beggs, ADMIRAL SMITH, and the Coast Guard FOR THE RECORD

ICEBREAKERS

Question. On your AC&I sheet No. 14(b), you show a possible plan for replacement of icebreakers. What will be the effect of the estimated reduction of over 200 available ship-days fiscal years 1973 through 1975?

Answer. When we make our operating schedules, we assign priorities to the requests for icebreaker time. Since we already have requests for more ship time than is available something will have to give. Judging from our present experience we would probably be unable to support some of the lesser scientific projects for which we will undoubtedly have requests.

Question. Will the icebreaker replacement plan be adequate to fulfill all your responsibilities?

Answer. I will speak only of icebreaking responsibilities in polar areas, for that is where these ships will operate. Our present responsibilities in polar areas

are:

1. DOD logistic support in Canada, Greenland, and Antarctic.

2. Classified DOD support.

3. DOD oceanographic research.

4. SAR assistance along the Alaskan coast.

5. Support to science, for such as NSF, ONR, NAVOCEANO, universities, state agencies, and even museums like the Smithsonian.

As I mentionel earlier we cannot meet, even today, all the requests being made of us. Some of the requests must be met, some are of relatively minor significance in the sense of national priorities.

Question. How do you determine estimated costs of shipbuilding and improvement, by competitive bidding?

Answer. The estimated bid price is the sum of weight group costs and nonrepetitive costs. Weights are classified by "groups" because of large cost variances between such weight groups as hull steel, and machinery. They are calculated from preliminary design studies. Cost of any weight group is taken from previously experienced cost per unit weight statistics. Then all costs (labor and material) are updated according to labor and material price indices, to account for changes since the cost experience. Non-repetitive costs (e.g., design) are then added as a percentage of the total labor and material cost.

Question. What sort of adjustments to your icebreaker replacement plan do you anticipate as a result of Northwest Passage developments?

Answer. I do not now expect any changes in the timing of the replacement plan if industry decides to go forward with tanker traffic to the North Slope. The plan is phased now to provide replacement ships at as early a date as is reasonably practicable. It may have to be modified to provide different numbers or types of ships, but that decision will depend on the form and magnitude of shipping developments and the extent to which our presently planned replacement ships can meet the demand for their time.

HIGH ENDURANCE CUTTERS

Question. What is the present status of your replacement program for these over age cutters?

Answer. The replacement program for fifteen, 311-ft. cutters now stand at: In commission___.

Being built

To be funded in the future__

9

833

Total

15