Mr. FOSTER. They are pretty well united, sir. We would not say they are interchangeable but similar to our professional services contractors, we consider they are hyphenated; they are architectsengineers.

We have architects in our architectural section and we, of course, have mechanical engineers and electrical engineers and heating and ventilating engineers and civil engineers and the like, in the various aspects of the structure; at the foundation, the electrical-mechanical systems of the building, and so forth.

Of course, it is in these latter areas where the actual bulk of the cost is incurred in a modern building.

Senator COOPER. How much attention is given to esthetics?
Mr. FOSTER. Quite a bit, sir.

I notice on the wall over the chairman's head there the Great Seal and, as you know, we put the seal in the lobby of every Federal office building that we build. Now, it would be very economical to grind these seals out in plaster or plastic on a production line basis. We don't do this. We match the materials and style of the particular building.

Senator COOPER. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Foster, that there is constant criticism of the uniformity, the gracelessness, the lack of beauty, of a great many of the public buildings which are constructed. This is not a field in which I have any special knowledge, but I think I do know that in the last 30 years more attention has been given to the functional design of the buildings.

My own opinion, just looking at buildings, is that even though one might prefer a more classic type building, the modern building can be beautiful or it can be ugly-like any other style of building. Here in Washington, some of the new buildings of modern design are very beautiful. Others just look like warehouses.

I realize it might cost more to make these buildings more beautiful and attractive. What consideration is given to that?

Mr. FOSTER. Well, let me answer that in two ways, if I may, sir.

First, there has been a very dramatic but subtle change in the architectural style of Federal buildings in the last 10 years. This has come about by the enunciation of a new policy on Federal architecture back in 1962. All other things being equal, we employ local architects and the architect is encouraged to use material and styles which blend most harmoniously with the local style in the city concerned.

With respect to the finished building, as a rule, we allow a half of 1 percent of the cost of the building for fine arts; that is, murals, sculpture, and the like. This is a dangerous undertaking, I might say, because one gets into an area where taste becomes highly individual.

I can think of instances where we received a little adverse publicity on some of our artistic choices but nonetheless we still continue to try to make these buildings attractive as well as functional.

Senator COOPER. I would assume that any judgment about the artistic value of a building, and about anything else you might include in the way of decorations, murals, and sculpture would be subject to criticism by someone. Everyone has different taste and views.

My own question is not whether it is controversial, or whether it is liked by everyone, but whether this is a definite part of your program? Mr. FOSTER. Certainly.

Senator COOPER. These buildings are not only functional and useful, but their design also has esthetic value that appeals to the other

senses.

Mr. FOSTER. Let me make another observation, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COOPER. Senator Muskie and others have introduced a bill, S. 1582, which I think reflects the judgment of a good many members of the subcommittee, that the allowance of costs for this component of public building construction is too small.

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. I believe that the Senators' bill would formalize a committee that we have had in being for 2 years and that is what I was about to observe.

Two years ago, we established a National Architectural Advisory Panel. We have extended that idea this past year to having a panel in each of our 10 regions as well as a national panel, and these panels are now being asked to review the design of all major buildings.

Only last week we got the report in from the panel in Seattle, Wash., and the things that they look at are these things that you mention. Senator COOPER. We all learn something through the example of practical problems that come before us. I was saying to Mr. Turner a few minutes ago that on several occasions I have talked to communities in my State about the location in roads. In those discussions we learn the process that the Bureau of Public Roads goes through, and in the same way I have learned something about the process your agency goes through because people from my State have come to me to talk about a certain type of building in a particular location. I would say 99 percent of the time it seems to me that the cost judgments of the engineers were correct; but that is a limited experience which I have had just by observing the development process.

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you.

Senator COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Foster.

We have another witness. Vernon G. MacKenzie. Will you introduce yourself?

STATEMENT OF VERNON G. MacKENZIE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF DISEASE PREVENTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY BERNARD J. STEIGERWALD, CHIEF, PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION, NATIONAL CENTER OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; AND RICHARD VAUGHN, CHIEF, SOLID WASTE PROGRAM, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. MACKENZIE. I am Vernon G. MacKenzie, Deputy Director, Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environmental Control, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Senator COOPER. I remember that you testified on the air pollution bill, S. 780, and were very helpful as the committee considered that important subject. Also, the Department has an appropriations bill pending in the Senate today.

Mr. MACKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Would you like to introduce your associates? Mr. MACKENZIE. Yes, sir.

On my left is Mr. Bernard J. Steigerwald, who is Chief of Program Planning and Evaluation for the National Center of Air Pollution Control.

On my right, Mr. Richard Vaughn, who is Chief of the Solid Waste Program of the Public Health Service.

Senator COOPER. We are glad to hear you.

Mr. MACKENZIE. We are pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you the ways in which the techniques of value engineering and cost-effectiveness analysis are being employed in the air pollution and solid waste programs of the Public Health Service.

As I am sure you know, Mr. Chairman, economic analysis has long been an integral part of good engineering practice in both government and industry. In recent years, however, there has been a revolutionary improvement in virtually all our methodology for analyzing and comparing alternative strategies for reaching important economic, technical, and social objectives. In large part, this improvement is a reflection of such factors as advancements in basic methodology, availability of better statistical data, and the development of many new and improved analytical tools, particularly computers, which permit us to analyze complex problems in far greater depth than had previously been possible.

Thus, we are talking not about an entirely new area of engineering, but rather about an extension and improvement of practices that have long been in use. But there can be no doubt that recent improvements have made it possible for us to do a much more efficient job of planning and conducting both research and development activities and programs of action to deal with major economic, technical, and social problems.

We need to bear in mind, of course, that the various tools now available for making economic analyses, no matter how sophisticated they may be, cannot be used as a cookbook for solving problems. They do not, in themselves, provide solutions; rather, they permit us to exercise better information judgments in making complex decisions. In short, they must be our servants, not our masters. In both the air pollution and solid waste programs, we are striving to make them serve us as well and as fully as possible. I will discuss some of the ways in which we are doing this.

The National Center for Air Pollution Control is making increasing use of the sophisticated systems analysis and other techniques now available for comparing the relative costs and effectiveness of alternative approaches for dealing with the Nation's air pollution problems. A substantial number of projects have been undertaken or are being planned in which cost-effectiveness analysis and related techniques will be applied to various aspects of the air pollution program. These techniques can provide valuable guidance in the development of rational efforts to prevent and control community air pollution problems. In particular, such techniques are most useful in two ways: First, as a means of helping us identify those measures which will provide the most economical and effective ways of achieving specific air quality goals, and, second, as a means of helping us to pinpoint needs for new scientific and technical knowledge and to identify the most cost-effective ways of meeting those needs.

I believe I can best indicate the extent to which the National Center for Air Pollution Control is employing these approaches by citing

some examples of projects which have already been completed or which are now either in progress or being planned. For the most part, these projects have been focused on two of the most important aspects of the Nation's air pollution problem-first, sulfur oxides pollution resulting mainly from fuel combustion and, second, motor vehicle pollution. In the area of sulfur pollution, economic analysis has already made a significant contribution. One of our first economic feasibility studies in this area showed that there is some coal from which significant amounts of sulfur can be economically removed. The study further indicated that the economics of such coal desulfurization would be favorably enhanced by producing two product streams-one in which the sulfur content of the coal had been enriched and the second consisting of a lower sulfur content fuel.

The enriched higher sulfur content product would be used in a process known as pyrite-coal combustion, in which the economics of by product recovery would be improved for such products as sulfuric acid or sulfur, and, possibly, iron oxides usable in blast furnaces for making steel. This overall process would also make available appreciable quantities of low-sulfur coal for direct use either in power generation or in small commercial and industrial heating units and steam plants.

This potentially important lead, derived from an economic evaluation study of coal desulfurization conducted for us by the Paul Weir Co. of Chicago, is being followed up with six additional studies designed to identify deposits of coal suitable for such processing and to provide a full appraisal of the economics of various methods of converting pyrite-coal mixtures into useful products. The contractors for these additional studies include Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., the Bureau of Mines of the Department of Interior, and several private research organizations.

Senator COOPER. We had a good deal of discussion of this problem during consideration of the air pollution control bill by the subcommittee under the chairmanship of Senator Muskie. May I ask in this example you have given, whether you are saying that in some cases it would be more economical to deal with coal which has a high sulfur content?

Mr. MACKENZIE. What I intended to say, Mr. Chairman, was the economics apparently for some coal deposits, can be enhanced by using two product streams that would result from the desulfurization process. The main stream here would contain the desulfurized coal; that is, the coal of low sulfur content; but the economics of the overall process would be improved by also using the second product stream; namely, the one in which the sulfur had been concentrated by using this stream to recover byproducts, either sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur.

Senator COOPER. Thank you.

Mr. MACKENZIE. A companion study has been made of the economic feasibility of various methods of desulfurizing residual fuel oil derived from domestic crude oil. This study, conducted for us by the Bechtel Corp., was followed by a similar study of methods of desulfurizing imported residual oil funded by the American Petroleum Institute. These studies did not find any dramatic breakthroughs but did point out the lowest cost method to desulfurize residual oil and provided cost information necessary for more comprehensive analysis for sulfur control.

Processes for removing sulfur oxides from stack gases are constantly being improved and have been under continuing evaluation for several years. A number of studies are now in progress or are being planned which involve refinements of both cost-effectiveness analysis and technical evaluation.

Among the processes currently being investigated are limestone injection, which is of particular interest because of its potential applicability to small and to existing fuel-burning installations, and the alkalized alumina process developed by the Bureau of Mines.

There are, of course, other alternatives for dealing with the problem of sulfur oxides pollution, particularly with respect to electric power generating plants. Among the alternatives are the use of fuels whose sulfur content is naturally low, location of new powerplants in areas distant from urban centers, and the accelerated application of nuclear power. A cost-analysis study of control techniques applicable to large new powerplants is now being planned. The approaches I have listed will be compared to processes for desulfurizing fuels and for removing sulfur oxides from stack gases. A major purpose of this project is to help us assign priorities for future research and development in this field.

On a broader scale, a comprehensive analysis of our research and control programs relating to the sulfur pollution problem is now underway. This analysis will not only help us identify the detailed technical objectives that must be reached in order to achieve specific goals for the control of sulfur pollution; it will also provide an evaluation of alternative strategies for sulfur pollution abatement, outline research and development pathways, identify needs for new or additional knowledge, and indicate how increased or decreased allocations of resources would affect the overall program. We anticipate that this analysis will be completed early in 1968.

In the area of motor vehicle pollution control, several projects involving cost-effectiveness analysis and related techniques are now being conducted or planned. One of these projects is an effort to develop technical and economic feasibility data on several pollution control methods involving relatively minor modification of the currently used internal combustion engines. These data will be useful primarily as guidelines for the development of Federal emission standards in the years immediately ahead.

To evaluate the long-range potential for controlling pollution from motor vehicles, the National Center for Air Pollution Control is planning to support a systems-engineering study of cost-efficiency relationships for a variety of control systems. The emphasis in this analysis will be placed on control systems which involve engineer modifications of much greater magnitude than those now being employed and which offer promise of significantly greater reductions in pollutant emissions.

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question at this point?

Mr. MACKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Referring to the paragraph you just read, would you say that the automobile manufacturers themselves have a greater capacity to undertake this kind of research-which I judge from what you said would involve engine modifications of large magnitudethan your Department?