« PreviousContinue »
but we have never really tried them, and there isn't anybody who is willing to try them. The treatment of acid mine water is a case in point. Many of the mines that are polluting our streams are abandoned and belong to no one but the State. And in the case in Pennsylvania, many mines which were not polluting the streams some 5 or 10 years ago have been changed in their drainage pattern by new highways and new roads and now the streams are polluted.
You ask who is going to pay for the technology to develop acid mine water treatment plants. It is perfectly obvious that the support must come from the public in some form or other. The development and testing of plants like this isn't something that you do in a test tube or in a 5-gailon jug in the laboratory. At some time or other you have got to build a full-scale plant and test it.
And this might be done by universities, but they have to be supported by the Federal or State government to the tune of some x million dollars to construct such plants and probably several other millions to actually test them after they are built.
I know we at Penn State have built an acid mine water treatment plant, at a cost of about $2 million, and it is going to cost us threequarters of a million dollars a year to run it and really see if it is an acceptable mechanism for taking care of acid mine water. You don't do this on university appropriations, and you don't do it on a National Science Foundation grant.
If this country is going to solve some of these national problems, large sums of money have got to be provided not for the science but for the technology of the problem. And these sums might be provided by a Department of Science and Technology, but it is not going to be done by a Department of Science.
And just to attach the word "technology” onto the Department of Science isn't going to solve the problem either. Twenty years ago, Mr. Chairman, I sat in one of these rooms to urge the passage of the National Science Foundation Act. At that time I kept saying it ought to be the National Science and Engineering Foundation.
My colleagues convinced me that science meant science and engineering, and so I gave in. And the National Science Foundation Act has never supported the engineering and technology that we need. And so what I am saying is if you are serious about this and you mean technology, be sure to write engineering and technology into the act, not only in its title but in its procedures.
Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Walker, when you say that we have got to do this either through legislation or through Government support of technology, how does the private sector fit into this? Are you dissuaded from the idea that through Government regulation or through the threat of regulation and through the development of the necessary technology in the private sector, that we would have no chance to meet these challenges?
Do you eliminate that as a possibility ?
Dr. WALKER. Well, can I give you an example which I think will explain my stand on this?
Cement plants make a lot of dust. A precipitator can be devised, designed, and built to take out 90 percent of that dust, 99.9 percent. But it is expensive to build, it is expensive to operate. It might add as much as 5 cents per 100 pounds to the cost of making cement.
So company A is not going to do it unless company B does it. But if there were a State or Federal regulation saying they all have to do it, then industry obviously would devise the mechanism for doing such a thing.
But I come back to another example and that is sewage disposal. Sewage disposal plants are built by cities, boroughs, counties, and so on. It is perfectly possible to devise a better sewage treatment system in a laboratory, but before you are completely sure it will work you have got to build a full-scale working setup.
Now, if I as an engineer would go to a small town and say, “Here you are going to build a new sewage treatment plant, I wish you would build one according to this new system I have devised," I think the town fathers would say, “How sure are you that it will work," and I would say, "Well, 95 percent."
But I don't think a town father can take a chance playing with the people's money. So he will say, “Sorry, I will take the old
system which we know will work but might not be quite as good.” Here is where the Federal Government might step in and say, “Look, we will take the chance of providing the money to build this new system to see if it will work.”
Now, of course you can say, “Well, why doesn't the National Science Foundation do it, because they have a Engineering Division?" Well, it is just too expensive under the appropriation that the National Science Foundation has for engineering.
One shot of this would cost $2, $3 million, and you can't do that if you got some $20 million for engineering in the National Science Foundation.
Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Long. Dr. LONG. I wanted to supplement some of the things that Dr. Walker said. I certainly don't disagree with many of his points. We always fuss a little bit about the use of words. I use a certain amount of applied science, and clearly what I call applied science fuzzes into technology imperceptibly.
In many ways it is interesting that other countries are much broader about this. Lots of countries use the word “science” to include essentially everything that all of us have talked about and a good deal more besides.
The typical academy of science in Czechoslovakia or Hungary or the Soviet Union will include not only science and engineering but the social sciences, even to and including history, as components of something they call science, which means they have simply taken that word and put a rather broader definition to it.
So that even though I agree that we have to be pretty careful that we have support for applied science as I use the phrase, and technology as President Walker used the phrase, still there is a little bit of words. And that leads me to the point that neither of us have perhaps said enough to emphasize that one of the kinds of science that has got to have important consideration in this is the group called social sciences.
As we study these problems of very much the kind President Walker was talking about, we do find that over and over again we do need social science inputs. It is no accident that universities increasingly are turning toward interdisciplinary programs in which we pull together
engineers, economists, scientists, sociologists, in tackling some of these problems.
So that in addition to a concern for the applied science and technology which President Walker has spoken about, I would like to just cover the gamut by saying that also the social sciences should be in this area of concern.
Dr. WALKER. I think that is a point that ought to be emphasized time and again.
Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, Dr. Walker.
Dr. WALKER. The interdisciplinary sciences might be supported by the department you are talking about. At the present time the National Science Foundation feels it can't get into the engineering part of it. The DOD stays pretty much out of the social science end of it.
And yet we have these things that don't fit into any category, don't even really fit into a Department of Transportation or HEW or NSF. One way would be to support them through a Department of Science and Engineering.
General SHRIEVER. Could I make a comment on what Dr. Walker had to say ? This is in connection with either, you can call them prototypes or call them demonstration programs. I think there is a lack of adequate demonstration projects in this country.
These can't be taken on by private industry often because they also deal with regulations. Regulations have to go along with them. Let me give you one example. We have been talking about STOL aircraft for a long time. We know the technology exists for STOL aircraft. And we can almost prove that they can be economically operated.
But no company is going to build a STOL aircraft for intercity operation until there is a program which involves STOL airports and also an airways system that will allow these aircraft to operate outside of the current airways pattern.
There is no way of accomplishing this without a demonstration program. And unless the Government supports this kind of thing—and I would think that this would be a logical program, for example, for the Department of Transportation to support-to prove out that the system will in fact work and to see to it that the necessary regulations are written, the FAA regulations and so forth. Then private enterprise can take over and actually build the necessary equipment.
They will do that on their own risk, but they can't undertake it now in the present framework.
Mr. DADDARIO. General Schriever, would you throw in the idea, under adequate demonstration programs, of the Government supporting the building or doing it, supporting the entire building of a new city within which much experimental activity can be done as a way through which we could come to some determination about how to either rebuild cities or how not to rebuild them?
Would you go that far?
General SCHRIEVER. I don't think I would go quite that far. I happen to be a member of the steering committee on the experimental city program that we have been working on for a couple of years in Minnesota. Now, this has as an objective to get away from all of the restraints and restrictions and to go out in the country somewhere and build a new city and experiment with technology, including the social sciences as well, of course.
The intent here is to get some Government support. But certainly in the building of that city-we haven't gotten to that point yet, I mean of how you would go into that phase. But the financing there should come largely, in my opinion, from private source.
In other words, unless you could project this city as being a viable economic entity, I don't think we should proceed. In other words, it has to be a planned community so that it can in itself be an economically viable entity. If this sort of plan can be developed, then of course private capital certainly would support this kind of activity.
A new city program might ask for some or require some Government support. We are asking for some Government support now for the planning phase, but we also-for example, the next phase that we will enter into is phase 2. Our hope there is to get $4 million, $2 million from the Government and $2 million from private sources.
And we have, in fact, raised most of the private source money already.
Mr. DADDARIO. Would you go along with that, Dr. Walker? You raised the point about the need
in the sewage treatment plant, the difficulty of doing that.
If the Government were to support building, that is just part of what a city needs. Where do you say you should begin and end? Can you really build a new city if you just demonstrate how certain parts of it work, rather than every bit and piece?
Dr. WALKER. Well, you almost have to have the aid and even the authority of the Federal Government, to try this, because very often it involves social problems, union problems, and local ordinances. One way to really make a demonstration of it is to have it partly financed, as you suggest, by the Federal Government and then it gets some of its aura of authority from the Federal Government.
Dr. Long. I wouldn't want to make too much of a plug for the State of New York, but they have developed an entity called the Urban Development Corp. that has, if I understand it--and maybe you will know better, Benny-virtually got from the State the power to take over this whole set of functions, even to the point of building, the right of eminent domain.
At least it is an interesting illustration that States can go a long way.
General SCHRIEVER. They have gone a long way in that corporation. Of course, in Minnesota we are working with the State legislature. They are going to have to pass legislation to authorize the building of such a city in the State, to get away from a lot of inhibiting factors that are present everywhere today.
I think there has to be a team of Government and private interests in everything we do down the road, in the fields of transportation and urban development, in my opinion.
Mr. DADDARIO. Which shows you how complicated and yet how necessary there is the need for organization, administration, management and in this particular area, to use your own words, Dr. Schriever, the use of the state of the art as we look ahead in planning to do alí this.
General SCHRIEVER. Yes.
Mr. BROWN. I was rather interested in Dr. Walker's testimony, in some of the examples he gave as illustrating the nature of the problems that face us in these hearings. You mentioned this treatment of acid mine water and cement dust problem. It seems to me that the rational organization of a solution to these problems would be to have, for example, in the acid mine water situation a Bureau of Mines that had a mandate sufficiently broad to be concerned with the solution of this problem and the funds necessary to solve it, and the goal of solving it.
Really, the problem starts out with the fact that nobody has as their mission the goal of the solution of this problem. And given the mission and the funds, the Bureau of Mines would probably with research contracts with either universities such as your own or with private enterprise, say, come up with a solution to the acid mine water problem.
I think it could be done fairly quickly, given a goal of solving it and given certain standards, which probably do not exist yet, either, toward the solution of the problem. It seems to me the problem would not be solved necessarily by creating this Department of Science and Technology, but it could start out by being solved by having the goal of solving that problem.
The same way with the cement dust problem. You are faced here with a situation where there is no standard for air pollution by cement plants as far as I know. That nickel a hundred pounds just about represents the profit margin on cement, and nobody is going to give up their profit margin in order to do something that isn't required.
So somebody has to set those standards and set the goal. Then some appropriate agency—it might be someplace in the Department of Commerce or whatever could have as part of its mission the entering into the contracts either for basic research if such is needed, but more likely for the engineering to go ahead and solve that.
Would that follow along with your thinking?
Dr. WALKER. Yes. You have, Mr. Brown, touched on a point that I think also needs consideration and a problem which the Department of Defense seems to have solved pretty well. And that is, how much do you do in-house and how much do you do out-of-house?
Now, the Department of Defense has its own laboratories, but it still contracts out for a great deal of this development with universities and with industry. It would be the same way with this acid mine water problem. If it were under the aegis of a Department of Science and Technology, they could say what needs to be done and what the goals are. Hopefully they would find the money, and might well use industry and universities to solve some of the problems. Or, some of the national laboratories could be brought in very effectively here to provide a sort of in-house capability for a Department of Science.
As I say, the Department of Defense has had a lot of experience with this. They do it smoothly and easily, at least I think so. Some of the newer departments need help in this.
Mr. Brown. Well, I am concerned here with the point which I think all three of you have made, that it may not be—there may be arguments against trying to create one administrative or bureaucratic organization here, but I am questioning whether it is really needed if we have