54. The quality of the result, including: 5.4.1. its effect on the colored dyes and inks, paper size, 5.4.2. design of and/or use of quality control procedures in plant operation to verify consistent results. 5.5. Ease of engineering scale-up or down to other size facilities. 5.6. Its safety to personnel and probable impact on the environment including: 5.6.1. the design of the treatment facility, its building, 5.6.2. the availability of a toxicological risk assessment 5.6.3. the overall environmental impact of the plant and its operation. 6. Review of Other Deacidification Processes There are a number of deacidification processes that have been tried on more or less of a mass scale during the last 15 years. These processes divide into aqueous and non-aqueous liquid treatments and gas treatments. Processes, marked with an asterisk below, have been in use during the last decade. A thorough evaluation of alternative systems should look at all processes used in the last decade as well as proposed systems that do not have scaled up engineering but represent potentially good ideas at the laboratory bench level. For example, the Koppers Company process would fall into this latter category. 1) Gaseous Process developed by the Barrow Laboratory and used at the • University of Virginia Library.* 2) Gaseous Process by Dr. Kathpalia at the National Library of India, New Delhi. 3) Liquid Non-Aqueous Process being used at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Sable, France. 4) Liquid Mon-Aqueous Process being used at the Canadian National Archives, Ottawa." 5) ▲ liquid suspension-based Non-Aqueous Process invented and demonstrated on a small scale by the Koppers Chemical Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." 6) A Liquid Aqueous Process Used by the National Library of Austria, Vienna. 7. Evaluation of Scientific Evidence Information gathered on how these systems meet the various criteria must be based on scientifically correct laboratory, pilot plant and engineering studies. Laboratory and engineering data or technical studies should be available to prove how the system will meet the various oriteria. Opinions and claims of the inventor and/or of the company marketing the product without scientific proof are not acceptable verification of process performance. The panel should compare the available alternatives based on test results and weigh these finds in light of information about the validity of the experiments and tests. To do this panelists should consider whether evidence presented is based on procedures that: (1) include all relevant major factors, (2) were adequately controlled and (3) used an appropriate experimental design. 8. Plan of Action To implement this review, we propose the following: 1. 2. The panel members should be selected by an agency that is The panel should invite experts from the Library to present 3. The panel should invite other libraries and archives using mass deacidification and proponents of any alternatives to present the results of experiments and tests they have performed. 4. 5. 6. 7. The panel should visit existing facilities and observe their The panel should evaluate the information provided in accordance with the criteria outlined above. The panel should identify areas where further information is The panel should identify problems that would have to be overcome before implementing each procedure and suggest a remedial course of action. 8. The panel should be required to file two reports to Congress: (1) a detailed evaluation plan due in 3 months, and (2) a final report due in 12 to 18 months. DEZ FUNDING Mr. FAZIO. We did have, as I indicated earlier, some discrepancies between the amount that we had appropriated, about $350,000 each year for several years, and the total amount that was expended. We also approved the $11.5 million, as you said, Don. How much more money was spent from other sources including funding from personnel accounts? Mr. WELSH. The total amount-remember this goes back to 1981 was $2,340,000 of other monies. Three-hundred seven thousand dollars was from the space rental account, $375,000 preservation and office programs, and $1,658,000 from personnel accounts. Mr. FAZIO. I understand you have owned up to this. Mr. WELSH. Several times. Mr. FAZIO. In fact, in the New York Times. Mr. WELSH. Yes. Mr. FAZIO. I would be interested in knowing why you felt constrained to do this, given the fact the committee has been so supportive? Mr. WELSH. I can say in all honesty, Mr. Chairman, until Mr. Lombard raised the question, we did not see the picture in all its entirety. We were doing this on the basis of a single action. There were 17 actions involved in this. I think we did not look at it in total as we should have. Mr. FAZIO. You didn't realize you had gotten hooked on this approach. Mr. WELSH. I realized I was hooked, but not that I was using that much money without your permission. Mr. FAZIO. Do you strongly believe your approach is currently the right one? Is that still the view? Mr. WELSH. Yes, sir. Mr. FAZIO. But your letter indicates a willingness to step back and consider other options. Mr. WELSH. Yes, sir. Mr. FAZIO. That would typify where you are right now on the issue. Mr. WELSH. Yes. Mr. FAZIO. The committee would like to be assured that you are proceeding appropriately. We will be keeping that in mind when we put the budget together this year. We have additional questions to put in the record at this time that will help us become more informed. [The questions and responses follow:] DEACIDIFICATION Question. You have also contracted with the major U.S. supplier of the principal chemical used in the process-diethyl zinc-to conduct a series of further tests of the process. Describe that testing program for us. Response. The contract with Texas Alkyls, a major U.S. supplier of diethyl zinc, has several design and test objectives. First, Texas Alkyls, in conjunction with S&B Engineering, their subcontractor on the project, will redesign the pilot-scale facility at a level 25 times smaller than the large-scale facility to be built at Ft. Detrick. This design will be done taking into account all previous engineering information obtained from the NASA runs and the recommendations of the NASA Safety Committee that analyzed the mishaps at the Magnetic Test Site. S&B Engineering will construct the facility on Texas Alkyls' site and, with their personnel, start up the facility and put it into operation. Secondly, Texas Alkyls using their chemical operators will carry out between 15-20 test operations of the pilot facility. In its broadest terms these runs will: 1) verify the design of the pilot facility, 2) obtain information about future plant operations and materials handling, and 3) generate quality control and industrial hygiene information for operating a full scale facility at Ft. Detrick. Question. For the record, specify the new test program, the objective and schedule of each, and the test protocol. Enumerate the team who will conduct and supervise the test including the responsible Library official. Response. Under the broad outline in the above response we have established eight major objectives: 1. Demonstrate safe operation of a treatment system with a capacity of 300 plus books. 2. Demonstrate design capability particularly in regards to scale up. 3. Demonstrate design basis for a control system including instrumentation, computer control and operator control. 4. Establish a basis for design of a quality assurance program at Ft. Detrick. 5. Test various book handling equipment such as crates, carts and book spacers. 6. Define optimum operating cycles for successful large-scale treatment. 7. Obtain industrial hygiene monitoring data. 8. Do format testing in order to define engineering data for the large-scale treatment of manuscripts, maps, large folio volumes, posters, prints and other paperbased formats in the Library's collection. Each of the eight objectives mentioned above will require one or more pilot runs to obtain the appropriate data needed to complete the objective. These runs have been designated as SST # (small-scale test #) 15-34 and are a continuation of the small-scale test numbers used during the NASA experimentation. Detailed experimental designs for operational runs are not available at this time but will be available by July 1987. The team who will conduct and supervise the tests will include: Sy Friedman, the Library's project manager, Jack Rohrer, manager of the project for Texas Alkyls, chemical technicians employed by Texas Alkyls as yet unnamed, and Drs. Sebera and McComb from the Library's Preservation Research and Testing Office, who will work with the Texas Alkyls analytical support laboratory personnel. Question. Originally when we approved the $11.5 million for the new facility at Fort Detrick, your "Begin Operations" date was sometime during 1986. What is your current schedule? Response. The current schedule is to have the start up of the facility take place in the beginning of 1990 with expectations that the plant will be ready for operation by the middle of 1990. This date is our best estimate at the present time keeping in mind that many elements must fall into place and be completed on time to meet the mid-1990 schedule. A copy of our new schedule showing the start and completion times for all 14 projects in the Master Schedule as well as the original schedule follow. |