Abbildungen der Seite

have these paintings surveyed by an art conservator to determine the extent of dete rioration and recommend conservation methods to improve their condition. In some instances, badly cupped and flaked paint and surface dirt diminish the aesthetic value of the works and also threaten to damage the works further by paint loss. Delay in conserving these works of art would serve no purpose other than to risk more deterioration.


Mr. Fazio. I have a few questions for the record concerning the energy conservation program.

[The questions and responses follow:] Question. We have $325,000 for the energy conservation program in the Capitol. Why don't you explain the entire program and tell us how much is in the budget for each building.

Response. The $325,000 listed under Capitol Buildings is for the Capitol alone. Additional funds are requested under each of the other buildings. As summarized in the report on the Program for Energy Conservation, which is in the hands of the Committee, the amounts requested for the installation of instruments and controls for each of the buildings are as follows: Building

Amount requested Russell

$345,000 Dirksen.

210,000 Hart...

450,000 Capitol

325,000 Cannon

100,000 Longworth.

200,000 Rayburn..

230,000 HOBA-2.

100,000 Jefferson.

180,000 Adams....

185,000 Madison



2,375,000 (CLERK'S NOTE.-The energy report will be maintained in subcommittee files for a short time period.)

Question. Has GAO consulted with the Architect of the Capitol over the method used to develop the analysis on this program to insure it is compatible with government standards?

Response. The GAO has been in consultation with our staff and has agreed that the National Bureau of Standards Life Cycle Cost Analysis is a satisfactory analytical method. A description of the NBS Analysis is included as Appendix K in the report on the Program for Energy Conservation and the GAO has been furnished that analysis.

The NBS Life Cycle Cost Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program is a guide to understanding the life cycle costing method and an aid to calculating the measures required for evaluating energy conservation and renewable energy investments in all Federal buildings. It expands upon the life cycle costing criteria contained in the Program Rules of the Federal Energy Management Program (Subpart A of Part 436, Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations) and is consistent with those criteria. Its purpose is to facilitate the implementation of the Program Rules by explaining the life cycle costing method, defining the measures, describing the assumptions and procedures to follow in performing evaluations, and giving examples. It provides worksheets, a computer program, and instructions for calculating the required measurements.

The life-cycle costing method and evaluation procedure set forth in the Federal Energy Management Program Rules and described in greater detail in the manual were developed to be followed by Federal agencies for energy conservation and renewable energy projects undertaken in new and existing buildings and facilities owned or leased by the Federal government, unless specifically exempted. The establishment of the methods and procedures and their use by Federal agencies to evaluate energy conservation and solar energy investments are consistent with Section 381(aX2) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

6361(a)(2); by Section 10 of Presidential Executive Order 11912, amended; and by Title V of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, 92 Stat. 3275.

The National Bureau of Standards provided technical assistance to the Department of Energy in formulating the life-cycle methods and procedures for the FEMP Rules and developed the life-cycle cost manual in support of applying the rules.

The Architect of the Capitol therefore has applied the Program for Energy Conservation, as proposed, to the criteria established by NBS.


Mr. Fazio. The request for Capitol grounds for 1985 is $2,851,000 and 86 positions. You are also requesting one new shuttle van. Why do we need two?

Mr. WHITE. That is the shuttle van that circulates between House Annex No. 2 and the Capitol, the House Office Buildings, and the Senate Office Buildings.

The present one, as you may recall, is on a one-half hour schedule. The number of people traveling back and forth has increased steadily over the years. Now it runs at about 55,000, 54 to 55 thousand annually, which is 220 or so passengers a day.

We have recently moved our drafting room down there, as I think you may recall, which has added to that load because our drafting room people don't simply work at drafting tables; they go out into the field to do measurements and consult with people as to what their needs are, and then go back to the drafting room. What we want to do is make this shuttle more available, which would give us a 15-minute schedule instead of a half hour one. It would mean, of course, a benefit not simply to us; there are 1300 people in that building and to some degree the fact that it is where it is acts as an obstacle for communication.

People just avoid making appointments to go to places where they ought to.

Mr. Fazio. The van is circulating at all times?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Furthermore, this second van is the reason for the other two employees that we are requesting.

We have talked about eight. We have ten in total. The other two would be the drivers for these vans; but those drivers would serve another purpose. We have modified our-

Mr. Fazio. Put flags up in their spare time?

Mr. WHITE. No. We have modified our method of picking up materials that are available locally rather than have each entity that needs similar items go to a warehouse some place to pick it up.

We have centralized that so we don't have three cars going out to the same warehouse within an hour of one another, and these drivers would, when they are not driving-because you have to have some relief, of course, so there is a driver always availableone of those drivers would be available to assist in relief or otherwise drive these other trucks.

So that is the reason for that request.


Mr. Fazio. The request for the House Office Buildings totals $23,162,000 and 779 positions.

I have a question for the record concerning the request for funds to replace the roof at House Office Building Annex No. 2 and House Office Building Annex No. 1.

[The question and response follow:) Question. We see a request for $795,000 to replace the roof at House Office Building No. 2 and $105,000 for HOBA No. 1. Can they be repaired or do we need new roofs?

Response. The HOBA No. 1 roof is 37 years old and badly deteriorated. Despite annual maintenance efforts, the

extent of the deterioration is such that replacement of the entire roof is necessary. If the roofing material is not replaced, the concrete roof slab underneath the roofing material is in danger of suffering from deterioration too.

The HOBA No. 2 roof has also reached the point beyond which normal maintenance cannot keep up with the advanced deterioration.

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD FROM MR. CONTE Mr. Fazio. Mr. Conte has submitted some questions to be answered for the record.

[The questions and responses follow:]

Question. We note that your "ace" sidewalk builders have been turned loose again. That job in front of the Longworth Building is every bit as shabby as the one on the east side of that building which our former ranking minority member of this subcommittee, Bob Michel, complained about several years ago.

Your people have now had some experience with that type of paving, yet still cannot do it right. Why don't you give up and contract those jobs out?

Response. The replacement of the concrete sidewalk in front of the Longworth House Office Building was part of a major contract which was advertised for bids. The contract was awarded to the low bidder, Ft. Myer Construction Corp., who in the past has satisfactorily performed several sidewalk replacement projects on the Capítol Grounds.

The portion of sidewalk which you question, in front of the Longworth House Office Building, has not been accepted by this office and the Contractor has been so notified. The Contractor will remove the exposed aggregate concrete sidewalk and replace it this spring when weather conditions permit.

Question. Also, we have reports that some sidewalk replacement jobs, especially one recent one north of the Library of Congress, which is already cracking, may have been done prematurely. In other words, there was very little, if anything, wrong with the sidewalk which was torn out. We understand that contrary to your supposedly strict policy of taking photographs of sidewalk sections scheduled for replacement, no photographs were taken before that job was done. Why would that be?

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in the future, this subcommittee should take a closer look at some of these "make-work” projects. The dollars may not be much, but we should try to save wherever we can.

Response. There are many sections of concrete sidewalks surrounding the Library of Congress which are broken, cracked, and in a hazardous condition.

As part of our preventive maintenance program for sidewalks several of the worst sections of concrete were recently replaced by in-house forces.

RENOVATING 501 FIRST STREET Mr. Fazio. We have a $500,000 request for renovating 501 First Street, Southeast. Would you tell us something about that?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, that is the building which is located just east of the Capitol power plant. It is a two-story building which was originally built as the nurses' residence for Providence Hospital. It has been owned by the government for a number of years now. It is operated by GSĂ. The Food and Drug Administration, I believe, was located there, and if you look in it now for example, the rooms are filled with what look

like college chemistry laboratory tables which were apparently used by the FDA.

It has been vacant now for about a year and a half. We do not yet have the authority which is required by the House Office Building Commission to take jurisdiction over that building, but we think that the House Office Building Commission will give us that and we will furnish that to the Committee.

At the moment we don't have their authority to take jurisdiction, but these funds will enable us to use the building if authorized and if you would agree.


Mr. Fazio. This is pending authorization?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fazio. What do you want to do with it?

Mr. WHITE. We would take some of the people that compose House support facilities, ours in particular, that don't need to be in a House Office Building, and put them over there next to the power plant thus enabling space to be gained in the Office Buildings.

There are 20,000 square feet in this building, and we wouldn't have had to build a new building or purchase it. It would merely be transferring title and for $500,000, which is $25 a square foot, we would have a usable building in which to put support services, police, other entities that can be removed from the office buildings. It would make office building space available for better use.

Mr. Fazio. You don't anticipate any objections from the commission?

Mr. WHITE. I don't.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Is that a masonry building?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

This isn't a very good example of photography, but I have some pictures of the exterior of the building. It is a two-story masonry building. It needs work and that is the reason for the $500,000.


Mr. Fazio. We have had some people speak to us in regard to pipes continually bursting in the Rayburn Building relating to temperature, cold weather.

Apparently they are very exposed. Maybe there was a flaw in the original design.

Mr. WHITE. What has happened, Mr. Chairman, is that the pipes aren't bursting; it is the sprinker heads that have frozen and burst." We had two this year and one several years ago.

Mr. Fazio. What do you think you could do to prevent this?

Mr. WHITE. Remove them. What we did was remove the sprinkler heads in the vicinity of the doors. The difficulty is that every now and then in this region, we have experienced extremely cold weather, but it doesn't happen very often. There is no heat in that garage. There are a couple of things we can do. In the general vicinity of the doors the safety inspectors said the sprinkler heads didn't need to be there. There were probably half a dozen sprinkler heads at that location. Therefore we plugged them. We could do another thing. We could put them back and install one of these fan

coil unit heaters with a steam pipe in it to blow across the doors when the weather becomes very cold.

The doors can't be opened and closed very readily. They are very slow to operate and therefore remain open most of the time.

Mr. Fazio. I believe that one suggestion we have heard is for the heaters.

Mr. WHITE. The pipes aren't bursting. It is the sprinkler heads.

Mr. Fazio. Do you think if you bring in warm air in a blower during the very cold period this would prevent the problem?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fazio. It is rather inconvenient, and probably unsafe, for the people who park there or who need to drive in that area.

Mr. WHITE. It sprays water around.
Mr. Fazio. And it freezes?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fazio. Would you let us know how you want to handle that problem.

Mr. WHITE. We will be glad to.
Yes, sir.
(CLERK'S NOTE.—The following was provided for the record:)

The number of sprinkler heads in the parking garages that have frozen due to the open doors is minimal. The sprinkler heads in close proximity to the doors were re moved in the past to guard against this possibility. However, due to the exceptionally cold weather experienced earlier this winter, two sprinkler heads did freeze and these have been removed.

The policy of keeping doors open in the parking garages has been maintained due to the volume of traffic in these facilities and, of course, the policy of not heating these areas is in the interest of energy conservation. These facilities have not been heated in the past and the parking and police personnel that are assigned to these areas are accustomed to this condition.

The garages are under "negative" air pressure due to the operation of exhaust fans. The make-up air enters the garages mainly through the open doors. During exceptionally cold weather, such as occurred earlier, the ambient air temperature close to the doors drops below the freezing point, thereby causing the difficulties with the sprinkler heads. We will look into the possibility of installing air heaters at these doors to prevent the sprinkler heads from freezing and report the estimated cost to the committee as soon as possible.


Mr. Fazio. You are requesting $24,672,000 and 104 positions for the operation of the Capitol power plant, including the purchase of electricity, oil, and coal. You have also requested $800,000 for an electrical generator.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fazio. We gave you $990,000 in fiscal year 1982 for the same project.

Mr. WHITE. You did.

Mr. Fazio. We are concerned whether or not you gave us a faulty estimate for the initial appropriation?

Mr. WHITE. We did. We had a faulty estimate, Mr. Chairman. We became suspicious and we looked into it further. We hired a consultant to get into the detail of it. It turns out that the principle was correct, but our number was incorrect.

It will nevertheless save money. Instead of taking four years to repay the cost, it will be 7.5 because we were incorrect in our estimate of what the initial investment would be.

« ZurückWeiter »