Engineering Implications of Chronic

Materials Scarcity

April 1977

NTIS order #PB-273193
Engineering

Implications

of Chronic

Materials

Scarcity

Organizing Committee

for the Federation

of Materials Societies

Franklin P. Huddle—Conference Chairman

N. E. Promisel—Conference Co-Chairman

CONFERENCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

John B. Wachtman, Jr.–-Chairman

George C. Eads

Curry E. Ford

Allen Gray

Albert E. Paladino

N. E, Promise]
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-600014

Stock No. 052-003 -00344-9

ii
Preface

National materials policy has emerged into prominence in the

United States. It involves both the Federal Government and the

private sector. In response, many industrial firms have raised materials planning to the level of corporate policy and established a

formal organization, sometimes headed by a vice president. The

executive branch of the Federal Government has established a

Committee on Materials under the Office of Science and Technology Policy with representatives from Federal agencies having

major materials activities; three reports by this Committee, nearing completion, involve an inventory of materials research and

development, a study of energy-related materials research and

development, and an examination of environmental aspects of

the materials cycle.

Interest of the legislative branch in materials policy is evidenced by studies requested of the Library of Congress, the

General Accounting Office, and the Office of Technology

Assessment.

By another legislative initiative, a new temporary organization,

the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages, was established with members from the private sector as well as from both

the legislative and executive branches of Government. This

Commission is charged with reporting on the possible need for a

permanent materials planning institution and with giving special

attention to materials information and stockpiling.

The present Conference —the fourth in the series of biennial

conferences at Henniker on national materials policy —seeks to

examine the interrelationship of engineering and policy implications involved in current national materials policy activities. Two

of these activities are explicitly addressed: (1) the work of the

materials program of the Office of Technology Assessment and

(2) the deliberations of the National Commission on Supplies and

Shortages. In addition, attention is focused on conservation of

energy in materials processing, the role of materials in defense,

and the more effective utilization of renewable resources.

The first Engineering Foundation Conference on National Materials Policy— held at New England College, Henniker, New

Hampshire, in 1970–provided a warning of future difficulties, It

called attention to the functional relationship of materials,

energy, and environment. The following October, the Congress

by statute created the National Commission on Materials Policy.

. . .

111
The second Engineering Foundation Conference on materials

policy, also at Henniker, was convened in 1972 with active participation by the Chairman and staff of the National Commission on

Materials Policy. It explored eight issues that were later to comprise the gist of this Commission’s final report. It stressed the

need for a cooperative interaction of Government, academia, and

industry in the resolution of these issues,

The third Engineering Foundation Conference in this series, in

August 1974, was organized by the Federation of Materials

Societies for the Office of Technology Assessment. It, too, was

held at Henniker and examined options for implementing

national materials policy, It stressed the need for reliable and

accessible information on all aspects of materials management,

the symbiotic relationship of technology -economics-institutions

in implementing national policy, and the interdependence of

nations with respect to the production, exchange, and the use of

materials.

The purpose of this publication is to present the proceedings of

the fourth Henniker Conference on National Materials Policy.

Like the first three Conferences, it does not recommend or advocate. Its “findings” are exploratory. The Conference searched for

options and alternatives, The “findings” contained in the present

report are the products of task forces, largely self-selected, of the

conferees. No individual responsibility for these reports should

be inferred; they stand on their own merits and should be so

regarded.

Likewise, as managing agency for the 1976 Conference, neither

the Federation of Materials Societies, the OTA, or the NCSS

assume responsibility for the substantive product. Its purpose in

supporting this activity was to sustain the national interest in

materials policy as a subject deserving of close and continuing

public attention,

Arrangements for the publication of these proceedings were

handled by the Office of Technology Assessment and the

National Commission on Supplies and Shortages.

iv
Foreword

These proceedings document the papers delivered, task force

deliberations and findings, plenary discussions, and “sense of the

meeting” of the fourth Henniker Conference on National

Materials Policy.

These conferences, sponsored by the Engineering Foundation,

were initiated with four purposes in mind. First, to keep the issue

of national materials policy alive, and to remind public interest

groups and decisionmakers of its importance. Second, to sustain

progress toward the design and development of a national

materials policy. Third, to build a consensus as to the essential

elements that should comprise a national materials policy. And

fourth, to convey to national decisionmakers in the legislative

and executive branches of the Federal Government a true perception of this emerging consensus,

There is no good way to measure the effects of these conferences. Certainly, the participants take home with them a lively

sense of community in an important enterprise. They share this

experience with their associates through trip reports and verbal

accounts. The proceedings of previous conferences have literally

spread all over the world, are cited widely in the literature of

materials policy, are quoted in the halls of Congress, and are

summarized or reproduced in official documents.

Another function of these conferences is that of recruitment.

Along with the senior participants like N. E. Promisel, J. B.

Wachtman, Jr., R. E. Goldhoff, C, E. Ford, and the many who have

provided leadership at several past conferences, each time there

are new recruits to the materials community, who find at Henniker a crash course in instant expertise.

Above all, the community at Henniker provides entree to people representing the many fields of knowledge encompassed in

materials science, technology, and management, No one can pretend to have a firm grasp of all these fields. But meeting for a

week to work on important and difficult problems is an ideal

introduction,

Moreover, it is not always the experienced senior professional

who discovers the way to resolve these knotty issues. Often

enough it is the newcomer with a fresh outlook who asks the

right question or suggests the novel approach,

v
As long as these conferences can continue to observe these

aims and serve these public purposes, it is likely that ways will be

found to continue them, For in the changing world, the design of

a materials policy cannot be a fixed decalogue; it must respond to

the changing times, and better yet, anticipate them, The present

proceedings should be evaluated against that ideal.

vi
Table of Contents

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I INTRODUCTORY SESSIONS

Call to Order by John B, Wachtman, Jr. Chief

Inorganic Materials Division, National Bureau of

Standards, Conference Chairman. ,..,. . . . . . . . . .

Welcoming Remarks on Behalf of the Federation of

Materials Societies by Curry E. Ford, President

Federation of Materials Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Joint Keynote Address:

Part I–Vincent E. McKelvey, Director Geological

Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.. . . . . . . . .

Part II–Thomas V. Falkie, Director, Bureau of

Mines, U,S.Department of the Interior., . . . . . . . . .

Congress and the Engineering Foundation Conferences by Emilio Q. Daddario, Director Office of

Technology Assessment US. Congress . . . . . . . . . .

II SPECIAL FEATURED PAPERS

Monday Night Lecture– Decisionmaking in Industry

and Its Implication for Energy and Other Resources

by H. John Pick, Professor of Materials Technology,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University

of Aston, Birmingham, England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thursday Night Lecture– Planning In An Uncertain

Environment by W. Dale Compton, Vice President–Research, Ford Motor Company, ... , . . . , , .

111, Tutorial Papers

Materials Assessments for the United States Congress–Albert E. Paladino, Program Manager for

Materials, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.

Congress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Work of the National Commission on Supplies

and Shortages— George C. Eads, Executive Director,

National Commission on Supplies and Shortages, ,

Energy Conservation in the Chemical Industry–

Ronald S. Wishart, Jr., Director, Government and

Public Issues, Energy, Supply, and Services, Union

Carbide Corporation and Milton A. Williams,

.,. 111

v

1

7

8

17

31

37

70

79

97

vii
Energy Conservation Coordinator, Chemicals and

Plastics, Union Carbide Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

The Role of Materials and Structures Technology in

Defense:

Part I–Jerome Persh, Staff Specialist for Materials

and Structures, Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Part II–Morris Steinberg, Director, Technology

Applications, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation . . . . . 153

Part III–Max Williams, Dean, School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Utility of Organic Renewable Resources by Ingomar

Falkehag, Westvaco Research Center . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

IV. TASK FORCE REPORTS

Terms of Reference and Summaries of Reports. . . . .

Task One: National Materials Assessment for Congress: Stresses on the Total Materials Cycle . . . . . .

Summary of Task One (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Task One (B). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Task Two: Government, Supplies, and Shortages . . .

Summary of Task Two (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Task Two (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Task Three: Conservation of Energy in Materials

Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Task Three (A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Task Three (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Task Four: The Role of Materials in Defense. . . . . . .

Summary of Task Four (A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Task Four (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Task Five: Utility of Organic Renewable Resources .

Summary of Task Five (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Task Five (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Task Force Discussion Period . . . . . . . . .

211

226

226

234

238

238

243

248

248

250

255

255

260

267

267

271

276

V. FRIDAY MORNING PAPERS

Substitution–Some Practical Considerations by H.

Dana Moran, Manager, Materials Policy and Information Programs, Battelle Columbus Laboratories . 281

The Commission on Critical Choices for Americans

by Michael J. Deutch, Consulting Engineer . . . . . . . 299

–HR 14439/S. 3637: National Materials Policy Bills by

Philip Yeager, Counsel, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives. . . . . . . 303

–Summary of Panel Discussion on HR 14439/S. 3637 305

Vlll
VI, SUMMARY OF THE CONFERENCE

—Themes of the Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

VII. APPENDIXES

A. Conference Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

B.Task Force Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

C. Definition of Renewable Materials Terms–Ed

Dyckman, Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

D, A Personal Account of the Henniker IV Conference–James HOIL Assistant Program Manage~

Office of Technology Assessment U.S. Congress,

Reprinted from Metal Progress 317

ix
I. Introductory Sessions

CALL TO ORDER

by John B. Wachtman, Jr.

Chief, Inorganic Materials Division

National Bureau of Standards

Chairman of the Conference

Good Morning! I am Jack Wachtman, substituting for Frank

Huddle, who is at work in Washington and about whom I will tell

you more later.

This conference is the result of the work of many people. It is

important to take a few minutes not only to recognize them, but

to understand the broad base of interest in the issues to be considered here, and to listen to the written expressions of interest

by several people who are in a position to use the products of this

conference.

Before describing the general background of the whole series

of Henniker conferences on National Materials Policy and

explaining the perspective for this conference, I would like to

introduce the conference co-chairman, Mr. Nathan Promisel,

whom most of you know,

This conference began over a year ago with the agreement between the Engineering Foundation Conference and the Federation of Materials Societies to hold the fourth in the series of Conferences on National Materials Policy. The federation appointed

a committee chaired by Frank Huddle and co-chaired by Nate

Promisel to organize the conference. A tentative program was

developed with the assistance of a steering committee consisting

of Cornelius Cosman, Anthony DiBenedetto, George Eads,

Richard Harmon, Sheldon Isakoff, Robert Johnson, Ben Kornhauser, Jerry Kruger, Walter Moen, Dana Moran, John Morgan,

Albert Paladino, Jerry Persh, Allen Gray, and Robert Vaughn.

Contributions toward the cost of printing the proceedings were

made by the Office of Technology Assessment, the National

Commission on Supplies and Shortages, the Bureau of Mines, and

the Federation of Materials Societies.

In May, when Frank Huddle became ill, he asked me to form

and chair an Executive Committee to complete the arrangements

and manage the conference. This committee consists of Nate

Promisel, George Eads, Curry Ford, Allen Gray, and Albert

Paladino. Frank is recuperating and has been back at work for

1
several weeks. He has continually provided help and moral support to the Executive Committee. Although many other people

have contributed, this is largely Frank’s conference and I would

like to read a message from him to the conference.

The Library of Congress

Congressional Research Service

Washington, D, C., August 2, 1976

Dr. John B. Wachtman, jr. Chairman

Fourth Henniker Conference on National Materials Policy

New England College

Henniker, New Hampshire 03242

Dear jack:

I am writing to express my hope and confident belief that the fourth

Henniker conference on national materiaJs poJicy will be the best and

most rewarding of the series. If thoughtful planning, hard work, outstanding speakers, and superior attendance count for anything, it will be.

The theory underlying these conferences is that we bring together a

group of diversified and knowledgeable conferees; we put before them a

collection of important public problems and issues; we explain and

clarify the circumstances that surround these matters; and then we look

to the conferees to advise the conference, and subsequently the

interested public and its representatives, on possible ways to approach

these national problems and issues.

What happens at these conferences is important precisely because

the conferees, taken together, are behoIden to no group interest, There is

no special pleading. The concern shared by all conferees here is the

public interest. The quality of thought is both high and objective, It is

important and necessary, of course, that the interests of the different

groups in our national society be expressed and considered. But the final

product ought to be a consensus that represents a total collective judgment as to the best interests of us all,

There is another aspect of these conferences that I hope will grow.

That is the introduction of interests and views on behalf of two constituencies that cannot be adequately represented at this time, One of

these is future generations of Americans, whose needs ought to be voiced

today. The other is the citizens of the world, our fellow passengers on

spaceship Earth, whose views and attitudes transcend national boundaries in the effort to achieve wise, effective management of our total

global pattern of resources.

in the future, increasingly, the needs of our own nationaJ community should be reconciled and harmonized with those of the totality of

globaJ society, present and future. It will be constructive if the proceedings of Henniker W show some of this scope and direction.

2
In conclusion, let me wish you and the conferees a profitable week,

exciting ideas, thoughtful discussions, new friendships, and a lasting

contribution to the body of literature of national materials policy. 1 am

sorry that I cannot share the experience with you. May it be a great one!

Sincerely yours,

Franklin P. Huddle.

An important feature of this series of conferences on National

Materials Policy is the interest shown by leaders in science, technology, and public policy, I would like to read you three messages

to this conference. The first is from Cortland Perkins, the President of the National Academy of Engineering.

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

2101 Constitution Avenue, N. W.,

Washington, D.C. 20418

Office of the President july 27, 1976

Dr. Franklin P. Huddle

Congressional Research Service

Library of Congress

Washington, D,C. 20540

Dear Dr. Huddle:

I have read the Program and the Terms of Reference for the IVth

Henniker Conference on National Materials Policy with interest. The

program appears to address important areas relating materials technology to questions of national policy. As you know, the NAE and the

NAS co-sponsored a recent symposium on “Materials and the Development of Nations: The Role of Technology.” Currently, we are considering a follow-up program on issues identified by participants in that symposium.

1 am looking forward to seeing the proceedings of the Conference,

which I am sure will be both interesting and informative,

Sincerely,

Courtland D. Perkins

President

The next is from Dr. Guyford Stever, Director of the National

Science Foundation, who has been nominated by President Ford

as Science Adviser and Director of the new White House Office

of Science and Technology Policy.

3
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Washington, D.C. 20550

Office of the Science Adviser

July 30, 1976

Dr. Franklin P. Huddle

Congressional Research Service

Science Policy Research Division

Library of Congress

Washington, D.C, 20540

Dear Dr. Huddle:

The Program of the IVth Henniker Conference on National

Materials Policy addresses a series of issues which are important to

materials science and technology and through them to the national economy and security.

I wish the conferees success in their work and I look forward to the

Conference proceedings as useful contributions to national policy considerations.

Sincerely yours ,

H, Guyford Stever

Science Adviser

The third message is jointly from Senator Frank Moss, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space

Sciences and Representative Olin Teague, Chairman of the

House Committee on Science and Technology.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. House of Representatives

Suite 2321 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

August 5, 1976

To Participants of the Engineering Foundation

Conference on Materials Policy, Henniker, N.H.

It is with genuine concern for the significant issues with which this

conference will be contending, and with much hope for equally significant results, that we take the occasion to extend to you the high interest

and best wishes of your national legislature.

We do not presume to suggest to knowledgeable people such as

yourselves a list of reasons why materials policy and materials research

and development are vital to the nation—and thus to the Congress of the

United States. You are far more familiar with such reasons than we.

Nonetheless, we do wish to impress upon you that materials problems

and materials sciences and technology are now infiltrating the collective

consciousness of the Congress to a degree that we believe has not

heretofore existed.

Some of you, we are sure, are familiar with the companion bills (HR

14439 and S 3637) now pending in the House and Senate. Entitled “The

4
National Materials Policy, Research and Organization Act of 1976,”

these bills have been introduced recently by Senator Moss and Representatives Symington and Mosher. While we hold no particular brief for

the precise format of the bill as it presently stands, we believe it will

stimulate thought and discussion— and hopefully will provoke some

manner of observation, criticism, recommendations or whatever, from

this conference. Your constructive reaction would be of great utility to

us.

No one expects that we will have good enough answers to basic

materials problems, or have them soon enough, to warrant serious consideration of this kind of legislation in the immediate future. On the

other hand, we as a nation (perhaps as a species) will not be able to go

our traditional, unstructured, exploitive way much longer without creating disastrous materials situations which may prove irreversible.

Your findings can help us– and can do so in time to be effective. We

trust you will keep us current and, to the extent your rules permit, make

the proceedings of the 1976 conference available to our Committees.

With best wishes for your success,

FRANK MOSS, Chairman OLIN E, TEAGUE, Chairman

Senate Committee on Aeronautical House Committee on

and Space Sciences Science and Technology

Copies of both the companion bills are available; the text is the

same. Also, we have copies of the statements by Mr. Moss and

Mr. Symington with which the bills were introduced. It is important to read these statements to understand the purposes of the

bills, I believe Mr. Daddario will also discuss them later today.

Many of the issues to be treated by our task forces are pertinent

to the bills. Also, we plan to discuss some of their features at the

Panel Meeting on Friday morning. The conference results pertinent to these bills will receive appropriate attention by personnel

of the legislation branch. Ms. Gail Pesyna of the staff of the

House Committee on Science and Technology is here today.

The plan for the conference will follow roughly the same format as in 1974. Following the keynote and other introductory

statements will be tutorial papers addressing the five tasks before

the conference. This evening we will hear a technical paper from

a foreign guest, Professor Pick from Birmingham, England.

Tomorrow and Wednesday, the conference will be divided into

task forces to work on the matters of concern to our sponsors.

Thursday, the chairmen of the task forces will report, and then

we will hear a lecture from a distinguished speaker from private

industry in the United States. The Conference will conclude Friday morning with several papers on other materials issues, a

5
general plenary discussion of national materials policy, and a

consideration of proposed means to implement it.

The next speaker this morning will be Curry Ford, President of

the Federation of Materials Societies. He will be followed by the

keynote message to the conference. Let me mention the keynote

address because it has several novel features about it. Several

months ago, Frank Huddle and I met for lunch at the Cosmos

Club with Dr. McKelvey and Dr. Falkie to discuss the keynote

address for this conference, We wanted to stress the importance

of the functional relationship between the US. Geological

Survey, that helps to discover minerals in the ground, and the

U.S. Bureau of Mines, that helps to dig them out and bring them

to the market for industry to use, Accordingly we agreed upon

the device of a joint keynote address, in which the directors of

these two great institutions would share the spotlight.

6
WELCOMING REMARKS ON BEHALF OF THE

FEDERATION OF MATERIALS SOCIETIES

by Curry E. Ford

President

Federation of Materials Societies

On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Federation of

Materials Societies, I welcome you to this fourth Henniker Conference on National Materials Policy, The federation is honored

to again have the privilege of organizing and managing this conference for the Engineering Foundation.

The findings and recommendations of the conferences of 1970,

1972, and 1974 have had a very significant impact on materials

policy legislation, This 1976 conference has the opportunity to

generate new insight and thoughtful recommendations that can

affect actions on the critical problems of chronic materials scarcity. I am confident we will exercise this opportunity,

Much of the success of the past three conferences was the

result of the leadership, knowledge and dedication of the conference chairman, Dr. Franklin P. Huddle. You can appreciate

our concern when Dr. Huddle became seriously ill this past

spring, just as detailed planning for this conference was getting

underway. We were most fortunate when Dr. John B. Wachtman,

Jr., Past-President of the Federation, promptly agreed to assume

Dr. Huddle’s responsibilities. The Federation and alI of us here

today are deeply indebted to Dr. Wachtman and his conference

executive committee for their outstanding effort which has made

this conference possible.

This is not the time and place to review the activities and plans

of the Federation. We do feel, however, that your attendance at

this conference confirms your interest in materials issues, and we

are placing your names on the mailing list for the Federation’s

Quarterly newsletter, “Materials and Resources News.” You may

find this publication of help in informing you of Federation

activities and other materials matters of interest.

We have a busy week ahead, We hope you will find it pleasant

and rewarding.

87-315 0. 77 -2,
JOINT KEYNOTE ADDRESS–PART I

by V. E. McKelvey

Director, Geological Survey

U.S. Department of the Interior

In discussing our roles in this conference, Frank Huddle suggested to Dr. Falkie and me that it would be useful to tell you

something about the activities of our respective organizations

and the way they articulate with each other and with other organizations concerned with materials problems. This I am glad to

do, but just to be sure I don’t get into a level of descriptive detail

that might be of little interest to you, I plan also to discuss findings as they relate to the conference theme, namely the Engineering Implications of Chronic Materials Scarcity.

The Geological Survey was established by an Act of Congress

in 1879, and charged with responsibility for “. ., the classification

of the public lands and examination of the geological structure,

mineral resources and products of the national domain. . . .“

Taken in their broadest sense, those terms still describe our responsibilities pretty well. In its larger part, the Survey is a research and fact-finding organization directed toward acquiring

information and knowledge about the configuration and use of

the land surface; the composition and structure of the rocks that

underlie the United States; the distribution and character of our

water, mineral, and mineral fuel resources; and geologic processes that relate to the discovery and use of our physical resources, including the land itself, The Survey is also responsible

for the mineral classification of Federal land, the classification of

water power sites, and the supervision of operations on Federal

lands authorized by leases issued by the Bureau of Land Management. This regulatory activity has been growing in recent years,

but even so it makes up not quite zo percent of our total activity.

Through its topographic and geologic mapping, its mineral and

hydrologic assessments, and its studies of geologic processes, the

Survey is the principal public source of information about the

distribution, magnitude, and quality of the nation’s physical resources; the mineral values ot federally owned lands; the physical characteristics of the natural environment; and the nature of

geologic hazards that may affect us or may attend our use of the

land in engineering developments, In celebrating the 50th

anniversary of the Geological Survey in 1929, George Otis Smith,

then Director, said, “The one-hundredth report of the Director of

the United States Geological Survey may be expected to be

simply a report of progress. ” With our centennial less than three
years off, I can fully confirm Smith’s prediction, for the task of

acquiring sufficient knowledge of the Earth and its resources to

guide and underpin resource development and conservation is a

never-ending one, The results in hand, in fact, are inadequate to

allow us to cope with many of the problems we are now facing.

For example, we don’t yet have much capability for defining

prospects for the occurrence of concealed ore bodies that have no

surface manifestation or for estimating the extent of undiscovered resources. In spite of such deficiencies, we have acquired

extensive knowledge of the subjects for which we have responsibility— enough, as I’ll indicate shortly, to provide guidance and

assistance on resource-related problems.

Agency Cooperation

A word now about how we articulate with other organizations.

First, as a public service agency we consider that our first responsibility is to make the results of our work public. In 1975, for

example, we issued about 2,900 reports and nearly 9,000 maps.

We have come to recognize that it isn’t enough simply to publish

results— we must publish them in a form in which they can be

understood and used by those who need the information, and in

recent years we have been striving to improve the public utility

of our reports and maps.

With respect to the mineral industry, we do not ourselves

search for mineral deposits, except under emergency circumstances, but instead, attempt to develop information that will

help us assess resources, and in addition help industry to identify

targets for exploration.

This is a good point to mention our interface with the Bureau

of Mines, which can be described in terms of the distinction between reserves and resources—a distinction which the Bureau

and the Survey have helped to develop in recent years by agreement on a set of definitions that seem to be coming into wide use.

We define reserves as identified deposits that can be extracted

profitably with existing technology under current economic

conditions. Resources in the broad sense include reserves but

also encompass known deposits that are currently not profitable

to produce, as well as undiscovered deposits that may or may not

be economically producible if and when they are found. Whereas

reserves represent the inventory on hand for production, resources include the potential that may come from additional

exploration or technological advance or price increases.

In the general area of resource assessment, the Bureau of

Mines is responsible for developing information on reserves; the

Survey, for information on the remainder. Following that general

9
distinction, we work jointly in the appraisal of the mineral resource potential of lands nominated for withdrawal in the

wilderness systems. In other areas, our work diverges, with the

Bureau focusing on studies related to mineral and materials production, along lines that Dr. Falkie will describe,

We have a somewhat similar relationship with the Energy Research and Development Administration, with which the Department of the Interior is currently in the process of developing a

memorandum of agreement, and in other areas we have close

working relationships also with several other Federal agencies,

such as the Bureau of Land Management; the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration; the Soil Conservation Service;

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, A good indication of the

extent to which the Survey’s expertise is utilized by other public

organizations may be seen in the fact that in fiscal year 1975, we

were reimbursed for services performed on behalf of 103 Federal

agencies, more than 550 State and local organizations, 16 foreign

governments, and the United Nations, These agencies call on the

Survey mainly because of its expertise in Earth sciences research

and fact-finding, but a supporting reason for many of them to do

so is that traditionally the Survey does not enter into policy

issues, It can be counted on, therefore, for objective, impartial

data and interpretations not influenced by a predetermined position favoring, for example, resource development, environmental

protection, or land withdrawal.

Problems and Solutions of Chronic Materials Scarcity

Let me move now to some of the problems that relate to the

theme of this conference—Engineering Implications of Chronic

Materials Scarcity. As a geologist representing an organization

concerned mainly with Earth sciences research and fact-finding,

I don’t have much to contribute to the engineering side of the

problem; perhaps some comments on our mineral, fuel and water

resource position would help provide a useful base for conference discussion of the broader problems.

To the best of m y knowledge, there is no mineral, fuel, or water

scarcity now in the market place, except locally, either in the

United States or the world at large. Two obvious questions, then,

are: (1) could we have chronic resource scarcity, and (2) should

we take defensive actions to prepare for, and if possible prevent,

such an eventuality? It doesn’t take a crystal ball to answer those

questions, and I am sure it was the realization that the answers to

both questions were in the affirmative that led those responsible

10
for planning this conference to decide to explore some of the

implications of resource scarcity.

The problem of potential resource scarcity results from the

interaction between an exponentially increasing demand and the

depletion of supply sources that were easy to find and cheap to

produce, The result of this collision between our ever-rising

demands and our dwindling supplies of low-cost resources had

been a growth in our reliance upon other countries for minerals

and fuels to make up the deficit in our own production. For a

very long period of time, we were a net exporter of mineral fuels,

including petroleum. Beginning in 1948, we became a net

importer of oil –by choice, not necessity–and through 1970, oil

imports never exceeded 25 percent of out total supply. In that

year, however, our domestic production reached its peak and

began a decline which has continued until now. Currently,

imports average 43 percent of our supply and the outlook, even

with the production from the Alaskan North Slope, is for our

dependence on foreign oil to rise still further as demand continues to increase and production from the older fields continues

to decline.

In general, our experience with non-fuel minerals parallels

that of oil, although the growth of our dependence on foreign

sources has been much less precipitate. We have always been

dependent on other countries for certain minerals; but across the

board, our net imports were rather modest–almost nominal–

until after World War II. We now import, by value, about 15 percent of our total non-fuel mineral supply, but this general statistic

obscures the fact that we are dependent on foreign sources for

more than half our supply of 20 important minerals, a number of

which are critical to some of our basic industries. So our dependence is not nearly so modest as the general-average figure might

suggest.

I do not consider it at all likely that we shall ever be fully selfsufficient in all minerals. The random nature of their distribution

and the fact that we occupy only seven percent of the Earth’s

land area, (while consuming 30 percent of its mineral production), is enough to convince me that we shall always be dependent on other countries for part of our mineral supply. The real

problem is how to avoid becoming even more dependent than we

now are as we continue to deplete our known domestic sources.

Nothing suggests that this will be an easy matter.

The Geological Survey in 1973 published a review of the longterm U.S. position for potential resources of 65 mineral commodities. The sense of the document is that, aside from a

11
relatively few cases, we shall face extensive shortages by the end

of this century unless prompt and effective actions are taken to

avoid them.

What are the actions? If we can visualize resources as natural

substances useful or potentially useful to man, then a number of

things that we can do become apparent.

Immense volumes of known discovered resources await the

development of technology that will allow their profitable

extraction. This is a remedy which we have pursued with much

success for 50 years or more, and it still has much potential. Dr.

Falkie will have more to say about this approach.

Another important way by which we can stretch our resources

is to find new uses for materials not previously usable. At the

turn of the 20th century, only about 30 of the chemical elements

were in commercial use. Now there are about 80. Finding a use

for many of these made it possible to do something that could not

be done before, but some minerals have served as substitutes for

scarcer and more costly materials in established uses. Aluminum,

for example, which was only a laboratory curiosity a century ago,

has displaced wood and other metals in hundreds of uses. The

substitution of abundant materials for scarcer ones is an avenue

to future mineral supply that is well worth pursuing, and it is

encouraging to see the developments in ceramics and composite

materials that go in this direction.

A serious constraint in both the improved technology and the

substitution approaches is that they often involve an increased

consumption of energy. Just the opposite is the case with a third

approach, namely recycling used materials, especially metals.

Recycling not only saves energy; it also reduces the amount of

trash that must be disposed of at the taxpayer’s expense and with

some risk of environmental damage as well. The Bureau of Mines

has been doing some outstanding work in the field of recycling,

and I’m sure Dr. Falkie will tell you more about that.

Then, of course, there is the fundamental approach of discovering new deposits of minerals, which entails not only new

tools and concepts for exploration, but also new places to look. It

may be hard to imagine, but there are still areas of the United

States that have not yet been adequately explored, even with

existing tools and techniques. These areas, including most of

Alaska and the Continental Shelves, certainly merit closer

inspection.

But the great challenge to minerals exploration remains the

hidden deposit. Most of the mines operating in the world today

were located on evidence visible at the surface. Until this century, mining was in many ways a cottage industry, Anyone with

12
determination and a strong back could go into the mining business, and thousands did, to the point where most of the deposits

that could be found by the human eye have already been discovered over large areas of the Earth. Now, the need is for the

sophisticated instruments, expanded knowledge of the geology of

the subsurface, and exhaustive detective work that will lead to

the discovery of deposits that cannot be seen. The petroleum

industry has been highly successful in its ability to locate structural traps at great depth, but the mining industry to date has

been nowhere nearly as successful in discerning environments

where ore bodies may be found.

Nevertheless, progress is being made, While I mentioned

earlier that the Geological Survey concerned itself mainly with

delineating targets for private exploration, our scientists have

done some important work in advancing geologic knowledge of

the origin and environment of deposition of mineral deposits, and

knowledge of the regional and local geologic relationships to

which sound principles and effective methods can be applied in

the search for concealed deposits.

Research on the geology of mineral occurrence is of particular

importance in the search for blind deposits, for if we can ascertain how mineral deposits are formed, we have at least some clue

as to where to look for them. Every piece of knowledge is important. For example, most minerals are more soluble at high temperatures than at low temperatures. Recent research, however,

has shown that molybdenite (the most important source of

molybdenum) and chalcopyrite (an important copper mineral)

may show an opposite behavior under certain conditions. If this

is the case, then we may expect copper and molybdenum

deposits to form earlier and deeper than ores of other metals such

as lead and silver, so that the occurrence of these latter minerals

at the surface may indicate deep underlying deposits of copper

and molybdenum. Information like this is useful in constructing

models of ore deposits and greatly expedites assessment of

regions for new deposits by limiting the search to a few welldefined geologic targets. Many such hypotheses turn out to be

invalid on further investigation, but some do not, and furnish the

basis for further progress in the difficult art and science of

mineral exploration. It was such a novel concept (about gold

mineralization) that led to the discovery of the disseminated gold

deposits at Carlin, Nevada, in 1965–the most important gold discovery in the United States in 50 years.

New and more sophisticated techniques have helped greatly in

both geochemical and geophysical investigations. One such

geochemical approach involves the chemical separation and

13
analysis of manganese and iron-rich fractions of stream sediments and soils, The manganese and iron oxides are very sensitive scavengers, and concentrate metals such as copper, zinc, and

silver, allowing the detection of subtle geochemical anomalies

that may indicate hidden ore bodies nearby. This method has

been successfully applied to outline metal anomalies in regions

of thick rock cover in New Mexico. Here, minute amounts of

metallic oxides have migrated through hundreds of feet of barren

volcanic rock. Such trace indicators of mineral deposits cannot be

detected by the usual geochemical surveys.

Geochemical halos in the soil may give surface evidence of

deeply buried deposits. Volatile elements and compounds such as

helium, sulfur gases, carbon dioxide, mercury, and light

hydrocarbons frequently appear in the air trapped between particles of soil at or just below the surface, and they can be detected

and measured by new techniques. Soil moisture conditions may

complicate the analysis of soil gas, but the anomalous concentrations of these minute traces of elements and compounds can

point to deposits which may lie deep beneath the surface.

In geophysics, considerable research is being concentrated on

borehole techniques using electrical and seismic measuring

devices. The borehole measurements, which are made from one

hole to a second hole or to the ground surface, are expected to

extend the range of subsurface probing to as much as 300 meters

from the test hole. Obviously, this is a vast improvement over

previous well-logging techniques, which had a range of only a

few meters from the borehole, and would permit a great reduction in the amount of drilling needed to discover and delineate

ore bodies. Another borehole measurement technique of great

interest is our neutron activation probe, which can detect the

presence of copper, nickel, and numerous other metallic elements in the rock section penetrated by the test hole.

Images of the Earth’s surface, recorded by satellite and aircraft,

are being processed by recently developed techniques to provide

new information on potentially mineralized areas and geologic

structures in Nevada, Wyoming, Mexico, and Brazil. Landsat (formerly ERTS) imagery, which is computer-enhanced, has been

used successfully to detect and map hydrothermally altered areas

that are related to ore districts in south-central Nevada. Thermal

infrared images of the Colorado Front Range, near Denver, have

revealed anomalous textural patterns that correspond to known

mining districts.

These achievements represent gradual improvements over our

past capabilities. There are no miracles, no magic, and no break14
throughs in prospect. But we do keep getting better at the job of

finding mineral concentrations that were too elusive to be discovered in earlier times, and that is important,

Finally, there is the need for conservation in use. I mentioned

earlier that we could not view shortages as merely a problem of

supply. Without a sane and sensible policy toward consumption,

it is impossible to balance the supply-demand equation, no matter how much emphasis is given to supply, Consider, for a

moment, the impact of a steady increase in consumption at the

relatively modest rate of 3 percent (anything that increases at

only 3 percent a year is modest these days), At that rate of

increase, a billion years’ stock of anything, computed at this

year’s consumption rates, would be exhausted in 582 years. Two

billion years’ supply would be consumed within 23 years after

that,

There’s a bit of hyperbole in this example, of course, but it is

sufficient to show that we cannot go on indefinitely increasing

our consumption. Some economic growth is desirable in our

society, and some growth in consumption is probably inevitable

until we can stabilize our population. But much of what passed

for “growth” in the last few decades in this country might more

properly be labeled “waste” — waste in the sense that energy and

minerals have been used for what are in essence frivolous, nonproductive purposes, Who needs a 5,OOO pound car that can go

120 miles an hour, for example? In our development of highway

transportation and all that goes with it, how much represents the

socially efficient use of energy and minerals, and how much has

been unnecessary use for purposes that could have been

accomplished just as well in less consumptive ways? Recent

reflection on this and many other examples of the frivolous use

of energy and raw materials in our society has led me to conclude

that we have been wasting our resource capital on a massive

scale,

In conclusion, with our current dependence on imports for

many commodities, we face the potential for at least intermittent

shortages well in advance of true world scarcity. If recent rates of

growth in consumption continue to outstrip our development of

new sources of supply, we can be certain that true resource scarcities wiIl develop in a few decades for some minerals. We can

readily identify ways to add to and extend our supplies — through

exploration; through gains in extractive, processing, and

materials technology; through the wider practice of recycIing;

and through conservation in use. As some of you here know, I am

optimistic that if we devote searching, imaginative, and driving

effort to the task, we can succeed in satisfying our resource needs

15
far into the future. Accelerated research is an important part of

the effort required, but research alone cannot long stand up to the

buzz saw of exponential growth in consumption. Conservation in

use by choice must become a national effort if the time when it

becomes a necessity is to be put off for long.

16
JOINT KEYNOTE ADDRESS–PART II

by Thomas V. Falkie, Director

Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for inviting

me here to share with Dr. McKelvey the honor of keynoting this

important Conference,

Vince has given you a very complete picture of what the U.S.

Geological Survey is doing to assist in the discovery of our

mineral resources and to define our resource base. Since the programs of the Survey and the Bureau of Mines mesh to form a

competence encompassing the entire mineral resource field, I

will take it from there and discuss the role of the Bureau in helping, through its factfinding and its research and development

programs, to convert our mineral resources into mineral reserves,

Clearly, these programs, among others, have contributed greatly

to minerals and materials technology, and information will continue to be part of our country’s mineral posture.

First, let’s remind ourselves briefly just how important the

wise development and use of our mineral resources are to our

domestic economy. In 1975, the output of such extractive operations as mining, quarrying, and oil production was valued at

about $62 billion, excIuding exports, If you take that output

through the mineral processing industries—smelting, refining,

energy generation —the resulting production is valued at over

$270 billion, which is a sizable portion of our $1.5 trillion Gross

National Product.

Underlying the issues that will be addressed by this Conference is one of our Nation’s biggest current materials problems:

the dollar value of our imports has been exceeding that of our

exports at a growing rate, except during the recession year of

1975. A substantial part of the reason, of course, is related to

petroleum imports, which are costly and are also, unfortunately,

still increasing. The possibility that the same pattern could well

develop with other mineral materials is your primary concern at

this meeting. At the same time, the impediments to increasing

domestic production are growing.

As Vince noted earlier, the United States depends heavily on

imports for such essential commodities as manganese, chromium,

bauxite, platinum, and many other important minerals and

metals.

To reduce this dependency– in fact, just to keep it from growing — it will be necessary to make real engineering innovations, to

take major steps forward in the technology of exploration, min1 7
ing methods and ore transport, processing of low-grade resources,

materials development, substitution and use, and scrap recovery,

Only through genuine progress in each of these critical areas can

we hope to assure an adequate supply of mineral raw materials

in the future.

Bureau of Mines and Chronic Materials Scarcity

Commodity situations are constantly changing, and if we are to

plan realistically for the future we must do it on the basis of upto-date information. Recognizing that both industry and Government need timely statistical and economic information on

mineral developments at home and abroad, the Bureau of Mines

decades ago began building a system to provide it. The system

has been modified many times over the years, and we are still

improving it, It has made the Bureau of Mines the primary

authoritative source within the Federal Government of the latest

available data on mineral developments throughout the world,

and is the basis for publications ranging from periodic statistical

surveys of roughly a hundred individual mineral commodities, to

such well known general references as “Mineral Facts and Problems,” which will soon appear in a bicentennial edition. This

information system, coupled with our wide-ranging technological expertise, has also made the Bureau a respected and

much-consulted source of facts, advice, and opinion on mineral

legislation and mineral policy for all branches and all levels of

Government.

I think you can see how this factfinding and informational program of the Bureau relates to the theme of this year’s Henniker

Conference. We can best deal with material scarcities by being

well-enough informed to anticipate them and, once forewarned,

knowledgeable enough to avoid them,

I don’t claim that the Bureau of Mines, or any other part of

Government for that matter, has yet achieved the kind of

capability required to foresee and avoid every problem or shortage that might one day confront us. But despite budgetary and

manpower constraints, we are working hard to strengthen the

Bureau’s capability in that direction, and we are making progress.

On the domestic front we maintain a continual surveillance for

situations—such as strikes in basic mineral producing industries

or in parts of the infrastructure that supports them—that could

cause disruptions of mineral supply, When they occur, we monitor them carefully to assure that appropriate government actions

can be taken in time to avert serious shortages.

Right now, we are far better equipped than we were a few

years ago to deal with materials crises as they arise, Interagency

18
commodity committees, 95 of them in all, have been formed to

provide a quick mechanism for obtaining the latest coordinated

information available within Government on any commodity to

help in developing recommendations for dealing with actual or

foreseeable supply problems, Every concerned department and

independent agency of the Government is represented on each

committee. In the minerals field, Bureau of Mines commodity

experts serve as the executive secretaries of the interagency committees dealing with their respective commodity areas, In this

way, the government has achieved a capability for quickly

gathering and coordinating all the significant input available on

any particular problem,

As we all know, world demand for minerals is increasing. With

it, competition among nations for the limited supplies that are

available is rapidly intensifying, We have witnessed the formation of cartels, first in oil and then, with the success of the OPEC

actions as an example, in such vitaIly important raw materials as

copper, bauxite, and iron ore. While it seems unlikely that cartel

actions affecting those materials could have the forceful impact

of an oil embargo, they could nevertheless cause short-term disruptions in material price or supply and those disruptions, in

turn, could have repercussions in various sectors of our economy,

In such a situation the ability to be able to turn quickly to a

domestic source of supply, to have on-the-shelf technology, so to

speak, would be distinctly advantageous. Both the Geological

Survey and the Bureau of Mines are working–usually together–to make that possible.

In the Bureau we are developing two fully automated data

banks. Into one–our Minerals Availability System (MAS)–we

are putting every scrap of information we can get on domestic

mineral deposits. Data on location, ownership, history, production, reserves, grade of ore, mining, economics . . . everything we

can learn about a potential domestic source is being computerized so it will be at the Government’s fingertips in any

future emergency. We’re doing the same thing for deposits of

coal, petroleum, natural gas, and other energy sources with our

Fuels Availability System (FAS). MAS and FAS represent

relatively new Bureau initiatives, and some of the information

we are seeking isn’t the kind that property owners are anxious to

divulge, Nevertheless, our data banks are growing qualitatively

and quantitatively, and we are convinced that they will serve the

Nation well in years to come. One key to these information

systems is the ability to apply experienced technical expertise to

the data collection and interpretation process.

Most of the information collected in the programs I’ve been describing is widely disseminated throughout Government and to

19
the private sector where it is a reliable basis for policymaking and

planning decisions, In addition, it enables the Bureau to comment

knowledgeably and helpfully on proposed legislation and

environmental impact studies and to serve effectively in a consultant capacity to numerous other agencies.

As I’ve already intimated, the information also guides us in

planning our mission-oriented research and development in mining and metallurgy. Mining research is one of the principal

avenues through which our objective of avoiding shortages is

pursued. I think all of us will agree that, given plentiful supplies

of low-cost energy, we need fear no shortages. With abundant

cheap energy we could produce just about anything we might

need out of common sand, Energy, as we learned the hard way in

the fall of 1973, is the key to everything else. To the extent that

the United States can again become self sufficient in energy, it

will be insured against the political decisions of foreign governments insofar as they relate to material supplies.

That, in brief, is what most of the Bureau’s mining research is

about, In the fiscal year that just ended, roughly two-thirds of the

Bureau’s total budget of $158.8 million was earmarked for mining

research and most of that (some $92.7 million) was for research

in coal mining and preparation (table 1). Our goal, as you no

TABLE I.–Fiscal Year 1977 Budget Request

(thousands)

doubt know, is to help advance the technology of coal so that

abundant fuel can supply a greater share of the Nation’s energy

requirements and thereby reduce our dependence on foreign

sources. To achieve that goal, we must resolve some of the problems associated with the mining and use of coal. We must find

ways to minimize the health and safety hazards of mining, and

ways to make both coal mining and coal use more compatible

20
with our demands for a quality environment. At the same time

we must provide the kind of technology that can improve a dangerously declining productivity in coal mining and increase the

percentage of the resource that is typically recovered.

The Bureau’s mining research program has been planned to

attack all of these problems simultaneously, because, as you

know, it is not practical to attack them separately (table 2), Although an important part of the total program is conducted in our

TABLE 2, –Fiscal Year 19

7

7 Budget Request

Mining Research and Engineering Programs

(millions)

Program FY 1976 FY 1977

HEALTH & SAFETY RESEARCH

Coal Health & Safety Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 29.4 $30.0

Metal & Nonmetal Health & Safety Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 5.7

ADVANCING MINING TECHNOLOGY

Coal Mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 56.2 59.6

Oil Shale Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 5.6

Metal & Nonmetal Mining & Explosives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 6.0

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DEMONSTRATIONS

Mined Land Investigations & Demonstrations-Anthracite Area 5.8 5.8

Anthracite Conversion Demonstrations Plant. . . . . . . . . – 3.0

Rock Springs Subsidence Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 –

Mined Land Investigations & Demonstrations-Bituminous Area

(Illinois). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 1.0

Fire Control in Coal Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2

PAY AND SPACE INCREASES . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 0.6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $110.4 $117.5

own facilities, it is predominantly a contract effort, with industry

increasingly participating now through cost-sharing and other

types of cooperative arrangements. Such cooperation not only

strengthens the effort, but also speeds transfer of the developed

technology into industrial practice.

The program is yielding important dividends. Some of the most

promising developments so far in terms of increased safety and

health protection for miners have come from our work in

methane drainage, which was begun several years ago as a means

of giving miners added protection against the explosive gas by

degasifying coal seams in advance of mining. Degasification

already has been accomplished profitably in West Virginia,

where methane drained from a coal seam has been commercially

pipelined to thousands of homes in the State, Other products of

21
Bureau research are now in the mines helping to assure greater

safety for those who operate coal mining equipment, aiding in

the control of mine roof, and improving efficiency and accuracy

in the monitoring of noise and dust,

To combat the sharp downtrend in coal mining productivity

that began in 1969, we are emphasizing research to speed up the

development phase of mining (giving the industry faster access

to coal reserves), along with adaptation of highly automated

longwall and shortwall systems which, where they can be

applied, offer higher productivity and greater recovery of the resource.

On the environmental side, the Bureau has pioneered for years

in the development of improved methods for reclaiming surfacemined land; for controlling subsidence and acid mine water; and

for minimizing the environmental hazards associated with mine

refuse banks. That work continues today, but with greater

emphasis than ever before on the design of mining methods and

systems that can prevent the environmental disturbances so long

associated with coal mining. On the surface, we are looking at

innovations like the cross-pit conveyor, which makes it easier for

reclamation to proceed at the same pace as mining. Underground,

we are developing a new generation of continuous miners that

provide their own roof support, along with other features that

can help to make the underground mining process truly continuous and, at the same time, environmentally compatible.

All of this effort is aimed at providing the essential key to

material abundance: low-cost energy. We are convinced that if

the United States is to have that key in the foreseeable future, we

will have to get it from coal.

But, while coal represents the largest share of the Bureau’s

mining research program, it is not the entire program by any

means. If I limited my discussion to potential sources of energy

supply, I would still have to mention that we are conducting

important research on the mining of oil shale and tar sands.

We’re interested in mining oil sands as well, that is, mining

energy-depleted, near-surface reservoirs to recover the 60 percent of the oil, on-the-average, that primary production methods

do not get. We are also investigating the possibility of borehole

mining as an economic means of tapping small, localized

uranium deposits.

The Bureau is making progress, too, in research related to

minerals other than fuels, This is loosely called “hard rock” research, and some of it is indeed like our work on developing a

continuous drill-blast process for hard rock mining. One

approach involves a tunneling machine that detonates frequent

small blasts in the face as it drills holes in a spiral pattern, loading

22
the broken rock as it goes. Another uses small charges of high

explosives in shallow holes —about 18 inches deep. Other areas

of research include studies of airblast and ground vibration from

surface operations to develop ways of minimizing the disturbance to neighbors, and development of an emergency hoist

communication system, for deep shaft mines, that uses the hoist

cable to carry voice messages.

Regardless of how successful our mining research may be, it

will surely be a long time before the United States is once again

blessed with an abundance of low-cost energy. In fact, if we limit

our goals to what seems feasible right now, we will do well within the next decade simply to stop increasing our dependence on

foreign energy sources. If we don’t want to find ourselves one

day in the same position with regard to other essential commodities, we must find ways now to increase our reliance on our

own resources (table 3).

TABLE 3.–Fiscal Year 1977 Budget Request

Metallurgy Research Programs

(millions)

Program FY 1976 FY 1977

Advancing Minerals Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13,9 $12.6

Effecting Pollution Abatement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 3.7

Secondary Resource Recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.4

Mlnimizing Mineral and Metal Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 3.8

College Park Laboratory Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 2.8

Pay and Space Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 0.4

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27.0 $25.8

—

That is a major aim of the Bureau’s metallurgy research. The

abundant nonmagnetic taconites of Minnesota, plentiful

domestic deposits of anorthosite and clay, and significant resources of low-grade laterite and gabbro material , , , all of these

and others are targets of Bureau metallurgy research. We have

had one recent dramatic success with the nonmagnetic taconites,

as is evidenced by the existence of a major new commercial mine

and processing plant at Tilden, Michigan. The success of the

process used at the Tilden plant results from research conducted

by the Bureau. Now, we are experimentally applying the same

technology, along with alternative approaches, to convert more

of the vast nonmagnetic taconite resource into an economic iron

ore reserve,

23
Although bauxite cannot be said to be in short supply throughout the world, we have little of it here in the United States, and

we are increasingly forced to compete with other industrialized

countries in seeking reliable sources of bauxite at acceptable

prices. Recent trends toward nationalization by bauxite-producing nations point up the need for a technology that will permit us to use our own ample resources of anorthosite, clay, and

other alumina-bearing materials as a raw materials base for

aluminum production. In cooperation with major aluminum producers, the Bureau of Mines is doing just that. As you probably

know, there are several processes that will extract alumina from

the kinds of material I’ve mentioned. The difficulty is that no

single one stands out clearly as the best bet for doing it on a commercial scale. So, with financial support from the industry, the

Bureau is testing each process on a miniplant scale, about 25

pounds of alumina production per hour. Such a procedure will

allow us to judge which particular procedures, or combinations

of procedures, offer the most promise for scale up.

An important source of encouragement in this enterprise has

been our past success in extracting gold from carbonaceous ores

once thought impossible to treat by conventional cyanidation,

Nevada’s Carlin gold mine exists today as testimony to the

ingenuity of Bureau metallurgists in overcoming such obstacles.

Nickel, cobalt, and chromium are all essential metals for which

the United States depends heavily on foreign sources of supply.

But, both nickel and cobalt occur along with copper in the

Duluth, Minn., gabbro deposits, and both chromium and nickel

are found in the low-grade laterites in Oregon and California.

Bureau researchers are seeking ways of treating these materials,

which today can at best be termed a submarginal resource, and in

the process improving our self-sufficiency in metals that we cannot do without.

As Vince noted earlier, we still waste a high percentage of our

minerals in this country and, again as he indicated, the Bureau of

Mines is working to reduce that percentage, Right now, better

than half of the antimony scrap generated in the United States is

recycled, but it is the only one of ten major metals for which anything like that kind of a record can be claimed. We recycle 25 percent of our iron and copper scrap, roughly 20 percent of our

nickel and tin, and from 5 percent to 10 percent of our aluminum,

zinc, and chromium. Thirty percent of our scrap lead is recycled,

but less than 5 percent of magnesium scrap is reclaimed.

The Bureau has pioneered in application of metallurgical technology to reclaim valuable metals and minerals from urban

refuse, and the procedures it has devised are now being adopted

by several communities in various parts of the country. Now, we

24
are going after metal values being lost every day in such

industrial wastes as flue dust, mill scale grinding swarf, and the

solutions used for electroplating, etching, and pickling, Automobile recycling is a good example of a technology area that was

given great impetus by Government (Bureau of Mines) R&D. We

pioneered technology that makes possible the smokeless

incineration of the nonmetallic components of old auto hulks, and

our studies have also pointed the way to more efficient procedures for stripping junk cars before the bodies are shredded.

We also developed air classification as an effective means of

recovering the nonferrous fraction of shredded auto bodies.

Substitution is still another way in which Bureau research is

seeking to provide the kind of technology that can help forestall

material shortages, by substituting relatively abundant materials

for scarce ones, For example, substitution of molybdenum for

imported chromium in certain alloys, substitution of rare earths

for platinum in catalysts, and substitution of ceramics for metals.

We also can extend our limited supplies of materials with processes like ion implantation, making what are, in effect, new

materials. We can give a plentiful material the properties it needs

to supplant a scarce one, and give the scarce one qualities that

enable it to stand up longer in use. Ion implantation may give us

the answer to the problems of scale and corrosion that shorten

the life of metals used in casing geothermal wells, If so, it can

make our access to geothermal energy significantly less costly.

I’ve tried to give you a broad picture of the Bureau’s activities,

particularly as they relate to the problem of material shortages.

While the examples I’ve chosen are typical, they are by no means

all-inclusive. The time available did not permit any such review.

We are making increased effort to tie economics to R&D and to

use this to plan and evaluate our R&D programs (table 4).

Solutions to Chronic Materials Scarcity

Because the Bureau is the kind of Federal agency it is, the

questions to be pondered by Task Forces at this Conference are

of natural concern to us. While we don’t pretend to have all the

answers, we do have some thoughts that bear on some of your

questions, and before stepping down, I’d like to share a few of

them with you.

The question of how conservation should be defined, for

example, is one that has interested the Bureau throughout its

history. Our first director, Joseph A. Holmes, defined conservation as “the wise and efficient use of natural resources,” and for

most of the years of the Bureau’s existence, that definition has

seemed adequate enough. In any case, one definition postulated

25
TABLE 4.–Fiscal Year 1977 Budget Request

Mineral and Materials Supply/Demand Analysis Programs

(millions)

Program FY 1976 FY 1977

Data Collection and Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5.1 $ 4.9

Evaluation and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 3.8

Information Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 3.3

State Liaison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.3

Wilderness and Engineering Investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 5.0

Pay and Space Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —0.6

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.0 $19.9

for a Task Force seems to me somewhat narrow, even though I

realize that the Task Force’s immediate concern is the conservation of energy in materials processing.

The definition proposed, “continual progress in reducing the

energy consumed per unit of output (or GNP),” states a laudableenough goal. But, I believe that the output itself, the mix of products, must also be taken into consideration. I think Americans are

beginning to realize that the phrases “standard of living” and

“quality of life” are not synonymous, The word “wise” in Dr.

Holmes’ definition of conservation becomes more and more

meaningful for me as I consider the difficulties of the choices that

we, and future generations, will have to make. Do we want to

pursue a lifestyle that is essentially wasteful, or are we willing to

husband our resources so that all of us, and our progeny, can be

assured the necessities of life? Do we want a sound economy, or

will we choose to remain at the mercy of foreign powers with

objectives quite distinct from our own? If I seem to be echoing

my fellow keynoter, I guess I am. Like him, I’m convinced that

the choices we make today will determine whether we have any

choice at all tomorrow.

With regard to the recommendations being made on materials

information systems, we have—as might be expected—some

definite views. We concur heartily in the stated need for

monitoring the Nation’s vulnerability and dependence on foreign

sources, for materials, and for conducting research, that can be

expected to reduce such vulnerability and dependence. But we

cannot concede that additional Federal authorities are needed to

accomplish those functions. (Incidentally, in Washington, there is

often confusion about the difference between data and inter26
pretation on the one hand, and either commodity supply/demand

information or information on technology on the other hand.) In

fact, the programs and activities that Vince McKelvey and I have

described to you embrace those functions and more. The Survey’s Computerized Resource Information Bank, coupled with

the Bureau’s Minerals and Fuels Availability Systems and its

worldwide reporting of mineral information, provides a highly

effective monitoring capability, and that capability guides the

R&D efforts of both agencies.

Mineral and material policy is shaped by many different

forces, including markets, international relations and trade,

strategic and military considerations, tax laws, state of the economy, financial and monetary situations, government regulations,

public land policies, labor/management attitudes, social attitudes,

congressional committee structures, checks and balances among

Government agencies, and politics. It’s relatively easy to create

“laundry lists” of necessary or desirable mineral policy needs,

For the most part, the Government already has adequate

authority in the mineral technology information and policy area.

We cannot ignore the growing Government and other impediments to our own domestic supply situation. However, it seems

unlikely that we will have a comprehensive mineral policy in the

near future, just as it seems unlikely that we will have a comprehensive policy in any area, unless we have a controlled economy, which I don’t advocate.

There are, however, several contemporary principles upon

which

1.

2.

3.

4,

5.

mineral policy should be based:

We should not become over-dependent on foreign sources

for our mineral supplies; over-dependence can lead to

economic and political problems. However, international

trade in minerals is important to us and to the world.

We should depend on the private sector to find, produce,

and supply our minerals. We must maintain a favorable

economic climate in order to allow for reasonable recovery of risk capital.

Mineral deposits must be available to be mined, especially

those on the public lands, which are generally the most

geologically favorable for mineral occurrences. The concept of multiple use has served this country well, and

should be maintained.

Mineral authorities within the Federal Government

should not be overly fragmented to the proverbial 67

different agencies.

Governmental laws and regulations must be based on

scientific and engineering fact; they must not be punitive;

27
and they must allow for physical, geological, and

geographical differences.

6. International mineral policy must be made with a complete understanding of our free-enterprise economy, By

the same token, we must recognize the growing needs of

the developing countries. Economic stockpiles and commodity agreements could lead to more Government control of domestic prices and production; however, we

should be willing to discuss commodity arrangements on

an individual basis. We should maintain our basic free

trade position.

7, The Federal Government (Bureau of Mines) has a limited,

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

28
The final thought I would like to leave with you is this. There

seems a pervasive belief today that the one best answer to every

problem is more Government action. Even the agendas for your

task forces and the dominance of Government representation

here today reflect what seem to me a little too much readiness to

“turn the whole thing over to Government.” Some persons are

apparently unable, or unwilling, to remember that we have a

dynamic private sector with intelligence, energy, and talent, and

that it has a capability for dealing effectively with a wide range

of problems.

Government action is necessary, of course, where the overriding factors are other than economic, as in the case of national

defense. But, wherever possible, Government should use the

forces of the marketplace to achieve its goal. In fact, there seem to

be developing trends to indicate that increased Government

interference with the marketplace has contributed more to the

problem of mineral and material shortages than to its solution. as

in the 1973-74 shortage situation so prominently discussed at

these meetings,

Moreover, those Government actions that must be taken

should be continually evaluated on a cost-effectiveness basis.

When circumstances change, or if the actions do not achieve

their intended effect, they should then be rescinded or modified

to accomplish the legitimate policy aim. Otherwise, we will continue to see what already is increasingly evident: too much

Government, in too many places.

I’ve been asked to say a few words about the Committee on

Materials (COMAT), of the Federal Council for Science and

Technology (FCST), and its significance to this Conference.

COMAT was established in February 1975, by H. Guyford Stever,

FCST Director, as an interagency materials R&D coordinating

committee, Jack Carlson, Assistant Secretary, Department of the

Interior, was its first Chairman, succeeded in February 1976, by

William L, Fisher, its new Assistant Secretary. Three task forces

were formed with the following charges:

● To inventory and analyze materials R&D funded by the

Federal Government and industry;

sponsored materials R&D for a national energy program:

and

● To develop a governmental perspective between materials

production. environment, and health.

As Chairman of the Inventory Task Force, I am pleased to distribute advance draft copies of the first report on materials R&D

funding in the Federal Government. As noted by its title

“Materials Life Cycle R& D,” COMAT’S definition of materials is

29
very broad, including everything other than food and drugs, from

exploration to extraction, processing, manufacturing, application,

and recovery or disposal. Approximately $1 billion of FY 76

funding by 18 Federal agencies is identified in its computerized

inventory. It can easily be searched to analyze the adequacy of

programs in relation to national goals, specific missions. functions or stages in the materials life cycle, and materials categories, The excellent help provided by Battelle Columbus Laboratories in this pioneering effort is gratefully acknowledged.

Time does not permit my presenting the inventory data in

greater detail. However, the COMAT report, which you now

have, can be effectively utilized in identifying the breadth and

depth of the Government’s current materials R&D program, and

relating that information to the issues before this Conference,

This factual data base, on the Government’s materials R&D

spending as identified by specific areas, provides us with the

means of analyzing and authoritatively recommending courses of

action. The Phase 11 part of this inventory on industry’s materials

R&D, when completed, will provide us with the total national

activity. We recommend that the COMAT inventory be used as

widely as possible for effective and productive planning purposes.

30
CONGRESS AND THE ENGINEERING FOUNDATION

CONFERENCES

by Emilio Q. Daddario, Director

Office of Technology Assessment

US. Congress

Ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor and a pleasure to be with

you today at this fourth Henniker Conference on National

Materials Policy, The title of this Conference, “Engineering

Implications of Chronic Materials Scarcity,” highlights our concern for the best use of the world’s materials supplies and the

developing need for a US. national materials policy.

The need for an early warning mechanism, not only for

materials but for other problems as well, was realized by Congress and a large part of the public some time ago. Technology

could no longer be applied without an understanding of its

ramifications—both good and bad. This realization was the

motivating force behind the creation of the Office of Technology

Assessment.

This same need for an early warning mechanism to develop

and focus a national materials policy has helped to shape the

work of past I-Ienniker conferences, and hopefully will continue

to be the backbone of future Henniker conferences. It is quite fair

to say, due to the scope of these conferences and the development of a dialog among experts in the materials field, that the

result of previous Henniker conferences has been a wider participation and a better understanding between the public and private

sectors.

As you know, some of OTA’s initial assessments are concerned

with the problem of materials supply and the availability of

natural resources. One of these, a program in the area of material

resources, will be discussed shortly by the OTA Program Manager for Materials, Dr. Albert Paladino. Other OTA assessments

are in the important areas of world food supplies, ocean technologies, and the overall energy situation. The selection of these

assessment topics by OTA’s governing congressional body, the

Technology Assessment Board, is responsive to the priorities set

by Congress in expressing its need for legislative assistance.

Congressional Use of Henniker Conference Findings

During the 94th Congress, approximately 150 bills have been

introduced dealing with materials subjects. These bills range

from specific topics of materials durability, solid waste disposal,

and the authorization to dispose of materials from the national

31
stockpile to the broader, more sweeping subjects of the need for a

national materials policy or the establishment of a “Commission

on Materials Research and Operations. ” Before looking at one of

these bills in detail, I’d like to touch on the role Henniker has

played and the response Congress has shown to the findings and

results of past Henniker sessions.

The first Henniker Conference on National Materials Policy,

held in 1970, discussed the topic of “Materials Problems and

Issues,” The proceedings of this conference were published by

the Senate Committee on Public Works. This Committee was

instrumental in drafting the bill that created the National Commission on Materials Policy, which was signed into law approximately two months after the first Henniker Conference.

The second Henniker Conference on National Materials

Policy, held in 1972, was entitled “Resolving Some Selected

Issues,” Participants of this conference included the Chairman

and Executive Director of the National Commission on Materials

Policy, the Director of the National Bureau of Standards, and

members of the Interagency Council for Materials. The findings

and concerns of this conference were put to use by the 93rd Congress. They were read into the Congressional Record and later

cited on the Senate floor during the debate of S. 3279, a bill to establish a National Commission on Supplies and Shortages, as

justification for such a commission. This bill would establish a

temporary commission to keep tabs on materials, serve as an

early warning system in case of threatened dislocations, propose

solutions, and design a permanent institution for congressional

and executive consideration.

The concept of such a commission was first introduced in 1952

by the Paley Commission, the U.S. President’s Materials Policy

Commission, and was again advocated by the National Commission on Materials Policy in 1973, a year after the second Henniker

Conference. This bill was passed by Congress and became Public

Law 93-426 on September 30, 1974. Since that time, the National

Commission on Supplies and Shortages has been active in research looking to the development of public policy.

The third Henniker Conference, in August 1974, examined

various options for implementing a national materials policy. It

emphasized the need for reliable and accessible information on

all aspects of materials management; called attention to the interdependence of nations with regard to the production and

exchange of materials; and explored opportunities for materials

conservation, recycling, and the improved use of institutions for

materials management, Many of the topics for discussion and

analysis–for example, “Stockpiling for the Future: A Commentary on Ways that a National Stockpile Could Be Socially

32
Beneficial,” and “Materials Information, An Examination of The

Adequacy of Existing Systems”- received congressional attention, As a result of this concern, Congress asked the Office of

Technology Assessment to assess the impacts of stockpiling for

economic purposes and to analyze the adequacy of present

materials information systems for the technology of materials

supply, processing, and uses, Thus, both the stockpiling assessment and the assessment of materials information systems,

which have recently been completed by OTA, had their genesis

in the third Henniker Conference.

National Materials Policy Legislation

But technology assessments are just one way that Congress is

responding to materials-related issues. The many bills dealing

with materials subjects introduced in the 94th Congress illustrate

the type and scope of problems facing Congress in the materials

arena, and reveal how Congress has chosen to respond to these

problems.

On June 17, 1976, Congressman James Symington, Chairman of

the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, together with Congressman Charles Mosher, ranking

minority member of the subcommittee, introduced H.R. 14439,

the “National Materials Policy, Research, and Organizational Act

of 1976. ” This bill, if passed, would 1) establish a national

materials policy for the United States, 2) create a materials research and development capability, 3) improve the flow of new

scientific and technological information arising from materials

research, and 4) provide an organizational structure for the effective application of such research capability, These four components of the bill are awesome and require careful planning and

analysis if they are to be implemented and coordinated into the

present working materials cycle.

H.R. 14439 proposes to establish in the Executive Office of the

President a “National Materials Policy Board” chaired by a

Special Assistant to the President for Materials Policy. Members

of the Board would include the Director of the Office of Science

and Technology Policy, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the Executive Director of the Domestic Council, the

Chairman of the Undersecretaries’ Committee of the National

Security Council, and not more than eight public members

appointed by the President. This Board would advise the President with respect to alternative methods of implementing

materials policy; recommend programs to implement policy; and

review and recommend to the President appropriate actions re -

33
garding programs in the Federal budget affecting national

materials policy.

To implement the findings of the “National Materials Policy

Board” would be the function of the “Commission on Materials

Research and Operations,” composed of a number of cabinet officers, the Director of the National Science Foundation, administrators of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

and the Energy Research and Development Administration, and

two public members appointed by the President to serve as

Chairman and Vice Chairman. The Commission would review

programs recommended by the Board to implement national

materials policy and establish such programs which seem

appropriate. Such programs would include, for example, the

development of information systems relating to the materials

cycle or the encouragement of proper and efficient use and reuse

of materials, including assistance to industry in carrying out such

programs.

H.R, 14439 would also create a “Select Congressional Committee on National Materials Policy” in each House of Congress,

composed of Members from standing committees having jurisdiction over material problems, Each Select Committee would be

composed of 14 Members, 7 Republican, 7 Democratic, These

“Select Committees” would assess changes recommended by the

President in national materials policy, review recommendations

of the “Commission on Materials Research and Operations, ” and

study and review broad questions of national materials policy.

This bill is currently pending before the House Committee on

the Judiciary, the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on

Science and Technology, Executive comment is now being

received from a number of Federal agencies, An identical Senate

bill, S. 3637, was introduced on June 29, 1976, by Senator Frank

Moss, who explained at the time that “The bill offers an excellent

starting point for what I would like to see become a national discussion, I hardly need remind my colleagues of the considerable

energy which has been needlessly expended, the sidestepping

and false starts which might have been avoided, or the cohesion

and comprehensiveness which have been so seriously lacking in

so many of our national debates because of this very failure to

promote and administer a full-scale materials/resource policy.

The bill provides a vehicle which can go far in alleviating a host

of problems which have beset this country ever since we realized

that the world’s goods and services are scarce indeed and finite to

be sure,”

The need for a national materials policy has been emphasized

from the beginning with the work of the Paley Commission in

34
1952, by the Boyd Commission in 1973, in the proceedings of the

three past Henniker Conferences, and in numerous publications

of the National Academy of Science/Academy of Engineering,

like the study by the Committee on Mineral Resources and the

Environment (COMRATE),

Thus, for the past 25 years, materials experts in both the public

and private sector have been pointing out to Congress the need

for an overall national materials policy. While Congress has

generally responded to specific materials needs by enacting or at

least proposing limited action programs–the labeling of products, transport of dangerous substances, recycling of municipal

wastes, research in novel energy materials, and so on — it has

only been in recent years that Congress has begun to respond to

the overall materials picture. The establishment of the National

Commission on Materials Policy, the National Commission on

Supplies and Shortages, and the Office of Technology Assessment has provided Congress with three mechanisms for anticipating future materials problems.

As I see it, the role of the National Commission on Supplies

and Shortages is to address the more specific question of what

institutions and provisions of Government are needed to assure

American industry a smooth and reliable flow of essential

materials under an orderly pricing structure. The role of the

OTA, on the other hand, is longer-ranged. OTA is charged with

addressing such questions as: 1) How could the Congress proceed, in the foreseeable future, to meet the policy needs of the

United States in the field of materials management and materials

technology? and 2) How do we relate our management of

materials to full employment, economic soundness, the preservation of our environment, the frugal but adequate use of energy,

and our relations with other countries?

Such questions need to be addressed, and here at Henniker

both the institutional and supply/demand questions of the Commission and the broad legislative policy questions of OTA are of

concern, Your role in this continuing improvement of communication is essential to this ongoing process, and your past

record of involvement gives you sound credentials to affect our

materials policy.

Before turning the podium over to Dr. Paladino, who will discuss materials assessments for Congress and the role the Office

of Technology Assessment Materials Program plays in those

assessments, I should like to close by expressing my appreciation

for your participation, It is the “spirit of Henniker,” the working

together of materials experts from all fields and backgrounds,

that has provided a support base of vital information for our

work.

35
II. Special Featured Papers

MONDAY NIGHT LECTURE

DECISIONMAKING IN INDUSTRY AND ITS

IMPLICATIONS FOR ENERGY AND OTHER RESOURCES

by H. J, Pick

Professor of Materials Technology

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Aston, Birmingham, England

Engineering materials are always a means to an end: the

manufacture of a product, Any criterion for assessing their

utility, from the point of view of performance or of economics,

must be derived from this basic fact.

Metals technology exists to make objects of metal or objects

containing metal; plastics technology to make objects of plastics

or objects containing plastics; concrete technology to make

objects of concrete or containing concrete. These technologies

involve a whole range of activities, including the winning of raw

materials and all aspects of the transformation of these into final

products— with processes; with plant; with skills and know-how;

with the design and manufacture, performance and profitable

marketing of products; and with relevant aspects of the infrastructure. The full optimisation of a technology will be possible

only if all these factors are considered, and this applies equally at

all levels of economic activity.

The objective of the present paper is to place materials in the

context of some other aspects of manufacturing technology and

of the resources required for manufacture. Its concern is primarily with materials and industries in which economic considerations play a major role.

Competition in the Metals Industry

The need to consider a whole variety of facets of manufacturing technology may be illustrated by examining the nature of the

competition facing metals and the metals industries as a consequence of the introduction of new materials,

It is commonly believed that many metal markets are safe because metals possess unique properties and combinations of

37
properties. This statement may be true for a limited number of

specialised applications with tight constraints on weight, size,

performance, or processing. However, in many cases, perhaps in

the majority of cases, it is possible to create designs based on any

of a wide range of materials. The decision whether to use metals

or other materials, or indeed one alloy rather than another, will

be determined primarily by economic considerations, in which

the processes and cost of manufacture will be the major factor.

It is, for example, perfectly feasible to design automobile

bodies of similar performance on the basis of steel, aluminium,

foamed polyurethane, fibre-glass, or of several of these in combination. Automobile performance apart, the material or combination of materials selected will be the one giving the lowest

final product cost, Steel will be selected if the summation of the

costs of all the processes necessary to convert iron ore into a car

body is less than the summation of analogous process costs for

the competing materials, The competitive position of materials is

seen to depend on a whole range of factors influencing process

costs in both the materials-using and in the materials-producing

industries: such factors as scale of operation, percentage of process waste, cost of plant and tooling, productivity of capital and

labour, cost of energy, etc. —each of which will vary with time

and place, and with the degree of technical and managerial skill

and sophistication.

Within the present general pattern of metals technology, productivity improvement in the metal-producing industries will,

through its effect on costs and prices, clearly play a major role in

the competitive position of metals. But attention to this aspect

alone may not suffice to protect metal markets. One of the big

advantages claimed for plastics in the manufacture of motor-car

bodies, for example, is a very much lower tool-up cost per model.

The invention and development of a lower-cost tooling system

for steel could therefore be as important a factor in defending this

market as an improvement in the properties or a decrease in the

price of steel strip.

The factors controlling the substitution of one material for

another is often seen to be less a matter of one material competing with another than of the processes associated with one

material competing with the processes associated with the

other— the sand casting of cast iron with the pressure die casting

of aluminium; the pressure die casting of metals with the injection moulding of plastics; sheet and plate metal work with the

casting, lay-up, rotational moulding, vacuum forming techniques,

and so on for plastics and composites.

Consideration of the whole of final product engineering, of

design as well as of manufacturing aspects, and of the relation of

38
these to each other, will often be a prerequisite to the full

exploitation of a material, and thus to the maintenance of its

competitiveness, This may be illustrated by again referring to

motor car bodies. One of the more promising methods of producing these is by the casting of self-foaming, self-skinning

polyurethane, Awareness of the simple fact that the production

of a relatively thick foam section could compensate for the low

Young’s modulus, and for the relatively high cost per unit

volume of the solid plastic, has here led to the development of a

completely new materials system. Is it possible that the

aluminium industry might have captured some of the market

now held by plastics by the successful development of analogous

processes?

The importance of effective final-product engineering in establishing the competitive position of a material will obviously be

affected by prices, but a 20 percent price reduction would be of

no greater benefit than any improvements in quality, design, and

manufacturing ingenuity or in design data or codes of practice,

which would allow a decrease of 20 percent in the amount of

metal required for the manufacture of the final product. The

competition between materials is seen not to be so much a competition between alternative lumps of stuff, as between the

whole of the technologies associated with the competing

materials.

Many products, now, and probably to an increasing extent in

the future, consist of systems of two or more materials, rather

than of a single material. The steel industry already has a large

market in construction by providing the materials for frameworks and for the reinforcement and pre-stressing of structures

in which other materials are used to fulfill functions for which

they are more appropriate, One so-called “all-plastic” car had a

bumper made from bent tubular steel with rubber moulded

around it. Some designs for plastic cars described by British Ley -

land are based on tubular steel frameworks and plastic body

panels. The framework-reinforcement concept is again being

sensibly employed to produce a design and manufacturing

system combining the advantages of steel, its high strength and

stiffness, with the ease of shaping plastics.

As materials are always a means to an end, it follows that the

“qualities” and “properties,” the attributes in terms of which

materials are commonly characterised, have no absolute virtue.

An attractive surface finish is of no value in objects which are

not required to satisfy aesthetic requirements; a high-tensilestrength material has no advantage in a compressive member; a

corrosion-resistant material has no advantage in a product which

can readily be protected from corrosion. A material with a high

39
ultimate tensile strength offers no advantage in making a component which is likely to fail under notch fatigue conditions, nor

one with a high Young’s modulus for making a component which

can readily be thickened or reinforced to allow a cheaper, low

Young’s modulus material to be used.

The requirement for optimizing materials is relevance and

utility, and in descriptions of what is relevant and useful, consideration must be given to the processes of manufacture, indeed

to the whole of the technology associated with materials, as well

as to the commercial and economic environment in which they

are used.

Materials, Manufacturing Processes, and the Economy

How do materials relate to manufacturing processes, to the

economy, and to other resources? Consider first the sequence of

processes for the progressive conversion of iron ore into final

products shown in table 1. The sequence confirms the earlier

statement that materials and processes are inseparable aspects of

manufacturing. Indeed, it is not obvious what a “material” is. The

operator of each of the process stages will tend to call his input a

“material” and his output a “product.”

There are many stages in the sequence, and it follows that

yield—the ratio of input to output —pIays an important role in resource consumption. This may be seen from table Z, which shows

the weight of material input required per ton of final output in a

hypothetical lo-stage sequence with equal yields, in each of

which an input weight “a” is required per ton of final output, If

“a” = 1.1, then producing 1 ton of final output requires an input

of (1.1)10 = 2,6 equivalent tons at the first stage. Improving the

yield so as to reduce “a” to 1.05 reduces the input requirement at

stage 1 to (1.05)10 = 1.6 equivalent tons.

Many of the processes used in manufacturing waste materials. In the engineering industries, up to half, and sometimes more, of the materials purchased are turned into scrap during processes such as machining, forging, and stamping, This

wastefulness is of importance not only in the direct way, but also

indirectly for a wide range of manufacturing resources such as

manpower and capital, and of natural resources such as energy

and materials, In the United Kingdom (U.K.), for example, more

than 3 x 1 0

6 tons of the 16.3 tons of steel bought by the engineering industries in 1968 were resold, not in the form of products,

but as process scrap. This means that roughly one in five blast

furnaces, one in five steelmaking furnaces, one in five rolling

mills, etc., are employed in making steel which will be degraded

to scrap in later stages of manufacturing. Not only is a proportion

40
TABLE I, –Sequence of Processes and Intermediate Products Involved

in the Manufacture of Final Products From Steel

Mining and

beneficiation

I

Iron ore

(plus coke, limestone, and sinter)

I

Blast furnace

I

Pig iron

(plus ferro alloys, scrap, and fluxes)

I

Steel making processes

I

Teeming

I

Primary cogging mill

I

Bloom

I

Rerolling

I

Billet

I

Rerolling

I

Hot-rolled products

I

(black bar, hot-rolled strip)

I

Pickling

I

Cold roll or cold draw

I

Cold-finished products

I

Machining, pressing, etc.

I

Engineering components

(car. bodies, machine parts, etc.)

I

Assembly and finishing

I

Final products

4 1
—

TABLE 2. – Weight of Material Input Required Per Ton of Final Output

in a 10-Stage Process Sequence With a Ratio of

input weigh t = a; for a = 1.05 and 1.1

output weight

o 1.0 1.6 2.6 tons

❑ Waste

Source: Becker and Pick (1975).

of steelmaking capacity thus wasted, but so also is a corresponding proportion of the labour, electricity, coal and coke, etc., required for steelmaking. In addition, a proportion of the electricity

generating, coal mining, and coke oven equipment which produced the wasted electricity, coal, and coke, is also wasted, as are

some of the trucks and trains which take the steel to the

engineering industries,

But even this is not the whole story, for the waste is spread to

those industries which produced this capital equipment. The

waste of steel by the engineering industries thus in turn implies a

waste of some of the concrete, aluminium, rubber, plastics, and

indeed of the steel required to make this capital equipment,

Clearly, any reduction in material waste in the manufacture of

final products could contribute much to conserve a wide range of

resources.

This stresses the importance of design, as is illustrated by the

simple example of table 3, which shows the effect of different

design approaches on the input of material required for the

manufacture of a given product. It also stresses the importance of

material specifications: what is specified by an engineering firm

will often have a profound influence on upstream process yield

and process costs, a matter emphasized by M. Cohen and W. S.

42
TABLE 3.– The Effect of Design und Manufacturing Method on the

Input Weight Required To Produce a Component Having a Volume of 8

Cubic Inches

Volume of shaft: 8 in 7

a Machined from solid

b Sleeved

1 1

I I

c Upset or cold-formed

I I

_ Materlal wasted

Volume of material required:

a 18 in3 b 9in3: c 8 in3 

Owen (1975) in a review of the probable directions of steel

development in the future.

An impression of the resources consumed in conversion may

be obtained, if it is assumed that prices are approximately equal

to costs (price = costs + profits) and a steel sequence in which

United Kingdom (U. K.) 1975 prices are given is shown in table 4,

This illustrates that the cost of materials as purchased by the

engineering industries is really a summation of upstream process

costs. The original iron ore, a very high proportion of which is

now imported into the U. K., accounts for a relatively small proportion of the total cost of final products. An analogous pattern is

seen in table 5, which shows 1963 world output of aluminum in

both quantity and value terms.

Material costs, then, are a summation of the costs of the factors

of production, The range of these is diagrammatically illustrated in

4 3
TABLE 4. — Steel Sequence, Showing Approximate 1975 U.K. Prices

Molten Steel

TABLE 5.– The Build-Up of Value in the Progressive Conversion

Bauxite to Wrought Semifinished AJuminum Products

World Aluminum Production--1963

VALUE ADDED VALUE OF OUTPUT AT VARIOUS PROCESSING STAGES

INCREASE VALUE IN

PROCESS PRODUCT TONS iN VALUE DOLLARS

(MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (millions)

Mining BAUXITE

[$8/ton) 30 240 240

ORE ALUM! 14A

REFtNiNG ($75/ton} 12 680 900

A1.UMINUM primary

SMELTiNG ingo t

ANO 6 . 1800 2700

REFINING ($450/ton)

FABRICATING Wrought

AND Semi s

CASTiNG CASTINGS 6 3300
table 6, which shows the inputs to a single stage of a process

sequence, and also draws attention to the fact that resources are

required for transport and storage between stages, The fact that a

wide range of inputs is required for material conversion also

means that total conversion costs are cushioned against a price

change in any one, This is illustrated in table 7, which shows how

the effect of 1972 oil price increases was diluted in the production

of plastics products.

Prices, as has already been mentioned, reflect costs, and hence

resource consumption, Relative price movements tend to reflect

relative changes in technology and the efficiency of resource

conversion. A chart showing the relative price movements of

various U.S.A. goods between 1947 and 1970 is reproduced in

table 8, which depicts the poor relative performance of metals

and metal products during the period, This reflects the fact that

improvements in process efficiency have been achieved only at

the expense of very high expenditures on capital, According to

Drucker (1969), this reflects a stale technology.

TABLE 6, –Symbolic Representation of Physical inputs Into

Manufacturing Processes

PROCESS

4 5
TABLE 7, –Conversion Sequence for the Manufacture of Some Plastics

Products, Showing the Percentage Increase in Price of Downstream

Products Resulting From a 300 Percent Increase

in the Price of Crude Oil

Crude Oil Naptha* (+300%)

\

TABLE 8. – U.S.A. Price Changes in Various Products Between the

Years 1947-1970

Fuels

Materials & components

for construction

Motor vehicles & equipment

Materials for food manufacturing

Chemicals & allied products

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs

1947 1957 1970

Source: Data from the Economic: Report of the President, 1971.

46
Description of Materials Flow Patterns

The flow of resources in materials conversion needs to be considered in the wider setting of the economy as a whole, and this

may be done by reference to table 9, prepared for a forthcoming

report on engineering materials for the U,K.'s National Economic

Development office. The hollow arrows in this table show the

flows which are normally considered to be the materials/engineering stream of manufacture. Leaving aside the question of

‘defense, it is presumably an objective of a national materials

policy to take initiatives and precautionary measures which are

likely to have an impact significant in the context of pattern of

flows, or to create new knowledge and understanding to support

such initiatives,

It is now proposed to indicate some features of this pattern of

flow which may be of assistance in judging what is economically

significant. The question of materials supply is being covered in

other conference papers, thus only aspects of conversion beyond

the raw materials stage will be considered.

First is the question of the destination of the output of the

materials industries. Table 10, based on work by Becker (1976),

then a Research Fellow in the author’s University IAston], during

a period as visiting Fellow at Brandeis University, shows that

ENERGY

ENERGY AND INDUSTRIES

ENERGY

MATERIALS CHEMICAL

INDUSTRIES

FORESTRY

LAND

AGRICULTURE

SEA FISHERY

PLANT AND

MACHINERY

FOOD,

PHARMACEUTICAL,

AND OTHER

CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

47
— ——

TABLE 10. –Destination of the Output of the U.S.A. Materials

Industries by Categories of Final Demand

consumer expenditure in the U.S.A. accounts for 42 percent of

the demand for materials, capital formation being next in importance, accounting for some 26 percent.

For a given level of conversion efficiency, the requirement for

materials depends on the level of final demand; one possible response to material shortages is to reduce the level of final

demand. But the materials content of various levels of final

demand is not the same, as maybe seen from the data in table II.

The materials content of consumer expenditure is, for example,

only 12 cents per dollar, compared with 32 cents per dollar for

capital formation. Any government measures leading to a

uniform change in expenditure, spread across all categories of

final expenditure, would have a much bigger effect on material

consumption via the capital goods industries than on materials

demand via consumer expenditure.

One of the most important features of the flows in table 8 is

that the “materials” flows indicated by hollow arrows are inter4 8
TABLE II. — Materials Content of the Purchases by Various Categories

of Final Demand

Source: Becker (1976c)
I
Materials-producing industries (a)

Materials-using industries (b)
TABLE I3.– Relationship Between Direct Materials and Capital

Required To Produce $1 Million of Output in 1967

TABLE 14,–Relationship Between Direct Materials and Labor

Required To Produce $1 Million of Gross Output in 1967

in Various U.S. Industries

52
Table 15 gives an overall impression of the value of machinery

and the thousands of man-hours required to produce a million

dollar’s worth of output in 1967. Any industry near the origin will

be relatively efficient in the use of both these resources, It is seen

that motor vehicles are again the best performer, and iron and

steel foundries the worst. as assessed by this admittedly crude

criterion.

TABLE 15. — Relationship Between Capital and Labor Requircments

for the Production of $1 Million of Output in 1967

in Various U.S. Industries

Materials Interdependence

The interdependence of materials with other resources may

also be illustrated by reference to the role of energy in materials

conversion. Table 16 shows that the primary conversion industries are the dominant energy consumers in manufacturing, with

the primary metal industries in the lead, followed closely by the

chemical industry, with two other materials groups (stone clay

and glass products, and paper) also high on the list. Numerical

values for the uses of fuels and purchased electricity in the U.S.

material producing industries are given in table 17.
TABLE 16.– Purchased Energy Used in Manufacturing for Major

Industry Groups: 1962, 1958 and 1954

Kilowatt Hours Equivalent

Billions

o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Primary Metal Industries

Chemicals and Allied

Products

Petroleum and Coal Products

Stone, Clay, and Glass

Products

Paper and Allied Products

Food and Kindred Products

Transportation Equipment

Textile Mill Products

Machinery, Except Electrical

Fabricated Metal Products

Electrical Machinery

Rubber and Plastic

Products, NEC

Lumber and Wood Products

Miscellaneous Manufacturing

Including Ordnance

Printing and Publishing

Instruments and Related

Products

Furniture and Fixtures

Apparel and Related

Products

Leather and Leather

Products

Tobacco Manufactures

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Billions

Source: US. Census of Manufactures for 1963.

Energy purchases by the engineering industries, even by the

huge transportation equipment industry (which includes land,

sea, and air transport equipment), is relatively small. But this

relatively low direct purchase of energy by the engineering

industries is clearly only part of the story, For in order to assess

the total energy content of the products of an engineering firm, it

is also necessary to take account of the indirect purchases of the

energy used by its suppliers of materials and components, of

54
TABLE 17. – U.S.A. Consumption of Fuel and Electrical Energy, 1963

(Taken from U.S. Census of Manufactures)

All manufacturing industries. ... ., . . . . . . . . 6370 3410 2960

Materials and industries:

Lumber and wood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 115 68

Paper and paper products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472 305 167 ‘

Rubber and plastics, ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 44 83

Stone, clay, and glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 403 173

Primary metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1389 858 530

Fabricated metal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 100 139

Total for materials Industries . . . 2988 1825 1160

Materials industrles as percentage

of all manufacturing industries . 47% 53% 39%

capital and transport equipment, and of services. As these suppliers in turn have their suppliers, a complex summation is required to assess total (= direct + indirect) requirements, Account

must be taken of all the energy used by upstream firms in

sequences of the kind illustrated in table 1,

This total, direct plus indirect, flow of energy may readily be

computed by the use of industrial transaction matrices as

published by most industrialised countries in the form of InputOutput tables. The results of such a calculation for the U.K. are

shown in table 18, from which it is evident that for each of the

industry groups, energy purchases via materials are considerably

higher than direct energy purchases. And the results given in

table 18 are likely to be conservative, since, for reasons of

simplicity in calculation, they do not include the energy required

to produce imported materials and to transport them to the U.K.

Nor do they take account of the energy used to produce the

capital stock of the materials producing and engineering industries.

Analogous results for U.S. automobile production were reported by Hirst (1972) who estimated that a direct purchase of

5,850 Btu/dollar of automobiles shipped was matched by an

indirect purchase of 48,420 Btu/dollar shipped via materials and

55
TABLE 18. – U.K. Direct and Indirect Purchase of All Energy by the

Engineering-Type industries in 1968

other supplies. Among these, iron and steel play a dominant role

because these account for the bulk of the weight of the automobile.

From the above description, it follows that there is an intimate

relation between the way materials are produced and used in

design and production, and the use of national resources. It will

also be evident that there is a gearing effect in the way in which

materials are used: in the earlier discussion of the consequences

of waste in engineering manufacture, it was shown that such

waste produces ripples having effects on resource utilisation at

points remote from the point of actual decisionmaking.

From the preceding description of the relation between

materials and energy, it follows that any changes in specification,

design, or manufacture of automobiles which would lead to

reduction in weight would also have widespread consequences

for energy requirements throughout the economy, partly through

the obvious saving of fuel in running automobiles, but also

through savings in materials manufacture, capital stock, etc., of

the kind just described. Technical changes of this kind provide a

large reserve-in-principle which could, given time for re-equipment, be used in the face of resource constraints, But, as such

changes would also lead to a decrease in economic activity and to

a change in social habits, their implementation, although widely

discussed in the materials literature, in fact becomes an issue for

industrial and social strategy rather than for materials policy as

such,

56
Manufacturing Requirements of Materials

In this final section of the paper, it is proposed to consider the

relation between specific materials and the resources of energy,

capital, labour, and imports used in their manufacture. This may

conveniently be done by using the concept of resource “intensities, ” which may be defined as the value of a particular resource required to produce a dollar’s worth of the output of a particular material.

For reasons previously discussed, it is necessary to take

account of both direct and indirect requirements of a particular

resource in order to assess the intensity of that resource in the

manufacture of a material. For example, of the crude oil and

natural gas required for the manufacture of plastics, very little

reaches the plastics industry directly in the form of crude oil: 27

percent of it reaches it in the form of refined oil, 55 percent as

chemicals, 5 percent as electricity, 2 percent as transport, and the

remaining 11 percent in other forms. Altogether, 3.2 cents of

crude oil and natural gas need to be produced in order to produce

one dollar’s worth of plastics, but this will reach the plastics

industry only after being processed into other forms, as indicated

in the previous sentence. Three and two-tenths cents per dollar is

the crude oil plus natural gas intensity of plastics materials.

Extensive investigations of the total energy requirements for

materials manufacture have been carried out in recent years, the

most thorough probably those on behalf of the recent National

Commission on Materials Policy. But values for resource intensities may also be read off directly from the total requirements

matrix of published input/output tables, They have been plotted

by Becker in easily interpretable form in tables 19 to 21. The first

of these shows in the left-hand diagram of table 19, the intensities

of crude oil and natural gas consumption by the various U.S.

materials industries in 1967. As expected, the plastics industry is

the most intensive user of these fuels, followed closely by paint,

while other materials such as steel have a relatively low intensity. (From this it is possible, for example, to infer that any increase in the price of crude oil and natural gas will place plastics

at a competitive disadvantage with products containing a smaller

percentage of these fuels.)

In order to assess the effect of these resource intensities on the

economy as a whole, however, it is necessary also to take account

of the gross output of the various materials industries, and these

are illustrated in table 19. These tables show that the primary

metal industries, and in particular the primary steel industry,

have an output considerably in excess of, for example, the

plastics industry. The result is that, although steel has a relatively

57
0
low oil and gas intensity, the overall effect on the economy of a

price increase in these fuels would be greater via steel than via

plastics.

The middle diagram of table 19 shows the total (direct plus

indirect) expenditure on oil and gas of the various industries

listed, The right-hand diagram is analogous to the central one,

but it only shows the oil and gas content of the output of the

various materials industries, which has its destination in

engineering and construction, From this it is seen that any price

increase in oil and gas has its major effect via steel, nonferrous

metals, and building materials. Analogous data for some other resources are plotted in tables 20 and 21, It is not proposed to

analyze these in detail, but reference may be made to the case of

labor to indicate that the labor intensities of different materials

are not very widespread. But there are differentials. Wood, for

example, is more labor-intensive than plastics, with the consequence that any uniform increase in wage rates would lead to

greater price rise in wood than in plastics.

The foregoing discussion will have demonstrated that each

type of material has specific quantifiable implications for a wide

range of resources, which will be different from those required in

the manufacture of other materials.

It is therefore of interest to assess here the effects of material

substitution on the requirement of other resources. For the economy as a whole, these may again be calculated by the use of

input/output analysis, Becker has developed a method of presenting the results of such a computation in the form of what he

terms “Resource Isoquants,” A series of these, indicating the

effects of the substitution of plastics for steel on capital stock, on

labor, and on oil and gas, is shown in table 23. These isoquants

are plotted to enable the aggregated effect of substitution on resources to be assessed for a range of substitution ratios (i.e., the

number of dollars’ worth of plastic required to substitute for one

dollar’s worth of steel).

From table 23 it is thus seen that a substitution of $0.95 dollars

of plastic for steel would have no effect on capital stock, while a

substitution of 20 percent at a substitution ratio of 2 would lead to

an increase in the requirements of capital stock by over $8 billion.

Similarly, as plastics and steel have roughly the same labor intensity, substitution on a one-to-one basis in money terms would

have relatively little effect on employment. To substitute a dollar’s worth of plastic for a dollar’s worth of steel would require an

increase in the labor force. Plastics are very much more oil and

gas intensive than steel, Any substitution which required more

than about 40 cents’ worth of plastic per dollar of steel would

lead to an increased consumption of these fuels,
. “
TABLE 21. –Capital Content of Materials. Labour Content of Materials

Capital Content of Materials

Ferrous Ore

Nonferrous Ore

Quarrying

Wood

Paper

Plastic

Paint

Rubber

Leather

Glass

Bulldlng Mats

Steel

Nonferrous Metal

Ferrous Ore

Nonferrous Ore

Quarrying

wood

Paper

Plastic

Paint

Rubber

Leather

Glass

Bulldlng Mats

Steel

Nonferrous Metal

Intensity

0

-

$

I

t I 1 I 1 I 1

1

I

I

I 1

1’

I

For Gross Output

‘ P

Labour Content of Materials

For Groes Output

0.5 1.0 1.5 M

“ r

man-years

For Engineering and Construction

o 05 1.0 1.5 M

I

man-year.
TABLE 22.– Value Added and Value of Shipments of a Number of

U.S.A. Industries in 1967

Value of Value

SIC. Industry Shipments Added

$106 $106

24

26

282

2851

30

31

32

33

34

25

35

36

37

38

39

19

20

All manufacturing

Lumber and wood products

Paper and allied products

Plastics, materials synthetics

Paints and allied products

Rubber and plastics products, n.e.c.

Leather and leather products

Stone. clay, and glass products

Primary metal industries

Fabricated metal products

Furniture and fixtures

Machinery, except electrical

Electrical equipment

Transportation equipment

Instruments and related products

Miscellaneous manufacturing industries

Ordnance and accessories

Food

Textiles, etc.

557 265

11 5

21 9

7 4

3 1

13 7

5 3

14 8

47 20

35 18

8 4

48 28

43 24

69 28

11 6

9 5

11 6

84 27

Remainder

Value of Value

S.I.C, Industry Shipments Added

$106

$106

2821 Plastics materials and resins 3-5 1-6

2822 Synthetic rubber 0-9 0-4

3011 Tyres and inner tubes 3-7 1-8

3069 Fabricated rubber products. n.e.c. 3-1 1-7

3079 Miscellaneous plastics products 5-4 3-0

331 Blast furnace and basic steel products 23-1 10-2

332 Iron and steel foundries 4-3 2-6

333 Primary nonferrous metals 3-7 1-4

3341 Secondary nonferrous metals 1-6 0-3

335 Nonferrous rolling and drawing 9-9 3-3

336 Nonferrous foundries 1-9 1-1

3541 Machine tools. metal-cutting types 2-1 1-4

3542 Machine tools. metal-forming types 0-7 0-4

371 Motor vehicles and equipment 40-3 13-7

372 Aircraft and parts 21-1 11’3

373 Ship and boat building and repairing 3-1 1-7

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Manufactures.

62
0

0

0

0

.Y0

0

63
Finally, it may be of interest to note that any substitution of

materials for one another would have effects not only on total resource requirements, but also on regional requirements, because

the production of various materials tends to be concentrated in

specific regions. This is shown in table 24, drawn by Becker

(1976), the top map of which shows how 915,000 men employed

in the U.S. steel industry are distributed throughout the country.

In addition to the manpower directly employed in the steel

industry, an additional 808,100 men were required to produce the

ore, coal, coke, electricity, and all the other inputs required for

steelmaking. These were distributed as in the second map, Total

employment in steel manufacture and in its supply industries is

shown in the third map on table 24. From these maps it will be

evident that any change in the pattern of steel usage will have an

effect on regional employment, and that the total effect of this

will be greatest in the East North Central and Middle Atlantic

regions,

To assess the effect of changes of this kind on regional employment, one must allow for the fact that these regions are also

characterized by high total population by calculating the regional

intensity of employment for various materials industries (the

proportion of the work force in a region employed in a materials

industry), Maps indicating regional intensities have also been

plotted by Becker, and these are reproduced in table 25, in

which the black bars represent direct employment intensity; the

hollow bars, indirect employment intensity. From these maps it

will be evident that any changes in the use of one material relative to another or to industrial output generally would also have

implications for regional employment,

Concluding Remarks

The field of materials is inseparable from manufacturing processes. The demand for materials is a derived demand depending

on the demand for goods and services and on the efficiency of the

processes involved in converting materials into final products,

For a given volume of goods, the demand will depend on product

and material specification as well as on design and production

skills. The nature and quality of the materials specified in design

will determine the range of resources required for manufacture.

Conversely, design can only take place within the framework of

what is available, feasible, and socially acceptable.

In this paper an attempt has been made to remind the conference of the vast capital stock involved in technology as it is.

From this it follows that there is little short-term flexibility in the

manufacturing system, other than a reduction in economic

64
65
66
—

activity, and that time is needed to effect change on a significant

scale, particularly as any fundamental changes in materials technology will also need to be supported by appropriate changes in

the infrastructure.

One of the themes developed in this paper is the interdependence of materials with other physical resources and with

wider aspects of the industrial, economic, and social environment. Recognition of this interdependence has widespread consequences, At the practical level, any decisions on specifications,

design, or investment at any point in the system will lead to full

optimisation only if account is taken of interactions with other

parts of the system. Recognition of this obvious fact may give rise

to innovative action in industry and to new directions for research and development, At a more general level, the recognition

raises the question whether’ the development and optimisation of

technology, which is largely determined at company level, is

likely to take beneficial long-term directions unless a wider

framework of knowledge and ideas regarding the system as a

whole is also generated. This matter has hitherto tended to be the

province of economists. Perhaps it is time for it to be explored in

engineering terms.

Justifiable concern is often expressed, both in the- United

Kingdom and in the United States, that attention to materials in

Government and industry tends to lack coherence. It is hoped that

the description of interdependence contained in the present

paper will strengthen the case for a coherent approach. At the

same time, in a vast field like materials, a high proportion of the

initiative and of the work will always need to take place at the

level of the particular. It is suggested that obtaining the necessary

coherence at the general level may require not only administrative measures, but the development of a coherent intellectual

framework as well.

References

1. This paper is based on previous publications by the author

and by P. Becker, These are listed below, and reference may be

made to them for details of sources and methods.

PICK, H. J.

1968a “Materials and Processes in Component Production– The Interrelation Between the Requirements of Fabrication Service and Cost. ”

In Avoidance and Failures in Fabrication and Service, Iliffe, London.

67
1968b

1970a

1970b

PICK, H, J.

1973

PICK, H. J.,

1975

1975

BECKER, P.

1976a

1976b

1976c

“The Role of Materials in Engineering and in the

Economy,” Metals and Materials, 1968, Vol. 2, pp.

263-279, 293.

“The Challenge of the New Materials Technology,”

Metals and Materials, Vol. 4, p. 145-151.

“Some Economic Consequences of Technical Decisions,” Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 10,

pp. 301-323.

“The Relation Between Materials and Manufacturing Systems,” Development of Production Systems

and the Need for Further Research, 2nd International Conference on Production Research,

Copenhagen, ed. G. H. Gudnason & E. N. Corlett;

Taylor & Francis, London.

AND BECKER, P.

“Direct and Indirect Uses of Energy and Materials

in Engineering and Construction, ” Applied Energy,

Vol. 1, No. 1.

“Resource Implications of Materials Waste in

Engineering Manufacturing,” Resources Policy, Vol.

1, No. 3.

Materials, Engineering and the Economy: An InputOutput Study of TechnicaJ Decisions in the U. K.,

Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Aston in Birmingham, Birmingham, England.

“The Economic Role of Engineering Materials in

the U. K.” Resources Policy (forthcoming).

James Watt Memorial Lecture, University of Aston.

2, Other References

COHEN, M. & OWEN, W. S.

1955

DRUCKER

1969

HIRST, E.

1972

“A Forward Look at Steel Development,” Proc.

Rosenhain Centenary Conference, p. 223.

P. F,

“The Age of Discontinuity,” Heineman, 1969.

“How Much Overall Energy Does the Automobile

Require?” Automotive Engineering, July 1972.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, Survey of Current Business, Input-output table

given in Vol. 54, No. 2, 1974.

68
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy:

1967, U. S. G. P. O., 1974.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1967 Census of Manufacturers, U. S. G. P. O., 1974.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR

STATISTICS, Employment and Earnings: States and Areas

1939-1972, Bulletin 1370-10.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, Census of Mineral Industries, 1963, Vol. 11, Area Statistics,

P. C3.216/5.

69
THURSDAY NIGHT LECTURE

PLANNING IN AN UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENT

by W. Dale Compton

Vice President –Research, Ford Motor Company

Shortages are a bit like the weather–everyone complains

about them, but no one seems to be able to do much about them.

Short-lived shortages are so common that we have learned to

endure them, perhaps in part because they usually affect only a

small segment of the populace or a minor part of the economy.

If the affected groups happen to have a low political profile, we

oftentimes do not even hear about the problem. The discomfort

or economic strain that these groups experience may be severe,

but if they don’t have the economic or political “muscle,” nothing

much is heard of it.

On the other hand, a major shortage will receive high-level

attention. If there is a danger that the national economy or safety

is threatened, we are bombarded with information and instructions. Following any such event, the headlines are filled with

speculation about the long-term possible danger of international

boycotts or the consequence of exhausting a supply of a natural

resource. While I don’t wish to be insensitive to these issues— for

there is no question that they represent real concerns—the real

issue before this conference is how to reduce the impact of such

events by careful forward planning.

The first step in solving any problem is to recognize that the

problem exists, and this conference has appropriately highlighted

the magnitude of the problem– namely, chronic material shortages.

The next step after recognition of a problem is to try to do

something about it, It is easy to say that the marketplace will handle the problem, or that the Government should intervene in

each case, or that we should have a national strategy that will

preclude the development of such problems.

In fact, none of these answers are adequate. But what can we

 do? perhaps the answer will be nothing or only something very

small; however, at the very least, an answer will be found only if

we understand the total breadth of the problem. It follows, I

believe, that the manner in which we go about searching for an

answer is absolutely crucial. Thus, I would like to share with you

70
a few of my concerns about the way we examine these problems

as well as the mechanisms we try to employ to prevent them.

We have become such a complex, interrelated society that

actions taken by one element of our society can have unexpected

consequences upon another element, particularly when the time

that has intervened between the action and the consequences is

more than a few weeks, The realization that the future can be

adversely affected by today’s decisions has led to increased

efforts to establish a more systematic review of the possible consequences of many of the actions that are being proposed by both

business and Government.

It is this concern for the future that has led to the requirement

for environmental impact statements. This is just one of many

efforts to urge a longer-term look at the consequences and a corresponding reduction in the risks associated with a planned

action — in this case, the environmental consequences of an

action.

The term “technology assessment” has been so well integrated

into the common vocabulary that it is not unusual for the layman

to feel that the long-term consequences of a proposed action are

predictable with a high degree of accuracy.

While this awareness of the need to examine the implications

of the technical issues is important and should be encouraged, I

suspect that the very term “technology assessment” tends to

create the false impression that most issues are dominated by the

technical aspects of the problem. While most of us would probably subscribe to the view that the technical implications are

important, we all too often do not ask how a particular action will

affect our human relationships. This has sometimes been referred to as the “socio-technological” implications of an action.

Perhaps we should emphasize the human aspects even more

by insisting upon a “humanistic assessment” of the various

actions that are planned. The interdependency that exists between Government, industry, and individuals is quite explicit in

many areas, but unfortunately it is very subtle in others. While

we can see the direct effect of some actions with great ease, the

less visible effects are more difficult to handle; hence, we would

do well to recognize the subtleties of some of our other relationships, particularly when the results may not become visible for a

long time into the future. The impact that such action can have

upon the personal well-being of our society is important and

must be considered more fully. This is both a people problem and

a policy problem.

A few examples maybe of value in emphasizing the people-related problems of these materials issues. In the 1960’s, it was perceived at the Federal level that a major deficiency existed in the

71
availability of the number of material scientists who were being

trained in this country, This was indeed correct. As a result of

this concern, a major effort was undertaken to expand the research and the educational capability for materials in a number

of our major universities, Materials Research Laboratories were

subsequently established, The perceived need for materials research of this fundamental nature has now diminished, but these

laboratories are in existence, and are continuing to do excellent

research and graduate outstanding people. Note that I said “the

perceived need” for fundamental research has diminished,

because there is a great effort underway to change the direction

of these laboratories toward more applied activities. I suspect that

the tendency to divert these laboratories is not well conceived,

and ultimately will be found to be in error. The contributions of

these laboratories to the solution of specific applied problems

may not be great, but I think it is likely that the people being

trained will contribute in a major way to finding long-term solutions to our long-term materials problems. Thus, it may turn out

that the basic orientation of these laboratories is extremely

beneficial to finding solutions to the long-term materials needs of

this country.

To take a second example, our national laboratories–reservoirs of tremendous talent and capability—have found it difficult

to move from the objectives of military and space agencies to the

needs of the civilian economy, We have yet to learn how to help

these laboratories move gracefully from an emphasis on nuclear

weapons and defense to civilian, energy-related research, Of

course, we could accept a major disruption in the careers of the

people involved, if we were willing to ignore the human aspects

of this problem. It is essential that we maintain a long-term

perspective of our national needs. We must find ways to change

our national institutions in a fashion that permits a continuity of

interest while responding in a timely fashion to changing

requirements.

Our technical disciplines are no more immune to these problems than are our formal institutions, Consider, for example,

mining engineering and power engineering. Both of these disciplines once languished and had almost disappeared from our

universities, with neither proper support for the research, nor an

interest being displayed in the subject matter by the most

talented and imaginative students. Now, we find a deficiency in

students and an absence of genuine research in these disciplines.

But we cannot train people for positions for which there are no

future opportunities of employment. Neither can we afford to

ignore important technical areas. This is a dilemma that we have

yet to address fully, and in fact we have not found a way to

72
foresee our long-term needs

In addition to the people

for specially trained people.

aspects of these problems, there is

also the issue of how we develop an understanding of the problem itself. If a technology assessment is to have long-term utility,

I would suggest that the following guidelines be carefully

followed.

● A clear distinction between “technological assessment”

and “technological forecasting” must be maintained.

● A short time frame and a stable environment are critical if

the assessment is to be useful.

● An adequate data base must be used if an accurate assessment is to be made,

. An objective assessment requires that no preassumed bias

be allowed to penetrate the assumptions of the study,

It may be helpful to expand upon these points briefly. The

assessment process tends to assume an existing technology and

to explore the ramifications of implementing it. This assumes

that the technology is reasonably well-developed. One cannot establish the technical facts by consensus votes. Hard data on the

particular technology must be available, and generally must be

agreed to by the experts if an assessment is to be useful. This

does not mean that implications drawn from the data will be

universally accepted, In fact, the conclusions may be controversial. After all, one often is dealing with sociological issues, and

the ability to predict social events is at best imprecise. Far too

often, assessing the social implications comes down to a matter of

judgment, rather than to a prescribed means of making a prediction. But the technical data must exist—and must be valid–

before any assessment should be undertaken.

Further, it is basically impossible to anticipate an unusual

event, e.g., the OPEC embargo. Assessments are usually predicated upon an extrapolation of the current status. So, if the time

frame is long, the chance that an unusual event will occur is

great. This suggests that an assessment should be viewed as a living issue, with frequent review and updates to reflect recent

unpredicted events.

Forecasting technological developments is subject to even

more uncertainty than assessing the impact of technology. Technological feasibility can be established with a fair degree of certainty, but the probability of implementation is often not predictable. As a recent example, the Wankel engine was in production

overseas and well on its way to implementation in North America when fuel economy became of increased importance. An

engine that had been shown to be technically feasible suddenly

became of questionable advantage in the product, when the basis

73
for assessment required that different values be assigned to the

various criteria used in making the product decisions.

Thus, the distinction between assessment and forecasting relates closely to the time frame being considered. An attempt to

assess the long-term consequences of an event generally is more

akin to forecasting than to assessment because of the greater

uncertainty in the conclusions and assumptions. A forecast must

be viewed as having less credibility than does an assessment.

Furthermore, it is very tempting to use technology assessment

as a tool for advocating a particular predetermined bias. It is easy

to make the assessment process self-fulfilling by setting up the

proper assumptions. The outcome of an assessment study will

likely be quite different if one asks, “What are the consequences

of Government intervention into the market area?” than if one

asks, “How should the Government intervene to affect this

market?” Either of these questions may be appropriate, but one

must not expect a universal answer to all issues from a single

study.

These concerns do not mean that it is improper to attempt

technology assessment. What they do suggest is that it is important to maintain an awareness of the limitations of the process

and to recognize the dangers inherent in making major long-term

decisions based upon such assessments.

Perhaps one of the greatest difficulties with our system is the

fact that many organizations act as if they were independent,

only to find that their actions strongly influence the options other

organizations could exercise. Let me give one small example. The

federally legislated fuel economy standards for automobiles have

stimulated many of the manufacturers to search for ways to

reduce vehicle weight. The bumper system is one of the systems

that has been carefully reviewed for possible weight reduction,

But in considering what modifications are allowed by the

damageability regulations, it is found that a simple constraint on

bumper rentability may dictate that thin-guage, high-strength,

low-allow steel may not be usable. I seriously doubt that the

inclusion of this constraint on rentability was considered as having any impact upon fuel economy when this regulation was

adopted. While this is just one example, we could list many more.

This just emphasizes that we are a closely coupled society, and

that we must be constantly aware of the possible impact of

seemingly isolated actions upon other segments of our society,

No wonder an adequate assessment is so difficult–if not

impossible,

Let me turn now to what may strike you as being a nonexistent problem, That is, who should do the assessment? It is well

established that the Federal Government, private industry, and

74
the “not-for-profit” organizations regularly undertake assessments with technical input from staffs and individual consultants. But an entire component of the technical community is frequently excluded from such studies–the technical professional

societies. This is such a glaring omission that I would like to

dwell on it for just a moment.

While the professions can identify opportunities for new technical developments as well as potential dangers that may result

from new developments, they seldom have any direct involvement in setting the objectives that are followed by a given segment of the populace or by the governmental agencies. They may

not even be participants in the deliberations. This can be both a

benefit and a frustration to the professional organization. The

separation from the direct, decisionmaking process tends to

remove the professions somewhat from the political process, and

thus allows them to remain concerned with the technical content

of issues, as well as with the more narrow coficern for the wellbeing of their members, and the standards of performance of

those members. But the separation can be a frustration, for the

members may readily perceive of situations in which decisions

are being made without proper concern to the technical issues

and where the true, long-term consequences of the decisions are

not being properly evaluated.

Thus, on the one hand, the profession can benefit from this

detachment, but the public will suffer from the absence of professional involvement. On the other hand, to involve the professional organization in the details of the decisionmaking process

transfers a responsibility to it that it finds hard to cope with, for

few of the professional societies are organized to operate effectively in the political arena. Thus, it is predictable that many professional organizations often withdraw into the seclusion of the

technical issues and refuse to participate actively in controversial

issues. This often leads to decisions being made which have a

future impact upon the well-being of the profession, upon

subelements of the profession, or upon the people who benefit

from the profession without proper consideration being given to

all aspects of the problem being examined.

It seems to me that the regular inclusion of representatives of

the professional societies in the technology assessment process

should be a key objective of the organizers of the assessment,

because the membership of the technical societies has a vast

store of information that would be of immeasurable value to the

assessment process. Further, this inclusion offers a significant

avenue for realistic involvement of the societies in establishing a

basis for the more general decisionmaking process.

75
Because the contributions to the assessment are made by

individuals, it is paramount that the roles of individual members

on the team be carefully examined. If appointed as an individual

because of his personal expertise, the individual can speak for

himself. If appointed as a representative of a professional society,

an industry, or of an individual company, it must be clearly

understood by all as to how that individual will obtain the consensus of the group he represents. Unless this process is carefully

detailed, it is easy to be misled about the general acceptance of a

set of recommendations it produces.

Finally, then, having talked about the assessment process and

who should do it, I would like to review for a moment or two

what we should expect the outcome of an assessment to be.

Generally speaking, I do not believe that a technology assessment

should identify a solution to a particular problem. Rather, it

should examine the consequences of various actions; it should

explore alternatives; it should identify areas where insufficient

information or data exist; and it should indicate areas where

further research is needed before an adequate assessment can be

made. To identify a solution to a specific problem—the temptation being to invent– may be more satisfying to the participants

or to the sponsor, but it is oftentimes less useful to the policymaker, for as I mentioned before the manner in which the question is phrased often determines the answer. If the wrong question is asked, the study will be of limited value. Further, the

assessment should be regularly reviewed and updated if it is to

have long-term utility.

We must approach with caution those planning studies which

suggest actions to manage our system so that shortages are eliminated—be they material, energy, or human, Our past “track

record” is not all that good with such plans, Thus, a healthy skepticism is warranted. Further, many of our programs appear to be

derived from studies that were based upon insufficient data and

too much on the strict technical issues as known at that time. Too

little attention was given to what I’ve chosen to call the

“humanistic” issue. We can start programs, but find it hard to

turn them off, We can start training people, but are less concerned about how to employ them. We can identify problem

areas, but sometimes ignore the fact that we have too few people

to search for meaningful answers,

We must attack these overall problems if we are to find ways

of utilizing all elements of our society more effectively, The decisionmaking process must include not just the political and

regulatory organizations, but also our professional organizations,

and the disciplines they represent, and those organizations that

are concerned about people.

76
We must never lose sight of the premise that facts must exist or

be developed if a plan is to be well-founded. Speculation and

conjecture are contrary to the basic assessment process.

Finally, our planning must include major efforts at examining

alternatives rather than looking for a solution to a neatly stated

problem, Unless we face up to these problems, we will waste resources, improperly utilize talented people, and be less than

effective in finding the solutions to many of our complex problems. It is an awesome task to plan within the uncertainties of

our time, but the need for success makes it worth the effort.

77
III. Tutorial Papers

MATERIALS ASSESSMENTS FOR THE UNITED STATES

CONGRESS

by Albert E. Paladino

Program Manager for Materials

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress

The Materials Program of the Office of Technology Assessment has been in existence for a period slightly longer than that

which separates this Henniker Conference from the previous one

held in 1974. Several of the topics discussed at the last conference

have since become the subjects of OTA assessments. These

include materials information requirements for policymaking,

materials conservation, stockpiling, and recycling. The background information and analysis, provided by Henniker III, have

proven extremely useful in the development of these projects. A

number of the participants at Henniker III have assisted OTA in

the initial conceptualization of projects; but as members of the

OTA Materials Advisory Committee, they have also provided

helpful guidance and critiques during the projects. These points

underscore Mr. Daddario’s earlier comments regarding the

important link between your work at Henniker and the interests

of Congress.

Today, I would like to do four things:

● Describe the OTA organization and its operation;

● Provide an overview of the Materials Program, particularly emphasizing the holistic approach being used to tie

together various congressional requests for studies;

● Describe briefly those studies that deal with issues related

to materials supply and demand, going into some detail on

two studies, Materials Information Systems and Economic

Stockpiling. The Task Forces related to the work of the

National Commission on Supplies and Shortages will be

considering some of the study findings; and

● Provide background for the Task Force dealing with the

OTA Materials Program and stresses on the Total

Materials Cycle.

79
OTA Organization and Operation

The function of OTA is to provide balanced, objective, and

timely information regarding the possible consequences of applying a given technology. Technology assessment, as initially conceived, was primarily concerned with technical or scientific matters; however, it has since evolved to include any organized, purposeful activity for which the consequences prior to its application must be evaluated or assessed, It is particularly important

that such assessments be made before legislative decisions are

required and that the assessments present information on alternative approaches for congressional deliberations, This is a very

important point: presenting alternative approaches, including

that of doing nothing, and providing an impact analysis for each

approach. OTA does not recommend any one approach; we

merely provide the impact analysis which permits Congress to

objectively select one alternative over another.

The OTA consists of a bipartisan Congressional Board, a Director, a Deputy Director, and other employees and consultants

necessary for the work of the Office (figure 1). Policies of the Office are set by the Congressional Board which is the oversight

body governing OTA.

The OTA Congressional Board, figure 2, is made up of six

Senators and six Representatives, evenly divided by party, who

are appointed respectively by the President Pro Tempore of the

Senate and the Speaker of the House. The Director of OTA is a

80
EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Director, OTA

● Chairman. 1973-1974

● *Chairman, 1975-1976

OTA Materials Program Strategy

81
jects which deal with product durability and standards, materials

wastage, and substitution—all of which relate to material

demand.

In planning the OTA Materials Program, our broad strategy has

been to make use of the unifying concept of the total materials

cycle in an attempt to tie individual Congressional requests for

assessments into a totally integrated approach. The concept of

the total materials cycle has been presented in the COMAT and

COMRATE reports, and is familiar to most of you; some of you

no doubt contributed to its evolution and final development.

Using the total materials cycle as an analytical framework permits us to assess policy options bearing on one or more phases of

the materials cycle in relationship to those bearing on other

phases. Often good solutions to problems turn out to be poor ones

in the light of broader overviews of total system elements.

An assessment of the materials implications of future trends in

automobiles provides one example of this. Meeting the objective

of increased fuel economy will require smaller or lighter weight

automobiles. Weight reductions may be achieved with the use of

aluminum or plastics, both of which add to the complexities of

automobile recycling, The cost increase could result in a decrease

in recycling, contrary to resource recovery policy objectives. On

the opposite end of the cycle, there are already concerns about

aluminum supply and our almost total reliance on foreign

sources. Using large amounts of aluminum in automobile construction can only exacerbate this problem.

Figure 3 depicts how congressional requests are considered

within the framework of the total materials cycle. The phases of

82
the materials cycle are numbered one through six, and the

individual assessments are identified by brief title. Most assessments cover at least two phases, and two cover the entire cycle.

I would now like to present some details of the assessments

which relate to the long- and short-term views on raw materials

policy in the United States. The long-run view is concerned with

whether or not the supply of materials, at reasonable prices, will

be sufficient to support economic growth over an extended

period, and what steps, if any, should be taken to improve the

U.S. position. The short-run view is concerned with immediate

problems of supply and demand and ways to avert or mitigate

them. For both sets of materials-related problems, a distinction

should be drawn between what results, both good and bad, can be

expected from the workings of the present system and those

which could be expected from direct actions of the Federal

Government.

Furthermore, while the focus of each assessment is primarily

upon U.S. materials strategy, the analysis takes into account the

complex interrelationships between US. policies and various

other national policies around the world. The various assessments represent different approaches to the issue of scarcity:

some apply to supply; others, to demand.

In sum, materials problems have complex roots, and actions

designed to deal with them need to be considered on a truly

systems basis, taking into account the interactive manner in

which the total materials system influences, and is influenced by,

other systems-like foreign policy, domestic policy, environmental

changes, demographic trends, the world economy, and so forth.

Ideally, materials should flow through all stages of the

materials cycle in order to supply adequate amounts of materials

and energy for the basic requirements of nutrition, shelter, and

health, while sustaining a dynamic economy with minimum

waste and environmental impact. The flow of materials should

be continuous, and there should be continuity in prices as well.

Many factors affect materials flow through the economy, and

the United States has relied primarily on the marketplace to provide materials at what are loosely termed reasonable prices.

However, there are growing concerns that new, and quite

different, problems may not be dealt with by relying solely on

market adjustments. These problems may be described as

stresses which perturb the equilibrium prices and flow rates of

materials at any point in the materials cycle. As you look at these

examples in figure 4, it is obvious that some of the stresses perturbing the cycle are foreign in origin and others are domestic.

The quadrupling of bauxite taxes is an example of the former;

the increased costs associated with meeting new environmental

83
and health regulations, the latter. The coupling of energy and

materials flows is yet another type of stress which has both

foreign and domestic origins.

Developing suitable policy alternatives which will be both

timely and effective requires an analysis of when the impacts of

the various stresses might be expected (figure 5). On the one

hand, short-term stresses like embargoes require quick actions if

adverse impacts are to be avoided or alleviated. On the other

hand, long-term materials stresses, like the depletion of reserves

or the increasing world-wide demand for materials, require

different types of policy responses. For the short-term stresses, it

is especially important to maintain an up-to-date information

base ‘regarding potential situations affecting materials

demand, e.g., the developments regarding the Law of

supply/

the Sea

84
Conference or the less-developed countries’ proposal at

UNCTAD IV for indexing the prices of basic commodities to the

cost of manufactured goods. For the long-term stresses, a

carefully formulated program of materials research and development, coupled with investment incentives, should be considered.

Identifying the stresses, their anticipated impacts, as well as

possible alternative policies and decision mechanisms for averting or relieving them, is essential in order to maintain a smooth,

though probably a redistributed flow, of materials through the

total materials cycle– and hence a health economy, Moreover,

both Government and private sector roles must be properly balanced in considering these alternative policies.

Assessments Related to Supply and Demand

I would now like to illustrate how these previous comments

apply to the structuring of the overall materials program by discussing some of the details of several assessments. Five selected

assessments are illustrated in figure 6: two relate to supply

phases of the cycle, two relate to demand phases of the cycle, and

one covers both supply and demand elements of the materials

cycle. Also shown are the principal stresses, which to a large

extent prompted the requests for these assessments.

Considered within this framework, these assessments can be

viewed as component elements of an overall strategy for dealing

with materials-related issues. Both short-term and long-term

85
stresses can be dealt with by a variety of approaches. Economic

stockpiling is one short-term response to many potential supply

disruptions; another response might include export controls on

critical materials. Other studies in this list, which clearly deal

with long-term responses, represent a variety of approaches.

A series of congressional requests has resulted in three studies

directed toward increasing the future supply of domestically produced minerals. The first study nearing completion is analyzing

the potential impacts of modifying and restructuring laws,

policies, and other institutional factors which significantly affect

the exploration, production, and physical accessibility of essential minerals on Federal onshore lands.

This land encompasses about one-third of the Nation, or an

area almost equal to that part of the United States east of the

Mississippi, and includes vast acreages in the Western States and

Alaska, where much of the hard-rock and fuel minerals are

located. The utilization of Federal land is subject to a wide

variety of restrictions on mining activity, including statutory and

administrative withdrawals for wilderness preservation, national

parks, wildlife refuges, agricultural and grazing uses, energy

development, mineral conservation and development, and military reservations. The drive for greater energy self-sufficiency is

likely to produce strong pressure for large-scale, unprecedented

development of such domestic energy resources as coal, oil and

gas, and oil shale, much of which lie on Federal land. The use of

Federal lands to expand domestic availability requires a carefully

planned policy which weighs the full spectrum of environmental

and societal impacts.

A closely related assessment is examining the state of mineral

exploration technology and mineral exploration programs, The

purpose of this second assessment is to assess the potential for

discovering new domestic resources and reducing the uncertainties pertaining to U.S. mineral resource information. It will

examine the state of exploration techniques now in use and the

R&D programs in geology, geochemistry, geophysics, deep drilling, remote sensing, and other activities which contribute to

mineral exploration technology, In addition to the technology of

exploration and the associated R&D, this study will also examine

public resource-evaluation programs by Government agencies, as

well as mineral exploration programs in the private sector.

The third study in the series on domestically produced

minerals deals with the potential for extracting metals from lowgrade resources. The purpose of this study is to assess the potential for developing low-quality, domestic resources as possible

solutions to both the short-term problems of dependence on

86
foreign supply and the long-term, worldwide resources demands.

For various selected materials, the study will consider U.S.

domestic ore resources, facilities and investment requirements,

cost of production, and other problems of utilizing domestic resources with available technology, Among the problems of utilizing low-quality resources to be considered include energy

requirements, environmental impacts of mining and onsite

beneficiation, and transportation availability.

The assessments discussed thus far concentrate primarily on

the supply side of the materials equation, On the demand side, a

request has been made to assess the potential for materials conservation as one alternative for dealing with the long-term problems of materials scarcity, This study is analyzing the potential

for materials conservation throughout the materials cycle, and is

developing specific strategies for conservation through improved

materials utilization in the manufacturing and use phases of the

materials cycle.

Another demand-related study is examining the prospects

from ongoing R&D activities in the development of policies to

deal with problems of material scarcity. The purposes of this

study are (1) to examine for selected materials the state of R&D

activities which can lead to substitutions for import-dependent

materials and (z) to estimate the time and quantitative impacts

which the R&D activities might have on scarcity-related problems. The final study included in figure 6 deals with the supply

and demand relationships, and information requirements for

materials policy decisions.

Materials Information Systems

The materials information assessment is focused on those

aspects of the overall materials information problems which are

of most concern to Congress— namely, forecasting and assessing

the supply and demand of metals and minerals.

This assessment treats in a unified way the total materials

cycle, including the major economic factors associated with the

use of materials. Effective management of the materials cycle—

providing the right amount of material at each stage in the

cycle — requires a broad spectrum of information. To provide this

information to decision makers, a large number of formal and

informal materials information systems have evolved. Some are

in Government, but most are in the private sector.

AIthough these systems have served the Nation well for many

years, new stresses on the total materials cycle have raised concern for their continuing effectiveness, and it was against this

87

87-31 j C) - 77 - 7
For the sake of time, I will not attempt to present information

from the assessment in response to each of these questions.

Instead, I would like to give you a brief overview of what is contained in the final report, of which you have the summary

volume, and then if you have detailed questions which cannot be

covered now, I will respond to them during the Task Force sessions,

The shortcomings of present materials information result not

so much from a lack of data as from the more stringent requirements for information management, analysis, and coordination

resulting from the increasingly complex problems now facing

policy makers. That these shortcomings do exist was determined

in large part by interviews with senior policy makers in the

Government as well as private industry, These present systems

by and large perform well relative to their intended missions. An

improved information system would provide policy makers with

the means for more adequately testing the effects of likely scarcity situations, Such a system would allow policy makers to assess

“what if” scenarios— the effects of a foreign cartel limiting supply, for example, or the consequences of Government incentives

to encourage increased domestic production. This capability will

not be realized by simply allowing the current materials information systems to evolve.

The study describes a conceptual framework for an improved

materials information system which takes into account the complexities linking the amounts of materials produced and used

with their domestic and international economic parameters, The

conceptual system responds to the need to quantify the most

important of these and to make the relationships evident to decision makers formulating materials policy.

The conceptual system developed in the assessment organizes

materials information so as to account for the principal sources of

88
supply, demand, and utilization for each critical material, For

each material, the system develops an index of scarcity indicative

of the need for close Government monitoring and possible response, Nine essential functions are incorporated into the conceptual system (figure 7),

,

FIGURE 7.– Conceptual System Core Functions

By treating supply and demand as functions of price, the conceptual system would indicate how much of a material was likely

to be produced and used at each stage in the total materials cycle.

The policy maker could thus determine whether the normal

market mechanisms could absorb the impacts of a given stress. If

they could not, and unacceptable economic distortions could

occur, then the system could be used to test the effectiveness of

alternative Government responses.

The Government’s present materials information systems constitute a strong base on which to implement the conceptual

system described in the assessment. Some of these, in particular

the systems used for forecasting agricultural food and fibre commodities, have been in development for some 40 years. Other,

newer systems covering mineral commodities are rapidly

undergoing improvement, Many of these systems already perform some of the monitoring and projection functions embodied

within the conceptual framework.

Three approaches were identified for improving the Federal

Materials Information System:

● Approach 1 would better coordinate the development of

the existing separate materials information systems to

achieve the desired capability through an interagency

committee or congressionally authorized coordinating

group;

89
Whichever approach is taken, the improved system would incorporate the following basic information services (figure 8):

All three approaches require specific action by Congress and

the President. Approach 1 will, at minimum, require an Executive Order, agency directives, and congressional oversight; it may

also call for legislation, Approaches 2 and 3, or any other major

program implementing the conceptual system or its equivalent,

will probably require new legislation,

SERVICE FEATURES

A comparative analysis of establishing the system within the

private sector, a State or local government agency, a quasigovernmental institution, and a Federal agency (both in the legislative and executive branches) indicated that locating the

materials information system within the executive branch would

best accomplish its objectives. Within the executive branch, the

range of feasible alternatives is illustrated by seven combinations

90
of institutional arrangements and information system

approaches, each having the functions and responsibilities indicated by the abbreviated titles (figure 9).

The major impacts of implementing an improved information

system are discussed in the report and are grouped into three

categories:

1. Beneficial–Strengthening of the Government’s capability

to forecast scarcity and make contingency plans;

2. Mixed Beneficial or Detrimental–Stimulation of planning in the U.S. economy by increased monitoring;

3. Detrimental—Potential misuse of sensitive information.

The assessment examined the sources of Federal authority to

gather materials information from the private sector and concluded that establishment of the conceptual materials information system would (a) be consistent with existing recognized

Federal regulatory powers; (b) would not greatly expand, if at all,

Federal authority over the materials industry; and (c) need not

violate any recognized rights of corporate privacy if adequate

attention is given to checks and balances in system implementation.

With respect to the effects of an improved materials information system on patterns of industrial competition, the analysis

concluded that the system would collect and provide information

which, if properly used and supplemented, could stimulate research and development, possibly decrease major short-term

price fluctuations, help stabilize materials-related industries,

lower materials costs, and assist in business planning. The information might also increase competition by forcing new dynamics

into demand, supply, and use of materials.

FIGURE 9.– Implementation Alternatives

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

91
Economic Stockpiling

The materials shortages experienced during 1972-1974,

coupled with the OPEC oil embargo, raised concerns about other

raw materials embargoes and price increases by organized producer countries. At the request of the House Committee on

Science and Technology, economic stockpiling has been

examined as a possible component of a national strategy for

insuring materials supply during peacetime.

The objectives of the assessment were to determine whether or

not stockpiling to achieve selected objectives yields sufficient

benefits to merit its consideration by Congress as one component

in a larger materials strategy, and to develop a generalized

methodology for use in establishing and operating an economic

stockpile. An economic stockpile is similar to insurance in that

acquisition and holding costs are paid in anticipation of reducing

the costs of possible future problems. A decision to establish an

economic stockpile depends on the belief that there will be eventual net benefits, either through deterrence of a problem, or

through relief if a problem occurs.

The assessment addressed the following questions:

. Should the United States consider establishing an economic stockpile?

● What possible economic stockpiling policies might be established?

● What possible impacts might result from implementing

these policies?

● What are the alternatives to an economic stockpile?

● What options and institutional arrangements are available

to Congress in considering possible legislation? and

● What considerations require further analysis?

Again, for the sake of time, I will not attempt to present information from the assessment in response to each of these questions. Instead, I would like to give you a brief overview of what is

contained in the final report, of which you have a draft copy, and

then if you have questions, respond to them during the Task

Force sessions.

Eleven policies were initially examined, and five were selected

for detailed assessment (figure 10). These five are numbered

SP-1 to 5, One material relevant to each policy was then used to

assess its impacts. The impact analysis covered economic, political, social, legal, and institutional considerations. Both the

methodologies and the specific impacts are presented in the final

report; however, let me briefly highlight the key findings for you.

Economic stockpiling can be considered one means of responding quickly to the short-term problems, but it should not be con-

!32
FIGURE 10. –Possible Economic Stockpiling Policies

FOREIGN

●

●

●

●

●

●

Discourage or counteract cartel or unilateral political actions (SP-1)

cushion the impact of nonpolitical import disruptions (SP-2)

International materials market stabilization (SP-3)

Support friendly nations in the event of temporary shortages

Increase or maintain foreign country production

Commodity trading between the U.S. and foreign countries

DOMESTIC

. Conserve scarce domestic materials (SP-4)

. Provide a market for temporary surpluses and ease temporary shortages

(SP-5)

. Support domestic production of selected foreign source materials

. Advance new technology for materials supply

● Encourage recycling

sidered a means of effecting long-term solutions to them. On the

other hand, an economic stockpile could have value in providing

the time required for the United States to implement such longterm policies as substitution, conservation, or the development or

alternative supply sources.

Economic stockpiling is inherently a process of market intervention and will create economic impacts (i.e., benefits and costs)

which are distributed unequally throughout the U.S. economy.

An economic welfare model developed in the assessment permits

the stockpile managers to estimate economic benefits and costs in

terms of an assumed future, which includes probabilities of supply interruptions and elasticities of supply and demand.

The economic welfare model was used to estimate, for the

economy in general as well as for specific groups, the economic

impacts of implementing five selected stockpiling policies for

petroleum, copper, tin, tungsten, and zinc. These estimates indicate that some policies will have positive economic net benefits

and some will have negative economic net benefits. As indicated

in figure 11, a petroleum stockpile in the range of 250 million barrels would be required to deter cartel actions. It should be

emphasized that the estimates apply only to the specific

materials examined and within the scenario assumptions described, and should therefore not be taken to indicate that precise

quantities of specific materials should or should not be

stockpiled. Nevertheless, the nature and magnitude of the estimates are sufficient to indicate that an economic stockpile should

be given detailed consideration as one component of a more comprehensive national materials strategy and that measuring the

benefits or costs of a supply disruption in terms of its probability.

93
FIGURE 11 .—Economic Net Benefits of SP-I

28 I

Billions of Dollars

26

24

22

20

18 Net Benefits

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

I ~_—_l__ _

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Mllltons of Barrels

rather than its certainty, will significantly reduce the quantity of

material to be stockpiled.

The United States should consider economic stockpiling in

terms of foreign policy as well as domestic affairs. The policy

objectives of a particular stockpile should be clearly delineated,

Analysis of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpile indicates, for example, that it has been used in a limited manner to

achieve selected economic purposes. Further, the operation of an

economic stockpile will create enough problems and pressures to

warrant its being sufficiently insulated from the political process

that it may act in the public interest, yet remain responsive to

congressional scrutiny,

The decisions relating to the establishment and operation of an

economic stockpile—specifically, the acquisition and disposal of

materials—should be systematically made and documented,

using an approach similar to the decisionmaking process

developed in this assessment (Decision Criteria Model).

There are four basic options available to Congress in considering possible legislation.

1.

2.

The first option is for Congress and the President to

forego establishing an economic stockpile, letting the current market system, with its existing support mechanisms,

attempt to prevent or correct the impacts of supply disruptions and price increases.

The second option is for Congress to act without drafting

new legislation. It could initiate such action by providing

94
information regarding economic stockpiling within the

legislative branch, the executive branch, or the private

sector.

3, The third option is for the President to take action, within

the limits of his existing authority, without proposing

new legislation. Such action could be accomplished in

several ways: (a) issue a Presidential proclamation to set

overall policy direction, (b) issue an Executive or agency

order, or (c) make research and development grants

available for analysis of materials problems.

4. The fourth option presumes that, for one or more reasons,

the first three options will not be sufficiently effective in

dealing with current or anticipated materials supply and

price problems and that authorizing legislation is

required,

There are six institutional arrangements available to Congress

in considering possible legislation.

First, a unilateral economic stockpile controlled and operated

by the U.S. Government might be established. It could be another

component of the strategic stockpile, or it could be an independent stockpile whose operations are carefully coordinated with

those of the strategic stockpile.

Second, a unilateral economic stockpile, controlled by the U.S.

Government but operated by U.S. industry, might be considered.

Third, a unilateral economic stockpile, controlled and operated

by a public-private corporation, could be established. It could be

funded by the Government, vested by Congress with a mandate

and guidelines on U.S. stockpile purposes, and given independent

authority to acquire and maintain national stockpiles without

direct Executive control but with provisions for Executive consultation. The corporation would be able to maintain a certain

degree of political independence comparable to the Federal

Reserve System on monetary matters.

Fourth, the United States could participate in an economic

stockpile operated by two or more nations, either multinational

or international in nature, formed along such existing political or

organizational lines as the Organization of American States

(OAS); the European Economic Community (Common Market);

the United Nations; or just with friendly nations having materials

requirements similar to those of the United States. At present, the

United States is conducting several discussions/negotiations

which do consider this arrangement: the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) discussions

within the United Nations and the International Energy Agency.

Fifth, the United States could participate in an economic

stockpile through the creation or expansion of producer/con95
sumer councils like the International Tin Council which is run by

both producers and consumers and maintains its own buffer

stock to help stabilize the supply and price of tin.

Sixth, the U.S. Government could establish and control an economic stockpile, but operate it according to international

guidelines. Arrangement 6 would recognize the fact that some

national economic stockpiles are being created, but that some

countries like West Germany have not implemented them

because of serious concern regarding their impact on domestic

and world market systems. An international code of operations

might help reduce this concern, as well as develop effective

mechanisms for alleviating U.S. supply problems without

increasing the world shortage.

Conclusion

As Mr. Daddario stated, the role of OTA is to consider the longrange needs of the United States in the field of materials management and materials technology. I have presented today the

approach we are taking, building on much of what has been

developed before–particularly the unifying concept of the total

materials cycle.

The principal continuing objective in carrying out OTA assessments will be to provide Congress with an analytical framework,

a methodology, and a current information base for examining the

various interrelated policy instruments of a national materials

strategy—and in so doing, establish a response capability to

address congressional inquiries regarding materials-related

issues, We are asking the task forces to assist in meeting this

objective by evaluating the importance of various stresses in

terms of their anticipated intensity and timing, possible policy

alternatives to avert or relieve the stresses, and finally the decision mechanisms to implement the alternative policies.

These then are the general directions which we hope the task

forces dealing with the materials assessments for Congress will

take. In this way we hope to utilize the special expertise represented here to assist in developing component strategies for U.S.

materials policy.

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to working

with you in the task sessions.

96
THE WORK OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION

ON SUPPLIES AND SHORTAGES

by George C. Eads, Executive Director

National Commission on Supplies and Shortages

Many of you have probably heard of the National Commission

on Supplies and Shortages, and are aware of its history. For those

of you who are not, and for those of you who may have lost track

of us, let me bring you up to date,

We were created by Public Law 93-426 which was signed on

September 30, 1974. The legislation setting us up specified that

the Commission be composed of two members of the Senate, two

members of the House, four senior Administration officials, and

five individuals from the private sector. The first group of

appointments were made quickly. Senator Brock, Senator Tunney, Congressman Rees, and Congressman Stanton were named

to represent the Congress. Secretary Simon, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Seidman, and Mr. Greenspan were named as the senior Administration officials. However, there was a delay of about one year in

appointing the five private-sector Commissioners. Finally in the

late summer of 1975, Philip Trezise, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs; George Kozmetsky, Dean of the Graduate School

of Business at the University of Texas at Austin; Nat Weinberg,

the retired Chief Economist for the United Auto Workers;

Hendrik Houthakker, Professor of Economics at Harvard and formerly a member of the President’s Council of Economic

Advisers; and Donald Rice, President of the RAND Corporation,

were named. Dr. Rice was designated as Chairman of the Commission. The Commission met for the first time in September,

and at that meeting I was named Executive Director.

During the one-year interval between the first appointments I

mentioned and the time when the Commission membership was

filled out and began meeting, our congressional members, anxious to get things under way, requested the Office of Technology

Assessment to initiate two projects, one on economic stockpiling,

and a second on materials information systems. Both are topics

that the Commission is required by statute to examine.

Al Paladino has already briefed you on the contents of these

two assessments, so I will not comment further on them.

As I just mentioned, these two assessments were requested by

our congressional members in order to give us a head start once

we began operating, They realized that we would be under a tight

schedule, and indeed we are. We are required to complete our

97
final report on or before the end of December 1976. To do this, we

must have a draft final report ready for Commission discussion

by the end of October. To meet this deadline-and we will meet

it—the staff’s job of gathering information and data must be pretty much completed by just about now. And it is, During this

month and next, the Commission, in a series of three meetings,

will complete framing its general policy positions so that the report drafting can begin. In certain areas, such as stockpiling, this

guidance has been received and drafting is now proceeding.

What I want to turn to now is a brief summary of where we

now stand in regard to certain of our findings and conclusions. I

must preface this with a caveat. The results I will be outlining

here represent staff conclusions, not conclusions of the Commission, They should not be attributed to the Commission, but to me.

Now, what have we found?

A recent front-page interview that some of you probably

noticed in American Metal Market was headlined “U.S. Supply

Panel Finds Metals Levels Unperiled.” This would seem to be

totally at variance with the title of this conference: “Engineering

Implications of Chronic Materials Scarcity,” It may be, but let us

not jump to conclusions.

We have not found that the world in the future will be

untroubled by materials supply problems, that materials will be

available in unlimited abundance at declining real or even

nominal prices. We have found that the sort of problems we are

likely to be facing in the years to come will not be of the sort that

many people implicitly mean when they use the word “scarcity”

or “shortage.” Instead, they are likely to be quite similar to the

sort of problems that arose during 1973 and 197LI, problems that

had little or nothing to do with the level of the world’s reserves of

key materials.

Extent of the 1973-74 Shortages

The shortages experienced during 1973-74 were perceived by

observers at the time as both widespread and severe. A special

report in the June 30, 1973, issue of Business Week entitled “The

Scramble for Resources” began by stating:

The prices of raw materials and industrial commodities from

rubber and oil to scrap steel and copper spiral higher.

Purchasing agents complain that supplies of everything from

wool to zinc are becoming increasingly difficult to get, The

United States faces a full-fledged energy crisis, , . .

Articles appearing daily in the business press told of purchasing agents’ difficulties in securing necessary materials. Discounts

disappeared. Customers were put on allocation. Inventory posi98
tions were jockeyed in an effort to adjust to the shortages.

Furthermore, the shortages affected behavior even after they

disappeared. Our discussions with companies tell of a new concern on their part for stability and continuity of supply—even if

it means that they must pay higher prices, For example, The Wall

Street Journal recently reported the case of a purchasing agent

who passed up an offer by a foreign supplier of cost savings of

approximately $67 per ton on steel products because he didn’t

want to risk alienating his traditional domestic source of supply.’

The scope of the shortages was evidenced by a survey taken in

March 1974, by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

of the Senate Committee on Government Operations. This study.

titled Industry Perceptions of Shortages, queried the 500 largest

U.S. firms about the shortages of both primary and secondary

materials they were then experiencing or expected to experience

in the near future, The respondents to the survey (52 percent of

those questioned) indicated that aluminum, copper, chemicals

and petrochemicals, steel, paper, and plastics were areas of particular concern. Other less serious shortages were being experienced in caustic soda, chlorine, zinc, and various steel products.

The shortages experienced during 1973-74 were pervasive.

They were also unique. The Commission staff requested commodity specialists at the Department of Commerce and the

Department of the Interior to review the 30-year period, between

1946 and 1976, and identify periods when the commodities they

follow were either in short supply or in surplus. What these two

surveys reveal is that the onJy comparable period of widespread

shortages was during the Korean War. With limited exceptions,

the period from 1953 to the middle 1960’s was characterized by a

surplus of productive capacity in our basic industries.

Throughout this period, there were occasional spot shortages

involving a variety of products. During the Vietnam buildup

these spot shortages became more frequent and widespread. But

even then, they had a limited impact on the ecconomy and were

generally quite shortlived.

Causes of the Shortages

The belief was apparently widespread at the time, and has prevailed among some to the present, that the shortages of 1973-74

were somehow related to a growing inadequacy of our natural resource base — that they were the first manifestations of the

I “HOW Lloyd Konrad, A Purchasing Agent, Wheels for Good Deals,” The Wall Street

]ournal. October 7, 1975. p. 1.

99
catastrophes that had been predicted by the authors of Limits to

Growth.

The staff has searched diligently for indications that any of the

shortages during 1973-74 were directly related either to a depletion or an inadequacy of natural resources. With the possible

(and highly arguable) exception of natural gas, we can find no

such example.

This is consistent with the entire record of postwar experience.

I earlier referred to studies of shortages conducted at our request

by the Commerce and Interior Departments. In addition to identifying the instances in which shortages occurred, the commodity

experts were asked to list the causes of these shortages. A brief

review of the results is instructive.

The primary cause of the shortages that occurred during the

Korean War was the substantial and unexpected increase in

demand that accompanied the outbreak of the war. The various

spot shortages of particular commodities that were experienced

during the mid-1950’s to the early 1970’s had a variety of causes,

but none were related to a basic inadequacy of resources. For

example, cattlehides experienced a brief shortage during 1965 as

a result of a drought in Argentina which reduced supplies. There

were shortages of nickel during 1966 as a result of an extended

strike against Canadian producers, Zinc was in tight supply during 1963-65, in part due to the demand generated by the Vietnam

buildup. Zinc was also affected by plant closings accelerated by

EPA regulations. Between 1970 and 1974, domestic production of

primary slab zinc fell by 40 percent in spite of sharply rising

worldwide demand for the product, Other examples can be cited,

but they uniformly tell of problems that are essentially shortterm in nature.

The surveys that were made during the height of the shortage

period in 1973-74 tell a similar story. The publication Industry

Perceptions of Shortages identified four major causes of the

shortages that were then occurring: first, a sharp increase in

demand for most commodities; second, reductions in available

supplies caused by factors such as price controls; third, the

relatively low level of investment in capacity expansion that had

occurred in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s due to low profitability, high interest rates, and the diversion of funds from

capacity expansion to meeting environmental regulations; and,

fourth, the increase by approximately 1 year in lead time

required to build new industrial facilities.

A study undertaken in 1974 by Arthur D. Little, Inc. for the

Department of Commerce placed particular emphasis on the

effects of governmental actions, The impact of Government

policy on shortage conditions was found to be most apparent in

100
benzene, steel scrap, and synthetic fibers. Price controls were

said to have contributed to shortages in 25 of the 26 commodities.

In addition to the governmental factors, other causal factors mentioned included, first, an insufficiency of productive capacity

which had been brought on by the overcapacity in the late 1960’s,

which in turn had reduced profitability and led to reduced capital

expenditures; and, second, the strong surge in foreign and

domestic demand, which made the already tight capacity situation unmanageable.

In an effort to test the results of these broad surveys, the staff

commissioned seven in-depth studies of specific commodities—

titanium, aluminum, iron and steel scrap, pulp and paper,

livestock and feedgrains, fertilizer, and low sulfur coal. These

examples were chosen to span a wide range of market structures

and a wide range of Government involvement. In each case, the

contractor was asked to determine what caused the problems that

were observed during 1973-74, and what adjustments were made

by various parties, With the results of the Arthur D, Little study

in mind, the contractors were asked specifically to see what

impacts (either direct or indirect) Government actions had in

creating the shortage or in easing it. In addition to these seven

studies, the staff itself conducted a less extensive study of

petrochemicals, Let me highlight the results.

Capacity limitations linked to low rates of return earned during the late 1960’s were mentioned as a major shortage cause in

five of the six cases where manufacturing capacity is a relevant

limiting variable, Operation at substantially less than capacity

levels had been the general rule from the end of the Korean War

until the mid-1960’s. While the Vietnam buildup and the economic expansion that accompanied it strained capacity for the first

time in nearly a decade, it also set off an investment boom. The

new capacity resulting from this investment began to come

onstream in the latter part of the 1960’s, just at the time the economy entered a downturn. The downturn itself would have

reduced corporate profits; the depressing effect of the new

capacity compounded the problem,

The decision by industry to defer adding further to capacity in

the late 1960’s was understandable, given this erosion in corporate profitability and the high interest rates that prevailed

throughout much of the period. But low profitability was not the

only factor tending to cause businessmen to exercise caution.

Beginning in the early 1970’s, a new source of investment

uncertainty appeared. At about this time, it first became clear

that the growing demands to clean up the environment and to

improve the health and safety of workers were going to result in

Federal legislation, At this early stage, it was not clear exactly

101
what the ultimate impact of this legislation and the regulations

that were certain to accompany it were going to be, but it was

evident that complying with them would be expensive, particularly for the basic metals, chemical, and paper industries. It was

also evident that engineering necessary controls into new plants

would generally be less expensive than retrofitting existing

plants, This uncertainty about what the regulations eventually

would be and when they would apply did not create a climate

particularly conducive to new investment. To the extent that

business had to begin to take steps to bring existing plants into

compliance with standards as they were promulgated, some

funds apparently were diverted from capital expansion,

Another factor complicating both investment and production

decisions during the early 1970’s was price controls. In some

cases, such as aluminum and petrochemicals, prices appear to

have been frozen at levels that had been depressed by the price

competition that had broken out during the 1970-71 recession.

This directly undermined the incentive to add capacity. Even

where this was not the case, the uncertainty generated by the

rapid and seemingly unpredictable changes in the price control

regulations and by the mere fact that the Government had

instituted the controls after having repeatedly declared that it

would not do so, tended to depress investment in new capacity.

If a slowdown in capacity expansion during the late 1960’s and

the early 1970’s was the factor that set the stage for the shortages

of 1973-74, our commodity studies confirm that the primary

event that actually set them off was the worldwide surge in

demand that began in 1972, The causes of this simultaneous

boom in the economies of most of the industrialized countries are

still not satisfactorily explained, Cooper and Lawrencez attribute

the boom in primary commodities to the acceleration in the rate

of U.S. inflation during 1972 and 1973, the stimulating effect of

large U.S. balance of payments deficits during 1971 and 1972, and

the sharp movements in currency exchange rates during 1971-73.

Others have advanced explanations more consistent with a

monetarist view of the world. But, regardless of the reasons for

this upsurge in demand, the fact that it occurred almost

simultaneously in most of the industrialized countries meant that

when things became tight in the United States, we could not

relieve the pinch by relying upon relatively cheap imports. If

imports were to be a safety valve at all, they were going to be

expensive,

2. Richard N. Cooper and Robert Z. Lawrence, “The 1972-73 Commodity Boom, ” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3:1975, pp. 672-677.

102
Finally, even the slowdown in the rate of capacity expansion

and the boom in demand do not fully account for the pervasive

nature of the shortages that occurred in 1973 and 1974. Capacity

utilization was high in 1973, but the levels it reached were not

unprecedented. Yet as we have seen, the magnitude of the shortages was. The critical additional factor in the equation is what

one of our contractors has referred to as the “shortage mentality”

that existed at the time. During late 1972 and early 1973, something happened that made purchasing agents hypersensitive to

any sign that a shortage might be developing and especially quick

to take defensive measures. The precise causes of this “shortage

mentality” are hard to pin down. The publicity surrounding the

publication in 1973 of Limits to Growth may have been a factor.

The spot shortages created by quirks in the price control regulations may have been another. The point is that the phenomenon,

though elusive, appears to have been real.

To cite one case, by 1972 paper producers were operating at

close to rated capacity, In an effort to get more output out of

existing plants, the industry began to rationalize its product lines,

dropping off low profit items. These items had been added during

the previous recession as the industry had attempted to maintain

near-capacity operations by engaging in “product tailoring. ” This

practice had shortened production runs and increased downtime

on the papermaking machines.

However, the industry’s efforts to reverse the proliferation of

products it offered and thereby to increase its effective capacity

to produce generated a misperception on the part of paper users.

As our contractor put it:

Though entirely appropriate from the point of view of sound

business practice, the industry’s 1972 product rationalization

programs became viewed by many buyers as evidence of an

incipient product shortage. This stimulated a defensive

surge in orders, which hit the industry at a moment when

wood pulp inventories were unusually Iow. 3 

.

This reaction was typical. Similar examples are cited in our

studies of titanium, aluminum, fertilizer, and petrochemicals. To

be sure, most of the shortages evaporated once the true state of

affairs was recognized, but not without substantial cost to the

economy.

This last point requires some elaboration. Our commodity

studies and the surveys that were taken at the time uniformly

point to the last quarter of 1973 and the first half of 1974 as the

period of the most severe shortages. Yet this was the period

j Harbridge House draft study, pp. 4-21.

103

07-315 0- 17 - 8
when, looking back, we now see that the economy was actually

well into a downturn. This paradox seems explainable only by

the “shortage mentality.”

The oil embargo that OPEC announced in late 1973 was a

traumatic phenomenon. Whether the embargo actually was

effective or not is a matter of considerable dispute. What is

important is that most people at the time apparently believed that

it was effective. The tight capacity situation that then existed

with regard to most materials, the apparent disruption in the supply of probably the most important industrial commodity, and the

talk that immediately began to be heard from other raw materials

suppliers in the Third World that they intended to emulate OPEC

created a situation in which the natural reaction of purchasing

agents was to build up inventories.

We now realize that the increase in oil prices acted very much

like a substantial tax increase, Thus, it sharply reduced potential

economic growth. In a recent book, Fried and Schultze have

quantified this impact and have shown it to be substantial.4 Given

such a sharp change in the economic outlook, and given the fact

that consumer spending on durable goods had turned downward

as early as the second quarter of 1973, purchasing agents should

have been slowing their rate of inventory accumulation. Instead,

they sharply increased it, from an annual rate of $14.2 billion in

the third quarter of 1973 to an annual rate of $24.4 billion in the

fourth quarter of 1974.5

Once the full extent of the drop-off in consumer demand

became evident, purchasing agents began to take corrective

actions, canceling orders and liquidating their inventories. The

correction was drastic. Between the fourth quarter of 1973 and

the first quarter of 1975, investment in inventories shifted from

accumulating at an annual rate of $24.4 billion to being liquidated

at an annual rate of $19.0 billion. Industrial production, which

had been artificially sustained by the surge of orders resulting

from the inventory buildup, dropped precipitously, from an index

value of 125.6 in August, 1974 (1967=100) to 109.9 only 6 months

later,’

4 Edward R. Fried and Charles L. Schultze, editors, Higher Oil Prices und the World

Economy, Brookings, 1976.

; There was a major revision in the inventory statistics during mid-1974. According to

the old series, during the fourth quarter of 1973. inventories accumulated at an annual rate

of $10.9 billion. According to the revised series, during this quarter, inventories accumulated at an annual rate of $24.4 billlon. The Commission staff has been told that as soon as

the revised inventory figures were published, a number of economists immediately

realized that a serious recession was imminent and revised their forecasts accordingly.

6 The drop-off in primary metals was even more severe but occurred over a more

extended period. The index peaked at 130.7 in December 1973 and fell to 89.9 in May 1975.

104
Consequently, the “shortage mentality” and the behavior it

generated, helped create the shortages that were observed during

1973-1974, artificially extended the boom, and contributed substantially to the severity of the recession that followed.

Implications for the Future

1 have gone into so much detail about the experiences of

1973-74 because it is my belief, based upon all the results of our

work, that for the immediately foreseeable future (and by this I

mean at least until the year 2000 and perhaps well beyond that

date) the primary issues the United States must face with regard

to the supply of basic materials will have relatively little to do

with whether the world has sufficient quantities of natural resources extractable at reasonable cost, where “cost” includes the

cost of protecting the environment from undue harm. This is not

to say that we need to be unconcerned about the state of both U.S.

and world resources, We are indeed beginning to exhaust our

higher-grade domestic deposits of certain of our important

minerals, Furthermore, due to the concern over the environment

and the increasing price of energy, extracting the minerals that

remain will be more expensive than previously expected. However, our concern over the state of our resource base, while real

and deserving of attention, should net blind us to the fact that the

important policy problems during the next several decades will

be similar to the sort that created the shortages of I973-74, what

might he called “above-the-ground problems. ” With this in mind,

it is useful to evaluate how well we have been able to anticipate

the appearance of such problems, monitor their development,

decide when action is called for, and act in an appropriate and

effective manner. In my view, we cannot give ourselves very

high marks in any of these areas.

The situation that developed in 1973-74 was partly foreseeable

and partly the product of uncontrollable events. Most of the basic

trends were visible long in advance. What was happening with

regard to investment in capacity expansion was clear to all who

took the opportunity to look at the relevant data. Many of the factors tending to produce this drop-off were also clearly evident:

the sharp decline in corporate profits after 1966, the record high

interest rates of the late 1960’s, and the sharp decline in capacity

utilization between 1970 and 1972.

The force of the surge in demand that began in 1972 apparently

was underestimated, and the fact that it occurred virtually

simultaneously in all the major industrialized countries was a

surprise, although the factors tending to tie the major world

economies together (the factors mentioned by Cooper and Law105
rence) should have raised policy makers’ sensitivities to this

possibility. The impact that such a demand surge would have on

our economy, given the situation we were in with regard to

industrial capacity, seems not to have been appreciated.

Also not understood or appreciated was the impact upon businessmen of the increasing scope of involvement and method of

operation by the Government in the economy. The passage of the

environmental and occupational health and safety legislation signaled the intention of the Federal Government to interject its

presence forcefully into areas where it previously had been only

peripherally concerned. The imposition of price controls greatly

expanded and made much more formal the movement of the

Government into firms’ pricing decisions. Both these moves signaled the rise of an important new source of uncertainty for the

businessman, the uncertainty of Government policy.

The way the Government moved to exercise its new influence

did nothing to quiet concern in this regard, In both the environmental and the occupational health and safety areas, the Government initially acted with little knowledge or even apparent concern about what the ultimate consequences of its policies might

be. It was not until the mid-1970s that it began to assess in a

serious and systematic way the impact that even a single agency’s various rules and regulations might have on a specific industry, Even today there is extremely little information about how

the totality of Government policies impacts on given industries

and sectors and how these policies interact. Very little attention

still is given to reducing the inconsistencies in the policies and

regulations of various agencies.

In the case of price controls, the problems that inevitably arose

were handled by one “quick fix” after another. Little thought had

been given as to how to impose the controls in the first place.

More, but still inadequate, thought was given regarding how to

remove them. Once the controls were formally removed, the

question of what type of continuing Government presence, if

any, ought to exist was never really resolved,

It is little wonder that in contemplating how the Government

had handled the substantial increase in the level of its involvement in the economy that had begun in the late 1960’s, businessmen began to question the Government’s ability to form and carry out rational and consistent policy, There can be little doubt

that this climate of confusion and inconsistency played havoc

with business’ attempt to undertake the kind of long-range planning that is needed if they are to undertake investments which

require large amounts of “front-end” money and take years to

show a return.

106
What also was not adequately understood by the Government

is that, all else held equal, it requires a much higher level of

sophistication and skill to manage an economy that is operating

at or near full capacity than one that is operating at well below

capacity. Such relatively blunt fiscal policies as across-the-board

tax cuts and increased public spending can work effectively in

stimulating the economy in a situation in which bottlenecks are

not immediately encountered. The 1964 tax cut is a good example

of this, However, as became painfully evident during the 1972-74

period, a similar spurt in demand when the economy is already

operating at close to full capacity can produce very different

results. .Monetary policy used primarily as a “fine tuning” instrument at times when the economy is close to capacity has turned

out to be not as precise an instrument as policy makers would

have liked. Furthermore, attempting to deal with such a situation

by undertaking ad hoc actions that ignore the fundamental interrelatedness of the industrial sector or by random jawboning do as

little good and embody as much potential for creating harm as

tying down the safety valve on an overheated boiler,

Another factor that was not adequately appreciated during

1973-74 was the importance of paying attention to factors which

affect the attitudes of relevant decision makers in the private

economy when the economy finds itself in a tight situation. If

there is enough talk in the press predicting that we are about to

run out of resources, and if responsible Government officials

lend credibility to such talk, it is only natural for purchasing

agents to be particularly alert for signs that the commodities they

must acquire to keep their factories running are about to

experience supply difficulties. And when they see such a signal—or believe that they see such a signal —they are bound to

take steps to protect themselves, thereby producing a classic “run

on the bank,” In such times, it is especially critical that the

Government be aware of the true state of the situation that exists

in certain industries so that the potential impacts of its various

actions or inactions are fully appreciated.

I have argued above that, when viewed in the context of our

postwar experience, the shortages of 1973-74 were extraordinary

events. But are they likely to be repeated?

Investment spending increased in 1973 and 1974 as the economy expanded and price controls were removed. However. the

recession of 1975 caused many projects to be canceled or delayed.

Now that the economy is emerging from the recession, capital

spending is beginning to increase, but there is no sign yet of the

sort of investment boom that would make up for the underinvestment of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The sharpness of

the recession and the speed with which the shortages disap1 0 7
peared should not divert our attention from the tight situation we

almost certainly would find ourselves in if demand picked up

abruptly and remained at high levels for any extended period of

time. The severity of the demand surge would be heightened if,

as in 1972, all major industrial countries boomed simultaneously,

Certain basic industries continue to be heavily impacted by

events such as the increased price of energy, environmental

regulations, and occupational health and safety regulations

which, when taken together with their previous investment

history, may mean that these industries will encounter capacity

bottlenecks somewhat before the rest of the economy, Aluminum

and paper appear to be two such examples in the group of industries that the staff has studied, However, any such projections

should be treated with extreme caution, since the intensity of any

pressures that develop will be strongly affected by the particular

pattern of the expansion in demand.

Implications for Government Policy

Given what appears to be the basic problem that set the stage

for the shortages of 1973-74–an insufficiency of productive

capacity— it might be imagined that the natural recommendation

would be for a program of increased government incentives for

capital formation, particularly in the basic industries. Certainly

the decision made in the early 1950’s to build up our industrial

base had the effect of adding substantially to capacity in these

industries. And there is no doubt in my mind that, if sufficient

incentives were created, capacity expansion could be greatly

stimulated.

This will not be the staff’s recommendation, To be sure, the

incentives of the 1950’s stimulated capacity expansion, but they

also helped produce an excess capacity condition that lasted well

into the 1960’s. In their own way they contributed as much to the

long-range problems as did the price controls of a later era,

I do not mean to imply that decision by the Government to provide special incentives for capacity expansion in a given industry

or group of industries is never justified, What I do say is that if

such a policy is undertaken on a piecemeal basis with no account

taken of its impact on other iridustries or on the long-run health

of the industry being “helped,” the result is no more likely to be

effective, and, indeed, is quite as likely to be harmful, as some of

the policies whose results are documented in our commodity

studies,

The Commission staff likely will be recommending, therefore,

that the Commission place its primary emphasis on suggesting

means by which the uncertainties that result from the way the

108
Government currently forms and implements what might be

called its “macroeconomic policies” can be minimized, This will

directly improve the climate for investment, particularly in the

basic materials industries where added uncertainty in any form is

disruptive. It will also permit informed evaluation and effective

implementation of any proposals that might be made to aid

specific firms or industries.

The question of information appears to be central, It is

difficult, if not impossible, for someone who was not involved in

a specific policy decision to know what information was available to policy makers, how that information was used, and what

additional information, had it been available, might have

changed the decision, Nonetheless, the staff studies, contractor

reports, and work undertaken at the request of the Commission

staff by other Government agencies tell a consistent story to the

effect that Government actions, whether undertaken with the

benefit of full information or not, contributed greatly to the creation of the underlying conditions that resulted in the shortages of

1.973-74. The Government’s apparent lack of awareness of its

growing influence over virtually all aspects of decisionmaking in

industry, and its failure to exercise this influence in a more coordinated, informed, consistent, and responsible manner contributed to the shortfall in capacity expansion. Its apparent lack

of understanding of the impact of its policies on aggregate

demand both in this country and overseas prevented it from

being sufficiently alert to the possibility of the strong demand

pressures that began to be felt in 1972. The apparent failure of its

monitoring of basic industries caused it to be unaware both of the

bottlenecks that were developing and of the seriousness and

abruptness of the inventory buildup that occurred in late 1973.

The ad hoc actions that were taken to increase supply, apparently

without a full understanding of their long-range consequences,

created other problems, particularly in agriculture. Consequently, the staff’s recommendations will concentrate on

improving the flow of information available to Government decision makers.

Detailed suggestions for institutional changes are now being

prepared and will be presented to the Commission at the next

two meetings. They will be designed to achieve four objectives:

1. Improve the quality (notice that I say “quality,” not

“quantity”) of the information the Government generates

with regard to materials;

2. Improve the ability of the Government to monitor the

condition of major industries and industrial sectors:

3. Improve the quality of forecasts and situation reports that

alert the Government and the general public to important

109
emerging trends and potential problems; and

4. Improve the quality of the Government’s policy analysis

so that the Government can better understand the impact

of particular policies, how these policies interrelate, and

how they combine to affect business incentives, particularly the incentive to invest.

I will not go into detail about what the staff will be proposing

to the Commission in these areas because I do not believe it

appropriate to do this before the Commission has had a chance to

see the results of the staff’s work. Suffice it to say that we will be

presenting a broad range of options.

Let me now turn very briefly to the subject of economic

stockpiling. This medicine has been proposed as a cure for an

astonishingly wide range of diseases. Yet, as with any medicine,

in actual use it is likely to be less effective than its more

optimistic proponents would contend, and it is likely to have a

number of unpleasant side effects.

The “diseases” for which this medicine has been must

seriously “prescribed” are three: (1) to offset the impact of actual

supply disruptions, (2) to provide a defense against price

increases by cartels or by other sources of monopoly power, and

(3) to stabilize the prices of key raw materials on a continuing

basis. It is undeniable that each. of these objectives is laudable.

Supply disruptions, or even just the threat of them, can create

havoc in an economy that is being pressed to produce at close to

its full potential, Private firms can indeed often take protective

steps to limit the damages that such disruptions might cause, but

these steps can themselves be quite destabilizing.

Although the cartel threat in minerals undoubtedly has been

overplayed, and although the impact of price increases in any

mineral where a cartel threat is remotely plausible would have

considerably less impact on the economy than did the increase in

petroleum prices, deterring such increases is a worthwhile goal–

if it could indeed be done and at reasonable cost.

Price fluctuations such as we have observed in many basic

commodities over the last several years are disruptive and lead

materials users to take costly actions to offset them. Yet the

record of attempts to stabilize materials prices does not hold out

much hope that any scheme is likely to be both practical and

reasonably inexpensive.

The Commission staff has examined each of these objectives in

detail and has concluded that the first and, in certain cases,

perhaps the second, appear practical. The Commission, after considering the staff’s recommendations, has instructed us to prepare draft report language and draft legislation outlining in detail

how a stockpiling agency designed to accomplish the first of the

110
objectives just mentioned would be constituted and would operate in practice, We are now proceeding to do this with the help of

the staffs of our congressional Commissioners,

Before I close, let me make one final observation. In talking

with many of you from the materials community about the work

of the Commission, I have heard disappointment expressed that

we weren’t getting into areas that might be of special interest to

you. For example, some of you were hoping that the Commission

would identify and perhaps “anoint” promising technologies to

promote substitution or that we would single out specific problem industries for Government attention, but a Commission like

ours cannot be all things to all people. Materials are indeed

important, as you keep reminding me, but they are only a part of

the entire economy, In my mind, the factors that produced the

shortages of 1973-74 and that will produce any significant shortages that we are likely to see in our lifetimes are symptomatic of

a much broader set of problems, These problems have to do with

the way the Government conducts its business and, in particular,

how it relates to basic industry. It is these problems that we are

attempting to address, And if this Commission can cause public

attention to focus on these problems and can make sensible,

implementable suggestions to resolve them. then it will have

accomplished much more to help the materials sector than it

could have by making solemn-sounding pronouncements that are

beyond our own technical and scientific competence.

111
ENERGY CONSERVATION IN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY

by

Ronald S. Wishart

Director, Government & Public Issues

Energy, Supply and Services

Union Carbide Corporation

and

Milton A. Williams

Energy Conservation Coordinator

Chemicals & Plastics

Union Carbide Corporation

Past Henniker Conferences have provided the objective basis

for policy recommendations to the Congress. Hopefully, this conference also can be of great service to our legislators and our

Nation by helping us rationally address our problems. As Herman Kahn said the other day, “Everything is very complicated, ”

(13) and my heart goes Out to our representatives, who last year

had to cast their votes on 800 separate occasions on extremely

complicated matters. In such an environment, good advice does

seem important,

Conservation of energy is a necessary and important aspect of

national energy policy. My address must be primarily practical

rather than theoretical, for that’s my background. It is our bicentennial year, so I hope you will take comfort with me from the

words of John Dickenson at the first Continental Congress when

he said, “Let experience be our guide, for reason may mislead us.”

In that vein, my remarks will seek to describe the attitudes and

policy position of the chemical industry on “energy” and energy

conservation in particular; the nature of the political interface

that currently exists in this area; the industry’s and other views

on the potentials for conservation; what industry is doing about

it; and, last, what I believe are some sensible policy directives

which the Congress might adopt to encourage better performance,

The Petrochemical Energy Group (PEG), is an ad hoc group of

some 23 independent manufacturers of petrochemicals. By independent is meant they are not integrated back to oil and gas; they

are not oil companies. As a basis for their efforts to influence

public policy with respect to feedstocks for petrochemicals, they

have developed an overall policy position, which I quote–

“The Petrochemical Energy Group (PEG), an organization of

independent petrochemical companies, believes the U.S. energy

program should consist of three different, but concurrent,

approaches (figure 1):
CONSERVATION

USE SUPPLIES

“For the short term there seems to be no way to meet the

demand for petroleum and natural gas in the United States

except through imports, The current decline in domestic oil and

gas production, coupled with Government policies designed to

make the United States independent of foreign energy supplies,

suggests that some products now based on these hydrocarbons

may not be manufactured or that some energy requirements may

not be met, In a free market, this dilemma would be resolved by

pricing petroleum and natural gas much higher–forcing markets

which could not afford the increased costs to turn to other alternatives, However, many kinds of Government restrictions on the

free market will probably keep the free market from functioning

effectively.

“Thus the United States is probably facing a period of ‘energy

management’ for some years to come, How this management will

he achieved is a continuing debate. Whatever mechanism is

chosen— taxes, rationing, or prohibition of certain uses–- the

Nation must consciously protect its resources for their preferred

uses. ”

The PEG policy position accepts the fundamental purpose of

Project Independence without endorsing its expression. That is, it

is necessary to assure U.S. freedom of action in international
affairs by establishing a secure resource base for energy. It goes

without saying that similar concern exists with respect to other

raw materials basic to an industrialized society.

It is a measure of the maturing congressional appreciation of

the problems of the Nation that there are attempts to address

these matters today, compared with the initial reaction of the legislators in 1973 and 1974 to divide up the shortage without

increasing the supply,

PEG’s prime concern is the preferred use of resources

doctrine–that is, to reserve the clean fuels which are also feedstocks for that superior use, and not to burn them as fuels. The

distinction has been made between feedstocks and fuels effectively enough that the Federal Energy Administration and

Federal Petroleum Congress do discriminate against synthetic

natural gas plants based on naptha and LPG, for example, and a

high priority for natural gas as a feedstock and process fuel is

maintained in the FPC statement of priorities for natural gas use.

Public policy on energy conservation generally distinguishes between fuel and feedstock uses, on the presumption that the conservation potential for feedstock is limited. That is a satisfactory

working assumption for the short term, but it is probably not

valid over a time span long enough to permit replacement of current processes by more efficient ones,

In early 1974 the PEG companies advised the Manufacturing

Chemists Association (MCA), which comprises about 189 members producing over 90 percent of the U.S. chemicals (outside of

fertilizers), that an industrywide approach to energy conservation should be initiated. Shortly thereafter, the Department of

Commerce and the Federal Energy Administration asked 26

major chemical companies (both independent and integrated) in

a series of workshops to define the subject matter further. The

effort culminated on October 10, 1974 in a commitment to a 15

percent reduction in energy consumption per unit of output by

1980. My impression of the occasion is that the 15 percent number was a compromise reached under the threat of missing lunch,

but represented a consensus among those companies who saw no

way to achieve so high a result, and those who had visions of

much better results than 15 percent. As additional information

has been gained since then, both conservative and optimistic

views are justified, depending on the different chemical processes involved. It is the mix of business which influences the

average.

Other industries such as steel, aluminum, cement, petroleum,

and paper undertook similar commitments at the same time,

ranging from 5 percent to 15 percent. It is surely true that none of

these industries has anything approaching the complexity of

114
product mix that the chemical industry does, nor such a variety

of processes or level of process complexity.

What is the level of energy consumption of these industries? In

figure 2, note not only that the top six, of which four are shown,

equal all other manufacturing, but also the rapid growth rate of

chemicals versus others in the 1947-1975 period, particularly primary metals. This illustrates a long-term impact on the Nation’s

economic health, as well as a potential for apparent conservation

as the manufacturing component of GNP increases in less basic

industries, while the more basic industries grow relatively little.

It is well known that new investment in U.S. industry lags well

behind its proportion of existing world investment.

FIGURE 2.—Gross Energy Consumer by Manufacturing Groups

Trillion BTU’s

6000 1

1

1947 1955 1963 1971 1979

Source: Refcrence # 14.

To bring this history up to date, the voluntary energy conservation programs of Federal Energy Administration and Department

of Commerce now include reports from some 32 industry associations, and probably 36 more are today planning to enter. The

Manufacturing Chemists Association program report will this

September include 107 companies of the MCA membership, with

another 15 also involved but reporting through other industry associations (fig, 3). The industry also reports its total energy usage

(fig. 4).

Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975

(EPCA)–the voluntary programs may remain intact when the

bill’s provisions come into force on January 1, 1977, but there are

many uncertainties. Efforts funded by FEA to satisfy the bill’s

115
FIGURE 3. – Manufacturing Chemists Association

Energy Efficiency Table 1972 1975

— —

production (10 423 9 lbs)

Btu’s (1012) 3065’ 2941 ● *

Percent improvement Over Base Year (on gross Btu

consumption) Base Year 4.0

1980 Goal is 15 Percent

Energy Consumed to Meet Current OSHA and EPA

Requirements (1012 Btu) 27.8

Energy Consumed to Meet OSHA and EPA Requirements

(Percent of Current Consumption) .9

Source “Voluntary Industrial Energy Conservation Progress Report, ” April 1976. Dept.

of Comrnerce. FEA.

FIGURE 4, – Energy Consumed in Chemicals Processing

(Calendar Year 1975)

The wide variety of fuels and the quantities consumed in the processing operation of the

107 reporting companies are as shown below. The companies represent over 80 percent

of the Industr y sales,

Distillate Fuel Oil. gallons

Residual Fuel Oil. gallons

[.iquified Petroleum Gas (LPG). gallons

Natural Gas, scf

Other Gas. scf

Coke. tons

Coal. tons

Purchased Steam. lbs

Purchased Electricity, kWh

Propane. gal Ions

Other Llquids. gallons

411 x 106

1079 X 106

14 x 106

1305 x l 0

9

25 X 109

354 x 103

11.3 x 10

6

88.5 x 10 9

68.9 X 109

64 X 106

50 X 106

Source ‘“Voluntary Industrial Energy Conservation Progress Report, ” April 1976. Dept.

of Commerce. FEA.

provisions include defining the top 50 companies in each twodigit, SIC code segment, and establishing by technical and economic analysis appropriate targets for energy conservation by

such code for January 1, 1980. I will speak more to the question

about potential savings in a moment. It is already apparent, however, that definition of the chemical industry by two-digit, SIC

code raises more questions than it answers, and it is abundantly

clear that taking the top 50 companies in each industry SIC using

116
I trillion Btu/year or more will yield a very spotty appraisal of

energy intensive industry consumption.

Few people are pleased with EPCA, not particularly for its conservation provisions, but for many others, so we can expect a

continuing flow of new bills covering various aspects of the

energy situation. The picture is continually changing from the

regulatory and legislative standpoint.

The definition of conservation currently in force in industry

reporting is Btu’s/unit of output (or, for the refining industry, per

unit of input). This definition is not inconsistent with some economists’ preferred definition on the macroscale of Btu’s per unit of

deflated GNP (Btu/$1976 or Btu/constant $ shipped), which suggests that through 1967, at least, manufacturing was increasingly

efficient (fig. 2). The Conference Board has a forecast of continuing trend (fig. 5).

FIGURE 5.—Energy Utilization for Heat

and Powcr per Unit Shipped

1,000 Btu 1967 Constant $ of Shipments

200

150

100

50

0

163.8

157. 8

152. 4

195 4 195 8 196 2 196 7 197 5 198 0

However, there are many more viewpoints to be heard from in

the area of energy conservation. Denis Hayes, in WORLDWATCH PAPER No. 4, suggests the conflict between disciplines

and jargons (11). I quote—

117
“Yet ‘waste’

Waste signifies

mist; it ha s

engineers, and

can mean different things to different people.

one thing to a physicist, and another to an econowildly differing meanings for philosophers,

politicians. In fact, all energy policy discussions

bear this curse of Babel; they are plagued by ambiguous terminology and consequent misunderstandings. A new and eclectic field, energy policy, involves so many diverse disciplines that

a common language and set of definitions could hardly be

expected. But many conflicting claims might well be reconciled if

only their respective proponents were talking about the same

thing.

“Few energy economists, for example, have any background in

thermodynamics. Few know that energy has a qualitative dimension, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics— which states

that the quality of energy declines as it is used—is just as

absolute as the First Law which states that the quantity of energy

in the universe is constant. Most studies of energy use have dealt

only with the quantitative dimension of energy. Most have considered the flow of energy units (Btu’s, calories, or joules) used in

a given process, but have not distinguished between the relative

entropy levels (i. e., levels of organization and quality) of these

quantities. Most have thus ignored the most important aspect of

the energy flows they have been analyzing.

“While physicists thus argue that energy use in the United

States is only 10 to 15 percent efficient, many economists believe

that there is no significant waste in our present energy budget, By

their own standards both camps are correct, The physicists failed

to examine the economic cost of increasing the physical efficiency of energy use, Nor did they examine systemic alternatives (e.g.

substituting van pools or public transit for automobiles). Theirs

was a purely technical study of the efficiency of use of free

energy in current technologies. Most economists, on the other

hand, disregard the physical and technical phenomena their

idealized marketplace purportedly represent. They take for

granted that pricing mechanisms have assigned appropriate dollar values to all possible purchases, Since fuel buyers act in their

own economic self-interest, and since the total economy seems to

be operating reasonably efficiently, these economists argue that

our current level of fuel consumption cannot be considered economically wasteful.

“If both perspectives are ‘correct, ’ both have shortcomings. In

economic terms, technical opportunities tor conservation mean

little if they are prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, the

purely economic perspective may be even more deficient. Its

guiding principle– that a dollar should be invested wherever it

will bring the highest return —is sensible for many purposes,

118
However, at

nalities’ as

present it almost completely disregards such ‘exterenvironmental quality, occupational safety and

national security. Moreover, it_ ignores the needs of the next guy

in line. On a planet with rapidly depleting, finite resources,

future generations can’t fend for themselves; the economic principle must be tempered by humanitarian constraints. But economics is an analytical tool, not a system of ethics.

“Combining the insights of both physicists and economists, this

study considers energy to be ‘wasted’ whenever work is performed that could have been completed with less or lower

quality energy and without incurring higher total social or economic costs. By this definition, the United States consumed about

twice as much fuel in 1975 as was necessary, The major areas in

which significant savings could be made are transportation, heating and cooling systems for buildings, water heating, the food

system, electrical generation, industrial efficiency, waste recovery, recycling, and lighting.”

So there are several definitions of conservation which can be

applied, as well as standards of performance to use in evaluating

results.

It does seem to the chemical industry that there is great merit

in changing the dependence of the Nation on oil and gas toward

coal, oil shale, oil sands, nuclear power, and such renewable

energy sources as the solar, wind, and sea tides. That is the route

to energy independence in supply which will be furthered by

free market pricing of energy sources. The problem in the world,

and in North America in particular, is not really lack of fossil resources for the foreseeable planning period (fig. 6), It is that

regulated pricing of energy sources now inhibits development of

coal, and later of oil shale and tar sands. About one-third of the

reputed North American reserves are coal, with very questionable availability assigned to the oil shale and tar sands, which

comprise all but some 8 percent of the balance.

While higher prices will create a better allocation of investment toward more available indigenous resources than oil and

gas, it is also clearly the accelerator required to promote energy

conservation, and it is an effective one, more so possibly to industry than to other sectors.

It needs to be stated that the profligacy in U.S. energy use

which is so roundly criticized is clearly much more a function of

lifestyle than industrial inefficiency. I find the Institute of Gas

Technology data on correlation of spendable income and energy

use interesting in this regard (fig. 7).

Other reports tend to support the view that to the American

consumer convenience and comfort are and continue to be more

important than vague concepts of national independence. The

119

87-315 0 - 77 - 9
— ——.

FIGURE 6.—Wor]d Recoverable Energy Reserves

(Quadrillion Btu)

Source: Survey of Energy Resources, World Energy Conference, 1974.

American home is reported to use three times as much electricity

in 1975 as it did in 1965, and gasoline use is up again in 1976, in

what the New York Times calls a bicentennial driving binge. And

why not? My own old 1972 Pontiac station wagon cost me 35cents/

mile to operate, inclusive of depreciation, insurance, and other

costs, of which gasoline was 6cents. The economic incentive of

gasoline price increases is minor relative to other costs.

Figure 8 illustrates the 13-year trend in net energy consumption by sector, and points out that the residential, commercial,

and transportation sector outpaced the industrial in increasing

use. FPC data on 25-year electrical use corroborates the data in

figure 8, and incidentally illustrates the high-load factor of this

customer class (fig. 9).

The trends in electricity consumption by sector reflect the

realities of cost for this energy form versus other energy forms. It

is at minimum three times as expensive a source of thermal

120
FIGURE 7.—Correlation of Annual Energy Consumption

Per Capita with Disposable Personal Incorne

Per Capita for the United States

Per Capita Energy

Consumption, million Btu

40C

350

30C

250

200

150

—

—

—

—

—

1929 ~

/6-194 1

energy for the lowest priced user as the next cheapest alternative,

and hence is and has been most efficiently used by industry. Of

course, it is used in quantity only for electrochemical processes

and mechanical application for which it is uniquely fitted. It is

obvious from the recent congressional hearings on electric rate

reform that the economic basis for charging the high-voltage,

high-load factor users a lower rate per kWh than the low-voltage,

low-factor users is not understood, Indeed, I was informed in

those hearings that industry was “ripping off” the residential,

and was wasteful of electricity because of low “promotional”

rates to industry. Figure 10 was used by the Electricity Consumers Resource Council at the House Subcommittee on Energy

and Power hearings in April 1976, in pointing out the illogic of

that allegation,

Unfortunately some generally responsible consulting firms

have reinforced this erroneous impression, The June 1976 report

121
Total Net Energy

Consumption

4.3% pa.

Transportation

31%

Industrial

39%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1974.

by the Stanford Research Institute, “Electric Power–The Cost to

Industry,” (9) suggests that utilities price power such that

industrial customers are in effect being subsidized, principally by

the residential sector. Analysis of all rate-of-return studies made

for utilities, public service commissions, and industrial users over

the last 5 years by two major consultants in the field, indicates

that in about 80 percent of the cases the industrial class provides

a higher rate of return than does the residential class. In no case

were rates below cost. It is ironic, of course, that almost universally the commercial class provides a higher return than either.

As a policy, major industrial users would be pleased to see

utilities so price electricity as to gain an equal rate of return from

all classes.

To summarize, it seems there is reason to believe that, on the

macroscale, increases in energy consumption have been a function of lifestyle and personal income, Further, the residential and

commercial sectors have contributed more to the growth in

122
I

---- - -

SJnOH-/iEMO/l> /0 SUOIIIla

123
FIGURE 20.—Purchased Energy Costs at Several

ELCON Member Plants $/Million Btu’s [1975j

Source: Reference #6.

energy usage than has industry, particularly in electricity. There

is reason to believe that industry, and the energy-intensive

industries in particular, are more sensitive to price signals on a

continuing basis than are the citizenry in general,

What potentials for savings in energy use exist? The literature

of the last few years is not overly instructive. Various consultants, largely at the behest of the FEA, have sought to quantify

the industrial savings potential by comparing the United States

with supposedly similar societies such as Sweden and West Germany and by thermodynamic analysis,

Comparison of Sweden and West Germany with U.S. energy

use was developed because the GNP/capita is similar, hence the

relative energy use might suggest potential for savings. It is clear

that there are gross differences between the societies in their

energy use, but it is not certain that U.S. industrial use of energy

is less efficient than in the countries compared (11). One finds

that Swedish energy use per capita is 6 percent of the United

States. However, Swedish industrial use per capita is slightly

greater than in the United States, In the particular case of the

chemical industry comparison between the countries, the report

shows a U.S. use, measured in kWh per dollar shipped, of 73 percent of the Swedish use (fig. 11). The German study (fig. 12) does

suggest materially lower energy consumption than in the United

States per unit of industrial output.

Some of my colleagues in U.S. industry who have reviewed

these reports and interviewed the London office of the consultant

who did the German study criticize it on various grounds. In my

opinion the outcome is not unlikely, in view of the generally

more modern German steel, chemical, and refinery plants reconstructed after World War 11; the much higher level of processing

of U.S. food; the imports of wood pulp by the paper industry in

Germany; and the notably lower fuel costs enjoyed by the U.S.

petrochemical industry on the Gulf Coast,

124
FIGURE 11 .—Energy Consumption in kWh/Capita

for U.S. and Sweden in 1971

Going beyond comparisons, A. J. Appleby constructs a scenario

of a nonfossil-fuel economy after the year 2000, with dramatically higher energy prices impelling a reordering of society

and industrial organization to force conservation (17). For the

year 2025 he would have industrial energy use overall at onethird of 1971 energy consumption per $1 of GNP, measuring

energy use in tons equivalent of crude oil (fig. 13). He assumes an

overall potential savings of 27.2 percent of primary energy use

per GNP unit. Made up by a series of savings, these would

include a reduction from the present industrial total of 33 percent
126
in process steam and direct heat, with emphasis on retrieval of

waste heat from electric powerplants; cutting primary metals

demand for energy in half; reducing present inorganic chemical

industry consumption by one third, and so forth.

His argument is based on the intolerable burden of future

energy costs and capital demands which he sees placed on

society by the generation of that energy. However, what kind of

capital cost and technological development needed to replace

current industrial, transportation, and housing to satisfy these

ideals is not adequately understood, The measures required will

be Draconian. This is a splendid example, I trust you will agree,

of “Reason misleading us. ”

“The FEA-funded studies by Battelle and Gordian Associates

published thus far seem to me to be closing in on the subject of

conservation potential without actually providing either a

measure of potential or a rationale for approach. The thermodynamics studies at Battelle (16) cover seven energy-intensive

industries, including four major plastics, and calculate the fuel

requirements for the polymerization steps and the imputed

thermodynamic efficiency of those steps (figs. 14 and 15).

FIGURE 14.–Fuel Use for PJastics per ‘l’on of Product

(a) Includes monomer production (but not fuel equivalent of feed stocks) are inefficiencies in steam and electrical generation.

(h) Fuel equivalent for steam and electricity required for polymerization process

analyzed.

(c) Fuel equivalent of monomer feed stock. not included in Columns I and 2.

Source: Battelle Columbus Laboratories. “Evaluation of the Theoretical Potential

for Energy Conservation in Seven Basic Industries,” prepared for FEA 7/11/75.

The Gordian Associates study (18) on these same plastics

assigns the energy consumption from raw material acquisition to

final product ex-reactor, and is therefore useful in focusing on

which of these steps offers the biggest targets (fig. 16).

As time has elapsed, more sophisticated approaches involving

direct participation by industrial groups have been initiated, and I

1 2 7
~FIGURE 15.–Plastics Production Efficiency

Polymerization Entire Industry

Polymer Efficiency, Efficiency,

Percent Percent

Low-density polyethylene 67 45

High-density polyethylene 66 49

Polystyrene 79 64

Polyvinylchloride 62 37

Source: Battelle Columbus Laboratories. “Evaluation of the Theoretical Potential for

Energy Conservation in Seven Basic Industries,” prepared for FEA 7/Ii/75.

FIGURE 16, –Percentage Breakdown by Operation of Total MMBtu of

Primary Energy Consumption for Production of Selected Plastic

Products in the United States in 1970

Poly - PolyvinylPrimary and Ancillary LDPE HDPE styrene chloride

Production Operations Resin Resin Resin Resin

Natural Gas Processing

Production of Oxygen

Production of Ethylene

Production of Acetylene

Production of LDPE Resin

Production of HDPE Resin

Production of Aromatics

Ethylbenzene by Superfractionation

Production of Styrene

Production of Polystyrene

Production of Chlorine

Production of Vinyl Chloride

Production of PVC

15.3 16.2 4.0 7.5

1.4

30.8

9.4

—

63.3 66.8 16.3

21.4

17.0

49.3

3.1

20.5

6.8

18.1

12.7

20.1

Total 100.0 100,0 100.0

Total Primary Energy Consumption,

MMBtu/ton 93.49 86.64 117.42 82.92

Source: Energy Conservation Paper No. 9 prepared by Gordian Associates.

must say it is high time. It is not necessarily suggested that

greater competence exists in the industrial groups than can be

found in the consulting community, but much better access to

current practice and the potential for technological advance can

be expected. Probably most important, an evaluation of the rein128
vestment arising from anticipated growth rates of various product sectors can be expected to be applied, and this is certainly the

most important influence on achieving conservation potential. In

the chemical industry, we have, as a rule of thumb, anticipated

twice as much energy efficiency improvement from new capital

formation as from housekeeping and retrofit activities.

Under the auspices of the National Research Council, there is

currently under way a study to appraise the appropriate future

role of nuclear power among alternative energy systems, As an

aspect of that study, a demand/conservation work panel is

addressing the question of industrial energy conservation potential through the year 2010. The work statement of the group was

reviewed recently with the Manufacturing Chemists Association

task force, It seems to the MCA group that the study offers both

theoretical and practical potential over that extended time span,

tempered as it promised to be by realistic forecasts of population

and economic growth, lifestyle changes, and technological

advance,

The timetables currently governing the study would suggest

that it should be finished in 1976, and will be in my opinion the

first industry comment with adequate depth and scope to justify

confidence in the forecast for the industry sector.

In the shorter term we have the FEA effort to define industry

conservation targets for 1980, a program mandated by EPCA. The

Battelle-Chem Systems study is likely to be published in September 1976. Under the urging of the MCA, an open communication

by the chemical industry to consultants has been realized. Since

the results have not been released yet by the FEA, and since they

will be the subject of open hearings, it is impossible to offer comments on the results derived. The MCA Committee has organized

a parallel study using industry experts in each SIC code area to

develop an independent target number, properly weighted by the

energy intensivity of the product sectors and the anticipated

growth rates of each.

It becomes apparent in the MCA studies why the industry is

reluctant to be bound to a high target at any time. Two technical

reasons dominate, First, the extent of capacity utilization at any

given moment has a profound effect on energy use per unit of

output (fig. 17). Within the shaded portion lies 75 percent of the

some 100 processes evaluated by the industry task force. You will

note in these energy-intensive processes that at the origin the

median energy requirement is 35 percent of full capacity energy.

Or, on that median line, 30 percent of capacity required 50 percent of maximum energy utilization, The chemical industry operated at 74 percent of capacity in 1975, but the most energy inten -

129
100

90

80

70

60 B

FIGURE 17.—Energy Requirements Versus Production

01 1 f I

o

I I 10 i

20 I

30 1

40 I

50 60 70 80 90 100

PRODUCTION LEVEL—Y.

Source: Manufacturing Chemists Associati on<

sive portions, such as olefins manufacture, ran at below 60 percent for a large part of the year.

Second, the SIC code approach mandated by law (and the only

one seemingly feasible in light of currentl y available data) creates statistical problems for the chemical industr y analysis. The

problem is that SIC determination is by principal product shipped

from each establishment, Given that, in the typical chemical

complex, the sequential flow of intermediator to products is in

several steps, these data shed little light on the effect of process

steps involved. For example, my own company 

in its chemical

operations produces 2-1/2 to 3 pounds of products and intermediates for each pound of product it sells. Less integrated operations will, of course, have fewer processing steps.

130
There is no question, however, that our own internal studies

give great confidence that voluntary programs in the chemical

industry will lead to savings greater than 15 percent by 1980 versus 1972, provided the economy justifies an economic utilization

of capacity at that time. It is premature to publish specific predictions of savings for that time period. In plastics, synthetic rubber,

fibers, BTX, and organic chemicals, increases in efficiency above

15 percent are considered feasible. On the other hand, the

electrochemical and industrial gas sectors, dependent on

electricity, offer much less savings potential overall, and along

with the inorganic pigments and other inorganic serve to bring

down the weighted average forecast.

It seems that energy intensivity declines markedly with each

step in the value added. This has a most beneficial effect on management attention to energy conservation, since in the chemical

industry the lowest value products have been most impacted by

rising energy costs.

Which leads to the question, What is the impact on the chemical industry and how is it reacting in practical ways?

Lacking generalized data, I must resort here to particular examples. But I do believe the response has been very similar across

the industry, in light of the reporting of some 100 companies in

the industry. The conservation results reported to the MCA for

transmittal to the Government indicate that the average savings

per unit of output by the top 26 companies and the balance of the

100 are approximately the same.

The economic imperative created by energy dependence and

sharply rising costs to save is enormous. Figure 18 displays recent

fuel cost to utilities, and the total and projected U.S. average

electricity costs. Since fuel cost is a major portion of purchased

electricity charges for industrial users (about 70 percent in Texas

Gulf Coast), the impact is greater on the industrial than the residential user for electricity. Unit electricity charges for a typical

U.S. chemical company in 1975 are 240 percent of 1972. Intrastate

natural gas prices are up eightfold. And oil costs are up fourfold.

A basic petrochemical producer may have today 30 percent total

energy product cost per dollar of sales. These relationships have

directed management attention to savings of energy in many

ways, with good effect and more zeal than any regulatory process

can possibly command.

The industry conservation programs in my own company and

others with which I am familiar have embodied all the paraphernalia required to systematically produce results. First, top

management has uttered policy statements reflecting not commitments to Government agencies, but the economic necessity to

be more efficient, Second, identified individuals in the organiza131
FIGURE 18.—Cost of Fuel Used for Electric Power Generation

by Region, 1970-1985

20.0 I South Atlantic

New England

Mid-Atlantic

West South Central

U.S. Average

East North Central

I

West North Central

East South Central

Pacific

Mountain

1970 1973 1974 1980 1985

Sources: Edison Electric Institute; Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates.

tion structure have been given responsibility for results. Next,

capital and expense moneys have been allocated consistent with

economic and other guidelines.

Major energy-using processes are subjected to intensive audit,

as are whole plants. Periodic reporting has been established, or

better yet included in existing operations-improvement reporting

systems, Strong internal and external employee and public relations programs have been instituted to encourage involvement

and pride in results.

The published reports on the Monsanto Company represent a

leading program. Under the “activity” method of reporting, they

recognize a 19. I percent energy savings-per-unit output in the

132
period of 1973-1975 inclusive, Since the production rate was low

in 1975, the company purchased 15 percent less energy in 1975

than in 1974, but energy costs increased 24 percent, At the same

production level as 1974, costs would have been up 45 percent.

The “activity” report concept anticipates the annual effect at

reasonably high operating rates of projects instituted, and differs

from the MCA report, which essentially reports the ratio of

energy consumed, per pound of product produced, per calendar

year, compared with the 1972 base year.

Monsanto uses a target energy cost to evaluate energy conservation investment, and that target is the energy cost in an outpost

year 5 years after mechanical completion.

My own company’s energy conservation savings are reported

and managed through a longstanding Operations Improvement

Program. That program, by the way, is given credit for our economic viability in the period 1960-1970, during which time the

company’s chemical price index in current dollars fell 36 percent.

Figure 19 portrays some recent history. It is noteworthy that

since 1972 energy conservation savings as percent of total savings

have gone from 15 percent to 37 percent of the total. About 30

engineers are dedicated to energy conservation work alone in the

plants of this division,

FIGURE 19.–Energy Conservation Saving as Percent of

Manufacturing Savings

Operations Improvement Energy Cons.

Year Energy Conservation Program–Overall/ Savings as% of

Savings $MM Savings (l)$MM Mfg. Total –(%

1972 6.2 41.1 1 5,1%

73 8.4 47.5 17.7

74 9.0 47.5 19.0

75 12.8 47,3 27.1

First

76 Half 9.5 25.8 36.8%

Date

—

(l)– Energy Conservation savings are included in the OIP overall savings. OIP focuses

attentlon on:

Energy Costs

Raw Material Costs

Period Costs

Any other (:osts not in above

Source: Union Carbide Corporation

133
Research and development activities are increasingly directed

to process development in less energy-intensive processes. Traditionally, about two-thirds of the equipment investment in chemical manufacturing is devoted to separation equipment, largely

distillation columns. Since the early 1970’s, research into new

and less energy-intensive separation processes has been funded,

The target is obviously large (fig. 20).

FIGURE 20.–Fuel and Energy Use in the Chemical Mushy

by Conversion Process

Source: Reference #21.

The principal deterrent to faster implementation of energyupgrading projects is capital availability, A typical priority list for

investment is, first, mandatory projects for employee safety; second, projects to meet environmental commitments; third, major

expansion; and fourth, energy conservation.

Typically, paybacks for approved retrofit projects of an Operations Improvement Program or energy conservation nature are

very great— less than a year at the present time. This reflects

both lack of capital availability and the recognition that incremental investment in obsolete facilities may have very high

returns, but the fundamental non-competitiveness of such

facilities relative to all new ones embodying state-of-the-art technology is usually overriding. That trend is less obvious today,

since all new facilities initiated will be completed at costs greater

134
than 400 percent of those finished in 1971, but it is nonetheless

fundamental in the long term.

The engineering guidelines currently in force indicate that

there is economic justification in our operation for an investment

of $100,000 to save 1590 barrels per year oil equivalent. The key

assumptions are a forecast of energy price in an outpost year 5

years hence, and investment costs 2 years hence,

The discussion has concentrated so far on conservation

measured as increasing energy efficiency. It is also true that conservation of declining fuel resources is a particular objective that

prompts investment programs to diminish use of natural gas as

fuel, The priority use of natural gas for residential use is explicit,

and boiler use will be sacrificed. The current Texas Railroad

Commission policy in that regard is clear, and while awkward for

a number of individual plants and companies it is consistent with

policies they have endorsed through industry groups such as

PEG. My own company aims to reduce total natural gas use 65

percent by 1980 from 1972 levels, and I believe that is typical.

It is expected that if the new Federal Power Commission price ,

setting of $1.42 for interstate use is confirmed after litigation by

consumers, then that will tend to promote conservation in interstate pipeline customers, as well as increased availability of gas

to the pipeline. Intrastate prices in Texas and Louisiana already

range from $1.50 to $2.00, and in our plans are expected to reach

parity with oil in the early 1980’s. A form value premium of 10

percent is very likely,

Such an economic spur to coal production is appropriate, and

should suggest a more rational address to environmental costs

and regulations, Environmental costs for coal should be internalized, and can in all probability be afforded if competing fuels

reach more rational pricing.

It is perfectly apparent to the chemical industry that environmental obligations will have to be met fully in the areas where

operations are principally located, such as Texas.

From a variety of industry sources, some forecasts of the

energy efficiency of all new facilities embodying current technology at anticipated energy prices can be suggested. One source

indicates that an all new olefins plant would use 35 percent less

energy than a 1971 plant (22). Modifications of an existing plant

would yield 15 percent. An all new refinery could achieve a 4 0

percent saving. Several categories of plastic plants will have 2 5

percent to 60 percent lower energy requirements than facilities

built today (2 . Realization of these potentials is obviously a )

function of increasing product demand for it is very difficult to

justify additional new plants, no matter how economic they are,

in an oversupplied market.

87-315 0-77 - 10

135
A number of forecasters anticipate continued growth in the

chemicals and plastics sectors at rates greater than GNP growth,

albeit at half the levels realized in the 1960’s. It is expected that

engineering plastics will continue to replace metals on a utilized

cost basis, particularly in transportation equipment. Continuing

conservation potential exists there, Owens Corning Fiberglas has

postulated a .79 gallon of gas saving per pound of weight reduction over the life of an automobile (100,000 miles). This sort of

incentive will of course be reinforced by higher gasoline prices,

What Governmental and Regulator Policies are Appropriate to

Energy Conservation ?

Beneficial results can be achieved in a number of ways, but the

policy thrusts are relatively few, Seven are discussed as follows:

1. There should be more open invitation by the Congress

and the energy agencies for industrial contribution to

policymaking.

2. Voluntary industrial energy conservation programs

should be maintained and encouraged. The economic

incentives exist to prompt management attention and

application of resources. The chemical industry’s complexity surely calls for address within the infrastructure,

not central regulation.

3, The prices of energy commodities, should be deregulated,

and combined with windfall profit taxation modified by

investment plow-back forgiveness for development of

indigenous resources. The concept that “economic rents”

created by deregulation is a social injustice does not

recognize that present embedded investments are low

compared with the dramatically higher requirements of

new investments in energy product development and

processing, Traditionally, these investments constituted

about 12 percent of total industrial capital formation, but

are about 25 percent today. Furthermore, the regulated

low pricing of natural gas impedes the development of

coal, exacerbates the misallocation of development resources, and keeps overall energy costs down, thus discouraging energy conservation investment in the United

States compared to the rest of the world.

4. Capital and manpower are limited resources. Investment

credit approaches are far superior to loans and loan

guarantees, which impact on debt equity guidelines in

many companies. A plan proposed by the Minnesota

Energy Agency seems reasonable and could make many

136
marginal industrial energy conservation projects economically attractive. Briefly, the “Minnesota Plan” would give

a tax credit of 25 percent for expenditures on plant and

equipment related to achieving energy efficiency, plus a

same year write-off if the company involved would certify that for every $4 of investment $1 annually of energy

savings would result. The “break even” point for large and

small corporations would range between 2 to 2.7 years.

The Government would thus recover its cost for the program in 6 to 8.2 years,

5. Continuation and further development of Governmentsupported energy conservation education in smaller companies is appropriate. The EPIC manuals from the Department of Commerce get high marks from our people, and

the industry seminars planned by FEA make sense, provided adequate technical content is achieved.

6. Industry-electric utility cooperation needs to be facilitated, The intrinsically wasteful thermal efficiency of

electricity generation is improving in new coal-fired

plants, to values like 8400 Btu/kWh from an average of

over 10,000, but greater conservation potential exists in

dual plants using waste heat. Industrial experience suggests that thermal efficiencies of 75 percent are practical.

Specific areas include:

(a) Off-peak and surplus power–some utilities offer

lower- cost power during off-peak hours or on an asavailable basis;

(b) Self-generation by industry with sale of surplus

power to the utility or purchase of back-up power

from utility;

(c) Wheeling of power through utility-owned transmission facilities— this would involve purchase of power

and self-generation outside of the serving utilities territory and wheeled over their lines;

(d) Curtailable rate schedules–some utilities offer nonfirm electric service at lower cost reflecting the higher

utilization of generation facilities;

(e) Dual-purpose industrial energy centers–these are a

consortium of private industries which build and

operate a central station for the production of both

process steam and electrical energy;

(f) Waste-heat recovery– this involves recovering waste

heat from industrial processes and using it to generate

power which is fed into the utility’s distribution

system, and

137
(g) Steam sales–purchase of process steam from electric

utility. Steam sales for heating and process use are

made by some utilities but the practice is not

widespread,

7. A concentrated program should be started to demonstrate,

and allow under law, coal mining and burning technology

which is environmentally acceptable. The coal utilization

in the United States today represents only 18 percent of

primary energy supply, compared with 50 percent in 1950.

But it is not generally recognized how narrow the market

is—about 75 percent of all coal burned in the United

States is consumed by 17 companies. Current strip-mining

technology practiced in West German brown coal fields is

noteworthy in its minimum environmental impact, and

fluidized-bed coal combustion is near demonstration

stage.

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. HYDROCARBON RESOURCES–FUELS OR CHEMICALS? Petrochemical Energy

Group, December 1975.

2. ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MANUFACTURING. The Conference Board 1974. john

C. Myers et al. LOC CCPJ-74-8111.

3. OPERATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, Chemicals & Plastics Division, Union

Carbide Corporation, )uly 1976.

4. VOLUNTARY INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSERVATlON PROGRESS REPORT NO. 3,

April 1976. Department of Commerce & Federal Energy Administration.

5. ENERGY PERSPECTIVES– U.S. Department of Interior. Feb. 1975.

6. TESTIMONY BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE on S. 3310, April 29,

1976. Ronald S. Wishart.

7. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD–@y 19, 1970.

8. U.S. ENERGY CONSUMPTION THROUGH 1981. J. D. Parent and H. R. Linden,

Institute of Gas Technology –)une 18, 1976.

9. ELECTRIC POWER–COST TO INDUSTRY NO. 1003. June 1976. Gwen Crooks, Stanford Research Institute.

10. COMPARISON OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION BETWEEN WEST GERMANY AND

THE UNITED STATES– FEA Conservation Paper No. 33. Stanford Research Institute.

11. EFFICIENT ENERGY USE AND WELLBEING—THE SWEDISH EXAMPLE, Lee Schipper, A. /. Lichtenberg. April 1976. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of

California.

12. WORLDWATCH PAPER NO. 4– “Energy: The Case for Conservation “-Denis

Ifayes. January 1976. Page 9 If.

13. HERMAN KAHN– Conversations of ]une 28, 1976.

14. ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURERS— 1974—Fuels &r Electric Energy Consumed (Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census) M 74(AS) 4, 1.”

15. ENERGY THROUGH YEAR 2000— Bureau of Mines, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. December 1975.

16. EVALUATION OF THEORETICAL POTENTIAL FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION IN

SEVEN BASIC INDUSTRIES— Battelle Columbus Laboratories for FEA. )uly 11, 1975.

17. ENERGY COSTS AND SOCIETY. A. ]. Appleby. Energy Policy ]une 1976.

18, POTENTIAL FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION IN NINE SELECTED INDUSTRIESVOLUME 1. Conservation paper No. 9–Federal Energy Administration,

19. ELECTRJC POWER OUTLOOK “rO 1!385. A. D. Little, Inc. May 1976.

20. A FORWARD LOOK AT THE ELECTRICAL JNDUSTRY– Speech by Drexel B.

)aurney, Ccner’al Counsel FPC, May 6, 1976.

138
THE ROLE OF MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES

TECHNOLOGY IN DEFENSE–PART I

by Jerome Persh

Staff Specialist for Materials and Structures

Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to have

the opportunity to be here this afternoon to discuss with you

what I believe are some very important actions that the Department of Defense (DOD), materials and structures research and

development community must take if we are to fulfill our mission. Hopefully, your deliberations at this conference will provide some guidance for these actions. Indeed, I could almost entitle this talk “Requirements Versus Realities.”

The growing sophistication of DOD structural systems is

requiring a much deeper understanding of the fundamental

physics involved in evaluating the structural response of more

complex materials and complicated geometrical configurations

subjected to an ever-widening range of mechanical, thermal, and

environmental loadings. When these thoughts are superimposed

upon our technical and management philosophy which now

emphasizes “design-to-cost” as well as reduced operation and

maintenance, while at the same time insisting on some performance improvements, it is not difficult to realize that the demands

on construction materials are becoming more and more severe

and are placing both a premium on more extensive materials

characterization and a deeper understanding of structural response and prevention of failure.

This situation is the primary motivation for the trend towards

having to learn more and more about state-of-the art materials at

the expense of developing new materials of construction. This is

a fine philosophy as long as materials are available to do the

required job. The basic problem is that an ever increasing number of situations are arising in which for one reason or another

the materials we know about are not satisfactory. What I mean is

that many applications are emerging where we are “up against

the stops,” or a required military capability cannot be satisfied

because materials of construction either do not exist or have not

been developed to do the job that is needed.

I will discuss some of these problem areas as I go along, but one

fact is very clear: inflation and other factors over the past few

years have steadily contributed to an erosion of the DOD

materials and structures technology base. In the 1960s, the DOD

technology base was able to provide support to the near-term

139
needs of the military departments, while at the same time building a technological reserve for the future. Over the past few years

that reserve has been used to important advantage, but it has not

been replenished because of the pressing needs of increasing

military capability. The realities of the fiscal situation are such

that if we are to attain necessary military capabilities very

deliberate management actions will have to be initiated to take

better advantage of the U.S. national technology base.

I propose, therefore, to outline for you some personal perceptions of “technology requirements” and point out some areas

where much work, including new ideas, is very badly needed in

the light of present “realities,” Figure 1 broadly illustrates the

range of problem areas that we must address in the DOD technology base programs, I do not intend to address in detail all of

the technologies listed here, but merely highlight a few which are

of particular significance.

Technology

Before getting into the individual mission areas, however, I

should point out that my intent in showing the loads and

environment, materials characterization, and non-destructive

evaluation as major program needs applicable across-the-board is

very deliberate, I do not mean to imply that each of the mission

areas suffers a major deficiency in these areas, but if there were

any single set of program needs common to all mission areas,

these are the ones. Without accurate definition of the structural

and environmental loading on any given system, the designer

must take a conservative route which leads to an over-designed

or inefficient structure. Similarly for material characterization, if

the measured properties scatter because of reproducibility problems, for example, the designer has no choice but to use the

lower-most curve, These types of situations arise time and time

again.

Now let me discuss the individual mission areas,

In the land warfare mission area one of our critical problems is

that of survivability, The development of a materials solution to

defeat the high velocity/high density penetrators is a very

definite program need, This is a very complex problem involving

not only materials development but also very extensive calculation schemes. This mission area also has very important program

needs which address the problem of survivability of all types of

ground vehicles, especially to mine field situations, The gun barrel erosion problem is one which has been with us a long time

and will probably continue that way. As the need to increase projective velocity and accuracy increases, so do our gun barrel ero-.

140
I

. . ,

141
sion problems. Materials and structures solutions to these problems, such as appropriate trade-offs between base materials and

special coatings, are really not clear at this time.

The air warfare mission area also has many problem areas for

which satisfactory solutions appear distant. All of the military

departments are working on composite materials for use in

aircraft. These materials are most promising for all types of

aircraft structural components, particularly in areas where

weight and size reductions are critical. When used effectively,

they can result in structural weight savings up to 50 percent

which can be traded for increased performance, combat survivability, or maintainability. But as with all things, we do not get

something for nothing. Design with composite materials is a very

difficult undertaking, as is meaningful, non-destructive evaluation during structural integrity investigations, Furthermore, they

are not the solution to all problems. Military aircraft of the future

will continue to depend on metallic materials for a variety of

specific applications, The trend for the future will undoubtedly

be towards the most effective use of each category of material.

Gas turbines perhaps provide a very good example to illustrate

many of the points I have made so far. Before moving much

further toward advancing this application, we need a better

insight into the loads and environment inside military high-performance engines. We need a much better definition of the

mechanical and the thermal loadings, especially in the very hot

sections, While we seem to be moving in the direction of metalmatrix composites in the lower temperature compressor regions,

the drive towards ever-increasing turbine inlet temperatures is

putting severe demands on the high-temperature superalloy

used in these regions. As a matter of fact, the evolutionary point

has been reached where, for safety reasons, we must refurbish

the hot sections of military aircraft gas turbines long before their

estimated lifetime has been reached. This is a very expensive

proposition from many points of view and reflects the quality of

our materials and structures technology base.

The air warfare mission area also includes tactical missiles. A

very important need is all-weather capability, While we have

fairly large materials development programs addressing this

need, I believe we are still a long way from providing the

materials which will fully satisfy systems requirements.

The mission area of ocean control is primarily the responsibility of the Navy, We divide this mission area into high-speed

surface ships and submarines. Each has its own particular combat

environment, general performance envelope, design philosophy,

and geometric configuration, For example, there is a major effort

along a broad front to provide the Navy with higher speed ships,

142
A common denominator of the various new types under consideration is the necessity to keep the weight low. Thus, the

structural design and materials selection for high-speed ships

approaches that of the aerospace vehicles. But the environment

and loading are vastly different, leading one to inquire as to just

how far it is possible to go in transferring aerospace technology to

ocean control.

This brings me to the strategic offensive and defensive missile

mission area. It is in this mission area where probably our most

demanding program needs exist. Meeting existing requirements

for all-weather capability, accuracy, reliability, and cost reduction all depend heavily upon our materials and structures technology. This mission area is in need of a great deal of emphasis.

Funding and Performers

Figure 2 shows the current and following fiscal years funding

segregated by mission area. The recent Federal Council on

Science and Technology Committee on Materials (COMAT) task

force on the inventory and analysis of federally supported

materials research and development revealed that the DOD

materials R&D budget is less than 14 percent of the total supported by the US. Government. Because of the broad

applicability of this technology area, it is not unreasonable to

expect that a sizeable fraction of the work supported by other

Federal agencies should, in some measure, be applicable to DOD

needs. The question is “how do we take advantage of that work ?“

As far as military department performers involved in DOD

materials and structures R&D, figure 3 indicates generally where

and by whom the work is being done. The industrial and

academic organizations listed are intended only to be representative and are by no means inclusive. The distribution of the funding shown at the bottom of the figure indicates that while the

Army tends to do much of its work at in-house laboratories, the

Air Force has a heavy contract program. The Navy is about 50

percent in-house and 50 percent on contract. An effort is being

made to increase the amount of contract work of the Army and

Navy over the next few years. This is an important step towards

bringing in a broader range of new ideas into the DOD technology base.

Management

I would now like to discuss some aspects of what I term technology program management. Figure 4 illustrates some factors

143
FIGURE 2,—Funding Summary

DOD Materials and Structures Technology Base

&l+ 6.2+ 6.3A

MILITARY DEPARTMENTS +DARPA +DNA

MISSION AREA

which are having increasing influence on how we go about our

business.

—

Over the past 3 to 4 years, there has been a steady growth of

DOD/tri-service coordination for those mission areas having

common materials/structures requirements. For example, there

are formal and casual working groups in such areas as laser hardened materials and structures, tactical missiles, aircraft engines,

reentry technology, and armor and penetrators. The military

departments recognize that they must get together to exchange

current information and to prepare integrated planning for future

efforts if they are to keep up with requirements. In some cases

workshops are called for, sometimes with industrial participants,

to obtain additional ideas and inputs for future planning. These

meetings prevent unwanted and unacceptable duplication of

effort. They also focus more brainpower and experience to help

solve existing technical problems. In addition to these specialized

144
ARM Y

DARCOM

DOD Labs

AMMRC

AVRADCOM

HDDC

ECOM

MlRADCOM

ARRADCOM

BR L

Watervliet

Frankford

Rodman Labs

Industry

U.S. Steel

AVCO

Norton

Philco-Ford

TRW

Corning

Raytheon

Honeywell

G.E.

Whittaker

Others

In-House

Out-of-House

= 1.3 0

FIGURE 3.—Implementation of the Military Department

Materials and Structures Programs

Army Research

Office.

Durham

Univ.

Northwestern

Case Western

Lehigh

U. Calif.

Illinois

MIT

Others

NAVY

I Navy Commands I

DOD Labs

NSRDC

Annapolis

Carderock

NRL

NSWC

NWC

NADC

OVERALL

Int’1 Nickel

Union Carbide

Whittaker

Sikorsky

Grumman

Lockheed

Battelle

Others

In-House

Office of

Naval

Research

Univ.

Webb Inst.

Gee. Wash.

U. Florida

Penn State

Ohio State

Georgia Tech

Others

Out-of-House = 1.00

In-House = 0.90

Out-of-House “

AIR FORCE

Air Form

Systems

Command (AFSC)

)

DOD Labs

AFML

AFFDL

AFWL

AFAL

CRL

4

Industry

Hughes

Boeing

Gen’1 Dynamics

Northrop

Lockheed

Fansteel

Dow Corning

Crucible

Celanese

Carborundum

Others

In-House

Out-of-House = .40

Univ.

MIT

Brooklyn

Poly

U. Calif.

Texas

Yale

Wisconsin

USC

Others
c

u

u

146
working groups, formal materials and structures Technology

Coordinating Papers (TCPS) have been and will continue to be

prepared. The formality of these TCPS puts a necessary discipline in the system since they must be approved by high

authorities responsible for materials and structure technology in

defense.

These documents are prepared as a coordinated effort of the

Army, Navy, Air Force, the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency (DARPA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering

(ODDR& E). They describe and predict, in detail, the technical

developments which the materials and structures technological

communities who support the DOD must achieve in order that

advanced weapon systems can be developed which will assure a

credible U.S. military posture in the late 1970’s and early and

middle 1980’s. These documents also identify areas where the

greatest strengths and inadequacies lie, establish those categories

in which critical materials and structures technology is needed,

and recommend the level of effort to achieve required

capabilities.

Unlike traditional descriptions of materials and structures

technology programs, TCPS are organized in terms of military

vehicles, weapons, and mission areas with each services’ needs

and objectives clearly identified, Each of these areas is analyzed

with respect to principal systems, subsystems, and components to

define and establish the pacing problems in materials and structures technology associated with each piece of hardware. In these

documents we have tried to provide systems planners with the

best judgments of the DOD materials and structures technology

communities as to current technological status. The documents

also address whether a specific technological area can be

advanced at a faster rate than currently planned and, if so, at

what cost.

As I am sure you can appreciate, these TCPS must be treated as

internal Government documents because they contain financial

and planning projections. Because of our sincere desire to share

our assessment of the technology base with the industrial and

academic sectors and thus develop a further, improved assessment, we have sponsored technology conferences which are

based on the information contained in the TCPS. In the past, we

have held separate conferences for materials and structures. The

next one will be a structures TCP conference which will be held

on November 16-18, 1976, at the Institute of Defense Analyses

(IDA). This conference will update the information presented in

1974 at the last structures TCP conference.

147
We hope from these conferences that the industry sector will

maintain a continuing insight into our many specific problem

areas. An intangible, but most important, element of these conferences is the opportunity for representatives of those industrial

and university organizations who have not been engaged in DOD

research and development to meet Army, Navy, and Air Force

officials and discuss mutual interests. The same opportunity

would also exist for companies whose engineers and scientists

have been involved in one or more segments of defense technology but have not participated in other related or unrelated

areas. By this mechanism we hope that these conferences stimulate a continuing dialogue, After all, nobody has a monopoly on

good ideas which can be stimulated by open discussion in an

appropriate environment.

In a number of instances, we have found it necessary to engage

in formal and informal coordination between ourselves and

many other U.S. Government agencies and foreign countries.

Figure 5 displays the coordination activities that are on-going between DOD and other Federal agencies. This, in a way, is a possible response to the first question posed to the panel; “How can

DOD materials and structures research and development be

made more productive in a world of declining real dollar funding?” The approach we have taken is less than satisfactory in

that most of the relationships have been established in a specific

known area and therefore relate to a specific problem. It would

appear to be more beneficial if a realistically structured, Federal

Government-wide coordination mechanism could be implemented so that all U.S. materials and structures technology areas

are covered by an across-the-board formal organizational entity.

The question for the task group here then resolves itself to:

Is greater coordination and interaction between the Department of Defense materials and structures technology base

community and those participating in other Federal agency

programs a feasible mechanism to increase productivity? If

so, how should we go about achieving this?

An example of our cooperation with free-world, Englishspeaking foreign countries is the technical cooperation program

(TCP) between the defense agencies of the United States, United

Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This is an

extremely important aspect of our programs because, while their

technology budgets are, in the absolute sense, less than those of

the United States, they do provide an important different

perspective on many problems.

148
FIGURE S.—coordination

WITHIN DOD

. DOD Materials Shortages Steering Committee

All Services, DARPA, Department of Commerce, Federal Preparedness

Agency, NASA, General Services Administration, National Commission

on Supplies and Shortages, Department of Interior, Office of Technology

Assessment, etc.

. National Commission on Supplies and Shortages

● Henniker IV Conference on Materials Policies

FOREIGN

● The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP) Subgroup P (Materials

Technology)

All Sarvices and DIA

● AGARD

Materials Shortages

The possible shortage of critical materials is becoming more

and more of a real problem. It forces DOD and contractors to

examine carefully the question of materials substitution,

redesign, recycling, or other alternatives at all stages of a given

development. A great deal of attention is now being given to the

question of shortages, and the situation may lead to some

changes in DOD procurement techniques. To deal with this problem, the DOD Materials Shortages Steering Committee has been

organized. Because the causes, effects, and resolution of potential

problems extend much broader than the DOD, membership

includes representatives from other Government departments

and agencies. Figure 6 shows the current membership of this

group. To date, the steering committee has held two major

workshops involving representatives of Government and the

materials industries (both producers and users). Thes e

workshops have contributed in defining and clarifying many

very complex problems which could seriously impact DOD mission responsibilities. To assist in the deliberations of this conference, we have provided for each conference participant copies

of the papers given at the workshop held in February 1976. We do

149
not yet have any clear answers to the many problems we have

encountered, but before that can happen we recognize that we

must first have an understanding of the overall problem.

FIGURE 6.—Coordination

BETWEEN DOD AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)/National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB)

All Services, DARPA and NASA contribute to support

DOD/NASA Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB)/Supporting

Research and Technology (SRT)

Materials and Structures Subpanel

Defense Materiel Standards and Specifications Board (DMSSB) – Materials Panel

All Services, DSA, Dept. of Commerce, Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA),

NASA, ANSI, ASTM, SAE participate

Federal Council on Science and Technology (FCST) – Committee on Materials (COMAT)

All Services, ARPA, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Interior, Energy Research and Development

Administration (ERDA), Dept. of Transportation, HUD and HEW participate

Materials Intelligence Seminar (MIS) - Structures Intelligence Seminar (S1S)

All Services, DIA, and CIA participate

Industry Conferences

Jointly sponsored with Dept. of Commerce and Interior

“Health of Industry,” “Titanium, ” “Technology Transfer”

ERDA Ceramic Gas Turbine Review Committee

NASA

● Carbon/Carbon Re-entry Shields

● Carbon/Carbon Rocket Nozzles

Innovation

I would like now to discuss some aspects of creativity and the

goals of materials and structures technology development.

Admittedly, calling out the need for creative or innovative ideas

is a little like renewing one’s faith in motherhood. Such ideas are

always good and desirable. Nevertheless, because of the technological barriers that are confronting us in so many areas, we

must reexamine our technical approaches. Is there a better way

to approach a given problem? Are we solving the right problem

or are we overlooking something? Are there possible new concepts which could eliminate the problem altogether?

It is possible. even probable, that new ideas will not appear

when requested. Creativity cannot be turned on like a faucet; it

evolves in the mind. However, unless innovative ideas are

invited and welcomed, they may never appear; or, if they do, may

150
not be properly exploited, To be

neither major breakthroughs, nor

welcome, such ideas need be

highly technical.

A case in point related to the non-destructive evaluation

(NDE) of high-performance materials. Military requirements are

emerging which require that the critical flaw size to be detected

is approximately the same size as inherent materials defects. This

evolution is placing ever-increasing demands on NDE detection

capabilities and is approaching unreality in certain critical structural areas and in certain materials, Inspection costs are rising

rapidly for these components as are the costs associated with the

higher reject rates, Even more serious is the situation in which an

undetected flaw might cause a catastrophic failure of a component because of our marginal ability to detect the smaller and

smaIler critical flaws.

We may be traveling down the wrong path in developing highstrength metals which require increasingly higher resolution

NDE. We should perhaps consider paying more attention to

imparting some “forgiveness “ into the materials of construction.

For metals, compositing with high-strength fibers may be a good

approach. Extensive work on organic-matrix composites has

demonstrated significant flaw tolerance and dramatic increases

in fatigue life. If these important attributes can be demonstrated

for metal-matrix composites, a very important development for

future military equipment could result.

While there is increasing interest in the use of ceramic

materials for high-temperature structural use, they are certainly

not “forgiving” materials; consequently, the reliability problem is

quite severe. Compositing, however, may be one promising

approach. Ceramic composites have been used in high-temperature windows but not really as a true load-carrying component. Another, and more basic, approach is to impart more ductility to ceramics.

Impact load characterizations and effects are becoming highly

important. Particle impacts, such as the weather effects on all

aeronautical vehicles, bird impacts on gas turbine engine fan

blades, and ballistic impacts on armor are all phenomena which

are only semi-empirically understood. It is vital that we understand, in a much better fashion, both how the loads arise (for

example, how are atmospheric water and ice characterized?),

and how to determine and simulate the material behavior under

such loads,

Many similar problems exist for which more basic understanding is needed, But for the sake of time I will not elaborate

upon them.

87-315 0-77 - 11
Conclusion

Let me conclude these remarks by commenting on a matter of

concern to me and my DOD colleagues involved with materials

and structures. In many areas the technology base so essential to

future systems development is severely depleted. Future military

requirements are almost certain to involve even more stringent

design conditions. At the same time, high reliability at lower cost

will continue to be emphasized. These needs can be met only

through a revitalized technology base. Unfortunately, the missions of other Government organizations are such that their technology base is not directly useful to DOD. We do use a great deal

of what they develop and depend on them heavily to sustain the

overall U.S. technology base, And without it I am sure we would

be in even worse trouble. Nevertheless, the DOD has its own

special requirements, and it will take special efforts to meet and

maintain its needs. The overall question I therefore place before

this audience is “How can the DOD do a better job of implementing the transfer of materials and structures technology between

Federal agencies, industry, and academia so that it can replenish

the technological reserve which has been depleted over the past

few years?”

We in the DOD are working very hard to keep ourselves as far

up on the “power curve” as we can. We recognize that we are

running into “road blocks” in many areas and must work our way

around them. I will continue to press for greater creativity and

innovation in our programs as the best pathways around these

road blocks, Let me emphasize again that dollars cannot produce

good ideas. The ideas and thoughts that emerge from other programs could prove extremely valuable, and the military departments will welcome them.

As I said earlier, we cannot by ourselves solve the problems I

have outlined. We need the help of other U.S. and free-world programs, The strength of the U.S. national defense effort is very

much dependent on the collective, sustained efforts of the overall

U.S. materials and structures technology community. My perception of the world situation is that we had better “get on with it” or

the technological balance is sure to shift the other way. And we

cannot allow this to happen.

Thank you.

152
THE ROLE OF MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES

TECHNOLOGY IN DEFENSE-PART II

by Morris Steinberg

Director, Technology Applications

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation

In a recent report to Congress, the General Accounting Office

(GAO) assessed Federal materials research and development and

made three recommendations aimed at modernizing the materials policy formulation process and the management of Federal materials R&D activity:

1,

2.

3.

Establish an institution to analyze materials issues and

provide policy guidance,

Establish a comprehensive unclassified information

system for materials R&D built on existing information in

the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange, and

The Science Exchange should include in its information

systems materials R&-D information developed outside the

Federal Govern merit.’

In reviewing the Federal materials R&D the GAO study highlighted three aspects of past and present Federal materials R&D

(table 1). First, program funding in constant dollars is actually

decreasing. Second, Federal R&D effort is highly fragmented.

Third, data are incomplete and have been poorly gathered over

the last 15 years, and collection is sporadic and insufficient for

policymaking.

TABLE 1. –Highlights of GAO Review of Federal Materials R&D

● Program funding in constant dollars ❉▲ ❁❃▼◆❁●●❙ ❄❅❃❒❅❁▲❉■❇✎

1962-1972 = $185 million to $331 million

(real growth only 6% in constant dollars)

● Federal R&D effort is highly fragmented.

1) No overall Federal materials R&D program.

2) Large number of specific mission-oriented R&D activities.

(Fy 1974–23 agencies–90 subdivisionals sponsoring materials R&D)

Source: “Federal Materials Research and Development” Modernizing Institutions and

Management. ” GAO, DEC, 2. IW5

I Requested by Senators ]ohn Tunney and William Brock to (1) analyze Federal Funding for Materials R&D and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of Federal Materials R&D.

“Federal Materials Research and Development: Modernizing Institutions and Management,” GAO Dec. 2, 1975.

153
It would seem to me that these findings and recommendations

could be deliberated this week by this assembly of experts and

could help provide a mechanism to aid in formulating the means

for establishing and implementing such a plan,

But specifically, I am here with Jerry Persh of Office of the

Director of Defense Research and Engineering and Max Williams

of the University of Pittsburgh to address the questions of the

role of materials in defense (table 2), From the DOD point of

view, could these recommendations of the GAO be sufficient to

assess the DOD materials R&D and to determine weakness in the

program and disseminate information more readily? What about

the very large body of classified materials R&D and materials

data that is an integral part of DOD weapons systems? Would a

more complete DOD system be more relevant, or can the recommendations made by the GAO satisfy DOD’s major needs?

TABLE 2.–Questions for the Role of Materials in Defense

1,

2.

3,

4.

5.

6.

7.

Can R&D be made more productive in a world of declining real dollar

funding?

Can the design team approach significantly increase cost effectiveness?

Would DOD funds allocated to basic science–not mission oriented–be

more effective in furthering the long range, materials-associated needs of

DOD rather than depending on NSF funding for basic research?

How can centers of excellence for areas such as casting, welding, etc.,

involving individuals from industry, academia and Government be more

effective in advancing and disseminating technology?

Is the trend toward reductions in DOD’s manpower and resources in its

materials and structures divisions severely reducing its effectiveness?

What is the best way to expedite the development of materials and technologies that limit the development of new systems and weapons?

How can R&D programs of DOD be better coordinated to more effectively

develop new materials and technology?

The policy questions posed by Jerry Persh (table 3), should also

be examined in light of the GAO study.

DOD Materials and Structures Technology and Industry Support

For many years the DOD Materials and Structures Technology

programs were the main support in the United States, underlying

in the area of high performance materials the basic research and

development effort underway.

154
TABLE 3. –Policy Questions

. Role of Federally supported industrial materials and structures R&D in the

U.S. National Technology Base,

● Role of company sponsored R&D

. Should (or can) industry make a greater effort to coordinate itself (or

depend on the Government to perform this role)

. How to assess U.S. National Technology Base in materials and structures

(with consideration to U.S. competitive base in industry).

. What are weaknesses, or strengths. of the way the “system” operates?

155
materials and into the structural integrity program of aircraft and

missiles for determining operating stress levels and prediction of

the life of structures, and very importantly, for determining

proper inspection intervals of aircraft.

This technology has found widespread use in aerospace

applications and now has created a high level of interest for surface ship needs in both the Navy and Coast Guard where highstrength, heat-treatable steels are being used to achieve higher

performance. Here, older technology of determining structural

integrity is suddenly no longer adequate. For example, in the case

of the application of high-strength, low-alloy, heat-treatable

steels applied to ship construction, recent attention to notch

toughness as a material parameter for ship construction has

focused attention on the inability of producing welds that satisfy

current charpy V-notch (CVN) energy requirements and the

multiplicity of required test specimens and notch locations for

different plate thicknesses required for low-temperature (less

than +32°F) applications. Metallurgical studies are needed to

determine whether a solution to this problem is economically

feasible in view of the severe restrictions placed on production

weld fabrication in the shipyard to satisfy present requirements

for critical low-temperature weld joints with present-day steels.

Finally, there is no doubt that high-performance Naval and

Coast Guard surface ships of the future probably will employ

materials with intermediate to high, strength-to-weight ratios.

Because some of these materials are susceptible to rapid fracture

resulting from small flaws, sub-critical crack growth aspects of

material behavior, such as stress corrosion cracking and fatigue,

would he incorporated in the design process (as in aircraft)

preferably as part of an overall fracture control plan to insure

safety, reliability, and economics. This fracture control plan is a

methodology for avoiding failure by fracture over the design life

and includes considerations of the elements identified in table 4,

At the heart of this plan would be the application of fracture

mechanics considerations that assumes an initial flow which can

TABLE 4.– Elements of Fracture Control Plan

● Load and Environmental Definitions

● Structural Design

● Material Properties Selection and Quality Control

. Fabrication Processes

. Inspection and Maintenance

156
propagate and lead to fracture and the necessary fracture control

steps that will prevent this from happening.

This need and the problems described focus on the requirement for new processes, new non-destructive inspection (N D I)

procedures, and the need for the generation and the maintenance

of a materials properties data base that is much more detailed and

sophisticated than is available at present. I would like to use this

point as one example where policy is needed and where this assembly may be able to generate some meaningful recommendations to the DOD in one aspect of materials policy.

Materials Standards and a Properties Data Base

Jerry Persh has alluded to the problem of declining manpower

and resources in the DOD in the past few years which has

steadily contributed to an erosion of the DOD materials and

structures technology base. This is especially true in the area of

materials and process specifications which serves as the backbone of hardware procurement for the DOD, where over a 50 percent decline has taken place in the last 10 years.

The DOD has been fortunate in having more than 4,O O O

materials and process specifications available and maintained to

ensure that the standardization effort in the DOD is consistent

with the procurement of military hardware which meets the performance, reliability, and Iife expectancy of the using services.

However, because of the declining manpower and financial resources being allocated to the generation and maintenance of

these specifications and standards, and with the increasing

sophistication of the newer weapon systems, the ability of the

services to fill the needs of standardization in this area is declining. With this growing sophistication in weapon systems and the

need for greater performance has been an increasing demand for

enhanced structural integrity, minimum acquisitions cost and

low life cycle costs.

A second problem is the data base of meaningful properties on

which to base specifications and accomplish engineering design.

There is a need for:

1. A better means of generating materials property data,

2. A proper format to display data being generated on major

DOD programs so all meaningful data are available. and

3. A long-term program of R&D to develop property data on

new materials and composites to enhance the transition of

materials and process technology to the newer weapon

systems.

The newer requirements place severe demands on materials of

construction and require more extensive materials characteriza157
TABLE 5.

MATERIAL TESTING

DETERMINE: DEFINE:

c CANDIDATE MATERIALS ● SPECIFIC TEST VARIABLES FOR CANDIDATE MATERIALS

● AMOUNT OF TEST MATERIAL REQUIRED ● DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN

● AREAS WHERE INSUFFICIENT DATA EXISTS ● TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTS

● CRITICAL PROCESS STEPS s PROPOSED TEST PLAN

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

MATERIALS/PROCESSES

COMPATIBILITY

m
c

1

.

159
tion and a deeper understanding of structural response for prevention of failure.

Perhaps an insight into the use of the materials and process

specifications and the materials properties data base in modern

preliminary design in the preliminary design of a lighter aircraft,

as shown in the chart of table 5, can indicate the importance of

the specifications and materials properties data base.

The materials-testing requirements shown at the top of the

chart would be accomplished on the candidate materials of

interest in the forms necessary to generate the data needed,

shown in the tables under “preliminary design, ” In many cases if

the data are not available, this test program for materials characterization could cost several millions of dollars for only a selected

few mill forms of one material. The materials/process capability

(specifications) would be evaluated, and if needed new specifications would be written or old ones modified or revised. The

mechanical properties needed are illustrated in the tables given,

as well as the method used in rating the materials.

The inputs required to ensure structural integrity for fracture

mechanics and fatigue analysis under the proposed conditions

are also detailed. The advanced screening and analysis then is

made consistent with the requirements imposed by stress

analysis, and mode studies are then accomplished against the

initial conceptual design. All of these data make up the initial

technical data bank. From this discussion it is evident that new

approaches to these problems are needed. The questions that

need answering are:

1. How can the DOD best use the resources of the voluntary

standards organization, i.e., SAE, ASTM, AWS, AS ME,

etc., to help update and prepare specifications in the

materials and process field so that they are available and

timely for new weapon systems production?

2. How do other agencies of the Federal Government prepare and update their specifications? Did the DOD and

other agencies, i.e. NASA, ERDA, etc., coordinate their

act iv i ties ?

3, Should there be a national standards system supported by

the Federal Government of which the DOD would be a

part ?

4. What effect will proposed legislation such as the Voluntary Standards and Certification Act of 1976, which

among those proposed is the development of a uniform

national standardization process, have if passed?

As to the materials properties data base problem, industry and

the military spend large amounts of resources to characterize

materials properties, Too often the data are scattered throughout

160
development contract reports without organization, and there is

no uniform method or requirement as to how these data should

be analyzed, collected, and disseminated. There is a major need

for Government and industry to get together to do this to save

manpower and resources and to determine what data are really

lacking so that the declining DOD resources in this area can be

made more effective. The major policy question is then how best

to’ accomplish this.

Problems Limiting Development of New Systems and Weapons

There is no doubt that one of the most promising materials

concepts for efficient structures in the newer weapon systems

will be the use of high-stiffness, high-strength filamentary composites. I would like to use this structural concept as my second

example to highlight the question of what is the best way to

expedite the development of materials and technologies that

limit the development of new systems and weapons, and to point

out the problems of the transfer of this technology from R&D to

production.

An example of some lessons learned in a major application of

composites to a new strategic missile program can perhaps highlight the problem, may help this group in formulating some new

ideas on how to do it better and more efficiently, and may even

help detail ideas on how the DOD can better coordinate its R&D

programs to insure more rapid application to weapon systems.

The Technology Transfer Problem With Composites

During the past 15 years, military aerospace interest in applying composites has been motivated by the desire for “more efficient” aerospace structures that can be lighter, stiffer, and

stronger, together with the hope that they will be more durable

and cost less. These have been the evaluation and selection criteria for the development and acceptance of composites. *

Certain benefits have accrued to the application of composite

materials in the last 15 years (shown in table 6). Although significant progress has been made, problems remain which affect the

further development and use of composite materials in military

aircraft (table 7).

Perhaps as much as $5OO million or more has been spent in this

development, If the commercial aircraft applications are considered, perhaps another $100 million has been spent, and the

“ Summary of “The Influence on Advanced Composites–An Assessment of the

Future”, june 11-12, ]975.

161
TABLE 6. – Benefits Accrued and Progress Made Composites

Structures Development *

1. Simultaneous development of materials, design, and manufacturing technologies rather than a sequential approach.

2. Early achievement of production applications, such as F-14 and F-15

empennage components,

3. Development of basic technologies at user facilities rather than

exclusively at universities and Government laboratories.

4. Clear demonstration of an initial goal of potential weight savings on a

substitute basis.

5. Development of competitive material sources on a commercial basis,

‘Conference on Advanced Composites–June 11-12.1975

TABLE 7. –Problems Remaining in Composites Materials Affecting

Further Development and Use in Military Aircraft

1.

2.

3,

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.,

10.

11.

Overselling composites through 100% usage for structural components.

Cost of material (e.g. tape) does not reduce as rapidly as projected,

The nonuniformity of materials is a normal occurrence.

Some programs experience “start’ ’-’’false start” and ‘*stop’- ’’go” syndromes.

Program delays due to Government inter-laboratory conflicts on responsibilities and goals.

Conflicts within a company between experienced metal designers and

new composite design specialists.

Lack of confidence in small statistical samples of components.

Marginal cost tradeoffs and unclear cost-benefits.

No realistic definition of a successful “Goal” has been established.

New vehicle totally dependent on composites for its success is not like! y.

Misconception that all aerospace companies progress uniformly and

share equally on developments.

●

Source: Conference on Advanced Composites- ]une 11-12. 1975,

programs of both DOD and NASA indicate another $2OO million

may be spent in the next 5 years. With this major expenditure

over this length of time (2o years before major commitments to

production), we might ask why so long a time and so much

money, or, more importantly, have our resources been properly

spent in pursuit of these deserving objectives?

Perhaps the qualification of composites for full scale application poses problems that from a cost and time point of view make

162
the application of composites on an ongoing program difficult to

accomplish. When this is coupled with the need to develop not

only structural concept verification but also NDI acceptance criteria with a minimum data base, the confidence level for application then is not too high.

In order to assure structural integrity, the qualification testing

(hot and wet fatigue testing as one example) does much to inhibit

their use. One might ask what sort of a policy should best be pursued to stimulate more rapid applications? Should the DOD

impose all of the requirements that seem much more difficult to

satisfy than with metallic structures? Or should the DOD adopt

the posture of the FAA in application to commercial aircraft

where industry and the agency (FAA) together determine the

optimum procedures for certificating end use based on the best

judgment of the producers of the structure and a consensus of all

interested industry members before “rule making” is applied?

In the field of composite application, systems performance can

sometimes be the major driving force for commitment to

development and production, It also can require a coordinated

design team approach from the time of preliminary design to first

lot production to insure cost-effective commitment to production

and use. An example of this is the present application of

graphite/epoxy composites in the Trident C-4 missile structure.

In reviewing the various means of fabricating missile structures to reduce weight and increase the range, graphite/epoxy

materials provided a high, strength-to-weight ratio material that

could be utilized in current production. The equipment segment

of the C-4 Trident was chosen as the optimum structure to be

designed from graphite/epoxy material since a weight reduction

in this segment provides the greatest increase in the mission performance. Since the development phases of the C-4 program

were followed very closely by the production program, it was

essential to select a material satisfactory for design and producing components with high reliability and at a reasonable cost. For

these reasons, the graphite/epoxy was selected as the advanced

composite material that would provide the best opportunity for

meeting these objectives.

In the initial materials evaluation, the graphite/epoxy tape produced satisfactory components; however, the manhours required

to layup the complex shapes using the tape was excessive. and

the orientation of the tape, gaps, voids and other discrepancies

was difficult to control. A combination engineering/manufacturing development program with graphite/epoxy fabric showed

that the fabric could meet all of the engineering requirements

163
and result in an overall reduction in fabrication cost. Therefore,

the graphite/epoxy fabric was adopted as the prime candidate for

the graphite components.

Working closely with design, structures and materials, and

process engineering, manufacturing concepts were established

that would produce reliable, repetitive components at minimum

cost. For many components, the autoclave cure method was

found to be the optimum process, while other components were

found to be produced more efficiently using matched dies on the

silicone rubber mold technique for obtaining pressure. A close

working relationship between engineering and manufacturing

permitted the design, process, and acceptance criteria to be

reviewed for each part; and changes were made, when possible,

to permit ease of manufacturing. To ensure a repetitive high

quality structural component, each initial production part is process verified to measure mechanical properties, to confirm process

and document control, arid to substantiate adequacy of the tooling, Then, after successful completion of process verification, no

changes are made in processes, controls, tooling, or other variables that could effect the integrity of the composite component.

The use of graphite fabric, cut-out templates, matched dies, establishment and control of the cure cycle, tooling aids to assist

layup, and no modification of the manufacturing and process

cycles after the fabrication of the initial production parts were

some of the factors that greatly assisted in maintaining a low

manufacturing cost for the composite parts. Although the initial

development cost of the composite parts was higher than initially

predicted, the learning curve drops rapidly as the production

process is established. The close initial coordination between

engineering and manufacturing in designing and manufacturing

toward one composite concept pays off rapidly in the lower

repetitive cost of the production parts.

In the course of this development, a number of key lessons

were learned in the application of composites structures that

indicate the unforeseen problems that can arise in the course of

the introduction of a new structural materials concept to production, These include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Composites pay off when everything works;

Serial production development does not work;

The use of woven cloth pays off big in certain applications:

There is a tendency for engineering to over-design for

conservative reasons when the data base is not complete;

Structural analysis techniques are quite good for composites;

164
6. Tooling developments are tougher than expected:

7. Metal tolerances do not apply;

8. Training requirements can be grossly underestimated:

9. The QA accept/reject criteria can be a quagmire; and

10. The selection of the proper manufacturing manager can

be quite critical.

My last example has to do with materials research and

materials needs, particularly long range needs of the DOD and

the policy as to who does it, and the way the R&D programs can

best be coordinated for the developments of new materials and

technology, It is not only in filamentary composites that we look

for enhanced structural efficiency and durability, Future aircraft,

for example, are still expected to use aluminum alloys as the

principal material of construction, even though there may be

increased use of composites in competition with aluminum and

continued use of steels and titanium for special design applications.

Aluminum Alloys

The principal trend in aluminum alloy development for

airframes has aimed at improved corrosion and stress corrosion

resistance and increased fracture toughness. Improvements in

these characteristics have generally been accompanied by a

reduction in strength properties. This trend is clearly illustrated

in figure 1 which indicates that the 7178-T6 composition remains

the highest strength aluminum alloy available today. It was first

used extensively 25 years ago; however, unfavorable stress corrosion and exfoliation experiences have limited its application during the past 10 years. Therefore, a high-priority need exists for a

replacement material for 7178 which provides strength properties

equal to or greater than 7178, with greatly improved toughness

and corrosion-resistance characteristics. Such a product could be

used to provide the following benefits in typical applications on a

transport aircraft as well as high performance fighter aircraft.

Aluminum alloys with improved fatigue and stiffness are also

of great interest and would obviously translate into similar

weight reductions when used in airframe applications designed

to fatigue and stiffness criteria. Ongoing research and developments in aluminum alloys that hold great interest for potential

applications in airframe design include A1-Mg-Li alloys, powder

metallurgy processing, controlled solidification process, and

retrogressive aging (table 8).

165
FIGURE I.—Aluminum Alloy Developments

7075-176

1955

1 I

1964

7175-T736 7050-T6

1975 1985 (GOALS)

TIME PERIOD

TABLE 8.—Potential Weight Reduction in Cargo Aircraft With

Advanced Aluminum Alloys -

Material

Product and Application Now Used

Misc. Forgings (2OOO lbs.) 7075-T73

Extrusions (5OOO lbs.j 7075-T76

Horizontal Stabilizer &

Beam Caps

Fuselage Floor Supports 7075-T76

(3000 lbs.)

Fuselage Skin (9OO lbs,) 7075-T76

Upper Wing Skin (6000 lbs.) 7075-T76

Potential Weight

Reduction with an

Advanced Alloy

300

400

150

80

540

Approx. (Ibs.)

Reduction in

Annual Fuel

Consumption*

42,000

56,000

21,000

11,000

70,000

* Per aircraft, 3000 hours utilization per year.

166
Airframe Needs for Steel Alloys

Another perspective of alloy needs can be gained by a review

of service problems with materials used in current aircraft construction. Failures experienced with current aluminum, titanium,

and steel materials most often result from residual stress, stress

corrosion, cracking in mechanical fastened joints, misprocessing,

poor surface condition, corrosion or poor detail design which

introduces stress concentrations such as sharp corners, abrupt

stiffness changes, etc. Obviously, most of these problem sources

cannot be directly remedied by providing the aircraft designer

with an improved alloy which has optimized only for metallurgical features concerning micro-constituents, morphology, atomic

bonds, aging kinetics, and defect densities.

The state of the art in high-strength steels is a case in point.

Virtually all large aircraft for the past 20 years have used, and

will continue to use, high-heat treat (260 KSI rein), low-alloy

steels, primarily of the 4340 or 300M grades. The reasons are

these steels offer the best combination of structural-strength and

fatigue-strength efficiency at moderate costs. Successful use of

these steels is achieved through precise design practices and controls, and very careful attention to all stages of processing and

fabrication. Experience with thousands of HHT steel parts has

evolved empirically-derived limits on sustained stress levels to

avoid stress corrosion cracking (SCC). As shown in figure 2, SUStained stresses in short transverse grain may typically be limited

to only 25 percent of yield strength to avoid SCC. Clearly, steels

capable of much higher thresholds would be very welcome to the

aircraft designer, Similarly, fracture toughness related properties

of KIC and KIscc of commonly used low alloy-steels show considerable room for improvement. (figure 3). This latter figure also

indicates the trends in alloy development which certainly are in

the proper direction.

The past 20 years have seen numerous unsuccessful attempts

at “alloy design” to obtain new improved high-strength steels to

replace the currently used low-alloy steels. One reason for this

lack of success has been the failure to adequately consider the

importance of the “engineering end of the classification scale”

wherein 300 M- and 4340-type materials provide capability for

readily attaining consistent, high integrity in large parts through

highly developed melting, forging, heat treatment, and other

practices. Too often laboratory alloy developments have been

prematurely touted for their “significant breakthroughs” in SCC

and/or KIC properties, only to find this improvement has been

attained at the expense of such a drastic sacrifice in processing

and producibility that it precludes the alloy ever reaching pro167

87-315 0 - 77 - 12
I

o

I I i I 1

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Stress Concentration—K,

duction status, The aircraft industry is extremely interested in

alIoy development of improved damage tolerance and more

stress corrosion-resistant, high-strength steels; therefore, we urge

those engaged in such alloy development to include producibility

criteria in their development parameters so that processability of

new materials at least approaches that of current alloys, as indi~

cated in figure 3.

Current R&D Trends and Airframe Titanium Alloy Needs

Improvement in present alloys is being sought through using

cleaner master alloys and improved melting procedures. Higher

168
FIGURE 3.–Fracture Toughness Versus Strength for Steel Alloys

250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320

Ultimate Strength

strength alloys are being investigated through interstitial hardening of beta and alpha-beta alloys and by developing alloys with

modulated microstructure,

The raw material cost of an aluminum fighter is 2 percent of

the fly-away cost; for 100 percent titanium, the raw material cost

is 5 percent of the fly-away cost. If titanium raw material costs

were halved, the fly-away cost of an all-titanium fighter aircraft

would change by only 3 percent. It is apparent that raw material

cost of titanium is not of major importance, and that the cost of

fabrication is the significant factor. Improved cold-formable and

age-hardenable beta alloys have made their appearance. Further

improved performance is expected from alloys now in development. These new developments are expected to expand the use

of titanium through Iowering fabrication costs and increasing the

utilization ratio, as depicted in figure 4.

It is not only in supersonic aircraft that titanium can be used to

advantage in airframes. The use of titanium will increase with

the trend to larger cargo aircraft. The longer sections and spars of

the larger aircraft have rigidity requirements beyond the capacity

of aluminum alloys. Titanium alloys with elastic modulus values

from 50 to 80 percent higher than aluminum alloys. and possessing increased strength and corrosion resistance represent

optimum materials for airframe construction.

169
Figure 4.

Strength/Weight

8-4-3-2-2

I

&6-2

I

13-11-3 8-7-4-3-1

I

8-8-2-3

B120

BETA C

Candidate Titanium Alloys

The strength of conventionally heat-treated, alpha-beta alloys

and beta alloys is being substantially increased to the 250-ksi

level by texture hardening and thermo-mechanical treatments,

and by producing modulated microstructure in current commercial alloys. Finally, deep-hardenable, alpha-beta alloys are being

explored as replacements for high-strength steels in landing

gears.

All of these potentials with advanced metallic materials of

construction for high-performance structures require considerable amounts of R&D for the understanding and control of microstructural features, heat treatments, alloy composition, etc., to

achieve these improvements. Besides improvement in alloy

chemistry and microstructure, we are in dire need of better test

methods to develop economical test methods for evaluating crack

growth-resistance behavior of materials.

The policy question, then, with these examples is how best to

marshall our national resources to achieve these aims. Are our

present methods of utilizing university, industry, and Government facilities too fragmented and too remote to be able to work

to the solutions of these problems effectively? How can industry,

which is prevented from joint or cooperative efforts, somehow

170
optimize its nonproprietary R&D in materials more expeditiously? How can information generated on the many R&D

programs be assembled, analyzed, and presented as a materials

data base for use by designers in a more efficient and economical

manner? Can the DOD lead in marshaling this R&D? If not the

DOD, then who in the Federal Government can? The analyses

and solutions to these problems with some pragmatic recommendations by this fourth Henniker Conference will do much in

assuring its success.

1 7 1
THE ROLE OF MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES

TECHNOLOGY IN DEFENSE–PART III

by M, L, Williams

Professor of Engineering, Universit y of Pittsburgh

The first two parts of this presentation dealing with aspects of

national materials policy upon operations in the Department of

Defense were given by Mr. J. Persh, primarily from the point of

view of the DOD, and by Dr. M. A, Steinberg representing industry, This third part completes the triumvirate by expressing at

least one academician’s viewpoint. There seem to be essentially

three relevant parameters of immediate concern: technical, economic, and institutional.

From the Government point of view, one might inquire as to

how to get the DOD job accomplished within a zero-growth

budget atmosphere. Mr. Persh has first described the technical

dimensions of this problem by enumerating various pacing problem areas in which materials policy has an important impact: gun

barrel erosion, penetrators, mine fields, composite materials, and

all weather capability especially in tactical missiles. He has also

observed that there are three areas in the overall design cycle, i.e.,

loads/environment, material characterization, and non-destructive examination, which the materials engineer must recognize

as common threads to be understood and technologically supported by the materials community if its contributions to the

overall design process are to be optimized,

Turning to economic-related issues, Mr. Persh has outlined the

principal dilemma facing Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering as it attempts to provide advice. Because

military systems are being pushed more and more toward the

limits of technology, it appears more conservative to support

relatively predictable improvements in the state-of-the-art rather

than riskier investments in newer technologies and advanced

materials. Generally speaking, there are inadequate funds to do

both well, Furthermore, legislative pressures tend to demand

short-term resuIts. Once the short-term payoff approach is

adopted, however, there is the real danger of a rapidly accelerating erosion of the broad technology base which increasingly

inhibits innovation, Ostensibly the Advanced Projects Research

Agency was set up to help resolve this dilemma, but one point for

discussion might be its degree of success in terms of return on

investment, The other important economic matter is that of critical material shortages, a subject to be dealt with by one of the

other panels,

172
Institutional mechanisms referred to by Mr. Persh deal mainly

with those improving technology transfer, and include intraservice, inter-service, inter-agency, and inter-governmental

exchanges. In addition, he has mentioned the technology coordinating conferences in materials and structures at which public

elements of DOD policy, plans, and concerns can be shared with

industry and universities, In passing, it may be noted that the

1974 structures conference attracted only a half-dozen academicians: presumably a better representation can be obtained in

1976. And finally, one of his optimistic, key statements stressing

the importance of creativity and innovations bears repeating:

“Dollars can not produce good ideas. Progress [is] idea rather

than funding limited,”

As to lndustry, it frequently seems to me that too many persons are inclined to forget that its major purpose is to operate

with reasonable stability over the long term at a fair profit.

Furthermore, since most of our upgraded life-style has emanated

from that profit, it is not inherently bad.

Dr. Steinberg has made two primary technical points I should

like to emphasize, First, materials scientists have been known to

succeed beautifully in achieving announced “break throughs, ”

e.g., improved fracture toughness, but frequently succeed prematurely in the systems sense because too much “producibility”

has simultaneously been lost, One inference could be that an

effort should be made to ensure that the vistas of the materials

scientist are broad enough to embrace an appreciation of the

entire design cycle— from the atom to the end product and its

uses. The second point, which impinges somewhat upon institutional barriers, is that there is plenty of information in the data

bank, but there is a serious difficulty with technology transfer.

There are really two facets to this subject, One is a “people-problem” in terms of the NIH [not-invented-here) syndrome. The

other is legalistic in terms of anti-trust barriers which prevent

industrial collaboration, even though as Henry C, Wallich, formerly a Yale professor of economics and now a member of the

Federal Reserve Board, wrote in Newsweek, “. . . we might give

some thought to whether a law enacted in 1890 to protect a

nation against exploitation by robber barons still meets the needs

of a nation now hard-pressed by its competitors around the

world.’” As Dr. Steinberg says of the materials data base consolidation, “There is an avowed need for the Government and

industry to get together . . . for the avowed purpose of saving

manpower and resources. , . . The major policy question is then

1 As quoted in “Dialogue on Technology No. 6“. CouId Inc.., 1976.

173
how best to accomplish this.” Presumably, the current trade association mechanism is inadequate as is the utilization efficiency of

our present set of data and information centers. Salient points of

a more economic nature are the relatively low raw materials cost

(in aircraft) of I-4 percent flyaway cost compared with the much

higher cost of processing and fabrication.

Nevertheless, the national research emphasis on such unpopular subjects is, to say the least, low.

While it is not particularly emphasized as a critical economic

matter to industry, Dr. Steinberg calls attention to the growing

capital requirement in industry. The mature industries, including

mining and natural resource conversion in particular, seem due

for major injections of capital as our formerly ample supplies,

internally and externally, dwindle. Such industries must somehow be assured that major capital investments can be protected,

e.g., conversion of alumina ores to replace embargoed bauxite.

Here one must carefully distinguish between subsidies, which

usually imply Federal controls, and contingency insuranceretaining free enterprise and market checks and balances.

Finally, in addressing institutional barriers, Dr. Steinberg calls

for a better way of doing business then specifying products to

death, with little room for flexibility to change with product

improvements at minimun cost. One may note optimistically the

new DOD procurement policy that is being attempted. As reported in the WalJ Street Journal (July 28, 1976) the emphasis is to

be on meeting the end use requirement–any way you can! –

without excessively detailed component specifications. Such

apparent flying in the face of “normal specifications” could

increase the present product liability suits, especially. if applied in

the civil sector, yet this kind of management innovation would

seem to fall within the “new idea” category advocated by Mr.

Persh,

A View From Academia

While I have taken the liberty of editorializing rather extensively on my colleagues’ previous remarks concerning the DOD

and industrial involvement with the materials community, there

are a few points that are peculiar to universities and the way

their collaboration with the agencies of the Federal Establishment is effected. With few exceptions, the association is at the

basic (“6.0”) or applied (“6.1”) research levels represented

approximately by the science and engineering schools respectively, Especially since the Mansfield Amendment, a rough division might be that science schools tend to be supported by the

National Science Foundation (“6.0”) and engineering schools by

174
more mission oriented

ERDA. To the extent

agencies (“6.1”) such as DOD, NASA, and

that academic research investigators are

2 “Polymer Engineering and its Relevance to National Materials Development”, F. R.

Eirlch and M. L Williams, Washington. D. C., 1973, Library of Congress 73-8!9413,

175
the overall design process would be very beneficial. One would

hope that it would lead to more selective work, at least among

those with engineering rather than scientific inclinations. A better bridge between the microscopic and macroscopic views

would be enlightening, For example, in rubber elasticity theory,

one can show that the materials scientist’s parameter of cross link

density of the molecular chain is directly proportional to the

mechanical engineer’s (longtime) Young’s modulus of elasticity.

While most micro-macro associations are not as simple, such associations are of immense value in permitting improved interdisciplinary thought processes,’

From the economic standpoint, the most important financial

matter to universities is reasonably long term research stability,

e.g., 3 years as a minimum. Such consideration is by no means

unknown in DOD because of the major investment in Interdisciplinary Materials Laboratories (IDL) over the years. They

were effective in producing materials scientists, although I have

heard some adverse criticism regarding the lack of engineering

impact and balance among a wider interpretation of what the

materials field embraces, Some changes in the IDL program are

being effected under the current NSF responsibility for this program, In terms of Federal research funding (1974-75), the top 25

engineering colleges spent approximately $2OO million. With

their combined staffs of about 5000 faculty members, the average

research support per faculty member was approximately $40,000,

Before leaving this subject, it may be noted that R&D expenditures in 1975 by industry totaled $26 billion plus $9 billion in

Government laboratories or about 2 percent of the GNP as reported by Business Week (June 28, 1976) (table 1). According to

NSF, the distribution in percent was basic research (3.5), applied

research (20.0), product development (76,5). The average R&D

expense per employee varied between $5OO and $2,OOO per year

which corresponds to 1-4 percent of sales,

As a final point of economics, equipment grants are very

important, especially for equipment used in sophisticated

materials research and related automatic data acquisition and

processing systems. To the best of my knowledge, NSF is the only

major agency with a special equipment grant program for universities,

It is tempting to close my remarks by expanding upon the subject of institutional barriers. Much has been said already of the

importance of technology transfer and the mandatory need to

make it work. International competition demands it, whether one

3 “The Engineering of Polymers for Mechanical Behavior”, F, N. Kelley and M, L.

Williams, Rubber Chemistry and Technology, 42,4.1175-1185, September 1969.

176
TABVLE 1.– Industrial R&Dl Expenditures*

R&D $/

employee R&D $ % Sales ‘% Profit Sales

Aerospace

Rockwell

IJnlted Tech

Boeing

Lockheed

Chemical

DuPont

IJnlon Carbide

Dow

Electrical

Instruments

General Machinery Mfg

Metals. Mining

Natural Resources. 011, Coal

Steel

Telecommunications

$1.324

252

2,344

2,589

916

$1.579

2,538

1.123

3,153

$1 .038

1,990

673

698

1 .008

294

630 . —

.$ 825.3

31.0

323.7

188.0

52.8

1,317.4

335.7

120.2

167.4

1.345.1

695.6

288.1

204.2

715.2

105.9

—

3.2 136.0 $26.023M

0.6 30.5 4.943

8.3 275.5 3.878

5.1 246.6 3,717

1.6 16.6 3.387

2.6 39.4 $51.056M

4.6 123.5 7.222

2.1 31.5 5.665

3.4 27.2 4,888

3.0 81.5 $44,692M

5.4 68.6 1‘)~f5f3

1 7 405 16.531

1.2 33.3 13.241

0.4 8.3 169,250

0.6 10.9 17.043

1.9 19.9 36,877

AT&T 661 619.4 2.1 19.7 29,272

● Source: (Business Week, June 28, 1976)

speaks from a Government, industrial, or academic platform.

Suffice it to close for now with an observation made by Etzioni in

a recent Science editorial (July 30, 1976). He distinguished between collegial and positional meetings and the need to recognize

the difference, In short, the former can be a rather unstructured

meeting of the community for information exchange, accompanied by considerable sociability, The latter is one at which a

policy or a position is to be developed, It must be carefully structured as to its participants so that the subject matter stays on

course, even to establishing a ruthless chairman.

On behalf of the three of us, we are pleased to have been here.

to have had an opportunity to present our views in this positional

meeting, We hope your policy recommendations will eventually

evolve by the end of this week, without the complete absence of

the collegial sociability.

177
UTILITY OF ORGANIC RENEWABLE RESOURCES

by Ingemar Falkehag

Westvaco Research Center

At this time, U.S. consumption of energy, mostly from fossil

carbon sources, is about equal to the net annual storage of solar

energy in the U.S. biomass system. The latter is estimated at

about 5 billion tons of biomass per year, which in dry form corresponds to a heat value of about 80 Q Btu. We are indeed at an

interesting point in our cultural history, and policies on how we

govern the carbon system, including the photosynthesized resources, are pertinent. We are facing some deep philosophical

questions on how we in the future should manage our organic

materials, land, nutrient, and water systems. How long can we

continue a fossil-carbon-based industrial development? Will we

ultimately have to come “back” to the solar energy driven carbon

system on which we were almost totally dependent only 100

years ago?

I would like to quote a Zen proverb: “For the man who is

ignorant, trees are trees, waters are waters, and mountains are

mountains. When that man gains understanding, then trees are

not trees, waters are not waters, mountains are not mountains.

And when, at last, he attains wisdom, then once again, trees are

trees, waters are waters, and mountains are mountains,”

Will we be wise in shifting back to solar energy and renewable

organic resources to meet human needs for not only food, but

also fuels and materials? Maybe we have to within the next 100

years. In assessing this, I will contend that most of our “problems” are systemic in nature —we truly cannot see the forest for

the trees, As Morowitz has put it, “We are confronting an entropy

crisis more than just an energy crisis, ”

This conference deals with materials, and I will discuss energy

only in the context of energetic of materials. It should be pointed

out that about 94 percent of the fossil oil resources today are used

for fuel purposes. Of the 6 percent going to the petrochemical

industry, probably only one third actually ends up as a material.

The energy intensity in production of synthetic organic materials

is on the average about 3 tons of oil per ton of product. The competition for some oil fractions and for gas is likely to intensify,

and we might see a certain conversion to coal in the petrochemical industry within the next 10 years (figure 1),

It is through the energy flow (subsidy) in the form of solar

energy stored in fossil carbon reserves that we have been able to

carry out what we refer to as the industrial revolution during the

178
FIGIJRE 1 .—Fossil Carbon Consumption Scenario

Billions of Tons

Per Year

24

20

16

12

8

4

0

1900 2300 2700

Year

last 100 years. This is a short time span in the history of humans

and the biosystem, as King Hubbert and others have pointed out.

(1,2,3) (figure 2).

One of the major concerns in the extended transfer of carbon

from the fossil sources to the biospheric systems relates to the

impact of additional C02 generation, half of which is raising the

C02 level in the atmosphere and half of which is absorbed by the

ocean and the biosystem (figure 3), It is estimated that the stock

of biomass on earth has increased by 15 billion tons the last century, mostly as a result of the higher C02 level. The increased

absorption of heat radiation by C02 should result in a warming

trend of the climate which might be an ultimate concern in relation to how much carbon is handled in the biosystems (4,5) (table

1). However, because of the sun’s cyclic activity, we experience a

cooling off in the northern hemisphere which might be expected

to cause droughts and crop failures in the 1990’s. The stock of

biomass, mostly forests, can be considered as a food reserve, and

policies on future uses of lignocellulosic materials should consider the requirements for adaptation during such discontinuities

in the food producing system. The climatic effects of C02 in the

atmosphere might only be of concern around year 2020, but probably earlier in the Southern Hemisphere.

At this point it appears highly desirable to increase photosynthesis, and net and gross bioproductivity, The management of

these processes and the alternative uses of the biomass will be

the subject of debate during coming years. The shift in value

179
Cumu

of

lativ

co.

–5 –4 –3 –2 –1 o 1 2 3 4 5

Low

Time-Before and After the Present (lO3 Years)

FIGURE 3.—Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere ( BOLIN)

2: in Atmosphere (PPM)

1240 1900 1980 2000

system from “man over nature” to “man in or with nature” plays

an important role.

Systems View and Time Frame

It is my view that in assessing the extended roles of renewable

resources we should not only address the operational or tactical

questions of how to alleviate immediate shortages and pressures,

but it is imperative that we act in resonance with strategic and

180
TABLE 1.—Carbon in the Biosphere (BRODA, 12)

FORM TONS X 1012

Carbonate in Sediment

Organic Carbon in Sediment

CO2 in Atmosphere

Living Matter on Land

Dead Organic Matter on Land

CO2 in Ocean

Living Matter in Ocean

Dead Organic , Matter in Ocean

18,000

6,800

0.65

0.08

0.7

35.4

0.008

2.7

normative considerations. As a communication tool, I will use the

planning model proposed by Ozbekhan (6). I will attempt to

address the various levels discussed in that model as they might

relate to renewable resources, but emphasize the normative view

and my perception of reality (figure 4).

It is apparent that the assessment will require an interdisciplinary effort and a general systems approach with consideration for hierarchal levels (7), the complexity and desirable

diversity and adaptability of natural systems, the cyclic nature of

materials and energy flow patterns in renewable systems, purposeful goal seeking and evolutionary processes, etc. The vertical

and horizontal integration we talk about in industry is used all

the time in nature to improve survivability.

Two questions immediately come up in considering renewabIe

resources for new and extended uses,

1. Is it technically feasible to produce the major petrochemicals and polymers from renewable resources?

2. Are there, in the United States, enough renewable resources available for a shift from oil as a raw material

without adversely affecting food, lumber, and paper production?

The answer to these questions today appears to be yes.

The substitution for oil and gas in polymer and organic

materials production is not a matter of technical feasibility and

resource availability but rather a matter of driving forces, constraints, and uncertainties affecting a change. The energetic in

producing a product from alternative raw materials varies and

can be in favor of renewable resources. Optimum plant size,

logistics, labor intensity, and the cost and availability of capital

enter into the economic picture. The environmental and social

181
FIGURE 4,

Present (Ozbekhan) Future

Situation

of Reality

Environment

1 ( Means \

I

Consequence

costs in relation to alternatives have to be assessed. Traditional

economics does not account for “renewability,” GeorgescuRoegen (8) has discussed the need to account for the “entropic

loss” with “non-renewable resources,” “The economics of scale”

is being challenged by Schumacher (9) and others, and such

terms as “appropriate technology” are increasingly heard, Some

of these emerging concepts are more applicable to renewable resources than to fossil carbon sources, The competitiveness of

natural rubber compared with the synthetic product is a case in

point.

The assessment of renewable resources uses thus has to

include not only aspects of what we call economics, but also

environmental, social, and political factors. As Sarkanen (10) has

pointed out, “The area should be looked at as a whole, rather than

having separate groups of parochial researchers concentrate on

forest residues, waste products from the pulping industry,

agricultural residues, or marine resources, This calls for a broader

interdisciplinary endeavor than is possible in the framework of

existing Government agencies. ” I want to amplify and extend on

that statement and add a warning about the simplistic, “plug-in”

approach of producing “petrochemicals from wood,” It is likely

that we will continue to see integrated systems similar to the

present lumber-board-paper-tall, oil-energy system. We should

stay at highest possible systemic levels. The energy farm as a

182
single output

higher value

system is justifiable only if markets and needs for

materials than energy do not exist. An immediate

issue is how we can upgrade renewable resources that today are

“wasted” or used for energy production.

Renewability

The Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources of the

National Academy of Sciences organized the CORRIM program,

CORRIM defines as “renewable” a material that can be restored

when the initial stock has been exhausted, The dynamic nature

of the concept of renewability is recognized, A “renewability

ratio” is defined as the ratio of replenishment rate to depletion

rate. “Renewable resource” is used as a synonym for a resource

of biological origin, while “nonrenewable resource” is used as a

synonym for a resource of geological origin.

A carbon atom in a biological material might have its origin in

oil or coal or even in a mineral like calcium carbonate. The

energy source that causes the “renewing” is the sun for the

phototrophs (autotrophs), the plants, and the photosynthesizing

bacteria. Electromagnetic radiation and gravitational forces give

the energy flow in biology that has driven evolution, and produced our biomass stock and fossil carbon sources. The enormous bioproductivity of the salt water marsh (Spartina alterniflora) is possible because of solar radiation and tidal pulsation.

We have in that case a sun- and moon-powered system. The

water splitting by light quanta resulting in C02 reduction starts

the process. In fact, our primary concern should be with the

process of renewing our resources,

“Solar resources” or “phototrophic resources” through a “solar

processes” or “photosynthesis” could be the emerging concepts

and terms.

We have a classical matter-energy and structure-process issue.

Renewable resources can be looked upon as a temporarily

“frozen” solar energy process.

ERDA’s Solar Energy Division has a great task ahead, and I

hope it will extend the present “Fuels from Biomass” philosophy.

Present Organic Materials System in the United States

The use intensity of new supply of materials has been discussed by Radcliffe (10). The per capita consumption of synthetic

polymers (derived from fossil sources) constitutes only 6 percent

of the total organic materials consumption, and thus renewable

materials today are consumed at a rate 16 times greater than nonrenewable organic materials (table 2),

183

87.315 0-77 - 13
TABLE 2.—Use Intensity of New Supply of Materials

in the U.S. (RADCLIFFE)

LBS PER CAPITA FOR 1974

NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES

Nonmetallic Minerals 18,900 

Metals 1,340 

Synthetic Polymers 180

RENEWABLE RESOURCES , . -

Wood and Wood Products(1971) 2,222

Fibers (Other than wood) -

- 29 

Natural Rubber 6

Leather , 14

The increase in rate of materials and energy consumption

follow each other closely, As pointed out by Keyfitz, (11 the )

growth attributable to affluence is greater than the population

growth (figure 5).

Published data (10,13,14,15,16,17,53) on the production of

renewable organic resources and various uses and non-uses vary

considerably, but an attempt has been made in table 3 to differentiate between food-feed, materials, energy, and residuals or

unused material. The latter group will generally be referred to as

“waste.” Some figures are estimated and several resources have

not been listed. The noncommercial timber stock is estimated to

over 1 billion tons but this may not be the annual out-take. The

recoverable quantity of the residuals depends on economics and

environmental considerations.

The various traditional uses of wood products for structural.

and fiber applications are shown in table 4. The wood requirements are indicated according to one scenario for 1985 and 2000.

CORRIM (13) also dealt with three other scenarios with assumptions of lower rate of population growth and higher rate of

growth of prices for nonrenewable resources.

Some projections by the American Paper Institute for paper

and paperboard (13) are shown in table 5. Substitutions are discussed in the CORRIM report and will also be dealt with under

the Reference Materials System.

It seems likely that the consumption of renewable resources

for the traditional materials (lumber, plywood, particle board,

flakeboard, fiber board, insulating board, paper, paperboard,

hardboards, etc.) will at least double by year 2000. (10) The pri184
FIGURE 5.—U.S. Energy Consumption

Growth Attributed to Population vs. Affluence (K EYFITZ)

Affluence Growth

Population Growth

1947 1973

TABLE S.–Organic Materials Production and Use in the U.S.

[Approximate Figures, 1972-1974)

Tons x 106/Year

Food- Mate- ResidFeed rials Energy uals Total

Synthetic Polymers

Lumber & Rigid Panels

Paper & Paperboard

Forest Residues

“Noncommercial Timber”

Municipal Waste

Bushes, Shrubs, Foliage

Hardwoods on Pine Sites

Cotton

Fats & Oils

Soybeans & Peanuts

Grain Crops

Forage

Sugar Crops

Animal Wastes

18

119

57

(36)

16 25 160

— 87

150

100

100

> 5 0

> 5 0

13

—

— 30

— —

— —

— — —

—

—

—

— —

—

3

3

—

2

—

0.2

—

—

—

6

40

250

— —

65

300

—

—

240 —

10 5 6

— 360 —

—

Approximate totals 550 200 50 1,200 2,000

Total Net Biomass Production 5,000

185
TABLE 4. Projected Demand for Roundwood and By-Products for Manufacture

of Wood-Based Commodities According to One Scenario~13~

Wood Requirement

1970 1985 ‘2000

MM 0.D. tons MM O.D. tons MM 0.D. tons

From From From From From From

Roundwood By-Product Roundwood By-Product Round wood By-Product

Commodity

Structural

1. Softwood lumber

2. Softwood plywood

3. Hardwood lumber

4, Hardwood plywood

5. Particleboard

6. Med. densitty fiberboard

7 1nsulation board

8 Wet-formed hardboard

9. Structural flakeboard No. 1

10. Structural flakeboard No. 2 (RCW)

11. Laminated-veneer i umber

Fibrous

12. Paper and paperboard

13. Miscellaneous-industrial and fuelwood

Total

73.41

15.08

24.51

2.28

—

18

—

—

—

--- —

61.30

16.62

193.38

2.6

—

—

—

2.4

.2

1.2

1.1

—

--- —

80.4

17.7

34.5

3.1

—

0.4

—

—

3.01

3.0

2.32

3.5

—

1.4

—

5.3

0.4

1.9

1.9

—

—

—

24.5 104.2 38.2

— 11.3 —

31.9 259.9 52.6

64.6

14.6

42.2

3.1

—

0.6

—

—

5.11

5.1

4 4

3

4.0

—

1.4

—

8.5

0.6

2.2

2.9

—

—

—

154.9 45.1

12.2 —

306.8 64.7

1. Yielding flakeboard cores equivalent to veneer from 5.9 MM tons of veneer logs in 1985 and 9.7 MM tons in 2000. These equivalents have consequently been subtracted from projected roundwood demand for softwood plywood.

2. Of which 1,5 MM 0.D, tons is converted to finished softwood lumber and 0.8 MM O.D. tons is converted to finished hardwood lumber.

3. Of which 2.8 MM O.D. tons is converted to finished softwood lumber and 1.8 MM O.D. tons is converted to finished hardwood lumber.
TABLE 5.–Production of Total Paper and Paperboard (Corrim)

1972 1985F 2000F

Newsprint

Groundwood

Other Printing & Writing

Packaging & Industrial Converting

Tissue

(TOTAL PAPER )

Solid Wood Pulp Paperboard

Recycled Paperboard (incl. Wet Machine

Board)

(TOTAL PAPERBOARD)

(TOTAL WET MACHINE BOARD)

Construction Paper and Board excl. Hardboard

Construct Ion Paper and Board incl. Hard board

TOTAL PAPER AND BOARD excl. Hardboard

TOTAL PAPER AND BOARD including

Hardboard

3,436

1.329

10.958

5.695

3,977

(25.396)

20.965

7,686

(28.503)

(148)

3.444

5,352

57,491

59.398

5,350

2.020

18.115

7.895

5,935

(39,315)

32.040

11,875

(43.780)

(135)

5.130

8,015

88.360

91.245

8,400

3<300

29,300

12.000

9,000

(62.000)

48,330

18,530

(66.700)

(160)

8.000

12.500

136.860

141,360

F– Forecast trend by American Paper Institute

Real GNP trend 1972 to 2000 – 2.580 X 28 years 3.5% per year average.

Real GNP: for 1972 $ 792.5 billion

for 1985 $1.222.0 billion

for 2ooo $2.000.o billion

mary needs of the forests-products industries relate to reducticn

in energy intensive processes, and improved environmental control processes, The CORRIM (13) discusses future needs in the

conventional structural and fiber uses of wood, and they will not

be dealt with extensively in this paper in spite of their obvious

importance.

Bioproduction Potential and Potentially Available Renewable

Resources

Human activities in the United States interfere with about 25

percent of the net biomass production through various forms of

harvesting, but probably only about 15 percent leaves the land.

Some of this “used” biomass (food, feed, and materials) is again

returned to the soil.

Various forms of management techniques such as fertilization,

pest control, irrigation,

improve productivity

increased productivity

genetic plant selection, thinning, etc., can

considerably; the recommendation for

made for agriculture (19) can in principle

187
be applied also to forestry and biomass plantations.

The 500 million acres of commercial forest land has a net

annual productivity of less than 1 ton per acre. The biological

potential (10) of 400-500 million tons per year can probably be

increased by at least 50 percent. Whole-tree utilization concepts

(18) are being adopted, and intensive, short rotation forestry of

hardwoods can give yields of up to 4 tons per acre a year, A primary concern in the use of these intensive techniques relates to

the tolerable removal or organics and nutrients from the soil (2o)

and other environmental impacts (21,18).

In addition to the commercial forest land, there are 250 million

acres of noncommercial forests of which 20 million acres are

assigned as parks, wilderness areas, etc. The forests totally

occupy about one-third of the US. land area. The use of nonforest, non-agricultural land for biomass production should be

the subject of assessment.

Intensive biomass production on land or in water can, under

optimum conditions, give yields of up to 30-50 tons per acre a

year for C4 plants (22,16).

It appears that production of lignocellulosic materials can

remain complementary with food production and that, depending on population growth rate and international developments,

adequate quantities of non-food biomass will be available for

materials, including synthetic polymers, if necessary. The statement by Marvel at the centennial ACS “Symposium on Macromolecules and Future Social Needs” that this would not be possible (23) is typical of the views of many polymer chemists.

However, it is not likely that the use of biomass for energy can

increase to any major extent.

With a time frame of more than 30 years and with continuation

of present growth rate increases, major stresses are likely to

occur in the organic materials and land use systems. It seems

plausible that new patterns of materials use will have to develop

before that time. It is now appropriate to see how we can harmonize our use patterns with the production capacity of the

photosynthetic system. It is now up to materials policy analysts

to set some of the guidelines for the future, The multiple interdependencies make this a very complex task.

Natural Products and Systems

What is nature then capable of producing qualitatively, and

how can the biosynthesized materials meet shifting human

needs? Have our materials requirements in terms of performance, as achieved through the marvelous developments in

polymers and composite materials, deviated so much from the

188
properties-performances of natural materials that we must

increasingly rely on the “feedstock approach” of using renewable

resources as another carbon raw material source, comparable

with coal, shale oil, lignite, and peat?

As a thought experiment, we can look at the materials-energy

system as part of an earth metabolic system (24), and for the purpose of discussion one can consider analogs based on biological

systems, Figure 6 shows some of the subsystems of an organism

(7) and its functional characteristics. The food, oxygen, water,

vitamins, trace metals, etc., participating in anabolic and catabolic

processes in organisms can be viewed as the analogs of materials,

chemicals, and fuels in the larger (external) metabolic system,

This is obviously a much too simplified system but can be used as

a conceptual framework for discussion of such questions as

“throughput,” energy-materials intensity, substitution, etc. Information can be viewed as an input or output depending on the

level of abstraction.

FIGURE 6.—Internal and External Human Metabolic System

ORTHO Concept

Output (Quality),

Performance,

Well Being

I

‘! Critical

Input (Quantity)

Food, Oxygen, Water, Vitamins, etc.

Materials, Chemicals

Energy, Fuels

Input Transducer

Internal Transducer

Channel and Net

Decoder

Associator

Memory

Decider

Encoder

Output Transducer

If we allow ourselves to adopt Pauling’s (25) orthoconcept as

applied to medicine, we can develop an idealized picture of what

would be “correct” (“ortho” is Greek for “right” or “correct”), in

terms of materials-energy input for the optimum performance (as

opposed to the maximum performance) or well-being of the

organism (individual, group, society) and its subsystems.

Obviously the shape and “height” of the curve as well as “critical” and “toxic” levels of an input will vary dependent on the

nature of the input (which can be subject to substitution). The

189
optimum rate of use of a material, product durability, utility and

reuse, materials loss and recycling, etc., are concepts increasingly

considered in the so-called materials cycle. The evaluation of

“ortho points” for various materials and social systems can be the

subject of normative assessments that might affect policies. The

Symington (54) statement in relation to a national materials

policy is of interest in this context.

We can also look at the biomaterials cycle and flow involving

humans in a more dynamic manner and distinguish among a)

production-conversion (biological and by man), b) use, and C)

post-handling degradation (55) The “loss” of renewable resources to the environment is not of critical importance as we

have a renewing energy system available. In the long term,

however, it will be critical for “depletable” (nonrenewable) resources (figure 7).

If we distinguish among bioproduction, conversion, and consumption, we can look at the capability of the solar energydriven production system to produce molecules and structures at

various free energy levels which have to be modified to meet the

thermodynamic requirements of the human consumption

system. (16) The symbiotic relationship between the earth and

humankind has recently been discussed by Dubos (56) (figure 8).

The hierarchal levels of the natural materials system is shown

in table 6. Only a single example is given at each level. (In the

oral-visual version of this paper a series of slides is shown,

indicating the systemic levels from an ecosystem to the molecular structure of cellulose, a hemicellulose, and lignin.) The manner in which we go down the systems scale is of course a primary

question. The “cost” of going down the scale to meet a social

need can be expressed in energetic terms.

The broad groups of plant types and the chemistry of their

components are shown in tables 7 and 8. The lignocellulosic

plants, which constitute by far the greatest stock of biomass on

earth (2,1012 tons), are not digestible by man but can be made

digestible for ruminants. The foliage is, however, directly digestible by various animals and could be a source of protein for man if

adequate collection and separation processes were developed

(18). The foliage can constitute up to 7 percent of the weight of

the plant and for hardwoods can contain up to 8 percent of protein (half as much as alfalfa). The “starchy,” the sugar, and the

protein (legumes) type plants have generally more than 50 percent ligno-cellulosic material in the roots, stem, and branches. It

is, of course, often the seeds we eat.

From a chemical point of view, we can group the materials into

carbohydrates, phenolics, proteins, lipids, and special biomolecules, such as chlorophyll, vitamins, etc. The component

190
FIGURE 7.—Biomaterials Cycle

Solar Energy

RECYCLING

REUSE

MULTIPLE USE

EXTENDED USE

SHARING

USEFULNESS

MATERIALS LIFETIME

FLOW

LOSS

STANDAR D

ENERGETI C

UTILITY

roles can be as building stones and adhesives, energy sources

synthesizers, environmental protectors (stress adjusters), etc.,

participating in both anabolic and catabolic processes (7).

We often hear about cellulose as being the major polymer on

earth. In terms of volume and weight, this is true, but in terms of

storage of solar energy, lignin is the dominating biomaterial.

Trees have 35-45 percent cellulose and 20-30 percent lignin, but

lignin has almost twice as high enthalpic level (heat of combustion) as cellulose, Presumably nature has a purpose in this (table

9).

191
FIGURE 8.—Plant—Human Symbiosis

I

Solar 0,

Energy

\

co,

AH – As I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Fuel T

Shirt

Material

I Food

I

STRUCTURE—pROpERTY—pERFORMANCE —RE~UIREMENT

TABLE 6.– Hierarchal Material System Levels

Biosphere

Autotrophs

Forest

Tree

Stern

Wood

Fiber

Cellulose Fiber & Fibril

Microfibril & Protofibril

Cellulose Molecule

Glucose

Heterotrophs

Human Society

Supply System

Transportation

Pallet & Goods

Box

Carton (Paper)

Film Barrier

Polyethylene

Ethylene

Ethanol

192
TABLE 7. –Plant Types and Components

1.

2.

3.

4,

. . 5

LIGNOCELLULOSICS: Trees, straw, woody tissues in

various plants. Contain Cellulose,

Hemicelluloses, Lignin, Lipids

STARCHY PLANTS: Corn, Wheat. Potatoes (seeds)

SUGAR PLANTS: Cane. Beet

PROTEIN PLANTS: Legumes, Foilage rich plants

ISOPRENOID PRODUCERS: Rubber Plant. Guayule

TABLE 8. – Chemistry of Plant Components

CARBOHYDRATES: Cellulose

Hemicelluloses: Hexosans

Pentosans

Starch

Sucrose

Pectin Etc.

Lignin

Flavanoids

Aromatic Aminoacids

PHENOLICS:

PROTEINS AND PEPTIDES

LIPIDS AND HYDROCARBONS: Fatty Acids

Rosin Acids

Sterols

Fatty Alcohols

Rubber

CHLOROPHYLL, VITAMINS. TRACE ELEMENTS ETC.

TABLE 9.—Heats of Combustion for Some Plants Components

COMPOUNDS BTU/LB CAL/gM

19,600 10,900

193
Some of the “functions” of lignin can be described as (27):

● Response to stresses:

Mechanical,

Biochemical (degradation),

Physical-chemical (water), and

Chemical (02, 03, UV-light, fire);

● Energy storage; and

● Contributions to soil (humus) properties.

Cellulose and hemicelluloses have relatively simple composite

materials functions in wood, while the protein and chlorophyll

have very complex functions. The lipids might act as surfactant,

hydrophobizing (sizing) agents and agents for control of insects,

fungi, diseases, etc. A better understanding of the functional roles

of plant components and means of affecting their biosynthesis

should have high priority as a research area. We know a considerable amount about the organic chemistry of plant components, but much less about the biosynthesis and the manner in

which the molecular, macromolecular, and morphological structural features relate to processes and property-performancerequirement characteristics of the plant.

The free energy in various plant components is there for a purpose. We can simply use the enthalpic value and burn the

biomass for energy, or we can attempt to use renewable resources

at highest possible systems level see table 6). We should not r

increase entropy and destroy a composite material, a fiber, or a

macromolecule when we don’t have to in order to meet our need.

The manner in which we manipulate the biomass and make cross

levels transformations and changes at the molecular level by

changing carbon-hydrogen-oxygen balances can be the framework for important research policy recommendations. To a certain extent, these questions can be approached through thermodynamic tools (28,30). Work on natural products in this area is

badly lacking, as the petrochemical interests have controlled

thermodynamics research. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics

(29) and systems opening and closure (31) can be particularly

important for living systems and evolutionary processes.

From the point of view of materials science, the research field

is open. We don’t know much about the composite materials contributions of the various components in wood. The interplay of

natural products at various systems levels with synthetic

polymers and inorganic materials has room for many innovations. A definition of materials performance requirements is

often the bottleneck. Table 10 shows some material system types,

many of which are already used for natural products.

194
TABLE 10. –Materials Systems

Type Examples

Uniform. Amorphous Lignin-Phenol Resin

Partially Crystalline Rayon (Cellulose)

Laminated Sheets Plywood

Fiber Network Paper

Bonding Agent Rosin Adhesive

Fiber Reinforcement Wood

Particle Reinforcement Lignin-Rubber Composite

Polyblend Wood Middle Lamella

Coating Starch

Powder Compaction

A better understanding of structure-process relationships at

various hierarchal levels (32) is much needed. In fact, general

systems science could contribute considerably to the renewable

materials understanding, Workshops by NSF (33,34) could put

more emphasis on renewable polymers and materials. Although

we are in the space age, we need to get down to the earth (even

soil) in materials research,

The abrasion resistance with a lignin-reinforced rubber does

not appear to be governed by the failure properties but rather by

the visco-elastic properties of the cured rubber. Lignin is a

macromolecular material with lower modulus and hardness than

carbon black. The modulus of the reinforcing particle has been

shown to affect the reinforcement properties, and work of the

type done by Morton at the University of Akron can thus be highly relevant for renewable resource composites.

,

The shift from carbon black to lignin in the rubber industry is

primarily controlled by institutional factors, lack of economic

incentive, and concern for pulp mill impacts by recovery of a

large fraction of the lignin which has to be replaced with another

fuel source with present recovery systems. The quantity of lignin

burned annually in U.S. kraft pulp mills is about 16 million tons.

195
TABLE 11. –Physical Properties of Lignin and Carbon Black

Reinforced Styrene-Butadiene Rubber at 68 Parts Lignin per 100 Parts

Rubber (Oil-Extended SBR)

Lignin A Lignin B HAF ISAF

Modulus (psi) 520 650 610 730

Tensile Strength (psi) 3165 3380 2500 2930

Elongation (%) 720 630 720 750

Tear Resistance (ppi) 355 300 320 335

Hardness (Shore A) 54 54 56 61

Corrected Pico Abrasion 86 85 91 II-4

Biosynthetic Pathways

Before discussing the “feedstock approach” of producing

chemicals from renewable resources, it might be useful to look at

the photochemistry and biosynthetic pathways of making chemicals, an area justifiably emphasized by Calvin (35) for many

years. Solar energy can be used for both heat and quantum collection. In the latter category are photosynthesis, photochemistry,

and photoelectric processes,

The primary and most important step in photosynthesis does

not have to do with carbon but is rather the split of H20 leading

to oxygen and highly reduced products which can affect the

C02-reduction. The carbohydrate synthesizing cycles are then

the starting point for synthesis of proteins, lipids, and phenolics.

A conscious human effort to design photosynthetic systems

(plants, bacteria, or nonlive systems) to produce food, materials,

and energy for internal as well as external metabolic systems

might be as important an evolutionary event as the domestication

of plants and animals in what we call agriculture. Philosophical

questions of maintaining (increasing) diversity and complexity

to safeguard adaptability get into the picture in considering the

further “domestication of biosynthetic pathways.”

Practical examples of controlling the production of specific

chemicals are the natural rubber and naval stores industries. Termite-resistant, resin-loaded pine beams were once produced in

the South, Ongoing efforts to triple the production of rosin and

turpentine by chemical stressing of pines is being actively

studied by the Forest Service and is funded by ERDA (36).

Ecological impact is of major concern in this project, and the

bioenergetics in relation to endproduct value has to be researched.

196
Zaborsky (16) has proposed a long range strategy of bioconversion using regulated plants or microbes or isolated cellular components for the selective production of small active moIecules.

The argument would be that photosynthesized macromolecules

and plant components cannot be made to meet material needs

and that fragmentation processes are expensive, consume energy,

and require complex separation processes as multiple (watersoluble) products are formed. An exception of easy separation is

methane from anaerobic digestion. If we need other hydrocarbons, we can, as Ehrensvard (37) has proposed, achieve an

enzymatic “instant fossilization, ” but this would be quite expensive. If we would calculate the net energy of producing the oil we

pump from the ground, we might get indications of what the

“cost” will be when we have run out of it,

However, the photosynthetic system can be used to produce

chemicals by:

1. Modifying productivity of existing organisms,

2. Affecting the selective component synthesis with existing

organisms,

3. Interference with biosynthetic pathways as, for example,

to catch an intermediate,

4. Biosynthetic production of complex molecules with

needed properties, and

5. “Photosynthetic feed stock” approach by production of

small molecules such as H2, 02, H202, CH4, CH3OH,

C H20, CO, NH3, C2H20, C2H50 H .

The Chemical Feedstock Approach

Various recent assessments (10,13,14,38) indicate that abundant biomass resources are potentially available for chemical

conversion and that conversion of lignocellulosic material to

glucose, ethanol, syngas, methanol, furfural, and phenol are technically possible, although in most cases demonstration work is

required and optimization has to be achieved (figures 9 & 10).

The economics at present energy and wood cost do not yet

appear to justify production of bulk chemicals from wood or

waste, but considerable uncertainties still exist on actual costs. If

renewable resource-derived chemicals or substitutes are less

energy intensive than fossil carbon-derived chemicals, a substitution might be justified at a certain oil (or coal) cost. Uncertainties

about coal conversion processes add to the difficulties in deci -

sionmaking. More information about differences in conversion

costs, labor, and social costs are needed and justify extensive

Federal funding for research, development, and demonstration

projects. The two major types of feedstock chemicals are the

197
FIGURE 9.—Lignin Fragmentation

olefins and the aromatics. Carbohydrates are most conducive to

conversion to the former while lignin can be a source of

aromatics. Coal will probably be a more economic source for

aromatics than for olefins.

The Forest Service study (14) financed by NSF is the most

recent U.S. assessment. It concludes that petrochemical feedstock

replacement through wood residue conversion would not significantly impact national petroleum consumption, No single chemical could be economically produced today. However, an integrated plant producing ethanol, furfural, and phenol could be

economical at today’s energy and wood prices. Dr. Zerbe of the

Forest Service is manager of this project which should be well

funded and complemented with technology assessment activities

(figure 11).

Reference Materials System

As earlier pointed out, all of these assessments have to consider multiple interactions in the energy-materials sytem. The

concepts of net energy and energetic in materials production can

usefully be applied. Berry (39) has discussed the thermodynamics and energetic of alternative materials in packaging,

transportation, etc. Hoffman and his group at Brookhaven

National Laboratory (26) have developed guidelines for a

reference materials system similar to the energy reference

system (figure 12). This can be an extremely useful tool towards

providing a framework for materials policy. Hoffman’s input to

the systems group in the CORRIM study (13) has led to a preliminary trajectory for the renewable resource system with a quantitative materials flow and some inputs of the energy requirement

198
FIGURE —Schematic Flow Chart of a Sample

Lignocellulosic Chemical Plant (CORRIM)

Lignocellulose

I

I

Phenols

Carbon

Fuel

Ethanol

[

Yeast

Dehydration

Condensation

Ethylene

Butadiene

at the various steps from the growing and harvesting to the final

use,

The technique can also include inputs of labor, capital, and

environmental activities and might be particularly useful in

studying the effects of perturbations in the various parameters, A

comparison of the energetic in producing a 1 gallon milk container from plastic versus paper is illustrative. Measured by the

criterion of energy, paper is most favorable. Further research in

this area is very much justified.

U.S. Materials Studies Related to Renewable Resources

During 1973, four studies (40,41,42,43) were released, all emphasizing timber and conventional uses of wood:

199

87-315 0 -77 - 14
FIGURE 11.—Multiple Product Waste Hardwood

Facility Ethanol, Furfural, and Phenol

Basis of Projection

Wood Waste (hardwood) 1500 T/ D.O.D. Ethanol 25 mm GPY 190 Proof

Investment Estimate $100 mm Furfural 75 mm lb/yr

Phenol Recovery 20% of Lignin in Residue Phenol

Furfural Recovery

52 mm lb/yr

7.2% Of Wood Waste

Production Costs Investment

Depreciation 8

Maintenance 4

Taxes and Insurance 2

Profit 20 ”/0 of Investment

(10% after taxes)

Overhead 100°/0 of Labor

The 1974 summary report of the National Academy of Sciences

Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering

(COSMAT), “Materials and Man’s Needs,” had a strong (and by

wood scientists welcome) recommendation on renewable resources: “that studies be undertaken on the feasibility of using

renewable resources, including organic wastes, as a raw material

base for synthetic polymers.” The COSMAT report recognized

the low level of materials R&D on renewable resources and

recommended an increase. It did not identify any applied or basic

research problems for renewable resources but rather emphasized high-performance composite materials, biomaterials,

energy, environment, recycling, etc. It was amazingly ignorant

about the Iignocellulosic system. It defined pulping liquors as

200
201
waste, when in reality the organics are used for fuel value and

the inorganic are recovered. It claimed that lignin “has not responded to scientific attack” and that new hope lies in methods

“such as high resolution electron microscopy ”-a poor definition

of the materials research problems in the eyes of lignin scientists.

It did make a meaningful conclusion that lignin might be employed as bonding agent in wood products. This is still a valid research objective. (In 1976, there is to this writer’s knowledge no

academic polymer-material scientist in the United States doing

research on lignin — indeed amazing considering that lignin

energetically is the most important macromolecular material in

our biosphere.)

The National Academy of Sciences–National Academy of

Engineering report, “National Materials Policy,” published in

1975, made recommendations on increased timber yield and

referred to renewable resources under “waste utilization and

materials conversion” advising on “research into development of

feedstocks for polymer production.”

The National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture and

Renewable Resources formed the Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial Materials on September, 1974, and will

soon be ready to publish the general report. Several parts of the

study were reviewed in the February 20 issue of Science. One

panel dealt exclusively with the conversion of lignocellulosics to

energy and chemicals, recommending accelerated R&D efforts

both with the “macromolecular” and “feed stock” approaches

(see earlier discussions).

CORRIM recommended as a top priority that an “advisory office for policy issues related to the use of renewable materials” be

established under the Office of Science and Technology Policy in

the Executive Office of the President, Studies should be undertaken to evaluate the Nation’s materials supply systems, the

capacity to develop and advance new technology, and the manpower and training needs in the field of renewable resources. It is

concluded that the biological productivity of commercial forest

land can be doubled within half a century through application of

proven silvicultural practices, CORRIM recommends major

efforts by USDA in this area. Deficiencies in the research and

educational systems are being recognized. CORRIM recommends

that NSF create and maintain university centers of research in

renewable resources and that cooperative industry, university,

and Forest Product Laboratory studies be encouraged,

The Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry,

Wood Chemistry Committee, represents an active group of wood

chemists in the United States and has taken a strong stand in

favor of “wood chemicals” and increased research effort and

202
funding by Federal agencies. The Committee organized, jointly

with Syracuse University, an international symposium “Wood

Chemicals–A Future Challenge” now published as a special

volume of Journal of Applied Polymer Science (17). It is now

planning another international conference in Madison in June

1977 (jointly with the Forest Biology Committee). The conference will bring together various international assessment

studies of renewable resources conversion to chemicals, food,

and materials,

The NSF-Forest Service study on “The Feasibility of Utilizing

Forest Residues for Energy and Chemicals “(14) is through its

first phase and will now go into a systems definition and analysis

phase. This program should lead to a demonstration of the technical and economic feasibility of processes for producing

feedstock chemicals, like ethanol, furfural, and phenol, from lignocellulosic materials, The emphasis is on products that can be

used within the forest industry. Of particular significance can be

the part of the program related to adhesives for reconstituted

wood products. Furfural and phenol can of course be involved,

but adhesives end-objectives can also consider the use of lignin

in macromolecular form, and a good material science effort will

be required.

The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies organized a

well attended and publicized conference on “Capturing the Sun

through Bioconversion” with a large number of papers and panel

inputs which will be published. The emphasis on technology

assessment and a participative, multidisciplinary format can

make such activities very valuable, By unifying around biomass

concepts and solar energy conversions, a much needed bridging

between forestry, agriculture, and intensive biomass production

advocates may come about.

The Battelle Columbus Laboratories have an ERDA-sponsored

program on Fuels from Sugar Crops and have organized a

Tutorial Conference, October 13-15, 1976.

Institutions

Just as we are emphasizing “renewable resources” rather than

“processes of renewal” and the energy-materials flows, it seems

that institutions are mostly looked upon as structures with welldetermined processes. This might be well so long as we have a

homeostatic system with agreed upon ends and purposes. Forest

Service has performed excellent statistical surveys of wood supply according to the merchantable bole concept, but it was not

prepared to survey the total bioproductivity net and gross) in [

various ecosystem. The two futures conferences (46,47) of the

203
paper industry during 1973 both emphasized technical trends and

needs, and employed as primary forecasting tools trend

extrapolation and “surprise free futures” concepts. However,

there is emerging a consensus that the research and educational

system in relation to renewable resources and the forest industry

should be revitalized, The technological initiative now comes

largely from Scandinavia whose industry can compete in spite of

twice as high wood cost, A wood chemistry or paper technology

conference in this country will generally have more than half of

the papers coming from Europe. The international orientation

typical of wood science (necessary to reach a “critical mass”) has

many positive aspects to it, however.

The emphasis on structure shows up in the names of institutes

and departments (wood, cellulose, forest products, paper, etc.),

although a recent trend has been to include “environmental

science” and thus a more interdisciplinary outlook. The wood

chemistry research during recent years had, to perhaps 80 percent, been oriented towards oxygen bleaching-pulping for paper

making (mostly justified because of beneficial environmental

attributes). Some wood chemists had a professional identity

problem which was accentuated when the American Chemical

Society excluded “wood” from the division now called

“Cellulose, Fiber, and Textile.” In response to this, the TAPPI

Wood Chemistry Committee became an active force with conferences, such as the Wood Chemicals Symposium in Syracuse,

1975, and an effort to affect NSF-RANN and other agencies.

Wood Technology departments at universities might in a

halfhearted way apply material science concepts, but material

science or polymer departments will rarely work with wood, lignocellulosic components, or renewable resources in general.

NSF, RANN, and ERDA show a flexible attitude in defining

the place for research on renewable resources and the processes

for generating and converting these resources. ERDA deals with

“Solar Energy” and “Bioconversion” and has listed in its scope

“petrochemical substitutes,” but emphasizes “fuel from biomass.”

NSF should formulate its policies in relation to renewable

materials,

If we are truly approaching a state where we will view our

photosynthesized resources in a new way with regard to generation, conversions, and end-uses, we might not be able to rely on

trend extrapolation; and we might in fact as scientists confront a

major paradigm shift (48), Harman (49) at Stanford Research

Institute has compared a “transformation perspective” with the

“Kahn post-industrial perspective.” Henderson (50), Beer (51),

and others have applied the “metalanguage-metasy stem” thinking about institutional change and concepts of managed, rather

204
than exploited, resources, Emerging understanding of self-organizing systems (3o), systems opening and closure (31), homeorhetic vs. homeostatic systems, and the evolutionary view of

Jantsch (52) could be of particular relevance in dealing with

questions of our interdependencies with the photosynthesizing

systems and the resulting products: food, “renewable resources,”

and other bioproducts.

It could be a major task for OTA to assess the technical, social,

economical, and ecological implications of a major shift in our

management of the phototroph system and renewable resource

generation and utilization. NSF should study the educational and

science policy implications of such a shift.

In summary, we might talk about renewable resources through

renewable organizations and institutions.

Implications for Scientists and Engineers

The “renewable resource” and “materials renewal” issues

involve major uncertainties and high complexity (multiple interdependencies) with regard to the extended and “new” uses. The

time frame for change is important in the nonconventional uses

of renewable resources, Considerations about the total biomass

system and the mutualities between forestry and agriculture add

to the need for interdisciplinary and systems-oriented views of

the pattern of change.

The existing areas of renewable resource use confronts such

needs as:

1. Safeguarding raw material supply,

2. Less capital-intensive technology,

3. Less energy-intensive processes,

4. Improved environmental control,

5. Less dependency on depletable resources, and

6. Better utilization of all resources.

The extended or new uses of renewable resources raise

challenges in many areas in relation to the production, conversion, and uses of renewable resources. Most traditional institutions are not very well oriented towards handling some of the

tasks ahead, and this is particularly true in the materials science

and engineering areas.

The “age of substitutability” has been used to describe our

present materials situation. The extent to which we can rely on

trend extrapolation or will have to prepare for a major

(paradigm) shift in our view of organic raw materials uses is still

up for discussion,

The implications of a transformation in the renewable resource

system should, however, be the subject of well organized assess205
ments, incorporating technological, economic, social, environmental, and educational concerns.

Some examples of research, development and demonstration

activities at three planning levels are outlined below:

A. Bioproduction

1.. Normative level (ends)

Develop an awareness about the functional roles of

the components in phototrophs, the ability to direct

the selective production of valuable components, and

the manner i n which plant components,

macromolecules and chemicals can best be integrated

(symbiotically) with the human needs system, using

the biosynthesized product at highest possible

systems level.

2. Strategic level (objectives)

Develop joint forestry-agriculture programs in such

areas as biological nitrogen fixation, water management, genetic selection of plants (for optimum production of a combination of plant components for

food, materials, chemicals and fuel), nutrient flows,

and tolerable biomass removal from ecosystem, etc.

3. Operational level (goals)

Survey the existing biomass systems with regard to

type, quantity of different plants, economics of harvesting and transportation to potential use sites, etc.

B. Harvesting, collection, transportation, processing, conversion, and fabrication, etc., to needed products

1. Normative level

Assess alternative socioeconomic systems for

ecologically acceptable transformations of photosynthesized materials to end products meeting human

needs in an adaptable manner (according to shifting

priorities).

2. Strategic level

Develop a Reference Materials System enabling the

assessment of the benefits and constraints in choosing

alternative raw material sources for functional end

products.

3, Operational level

Demonstrate technical feasibility and economics of

integrated production of ethanol, furfural, and phenol

from wood.

C. Product development and use

1. Normative level

Determine the structure-property -performance relationships for materials components and systems

206
derivable from renewable resources, assess future

organic materials requirements and substitutions, and

develop approaches for optimization (according to

“ortho philosophy”) of the use of renewable resources

to meet materials needs in manners compatible with

food and other needs.

2. Strategic level

Develop relevant composites and polyblends using

renewable resource materials and macromolecules in

combination with synthetic polymers (when necessary for performance) and inorganic materials.

3. Operational level

Assess the feasibility of using modified lignins as

adhesives for reconstituted wood products.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Dr. Franklin Huddle, Congressional Research

Service, for having inspired this paper; to Dr. David Goring, Pulp

and Paper Research Institute of Canada; Dr. Richard Thomas,

N.C. State University; and Dr. Alf deRuvo, Swedish Forest Products Research Laboratory for electron micrographs of wood and

fibers; Dr. Chris Hill, Center for Development Technology, St.

Louis, for earth resource remote sensing pictures; Dr. Joseph

Wiley, Westvaco Forestry Research for pictures of forests ‘and

harvesting equipment; Dr. Phil Ross, National Academy of

Sciences; Dr. Peter Schauffler, Washington Center for

Metropolitan Studies; Dr. John Zerbe, U.S. Forest Service; Dr.

Kenneth Hoffman, Brookhaven Laboratories, and my daughter

Kristina who, through her art made me aware of many things.

REFERENCES

1. Hubhert, M. K., “The Energy Resources of the Earth, ” Sci. Am. 224, 60 (1971).

2. Hubbert, M. K., “Energy Resources” in “Resources and Man, ” p. 157, Freeman, 1969.

3. Eolin, B., “The Carbon Cycle, ” Sci. Am. 223, 124 (1970).

4. National Academy of Sciences, “Understanding Climatic Change–A Program for

Action, ” 1975.

5. The Study of Man Impact on Climate, “Inadvertent Climate Modification, ” MIT

Press, 1971.

6. Ozbekhan, H., 4

“The Emerging Methodology of Planning, ” Fields within Fields, No. 10,

63 (1973).

7. Miller, J. G., “The Nature of Living Systems, “ Behavioral Science 16, No. 4, 277 (1971].

8. Georgescu-Roegeu, “The Entropy Law and Economics, ” Harvard University Press,

(1971).

9. Schumacher, “Small is Beautiful, ” Harper, 1973.

10. Abelson, P. H. and Hammond, A. L. (cd.): “Materials-Renewable and Nonrenewable

Resources, ” AAAS, 1973. Also: February 20 issue of Science.

207
11, Keyfitz, N,, “World Resources and the World Middle Class, ” Scientific American, 235,

28 (1976).

12. Broda, E., “The Evolution of the Bioenergetic Processes, ” Pergamon, 1975.

13. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial

Materials, Report July 1976.

14. USDA-Forest Service, “The Feasibility of Utilizing Forest Residues for Energy &

Chemicals. ”

15 Wilke, C. R. (cd.), “Cellulose as a Chemical and Energy Resource, ” Wiley--Interscience,

1975.

16. Center for Metropolitan Studies, Proceedings from Conference on Capturing the Sun

through Bioconversion, March 10-12, 1976.

17. Applied Polymer Symposia 28, Proceedings of the Eighth Cellulose Conference. 1.

“Wood Chemicals– A Future Challenge, ” Interscience, 1975.

18. See above, H. “Complete Tree Utilization and Biosynthesis and Structure of Cellulose, ”

lnterscience, 1976.

19. National Academy of Sciences, “World Food and Nutrition Study–Enhancement of

Food Production in the U.S., ” 1975.

20. Boyle, ]. R., “A System for Evaluating Potential Impacts of Whole Tree Utilization on

Site Quality, ” TAPPI, 59, 79 (1976).

21. Davis, R. F,, “The Effect of Whole Tree Utilization on the Forest Environment, ” TAPPI,

59, 76 (1976).

22. Stanford Research Institute, “Effective Utilization of Solar Energy to Produce Clean

Fuel, ” 1974.

23. Marvel, C. S., Note in C & EN, April 19, p. 26, 1976.

24. Earth Metabolic Design, “Environmental Design Science Primer, ” New Haven, 1976

25. Hawkins, D. and Pauling, L., “Orthomolecular Psychiatry, ” Freeman, 1973.

26. Bhagat, N. and Hoffman, K. C., “Systems Framework for Materials Policy, ” Personal

Communication.

27. Falkehag, S. 1., “Lignin in Materials, ” Applied Polymer Symposium No. 28, 247 (1975).

28. Morowitz, H. )., “Energy Flow in Biology, ” Academic Press, 1968.

29. Glansdorff, P. and Prigogine, 1,, “Thermodynamic Theory of Structure, Stability and

Punctuations, ” Wiley-Interscience 1974.

30. Lehninger, A. L., “bioenergetics,” Benjamin, 1973.

31. Varela, F., “On Observing Natural Systems, ” Coevolution Quarterly, Summer 1976, p.

26.

32. Baer, E.; Gathercole, L. J. and Keller, A., “Structure Hierarchies in Tendon Collagen:

An Interim Summary, ” Proceedings of 1974 Colston Conference.

33. NSF Workshop, December 5-6, 1972, “Polymer Engineering and its Relevance to

National Materials Development. ”

34. Materials Research Laboratories Council, Workshop April 21-23, 1974, “Processing of

Polymeric Materials. ”

35. Calvin, M., “Photosynthesis as a Resource for Energy and Materials, ” NSF, 1975.

36. Lightwood Research Coordinating Council, Proceedings of Annual Meeting, January

20-21, 1976.

37. Ehrensvard, G., “Fuel Production from Wood, ” Wood Chemicals Symposium,

Syracuse, May 19-23, 1975.

38. Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada, “Feasibility Study of Chemical

Feedstock from Wood Waste, ” 1975.

39. Berry, R. S. and Makino, H.. Chicago Institute for Environmental Quality, “Consumer

Coods– A Thermodynamic Analysis of Packaging, Transport, and Storage, ” June

1973.

40. USDA—Forest Service, “The Outlook for Timber in the United States, ” 1973.

41. National Commission on Materials Policy, “Timber-The Renewable Material, ” 1973.

42. Report of the President’s Advisory Panel on Timber and The Environment, 1973.

43. National Commission on Materials Policy, “Materials Needs and the Environment

Today and Tomorrow, ” 1973.

44. National Academy of Sciences, COSMAT, “Materials and Man Needs, ” 1974.

45. National Academy of Sciences— National Academy of Engineering, “National

Materials Policy, ” 1975.

46. TAPPI Special Technical Association Publication No. 10, “Future Technical Needs and

Trends in the Paper industry, ” March 1973.

208
47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53,

54.

55.

56.

NSF–SUNY Syracuse, “Proceedings Conference on Future Technological Needs of the

U.S. Pulp and Paper industries, ” ]une 1973.

Kuhn, T. S., “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, ” International Encyclopedia of

United Science, University of Chicago Press.

Harman, W. W., “Notes on the Coming Transformation”, in “The Next 25 Years–

Crisis & Opportunity, ” World Future Society, 1975.

Henderson, H., “No! to Cartesian Logic!, ” World Future Society Meeting, June 2-5, 1975.

Beer, S., “Platform for Change, ” Wiley, 1975.

]antsch, E., “Design for Evolution, ” Brazi/ler, 1975.

Barr, W. ]. and Parker, F. A., “The Introduction of Methanol as a New Fuel into the

United States Economy, ” American Energy Research Company, March 1976.

Symington, ). W., Congressional Record, June 17, 1976.

Swedish Academy of Engineering, “Materialoms6ttningen i Samhallet, ” Meddeiande

182, 1974.

Dubos, R., “Symbiosis Between the Earth and Humankind, ” Science, 193, 459 (1976).

209
IV. Task Force Reports

TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SUMMARIES OF REPORTS

The following pages present the terms of reference and summarize the task force findings for each task. The terms of

reference give a more complete description of the topic, the

rationale behind the choice of topic, and a series of questions to

be addressed by the task force.

Each “terms of reference” is followed by a summary of the two

task force reports on that topic, The summaries are presented in

outline form and state the major points of agreement and disagreement between the two task force reports as well as some

general comments on the subject made in each report.

The purpose of this section is to provide an easy reference to

the principal ideas contributed during the conference on the five

subject areas of importance in the consideration of a national

materials policy.

Assistance in preparing this section was provided by Ms.

Elaine B, Carlson, Research Assistant, Science Policy Research

Division, C.R,S,

211
TASK ONE: MATERIALS ASSESSMENTS FOR CONGRESS:

STRESSES ON THE TOTAL MATERIALS CYCLE

A. TERMS OF REFERENCE

Future stresses on the Total Materials Cycle are expected to

influence the costs and flow rates of materials through the cycle.

Identifying the stresses and responses to avert or relieve them is

essential in order to insure a healthy economy. A basic question

arises: can the magnitudes of the anticipated adverse impacts of

the stresses be ranked, thus setting priorities for developing

effective responses to relieve the stresses?

Rationale

Many factors affect the prices and supplies of materials, and

we have relied primarily on the marketplace to provide materials

at what are loosely termed “reasonable” prices, There are growing concerns about new, and quite different, stresses on the total

materials cycle that may not be dealt with by relying entirely on

market adjustments. Some of these stresses are foreign in origin;

others are domestic. The quadrupling of bauxite taxes is an

example of the former; the increased costs associated with meeting new environmental regulations, the latter. The coupling of

energy and material flows is yet another source of stress which

has both foreign and domestic origin.

Identifying the stresses, their relative magnitudes, anticipated

impacts, and possible responses to averting or relieving them, is

essential in order to maintain a smooth flow (but most probably a

redistributed flow) of materials through the materials cycle, and

hence a healthy economy. Both Government and private sector

roles must be properly balanced in considering these responses.

What is being requested is the development of a list of stresses

and possible responses, a ranking of the relative importance of

the stresses, the potential effectiveness of the responses, and suggestions of how a balance between Government and private-sector roles might be achieved.

Questions

Stresses on the Materials Cycle

1. From a final list of stresses to be prepared by the Task

Force, which are expected to be most important and for

which materials? Can this ranking be made other than

212
2.

3,

qualitatively? Which are the “principal” stresses and

which the “component” stresses?

What are the expected impacts (e.g., economic, social,

institutional, etc.) ?

What are the controlling factors that determine when the

impacts of these stresses might be expected to be felt: o-5

years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years?

Responses to Relieve Stresses

1,

2,

3.

4.

From a final list of responses to be prepared by the Task

Force, and for those stresses for which a time period for

expected impacts has been generally agreed upon, which

responses might be expected to be most effective and

why?

What are the expected impacts of these responses?

What are the relative roles of Government and the private

sector in applying these responses to deal with the

stresses on the materials cycle? For example, can one distinguish areas of direct as opposed to indirect as opposed

to no governmental action?

What motivations are available for swift Government and

private actions in applying the responses to relieve the

stresses ?

B. SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE REPORTS

Task One

Group A

Points of Agreement

Major stresses on the materials cycle are the

followlng:

–the increasing per capita demand for materials

largely attributable to rising standards of living;

—environmental, occupational health and

safety impacts and regulations:

— Internal dlfflcultles In foreign countries and

actions by foreign governments affecting supplies of imported materials; and

— the declining long-term trend in materials

investment

Group B

Major stresses on the materials cycle are the

following:

–lack of availability of competitive domestic

resources;

— Federal legislative and regulatory constraints including environmental controls

and health and safety laws;

— uncertainty of foreign supply; and

–financing difficulties –poor Investment climate.

213
Comments

The stresses on the materials cycle cannot be Part of the response to the stresses of uncerrelieved within the next 5-IO years. For the fore- tainty in foreign supply should be the estabseeable future most industrialized nations will lishment of a stockpiling policy.

be importing an increasing amount of materials

from foreign sources.

An early warning system of changes in the There is a lack of public understanding in the

international environment or local unrest subject of materials— industry and Governendangering the flow of imported materials ment should formulate education programs

should be given more detailed study. involving the public, industry. and Government concerning the environment and land

use in resource development,
TASK TWO: GOVERNMENT, SUPPLIES

AND SHORTAGES

A. TERMS OF REFERENCE

Looked at with the benefit of 2 years’ hindsight, what does the

1973-74 period tell us about the possibilities for and the limitations to effective action by the Federal Government to secure

reliable supplies and prevent shortages of key raw materials?

Rationale

During 1973 and 1974 a series of severe shortages arose which

caused hardship and dislocation throughout the economy. These

shortages, and the perceived inability of the Government to do

anything to alleviate them, were in large part responsible for the

creation of the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages.

The shortages themselves largely disappeared with the coming

of the sharp recession in late 1974. However, as the economy has

begun to turn upward again, fears have been expressed that the

problems of 1973-74 may recur or even worsen.

Major contributing factors to the shortages of 1973-74 were the

direct and indirect effects of the action of OPEC, In the aftermath

of the events of 1973, third world materials producers began to

talk openly about emulating the oil cartel. The growing dependence of the United States on imported raw materials and the

increasing interdependence and vulnerability of the industrialized countries lent creditability to this threat in spite of the

fact that economic analyses almost uniformly tended to

downplay its importance. This concern about our possible

vulnerability to supply cutoffs, plus a belief by some that large

swings in raw materials prices were both undesirable and could

be prevented, led to the serious discussion of materials strategies

employing stockpiling in various forms.

A parallel concern that surfaced in a particularly graphic manner during the early 1970’s was the question of the long-term

availability of basic resources. Again, subsequent analyses have

tended to downplay the seriousness of the problem, but not all

are convinced. Even those who contend that resources will be

adequate in the foreseeable future tend to disagree about the

degree of governmental involvement that will be required to

achieve what GoeIler and Weinberg recently referred to as “The

Age of Substitutability,” In particular, some have pointed to the

troubles that occurred in 1973 and 1974 as proof of the need for a

more overt planning capability for the Government.

215

87-315 0- 77 - 15
Questions

1, During 1973-74 it was widely believed that the shortages

we were then experiencing were the first sign that we

were entering into an “Age of Scarcity” during which

such shortages would become commonplace. There are

new strong indications that the shortages observed during

1973-74 had little or nothing to do with an underlying

scarcity of raw materials. Was there a misperception of

the basic problem? What lessons for future Government

policy can be learned from the 1973-74 experience?

2. Participants at preceding Henniker conferences

apparently have agreed that total self-sufficiency in raw

materials, while perhaps technically feasible, is not a

desirable goal for the United States. How should the

proper degree of self-sufficiency be determined? What

policies are required to attain this level?

3. The Office of Technology Assessment has recently completed a major study of materials information systems,

This study identifies weaknesses in the current system,

discusses possible changes, and outlines institutional

alternatives for implementing these changes. In the light

of OTA’S results, what, if any, changes in Government

materials information systems are both feasible and

desirable?

4. OTA has also just finished a study of economic stockpiling, Among the possible stockpiling objectives which are

identified are: stockpiling to offset the effects of supply

disruptions of key imported materials; stockpiling to deter

price-enhancing actions by producer nations; and

stockpiling to stabilize the prices of important raw

materials. This study estimates the benefits and costs of

alternate stockpiling policies, suggests a methodology for

implementing and operating a stockpile, and outlines

institutional alternatives for congressional consideration.

In your opinion, is stockpiling for any of these purposes

both feasible and desirable? If so, how are specific commodities to be selected for stockpiling, and what kinds of

operating rules would have to be established?

5. How active a role must the Government take to assure the

longrun availability of raw materials? Is there need for an

increased role in monitoring developing supply/demand

trends? Is increased financing of long-range R&D on

materials substitution required? If so, how is the Government to decide which projects are worthy of support?

Does the situation dictate that the Government undertake

something approaching long-term planning?

216
B. SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE REPORTS

Task Two

Group A Group B

Points of Agreement

Shortages during 1973-74 were not related to a

scarcity of underlying raw materials, These

shortages were directly related to the lack of

capacity of conversion and processing facilities

to respond to unusual surge in demand due in

part to Federal intervention.

The U.S. should not endeavor to be self-sufficient In 011 materials. The acceptable degree of

import dependence must be examined on a caseby-case basis using an adequate set of criteria

includlng effect on employment, economic dis -

Iocatlons, and strategic security.

It IS not desirable at this time to create a new

bureaucratic function in establishing a materials

information system, The further development of

MIS can be pursued through more aggressive

and directed effort of existing bodies

Industry must be a partner in, contributor to, and

user of the MIS

During the 1973-74 period there was no “real”

scarcity of materials. The problems were

essentially those of unsound Government

actions and the resultant “shortage mental ity.”

Self-sufficiency is not a goal in itself. The

greatest degree of sufficiency is needed in critical commodities and essential industrial

materials. Accurate information is needed to

establish criteria needed to define these critical and essential materials.

To establish a materials information system it

would appear feasible to make use of current

information systems with evolutionary

changes as required for centralized coordination.

Industry information systems for reciprocal

inputs are equally Important to a MIS with the

Government/industry interface being of major

concern.

Points of Disagreement

Stockpiling industrial materials should be on an A limited economic stockpile for critical comemergency basis only. in response to embargo, modities and essential industrial materials is

limited to short term demand for a few materials. desirable, until the ultimate goal of free and

to gain time until other normal free enterprise open trade on a world wide scale can be”

market forces act to limit or ellminate a perilous achieved.

gap.

Comments

A materials Information system must contain To assure the long-run availability of raw

provision to assure that constructive analytical materials the major Government role is to supuse IS made of proprietary data without com- ply accurate and timely information suffipromise to its source ciently in advance to ensure that the market

will give the proper response.

There should be a stated Government policy of

collecting as much detailed mineral information as possible and industry associations

should endorse this goal

Government and industry commodity experts

should meet frequently to standardize data

definitions and format and to minimize overlap.

217
TASK THREE: CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IN

MATERIALS PROCESSING

A. TERMS OF REFERENCE

There is an increasing recognition that a national energy policy

need be compounded from considerations of national self-sufficiency, environmental concerns, and retention of economic

advantage in international commerce. How important a role

should conservation play in that policy, and more particularly,

what is the proper emphasis to be placed on conservation in the

production of materials?

Sharp drops in the historic growth rate of energy consumption

were noted in 1974 and 1975 as a result of patriotic concern, reaction to increased gasoline, fuel oil, and electricity costs, and an

overall recession. In 1976 energy consumption has returned to its

old trend line fueled by what the New York Times has called a

“Bicentennial Driving Binge” and some improvement in

industrial activity.

Nonetheless, the long-term concerns inspired by the events of

1973 are a proper business of policy makers, Can energy sufficiency adequate to an independence of action in international politics

be reestablished without material changes in lifestyle? Or need

we prepare ourselves for a declining standard of living or greater

accommodation to outside forces than we would prefer to face?

In addressing national energy policy, the chemical industry has

sought to develop positions in each of three areas which, taken

together, are conceived to represent definition of an energy

policy; i.e., Conservation, Wise Use of Resources, and Additional

Indigenous Fuels. The national policy focus is increasingly on

conservation, and it would seem particularly on conservation of

energy and materials in industrial production, This i s

understandable, in that industry uses about 41 percent of primary

energy (1970), and the chemical industry uses one-fifth of that.

Industry is more organized into large entities subject to definition

and discipline than, for example, households are, and already

motivated by changing costs to address the issues involved. One

authority cites two ways to make savings:

●

●

218

Use of heat that otherwise would be thermal waste;

By making industry less energy intensive; i.e., changing

the weighting of the product mix to make things which are

more durable.
Questions

1. How should we define’ ’conservation” for purposes of a

fruitful study? Should it be “continual progress in reducing the energy consumed per unit of output (or GNP) ,“ or

should it include consideration of reduced consumption

of particular fuels in short supply, and/or changes in product character which lead to longer product life and/or

otherwise reduced consumption?

2. The electrical system is the onIy present vehicle for delivery of renewable resources (solar, geothermal, tidal,

fusion), and the major one for utilization of coal and

nuclear energy forms. At the point of use, electrical

energy is the most efficiently used energy form. Should

national policy encourage, through price or other incentives, the high-voltage, high-load-factor use of electricity?

3. What potential for reduction in energy consumed per unit

of material output is theoretically possible and practically

possible over the short term (1985) and the long term

(2010)?

4. Will the current and future increases in energy costs adequately motivate industrial energy conservation efforts,

or are mandatory national requirements a better way?

That is, from the standpoint of national policy, is there a

parallel between Environmental Protection and Industrial

Energy Conservation?

5. What constructive changes in regulatory practices would

encourage more industrial electricity self-generation in a

dual cycle mode (i.e., a manner to use the heat produced

as well as the electricity), yielding marked improvement

in thermal efficiency?

6. What should the role of Federal funding in energy conservation be— to accelerate research into energy conserving

unit operations (i.e., more efficient separation techniques); and/or to encourage retrofit of obsolete facilities?

7. What should be the role of tax policy in encouraging conservation investment, or replacement of facilities with

more energy conservative plants?
B. SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE REPORTS

Task Three

Group A Group B

Points of Agreement

Long-term energy efficiency should increase Potentials for reduction of energy consubstantially but will depend on the specifics of sumption in materials are widely variant from

the materials and technology yet to be applied. material to material but on a long-term basis

new facilities necessary to replace energyintensive processing such as open hearth furnaces will require 30 to 50 percent less energy.

Tax credits. tax exempt energy bonds, and quick Tax policies to relieve the high cost of replacewrite-offs are possible tax policles that would ment capital equipment plus high interest

encourage energy conservation. rates on borrowed money and to expedite

capital equipment write-offs are encouraged

as incentives to energy conservation by industry.

Points of Disagreement

National policy should encourage high load fac- Use of high load factor electricity should not

tor use of electricity y. be encouraged for most material processing or

extractive applications,

Comments

Federal R&D funding for industrial energy con- Industry in general is confused as to what the

servation should be related to needs not now Federal policy actually is toward encouraging

fulfilled by industry. tbe conservation of energy. See no evidence of

real. across-the-board Government-originated

incentives for energy conservation at this date.

Process analysis using material/energy balance equations familiar to the chemical

engineer can point out the most energy-intensive steps that R and D efforts may minimize.

Time demand clocks, microcomputer control

of processes, adaptive control for optimizing

energy of manufacturing processes, use of

available waste heat for preheating precursor

material, and DC power generation from thermal furnaces all have their place in energy

conservation and should be encouraged.
TASK FOUR: THE ROLE OF MATERIALS IN DEFENSE

A. TERMS OF REFERENCE

How can the Department of Defense better address its

materials aspects and problems? Are DOD’s (and NATO’s) scientific, technological, and industrial bases adequate to support their

missions?

Rationale

The primary role of the Department of Defense is to provide

maximum security to the United States and the Atlantic Alliance.

To achieve this goal, new military systems and weapons must be

developed or improved constantly. Advanced materials and technology must be available to permit the development of these new

concepts and systems which generally are stymied by materials

limitations, The narrowing lead of the United States and NATO

in science and technology apparently is affecting their development of advanced materials and the accompanying technology,

Questions

1. How can materials research and development be made

more productive in a world of declining real dollar funding ?

2. Can implementing the design team approach (designer,

materials engineer, nondestructive evaluation, process

planning and manufacturing, and maintenance and

repair) from the time of the conceptual stage provide a

significant increase in cost effectiveness?

3. What is the best way to expedite the development of

materials and technologies that limit the development of

new systems and weapons?

4, Would permitting the allocation of DOD funds to basic

science not directly tied to specific missions be more

effective in furthering the long-range, materials-associated needs of DOD than continuing the present restriction

largely to National Science Foundation funding?

5. Can centers of excellence for areas, such as casting and

welding, that would involve individuals from industry,

academia, and Government and multidisciplines be effective in advancing and disseminating technology? How

should it be structured—Government owned? Consortium of interested parties? Permanent or rotating personnel?

221
6.

7.

Is the trend toward reduction in DOD’s manpower and resources in its materials and structures divisions severely

reducing its effectiveness? Concomitantly, do reductions

of staff and effort in other agencies such as the Bureau of

Mines contribute measurably to the decline of materials

development and technology? How can policy level officials be made more aware of the importance of materials

to defense?

How could the research and development programs of

Defense Services be coordinated better to more effectively develop new materials and technology? How could

Government-civilian agencies interact in such a system?

What international measures concerning materials would

be most effective in promoting and strengthening the

NATO alliance?

222
B. SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE REPORTS

Task Four

Group A Group B

Points of Agreement

DOD should adopt the design team approach,

Matters such as acquisition cost, Iife cycle cost,

methods of nondestructive evaluation, and

general materials evaluation must be considered

as early as possible in the design program

A materials properties data bank should be established between Government and Industry to

aid in the development of materials and processes specifications and standards and the

accomplishment of engineering design

DOD must have a strong role in choosing its

basic research and relatlng it to its missions because I t can best judge its overall needs

The design team approach should be followed

with emphasis on recognition of an adherence

to common standards and specifications

DOD should use contract provisions to require

that data (such as mechanical and physical

properties of materials and structures. including processing where appllcable) developed under Government contract be submitted

in an orderly fashion to designated Government Information systems for storage and

retrieval.

NSF-funded basic research is not provldlng

enough new materials ideas to adequately

support future DOD hardware requiremments.

DOD should expend its dialogue with NSF

with the objective of correcting this deficiency

Points of Disagreement

Except in unusual instances, acknowledged, The Government should fund on a continuing

rather than Government-crrated “centers of basis “centers of excellence” on Government

excellence” are more llkely to be effective and owned property to develop the expertise and

competent. and to have long-term viabllity and manpower as needed for emerging DOD goals

real acceptance

Comments

For years, Congress and DOD officials have not Mandatory reviews should be made of all serappreciated the tmportance of and limitations of vice needs to identify common materials probmaterials Increased effort should be devoted to lems and make the findings public as far as

bring to the attention of all executives In possible

Government and business the crltical dlmen -

DOD should improve its technology transfer slons of materials problems and appropriate

actions and information exchange mechanisms

223
TASK FIVE: UTILITY OF ORGANIC

RENEWABLE RESOURCES

A. TERMS OF REFERENCE

What are the policy implications for engineers and scientists of

the potentially increased availability of and new uses for renewable organic resources?

Rationale

As prime reserves of exhaustible materials are depleted, the

requirements for these materials will not diminish but are likely

to rise. Resort to lower grades of mineral deposits implies

increased costs of both dollars and energy. The great bulk of

organic renewable resources are left in the forests or fields as

largely unused and even dysfunctional wastes. Their energy content is neglected. The total mass of this unused resource is substantial. Technologies are already available to convert organic

materials into engineering-structural or fuel-energy materials.

Other technologies are in prospect. The principal deficiencies in

the further utilization of organic renewable resources are the lack

of awareness of their potential and a lack of organization and

management to exploit them. Uncertainties about the economic

incentives, ecological impact, future land use policies, etc., are

also barriers in the substitution of fossil carbon sources with

renewable organic resources.

1.

2.

3,

4.

Questions

What are the policy implications of the rising costs of

liquid and gaseous fossil fuels, and their foreseeable

exhaustion, for the organic renewable resources? Can a

situation be defined at which substantial substitution is

likely to occur?

What is the relationship between the solid fossil fuels–

coal, lignite, and peat—and the renewable organics? What

opportunities are there for establishing a symbiotic relationship between the renewable organics and the

exhaustible minerals to maximize their joint utility?

How quantitatively significant are the renewable organics? Is their production amenable to technological

measures to increase their abundance?

What policy principles should govern the utilization of

renewable organics? Economic value? Technological

considerations? Preservation of high energy levels of

organic molecules? u

224
5.

6.

7.

8.

What would be the appropriate directions of research and,

especially, development to exploit renewable organics of

high economic promise in industry at an early date?

What would be the appropriate directions of basic research and exploratory development to exploit renewable

organics of potentially great impact in the long-range

future?

How will the competition for renewable organic resources and land, primarily for food production, affect the

future uses of these resources for materials and fuel, and

to what extent can symbiotic relationships between end

uses be visualized?

How can natural renewable resources, especially fibers,

be developed and exploited to optimize the combined use

of fibers from this source with fibers

materials?

B. SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE REPORTS

Task Five

Group A

made from fossil raw

Group B

Points of Agreement

In the utilization of renewable resources eco- Economic value WiII provide the principal

nomlcs IS the controlling factor. driving force for utilizatlon of renewable

organics Periodic economic evaluation of the

potential for such utilization will be needed to

capture economic benefits that may arise,

Assessments should be made of the technical One research area should be the development

and economlc feasibility of the feedstock of new materials based on the carbohydrate

approach of producing chemicals for polymers backbone polymerized with other synthetics.

from renewable resources These efforts should Specific efforts should be aimed at biodegrada -

be backed up by research on the Improvement of ble polymers. high impact strength polymers

processes of enzymatic hydrolyses of various lig- and strong absorbent polymers

nicellulosic and carbohydrate materials,

Comments

Technologies for burning coal in combination

with other fuels with low sulfur-content should

be advanced

A National Commission on Land Use should be

established with representation and input from

a I 1 affected areas

Coal liquefaction should become a massive

source of competitlvely economic aromatics,

and coal gasification should become an economic source of synthetic gas for NH3 and

methanol

The term renewable resources should not become equated with unlimited resources.

The extent to which wood IS available for substitution of petroleum-based, energy-intensive, or resource- llmlted materials IS not

consldered extensive without significant technological Improvement in all phases of production.

225
SUMMARY OF TASK ONE (A)

NATIONAL MATERIALS ASSESSMENT FOR CONGRESS:

STRESSES ON THE TOTAL MATERIALS CYCLE

Recognizing the complex and highly interactive nature of

materials problems and responses to them, this task force was

requested to identify the most important stresses on the total

materials cycle and possible alternative policy responses to avert

or relieve these stresses. The need for and purpose of this evaluation is detailed in the tutorial lecture, “Materials Assessments for

the United States Congress,” appearing earlier in these proceedings,

Identification of Stresses

Since an attempt to list all of the important stresses associated

with the materials cycle would have exceeded the time available,

the following stresses were identified as having greatest potential

impact in the opinion of the Task Force members:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Increase in world population;

Increase in per capita demand for materials;

Environmental impacts and regulations;

Health and safety impacts and regulations;

Actions by foreign governments;

Internal difficulties in foreign countries;

Other Government regulatory policies and actions;

Decrease in rate of mineral discovery;

Increase in energy costs;

Long-term trend of declining materials investment,

increasing capital intensity, and cyclical nature of demand

and prices;

Destabilizing factors outside materials cycle, i.e., domestic

currency inflation, drop in productivity, etc.;

Permanent changes in demand resulting from the use of

new technology; and

Shift to processing at home of raw materials in foreign

countries.

Selection of “Critical Few” Stresses

To narrow the scope of the problem and to assign priorities, the

Task Force singled out four principal issue areas as follows:

I.

IL

226

The increasing per capita demand for materials, largely

attributable to rising standards of living;

Internal difficulties in foreign countries and actions by

foreign governments affecting supplies of imported

materials;
111. Environmental, occupational health and safety impacts

and regulations; and

IV. The declining long-term trend in materials capital investment.

Interestingly, although not surprisingly, these stresses are

closely related to those factors occurring in the materials cycle

which were viewed as most directly and significantly impacting

upon considerations outside the materials cycle, i.e., those

materials-related stresses having ramifications or perturbations

in the total economy, natural environment, or society as a whole.

In all but one of the materials-related stresses having a macro or

societal effect, a close correlation with the Task Force’s priorities

can be seen, thus providing evidence of the interacting or twoway nature of materials-related issues. Those materials cycle

stresses directly impacting conditions outside of the materials

cycle are summarized in the following five problem areas:

●

●

●

●

●

Environmental, occupational health, and safety issues;

The materials industries’ share of energy use, as well as

the materials requirements for energy production;

The potential stresses upon national capital markets and

labor pools resulting from a possible reversal in investment trends of materials industries;

The trend of shifting mineral extraction, processing, and

fabricating industries from the U.S. to foreign sites; and

The interacting stresses affecting foreign relations and

international economic policies (including supply access

goals, international commodity agreements, law-of-the-sea

negotiations, investment in developing nations, multifederal trade negotiations, tariff preferences for developing countries, and export administration).

The complexity and extremely interrelated nature of

materials/resources issues, the stresses themselves, and the

materials cycle make clear-cut categorization of stresses difficult.

Similarly, the diverse views represented within the task group

frequently resulted in differing concepts of the stress topics

themselves, complicating the task of definition. However, the

Task Force agreed that the “critical few” selected appeared to be

serious constraints to the flow of materials or susceptible to

uncertainties that could cause world destabilization and stresses

in the domestic economy, compounding total repercussions on

the materials system.

227
Rationalization and Alternative Policy Responses

I. Increasing per capital demand.–The increasing total and

per capita demand of most materials is unavoidable as long as the

increase in world population remains unchecked, and the revolution of rising expectations in the poorer and most populated

regions of the world is spreading. The Task Force feels that, for

all practical purposes, these stresses cannot be relieved in the

intermediate time frame (5-10 years) even though new materials

standards, a conservation ethic, priorities in use and some

fabrication, as well as process and engineering improvements,

may somewhat slow down the rate of growth.

This leads us to the prospect that for the foreseeable future,

this Nation and, indeed, most of the industrialized nations, will

be importing an increasing amount of materials from foreign

sources that are well endowed with as yet untapped deposits, or

ore bodies that have been discovered or developed, and are capable of increased production.

As long as there is no danger of denial of supplies, interruptions, or price-escalation so severe as to damage the reliability or

economic justification of foreign supplies, increased imports of

materials are not detrimental, especially if U.S. exports of other

commodities or services will also increase as fast), It is only

when excessive dependence coincides with coercion or denial of

a supply essential to U.S. well being and security that other alternatives should be explored (soberly, considering feasibility and

all trade-offs), These include:

Q Increased supply from less desirable domestic sources,

● Alternate foreign sources of supply,

c International counter-measures, and

s More radical conservation and distribution, etc.

The Task Force finds that an early warning system of changes

in the international environment or local unrest endangering the

flow of imported materials should be given more detailed and

specific study.

Congress and industry should be briefed (within reasonable

constraint as to security and proprietary nature of the information) on the changing risks, perils, or trends as soon as they

become perceived by the United States.

The international specialized and leading agencies should be

informed of the dangers of irresponsible interference with the

free flow of materials to world trade.

The Task Force proposed that the following policy responses

be considered for relieving the stresses on the materials cycle

resulting from reduced supply:

228
1. Expand U.S. and worldwide minerals exploration,

2. Expand systematic analysis and cataloging of the world

resources (by both USA and OECD),

3. Additional assessment of R&D needed to improve all

phases of the materials cycle,

4. Improve access to Federal lands, where feasible, and

5. Improve access to foreign material supplies by a cooperative promotion of international trade by Government and

industry, acting as a single trading unit in foreign negotiations with underdeveloped countries. Trade with OECD

and other industrialized countries should be on a looser

cooperative basis.

Demand-oriented options include:

1. Encourage conservation of materials by allowing their

prices to float at real market values;

2. Encourage use of abundant (e.g., renewable) materials as

a substitute for scarce nonrenewable resources;

3. Encourage materials recycling by Government-supported

R&D and removing institutional obstacles;

4. Encourage conservation of materials while minimizing

economic and social repercussions;

5. Encourage reduction of post-consumer waste material

through changes in technologies to increase the durability

and decrease the scarce material content of consumer

goods and packaging;

6. Tighten use of export administration statutory authority,

particularly with respect to raw materials and recycled

materials. Encourage through the use of bilateral and

multilateral forums reciprocal supply access where possible; and

7. Consider import tariffs on products imported from countries that do not control environmental degradation in

their respective mining and processing industries, as a

means of reducing competitive disadvantages to U.S.

industries in world markets,

11, Foreign Country actions affecting imported materials. -

Unfortunately, two stresses on the materials system will be felt

worldwide to a degree that may be destabilizing to world trade.

The first is the increasing number of foreign material exporting

countries where internal difficulties (e.g., labor unrest, tribal conflict, insurgency, etc.) imperil or reduce production or exports

from existing sources, and/or halt exploration and development

of new resources. The second stress includes deliberate actions

by foreign governments to nationalize, take over, interfere with,

prohibit, or make prohibitive, exports from operating deposits

229
owned or managed by foreign investors. Interference by mandate

of a materials cartel (i.e., groups of materials-producing nations

that include the country now exporting materials to the United

States) will obviously reduce investment in or exports from such

deposits.

Alternatives to closing down such operations could entail:

●

●

●

Increasing royalty payments. Yielding to all demands short

of all-out take over (which ultimately takes place, more

often than not);

Slow but persistent negotiations to establish an earlywarning system by common agreement of all materials

consuming, or multinational interests in those countries

and then attempt multilateral negotiations to protect the

flow of locally extracted minerals to the world markets;

and

A serious effort by the United States to make a final

attempt to reach an international agreement, at least

among OECD nations, the international lending agencies

and the most responsible LDC materials producers to position effective and visible responses to wanton spoilation of

foreign investment,

The Task Force was unable to predict the degree of effectiveness of these measures, or the likelihood that the international

environment will continue to change so radically that some of

these foreign sources of supply will require export royalties or

taxation so heavy, or involved to such extraneous and unpredictable variables as to endanger materials flow from these countries

(Cf. UNCTAD demands).

111. Environmental, health and safety impacts.–The Task

Force noted that environmental as well as occupational health

and safety stresses are significant from the standpoint of their

two-fold or interacting nature, i.e., in terms of the adverse impact

of such regulation upon producing and consuming industries

within the cycle and in terms of the beneficial impact of both

stress categories upon other components of the cycle or upon the

quality of life as a whole.

The most direct and significant stress primarily involves the

cost of compliance with environmental regulations and its effect

at all stages of the cycle. Although the single greatest problem

area [in the opinion of the Task Force] is control of sulfur dioxide

emissions at the smelting stage for non-ferrous metals, environmental statutory requirements and regulations promulgated by

the Environmental Protection Agency and its predecessor a agencies also impact upon other stages of the materials cycle e.g., ?

water effluents in the electro-plating industry, water pollution in

230
iron ore and other mining stages, the cost of reclamation in mining and the increasing problem of handling overburden, tailings,

or air emissions; and the impact on coke production, foundries,

and ferroalloys).

The principal concern expressed by the mining/materials

industries, and by a majority of the Task Force, relates to the

diversion of capital for compliance with these requirements

away from cash flow that might otherwise be utilized for expansion or development of new capacity or productivity improvements in existing capacity. The capital diversion also includes

diversion of research funds to develop process technology for

compliance that might otherwise be, and traditionally has been,

expended on innovation.

Concern must be expressed also over the implementation of

environmental legislation which requires for compliance either

technology that does not exist or which is not economically feasible under most commercial circumstances. The uncertainty

generated by the continually changing nature of future environmental requirements, i.e., new statutes or interpretations of existing authorities, are acting as a deterrent to new capacity investment and contributing to the other investment uncertainties described below.

The Task Force made note of the need to examine land use

policies and the widespread withdrawal, in recent years, of

Federal lands, preventing exploration or multiple-use of such

lands,

On the plus side, environmental concern has given rise to a

whole variety of beneficial stresses on the materials cycle, such

as resource recovery, solid waste disposal, and new incentives for

increasing supplies of recycled materials. The Task Force also

recognizes the many advances in technology created by the mining and materials industries which contribute to improved

environmental quality, land reclamation, recovery of tailings and

mine wastes, and previously non-existent supplies now part of

the materials cycle,

In the occupational health and safety area, it was noted that

regulation of mine safety as well as regulation of health and

safety at other stages in the cycle often have a twofold effect,

Improved safety and health standards, particularly those imposed

voluntarily by industry, often have a favorable impact on overall

productivity and efficiency. However, imposition by statute,

interpretation, or promulgation of standards of health and safety

regulation, without consideration of the standard level to the

health/safety impact and without consideration of commercial

feasibility, can seriously impact operation throughout the cycle.

231

87-315 0-77 . 16
The Task Force recognized the need for understanding the

unique nature of mining in conducting health and safety research

and in promulgating these standards or conducting inspections

for mine compliance. Beyond the mining stage, health and safety

standards are generally promulgated on the basis of exposure to

individual substances considered toxic, The Task Force suggests

that similar consideration should be applied to the unique factors

affecting conditions at all stages in the materials cycle rather

than across-the-board application to all industry.

As policy, the Task Force recommends that strong consideration be given to balancing all the ramifications, positive and

negative, of environmental and health/safety standards upon the

materials cycle. An urgent need exists for better understanding of

the interactions between these desirable social goals on the one

hand and their effects upon energy use and materials productions, as well as upon international competition on the other,

Other policy responses suggested by the Task Force included:

14

2.

3.

4.

5,

6.

IV,

Expand Government~-sponsored R&D on pollution control,

Encourage R&D for developing less polluting processes,

Reassess pollution standards regularly to balance more

accurately and realistically costs and benefits,

Place potentially polluting processes in locations sufficiently remote to minimize environmental and health

impacts,

Discourage consumer waste and littering of containers

and packaging by allowing the full cost of control to flow

through to the consumer. This might be done by special

taxes, and

Educate the consumer by allowing the true costs of pollution control to flow through to the user.

Declining trend in materials investment.– A majority of

the Task Force finds that serious stresses might result from persistent and unfavorable trends in capital investment into the

materials system. These are characterized by a long term decline

in the flow of funds as compared with the general level of capital

expenditures and by the increasing capital intensiveness of the

materials industry (i.e., the increasing capital cost per ton of producing capacity; the rate of inflation in mining machinery, salaries and processing equipment appears higher than for other

capital goods, etc.), Last but not least, the scarcity of capital and

the high cost of money causes more severe stresses on long payoff, capital-intensive industries (as those in the materials cycle)

than on quick turn-over consumer industries or short term loans.

In addition, the profitability of materials industries is much less

232
than in other sectors, so that the borrowing is not easy and internal profits are insufficient to finance improvements. It may be

that to remedy this, the need to modernize our materials facilities

and invest in new R&D will justify special incentives or financial

guarantees to facilitate the flow of funds into the materials cycle,

The Task Force hears, loud and clear, the industry statement

that, above all, the materials industry problems stem from the

lack of freedom in the marketplace, and adequate profits to enable investments of the proper magnitude to maintain domestic

supply and demand levels.

233
SUMMARY OF TASK ONE(B): MATERIALS

ASSESSMENTS FOR CONGRESS: STRESSES ON THE

TOTAL MATERIALS CYCLE

Introduction

The total materials cycle begins with the exploration of the

earth and ends with either the recycling of the material or its

return to earth by disposal. From a generalized material cycle* in

the OTA report on materials information systems, the Task Force

developed a series of specific stresses for each phase of the cycle.

Many of the stresses were common to several phases of the cycle.

These 19 specific stresses are listed and discussed below.

Since many of the specific stresses had facets in common, the

19 specific stresses were grouped into six “summary stresses”

from which the policy alternatives and recommendations were

generated.

Specific Stresses

1. Environmental Concerns: All active phases of the

materials cycle, from exploration to disposal, generate

environmental impacts, sometimes severe. Public pressure for a minimization of such effects on the environment will continue to increase.

2. Depletion of US Resources: In many materials, U.S. resources are depleted and the country is dependent solely

on foreign sources.

3. Uncertainty of Foreign Supply: Swiftly changing world

conditions can result in sudden embargoes of vitally

needed supplies. This ever-present threat of complete

shut off or severe restriction of supplies can perturb the

materials cycle.

4. Capital Acquisition: The lack of investment capital in

recent years, due in part to high interest rates, has deferred or even terminated proposed development of production facilities.

5. Government Controls: The increasing number of

Government controls and regulations on various parts of

the cycle make operations throughout the cycle more

difficult and costly.

● OTA report on Materials Information Systems, figure 11-1, p. 22, US. Government

Printing Office, 1976.

234
6,

7.

8.

9,

10,

11.

12.

13,

14.

15.

16,

17.

18.

Uncertain Government Policy: In all too many instances,

e.g., pollution control, safety standards, Government

regulations are inconsistent or appear to fluctuate from

month to month,

Constraints in Land Use: Government regulations, in the

use of park lands for example, appear to be overly

restrictive and sometimes capricious.

Inadequate Technology: In many technical areas of the

cycle, we lack basic technology, For example, a real

advance is needed in geophysical exploration techniques. New extractive methods need to be developed to

process very low grade ores,

Health and Safety Laws (OSHA): In many areas, the

application of these laws is inconsistent and variable.

Manpower and Training: An increase in the number of

trained technical people for the early phases of the cycle

(mining and milling) is needed.

World Financial Climate: The financial climate outside

of the United States has made foreign investment attractive to the detriment of U.S. development.

Energy Availability: The increasing cost and limited

availability of energy imposes a stress on many phases of

the materials cycle.

Availability of Indirect Materials: Increasing constraints

in the supply of “indirect materials” such as water, fer~

tilizers, etc., poses production stresses for many industries.

LDC Industrialization: The entrance of developing countries into the world production generates additional competition for material supplies and markets.

Transportation: Biasing in Government regulation

toward certain modes of transportation for various commodities imposes stresses. For example, freight laws are

designed to favor ore transport but not recycled

materials.

Public Attitudes: In many areas of the materials cycle,

the public attitude is negative—resulting in restrictive

legislation or adverse community action.

Inadequate Design/Performance: Inadequate service life

of many of the industrial tools results in increased production costs. Inadequate product performance results in

early replacement.

Financial Incentive (profits): Both the Government and

the public often do not understand that financial incentive must be present and sustained for successful

industrial development.

235
19. Legal Relics: Outdated laws pose problems in conformance to various regulations.

Summary of Policy Alternatives

(Given in descending order of priority)

A. Lack of Availability of Competitive Domestic Resources–ore, energy, materials (specific stresses 2, 12, 13)

● Government aid and promotion of exploration

especially through amending and expanding the

Office of Minerals Exploration;

● Government aid for general replenishment of

renewable resources;

. More effective utilization of domestic resources

through tax incentives to industry; and

c The promotion of substitution, recycling, and product durability.

B. Uncertainty of Foreign Supply (specific stresses 3,11, 14)

● All responses of A;

● Establish a stockpiling policy (stabilizing supply

situation allows for negotiation time in short term

situations);

● Government should increase technical aid to

foreign countries for resource development for the

purpose of encouraging multiple sources of supply

of critical minerals; and

● Amend and expand by means of increased funding

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to

promote new development of critical materials.

C. Financing Difficulties –Poor Investment Climate (specific

stresses 2, 4, 18)

● Tax credits for critical materials production.

D. Federal Legislative and Regulatory Constraints (summary

stresses 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 19)

● Resolve conflicting environmental and OSHA

regulations, stabilize “uncertain,” fluctuating,

regulations;

. Promote multiple land use;

● Reappraise freight rate regulations;

G Reappraise price controls on oil and gas; and

● Government should promote a freer exchange of

technical information (e.g., statistical data or supplies) between companies in the same industry by

reevaluation of the present antitrust laws.

236
E. Inadequate Technology and Science

stresses 8, 10)

●

●

●

●

Develop exploration, extraction,

substitution technology through

Base (specific

recycling, and

Federally supported programs for basic and applied research;

Support research for production and utilization of

renewable resources through Federal funding;

Encourage research in private industry through tax

incentives; and

Encourage educational programs in mining, milling

and extraction engineering.

F. Lack of Public Understanding (specific stresses 1, 7, 16)

● Industry and Government formulation of education

programs involving the public, industry, and

Government concerning the environment and land

use in resource development.

237
SUMMARY OF TASK TWO (A):

GOVERNMENT, SUPPLIES AND SHORTAGES

The Task Force began its deliberation with acknowledgement

of its limited resources of time and authority. Yet the fortuitous

variety of its experience, expertise, and political bias provided a

constructive, objective, and always colorful debate on the role of

Government in response to chronic shortages and their underlying considerations.

In addressing Task No. 2, the Task Force chose to focus its

attention on the first four questions and on the proposed

Materials Policy Act of 1976; response to question five is implicit

in the comments on the earlier issues.

On the Sources of Scarcity

The Task Force believes that the shortages observed during

1973-74 were not related to a scarcity of underlying raw material

resources. Rather, those shortages were directly related to the

lack of capacity of conversion and processing facilities (due in

part to Federal intervention) to respond to unusual surges in

demand. In this regard, we share the judgment of the staff of the

Commission on Supplies and Shortages.

The adequacy of the resource base frequently is confused with

the capacity of the supply system; the chain of process facilities

from mine, well or field, to refinery, or sawmill, to fabricating

plant; and the associated transportation systems, This confusion

has led to frequent misperception of the basic problem. Adequacy of short term supply at the point of use is dependent on the

capacity of the intervening extraction, process, fabrication, and

transport facilities, Adequacy of long term supply depends primarily on the availability of essential technology to convert

existing natural resources to man’s needs.

On The Question of Self-Sufficiency

The Task Force agrees that self-sufficiency in materials is an

inoperative and undesirable goal, The United States cannot, need

not, and should not endeavor to be self-sufficient in all materials.

It is further agreed that the issue of sufficient resources for military security is a separate matter, one of assuring that adequate

divertable industrial capacity exists to provide critical military

needs for the period of limited war; this capability is being

examined separately and is the responsibility of the military establishment,

238
The term “degree of self-sufficiency” is semantically misleading; one is either self-sufficient, or he is not; it is not a matter of

degree, The acceptable degree of import dependence must be

examined on a case-by-case basis, using an adequate set of criteria including economic dislocations, effect on employment,

effect on quality of life, and strategic security. The operative

institutional framework must include and feature extensive

cooperation between Government, Congress, and industry. The

ultimate concern is not only the adequacy of industry but the

health of industry, upon which the health of the Nation depends.

On the Question of the National Materials Information System

We concur with the staff of the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages that it is neither practical nor desirable at this

time, to construct a new materials information system from the

“top down.” However, in the longer term, experience may show

that both the facility and the need may justify development of a

better system. In the interim, the system, as developed, must be

open-ended in design, adaptable to changing requirements and

capabilities. We would refer to the well-established and rather

more integrated information system in food and that evolving in

energy as examples worthy of examination. Existing components

of a “national materials information system” in various agencies

should be maintained and upgraded, Care must be taken to avoid

impairment of raw data systems by neglect as analytical

capabilities are added or refined. In most instances, data collection and dissemination should be vested in the same agency.

(This latter recommendation, incidentally, is not original; it

appeared in the Hoover Commission Report in the 1920s.)

A “national materials information system” should not be

limited to serving Government alone; its resources should be

available to, and designed to serve, industry and the public as

well, Industry must be a partner in, contributor to, and user of the

system. To maximize its potential for service to both communities —Government and industry—the system should incorporate technical as well as economic data.

An important consideration is proprietary data–both industry

and Government. Provisions must be made to assure that constructive analytical use is made of proprietary data without compromise to its source. The Task Force felt that this is an important factor in industry acceptance of the concept of a “national

materials information system, ” and in its cooperation with the

participating agencies.

We concur with the statement in the OTA report that the

information system should include “capability of interrelating

239
many factors to generate information specifically oriented for

materials decisionmaking. ” But the degree to which such analytical capabilities should extend to development of policy options is

debatable; it is not the function of an information system, per se,

to be sensitive to the subtleties of political considerations. An

information system should provide only objective facts, without

bias or coloration.

However, a primary ingredient of the information system concept should be the capability to select and effectively translate

pertinent information into language suitable for the definition of

Federal policy alternatives, We believe the system must provide

an authoritative source of comparison between policy actions on

the one hand and industry, market, and societal responses on the

other.

A further essential function of the system is provision for anticipation of supply-demand disruptions. Tools for accomplishing

this function—on a macro basis— exist in the present system.

Expansion of these capabilities, in both scope and detail, from a

coordinated national viewpoint—is necessary. The Department

of Commerce Early Warning System may fulfill this need,

However, we would caution that it is insufficient to consider the

domestic economy in isolation; our supply-demand system is

inseparable from that of the global community. We encourage

expansion of the DOC EWS concept to consider and report on

foreign economic, technological, and political factors affecting

the flow-both import and export—of materials through the

domestic cycle,

We believe that the creation of a new bureaucratic function is

not necessary; the further development of a “national materials

information system” can be pursued (as suggested under

Approach No. 2) through more aggressive and directed effort of

existing coordinating bodies, e.g., OMB. Congressional encouragement and guidance is essential, The chosen coordination

agency should be charged with “bringing about improvements in

the existing system” and “assuring the addition of new supplementary information services as necessary” (quoted words taken

from the description of one alternative approach cited in the

OTA report, Materials Information Systems, Feb. 1976).

On the Issue of Stockpiling

With reference to the extensive OTA study of economic

stockpiling objectives and alternatives, the Task Force is of the

opinion that there is a “prima facie” case for a carefully planned

stockpile system to meet military needs, geared to the national

strategy, and the weaponry requirements of the national readi240
ness plans, Such a stockpiIe system should not be comingIed

with, or used for, domestic or international economic purposes, It

is our perception that our present strategic stockpile system

suffers from gross imperfections, particularly when combined

with or attempting to justify changes for economic objectives. It

may now be necessary to substantially revise or reduce the number of materials in the strategic stockpile system, and to carefully

examine the form in which such materials are stored,

The examination of scenarios and alternatives for economic

stockpiles leads us to the view that an overall economic stockpile

of materials for the purpose of price stabilization is not advisable,

Stockpiling, as we conceive it, should be a response to an

embargo on those materials, the supply of which is essential to

avoid disruption of our economy. It should be an emergency

stockpile, limited to short term demand for a few materials, to

gain time until other normal free enterprise market forces act to

limit or eliminate a perilous gap. It should not be designed to

counteract swings in prices; this would imply policy decisions

against a background of a less than glorious past performance.

Where such an insurance is desirable, the alternative of inventory stockpiling by the consuming industries at point of use (with

some Government guidance and visible tax or other incentives to

encourage prompt response) would be preferable to new and

cumbersome bureaucratic management and Federal intervention.

On the Proposed “National Materials Policy Act of 1976”

Although the Task Force cannot endorse the proposed Act, the

Task Force commends the interest, imagination, and concern of

the authors of these bills, We encourage the articulation of a

National Materials Policy, However, recognizing the inseparable

relationships between energy, environment, and materials (and

the necessity of integration of relevant national objectives), we

believe the objective should be the expression of a National

Natural Resources Policy, encompassing all these issues, rather

than the more limited implications of the proposed Act.

Further, we find that the Bill does not, in its present form,

define even a Materials Policy. The major function of legislation

on this subject should be to state National Policy Goals perhaps (

using the five elements of policy voiced by the National Commission on Materials Policy as a basis), And the responsibilities for

implementation of those policy goals must be clearly defined.

The proposed Act is not clear in this respect, (The structure of

the Energy Resources Council appears to be a useful example for

Executive Branch authority; congressional analogs also are

needed; in this respect, we endorse the proposed legislation.)

241
The Bill focuses on materials research and development, which

we recognize as an important ingredient of policy—but only one

of many. Although we do not subscribe to the proposed institutional measures, we note the omission of the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency from the “Commission on

Materials Research and Operations,” and suggest that, in view of

its major contributions to materials R&D, the Department of

Defense should also be represented in such councils. And we

would further voice some concern with the scope of the functions proposed for this Commission, which would appear, in

many respects, to overlap those of existing agencies,

In summary, we heartily endorse the concise statement of a

National Materials Policy, provided that it is in the context of the

larger issue of National Natural Resources, and that it does not

add to the burden of Federal bureaucracy. Although a useful

beginning, the proposed Act does not meet these criteria.

242
SUMMARY OF TASK TWO (B):

GOVERNMENT, SUPPLIES AND SHORTAGES

This report approaches the Task by considering each question

posed in turn. Some redundancy occurs using this approach, but

it serves to highlight the major concerns which are summarized

in the answers to the last question.

1. (a) There are now strong indications that the shortages

observed during 1973-74 had little or nothing to do with an

underlying scarcity of raw materials, Was there a misperception

of the basic problem ?

The direct answer to the question is yes, It would appear that

the comprehensive investigation and findings of the Staff of the

Commission on Supplies and Shortages is definitive. There was,

in fact, no “real” scarcity of materials. The problems were essentially those of unsound Government actions and the resultant

“shortage mentality, ” A major concern is whether the conditions

leading to these shortages will happen again. Here we first recognize that the supply and demand became imbalance for a

variety of reasons but it is necessary to classify the shortages in

supply as either short or long term. It is important when considering recommendations on possible Government intervention

that a clear distinction be made between shortages arising from

previous Government actions, unexpected machinations of the

free market system or other temporary interruptions in the supply system, as opposed to long term shortages perceived as inadequate future supply because of exhausting domestic resources

and increasing dependence on foreign supply.

In all probability supply/demand will never be in balance since

producers will tend to produce for profitability while consumer

demand might tend to the opposite direction. This occurrence

may in fact be desirable since it can act as an incentive for private

sector action, Hence, we may expect temporary supply/demand

perturbations (or short term shortages), particularly in end products and not necessarily in raw materials. In general, market

forces will adequately handle such problems, though time will be

a factor. The 1973-74 shortage may well have developed from a

unique set of factors which have a low probability of repetition.

Even so, some rational Government/industry action will be

useful.

1. (b) What lessons for future Government policy can be

learned from the 1973-74 experience?

It should be recognized that Government intervention is

desirable, but that there is an optimum level of Government

action and industry response. This condition does not now exist

and a proper balance must be sought. The major need is for

243
accurate, timely, and reliable information to allow for proper

Government policy determination and appropriate marketplace

response. The latter implies that the Government should rely on

the market system to correct shortages whenever this is judged

appropriate. Industry must improve its efforts to supply the

Government with timely and accurate reporting of the required

information. There is some concern that a formal policy might be

needed in this area, In addition, the Government must strive to

coordinate its policies among some 67 agencies. In this regard legislative guidelines and congressional overview is desirable if not

mandatory.

2. (a) Total self-sufficiency in raw materials is not a desirable

goal for the United States. Accepting that statement, how should

the proper degree of sel~-sufficiency be determined?

Self-sufficiency is not a goal in itself. What is required is sufficiency in “critical commodities” and “essential” industrial

materials, The first ingredient is accurate information to define

those “critical” commodities and “essential” industrial materials.

Beyond this, the group did not attempt to quantify the degree of

sufficiency.

2. (b) What policies are required to attain this level?

The Government should apply incentives to allow industry to

respond with technological developments that would ensure the

proper degree of supply sufficiency. Then the Government

should monitor industry and apply further incentives or regulation to achieve the desired result. Here it is important to recognize the impact of the interdependence of the world’s national

economies (with the development of their apparent synchronized behavior) on the determination of the degree of sufficiency.

3. In light of the recent OTA study on materials information

system requirements, what, if any, changes in Government

materials information systems are feasible and desirable ?

The big shortfall in materials shortage problems appears to be

the lack of adequate information management, Decision makers

must be well informed. Policies which are uncoordinated and

inconsistent can lead to uncertainty in the private sector. Basic

improvements are needed in the quality of information. Uniformity of presentation for comparison in use, and better analytical

tools for analysis, are also required, The Government’s basic role

is to accumulate needed information and provide it in a timely

fashion for both its own internal use and for use publicly, These

actions should operate to provide a “certainty feeling” which

inspires confidence on the part of the private sector which in

turn will stimulate the market to react suitably, In this regard the

Government might, for example, periodically publish its

244
interpretation of the supply/demand inventory situation. Should

the Government foresee a period of shortages, it should publish

its assessment of the reason for the impending shortage. In short,

the Government should “sell” industry on its capabilities in this

capacity. Some more detailed thoughts on implementing information needs is included as follows:

Quality, quantity and timeliness of mineral data could be

improved by:

● Much closer cooperation between Government, industry,

and industry associations. In particular, it might be possible to arrange for a sampling of data to be transmitted

directly from the mine or plant to the final compiler.

● Encouraging the State Department to transmit more

foreign mineral data more frequently from its embassies.

The U.S. Bureau of Mines should continue its strengthened

foreign activities program.

● Having a stated Government policy of collecting as much

detailed mineral information as possible, and have industry associations endorse this goal.

. Encouraging Government and industry commodity

experts to meet frequently, to standardize data definitions

and format, and to minimize overlap.

It would appear feasible to make use of current information

systems with evolutionary changes as required for centralized

coordination. Note here that industry information systems for

reciprocal inputs are equally important, with the Government/

industry interface being of major concern.

4. (a) A recent OTA study of economic stockpiling suggests

objectives for stockpiling and estimates benefits and costs for

alternative policies. In your opinion, is stockpiling for any of the

suggested purposes both feasible and desirable?

Economic stockpiling, per se, while feasible, is undesirable and,

in fact, should be an action of last resort. In general, it can be

expected that all the heretofore identified risks will be realized,

and hence such policy will be more disruptive than useful, There

does, however, appear to be a justifiable need to assure the supply of “critical” commodities and selected “essential” industrial

materials $

4. (b) How are materials selected for stockpiling?

Critical commodities are readily identifiable, and strategic

stockpiling has been an accomplished fact. Essential industrial

materials can best be selected by analytical models and historical

perspective that show a relatively high probability of shortages.

These materials might best be stockpiled by extending the con245
cept of the strategic stockpile and incorporating in it the concept

of an economic stockpile.

4. (c) Might stockpiling have other benefits and aggregate a

variety of objectives?

An interim economic stockpile or a stockpile as defined above

might come about as the result of a sound, long-range Government plan based on the accumulation and analysis of reliable,

high-quality information. For example, the policy statement

might be that free and open trade on a worldwide scale is to be

sought as the soundest way to solve supply problems, and some

form of economic stockpile is desirable while this goal is being

achieved. There are a variety of desirable objectives obvious in

such an exercise. One opinion has also been advanced that

stockpiling of critical materials might act as a deterrent to disaster.

4. (d) What about international buffer stock programs?

Seven such programs in the minerals area are now operative,

Experience with them would indicate that they are a poor or

unsatisfactory mechanism for achieving any of the economic

stockpiling objectives. Participation in these schemes is not

recommended.

5. (a) How active a role must the Government take to assure

the long run availability of raw materials?

Again, the major Government role is to supply accurate and

timely information sufficiently in advance to ensure that the

market will give the proper response, e.g., R&D programs,

substitution and recycling studies, etc. If shortages are short term,

action by the Government should be exercised with extreme caution, The Government should monitor the market to see that

long-range policy objectives are really being attained. If the condition is unsatisfactory, the Government should have available

the proper incentives for rational market response. One proper

Government role is the support of R&D which is appropriate to

observed needs but for which industry has no incentive. Three

such projects which might be found suitable upon assessment are

(a) design of products for longer life, (b) design for recycling, and

(c) design for material substitutability.

5. (b) IS there a need for increased monitoring of supply/

demand trends ?

Yes, as a basic part of reliable, quality information for decisionmaking.

5. (c) Is increased financing of R&D on materials substitution

required ?

Implicit in the recognition of “essential” industrial materials is

the concomitant need for long range R&D on substitution. It

246
should be recognized that substitution encompasses physical,

functional, and social aspects, e.g., substituting one element for

another in an alloy or changing the mode of transport between

stations in an operation or moving from a suburban to an urban

living environment all for one or more reasons involving scarcity.

5. (d) Does the situation dictate that the Government undertake something approaching long term planning?

Yes, to the extent that the following four items are recognized

and implemented: (1) obtaining and communicating reliable

information in a timely manner to inspire private sector confidence, (2) monitoring results of actions on stated policies to see

that results are being achieved, (3) intervention only as required

and whenever possible the use of incentives to allow free market

response, and (4) coordination of policies and actions within and

by the Government aimed at guiding the market system rather

than disrupting the same. This should come as a result of

guidelines prepared and monitored by the legislative branch.

247

87-315 0- 77 - 17
SUMMARY OF TASK THREE (A): CONSERVATION OF

ENERGY IN MATERIALS PROCESSING*

1. Conservation is the wise (labor, capital, materials) and efficient (strategic, economic, political, environment use —not curtailment of use) of fuels and materials; its means is through

substitution, selectivity of mix, efficiency of materials use, and

minimizing waste. Measurement units include Btu/unit of output

(preferred), Btu/capita, Btu/GNP, energy dependence ratios,

2, National policy should encourage high load factor use of

electricity. Price should be based on cost.

3. Theoretical energy efficiency data are controversial. Practical efficiencies range from 20-90 percent (Battelle report). Short

term improvement could average 10-16 percent by 1985, using

currently available technology. Long term efficiency should

increase substantially but will depend on the specifics of the

material and technology yet to be applied.

4. Price controls diffuse proper signals from energy costs to

motivate industrial energy conservation. Voluntary guidelines

should be adequate.

There is no parallelism between environmental protection and

energy conservation. They are trade-offs.

5. Generally, industrial energy self-generation is not

necessarily efficient (size effect). To achieve utility/industry

dual cycle, dual incentives are required, Match between available

thermal mix and industrial needs must be designed, Reliability is

essential. Siting regulations and tax credits are possible regulatory changes.

6. Federal R&D funding for industrial energy conservation

should be related to needs not now fulfilled by industry. For example, the chemical industry generally does its own R&D. More

R&D is needed in mining, blasting, movement of ore and comminution, etc., by the minerals-producing industry. Loan guaran-

‘Task Force Chairman’s comment: This report hardly reflects the lively and fruitful

discussions of the Task Force. The final approved report has been hedged and generalized

and several statements cited below were deleted to avoid specificity and controversial

items:

3.

4.

8.

9.

248

Battelle analysis of thermal efficiencies was considered inaccurate by some. Longtime efficiency was estimated at 20-30 percent but then removed because it is a

guess.

Market forces internalize costs and prices reflect this addition in domestic markets

but not where price is determined in an international market.

Recycling incentives were considered inadequate by some to recapture old scrap

(except autos).

Import high-grade ore in place of oil difference needed to mine equivalent low-grade

ore and thereby conserve energy. Concept discussed and eliminated as too detrimental and controversial.
tees are helpful for industry where capital formation is otherwise

impossible, i.e., small businesses, but tends to encourage lower

management efficiency, Obsolete facilities should be replaced,

not retrofitted.

7, Capital formation is the primary role of tax policy to

encourage conservation investment or facilities replacement. Tax

credits, tax exempt energy bonds, and quick write-offs are possible actions,

8. Sufficient market forces exist to encourage recycle for

energy conservation

249
SUMMARY OF TASK THREE (B): CONSERVATION OF

ENERGY IN MATERIALS PROCESSING

Assumptions

Industry (materials-producing plus materials-application) uses

approximately 40 percent of the total energy consumed each year

in the United States, This Task Force addressed the role that conservation of energy could play to reduce this large consumption

rate and the proper emphasis that should be given this role by

both industry and Government.

The energy content of final products is made up of two parts:

(1) the direct energy content contributed by the firm manufacturing the product and (2) the indirect energy content contributed by

the primary materials producer. The ratios of direct to indirect

energy vary widely between industry groups and even within an

industry group, depending on a large number of factors such as

the maturity of the industry, size of capital investments in operational but technically obsolete equipment, and whether the

materials and final product are produced in a continuous or intermittent operation.

Our Task Force represented a wide variety of materialsapplication companies and Federal agencies. It was unfortunate

that only one basic materials producer was represented since the

highest percentage of energy involved in the manufacture of

most products is the indirect portion attributable to the highly

energy-intensive production of the primary materials.

1. Definition of “conservation of energy” as applicable to

materials processing.

The Task Force agreed that there was no across-the-board,

single common denominator for defining or comparing conservation of energy, Total energy consumption expressed in terms of

dollars, tons of fuel (or barrels of oil equivalents), Btu’s or kWh’s

are misleading since population growth and expansion of the

economic base will cause consumption to grow even though sizable conservation efforts are made, Consumption of energy rates

per capita, per unit of GNP, per ton or volume of material types

are also misleading (i.e., one class of steel may require much

higher energy to process than another). Life-cycle energy costs of

products may be the best way to compare product families such

as automobiles, air conditioners, etc. All consumer (and capital

goods) equipment have energy consumption contents in three

stages:

1) Direct/indirect energy for generation of manufactured

products,

250
2)

3)

Consumption of energy during life of product including

energy input into maintenance, and

Energy consumed in disposal of product after its useful

life is-exhausted,

As an example, an average American automobile (3545

pounds) requires only approximately 100 X 10’ Btu of energy in

Stage 1 but 1500X 106 Btu of energy during Stage 2.

Process vs. alternate process energy comparisons are valid only

when studying a single industry and a single family of materials,

Consequently, the Task Force cautioned against the imposition

of arbitrary energy reduction quotas, The real-world experiences

of our group led us to conclude that such a simplistic approach to

energy conservation would fail.

Process analysis using material/energy balance equations

familiar to the chemical engineer can point out the most energyintensive steps that R&D efforts may minimize. Moreover, product mix considerations by the materiaIs producers and design

changes by the materials application industries have a great

potential for reducing energy content and maximizing materials

effectiveness. What we really need to emphasize is the wisest use

of available energy rather than arbitrary reduction quotas,

2. Encouragement of use of electrical energy for materials

processing.

Question 2 asks whether national policy should encourage the

use of high-voltage, high-load factor electricity. While it is true

that electricity is the most convenient form of energy for many

applications (especially in the non-thermal manufacturing processes), it is certainly not the most efficient energy form for most

thermal applications and particularly in the materials-producing

fields. Many of the necessary processes require thermal inputs

inefficiently supplied by electrical power. Hence, the response is

negative for most material processing or extractive applications.

The Task Force recognizes that it may be necessary or mandatory to switch from such energy sources as natural gas and fuel

oil to less efficient electrical power in the near future. When this

occurs, there are real advantages and savings in fuel consumption by the electrical power utilities in maintaining a high-load

power factor to meet these industrial demands.

3. Potential for reduction in energy consumption.

Both the short term and long term potentials for reduction of

energy consumption in materials processing are widely variant

from material to material. The chemical and chemical by-products industry has demonstrated the ability to incorporate process

changes (that may or may not conserve energy) more rapidly

than mature industries such as steel. Here again, the high cost of

251
capital expenditures to change basic processes in mature industries must be emphasized and understood. All materials-producing and materials-application industries know how to reduce

energy consumption and/or to increase productivity, but

capitalization and high interest rate (plus recent mandatory

expenditures to conform to OSHA and EPA edicts) preclude such

massive expenditures on a short term basis (1977-85). On a longterm basis (1985-2010), new facilities necessary to replace such

energy-intensive processing as open hearth furnaces will require

30 to 50 percent less energy.

4. Will energy costs motivate conservation efforts or are mandatory requirements a better way?

Recent experiences of governmental agencies imposing on

industries rather arbitrary quotas, allocations, or percentages lead

the Task Force to oppose mandatory energy reduction requirements, The profit and competition (or dollar) incentive are considered the best at this time. When energy and material costs

increase to a point at which profits are seriously jeopardized or

until industry cannot compete with foreign or domestic firms,

management will find technical ways and necessary capital to

introduce energy-saving processes. Government aid in forms of

tax incentives and short equipment writeoffs would be in order if

and when this occurs. (See comments on question 6 for other

ways that both Government and industry can expedite energy

conservation.) Some members of the Task Force pointed out that

energy cost increases have not become so out of line with other

cost increases as to be the controlling factor in the motivation to

introduce less energy-intensive processes.

Some concern was expressed that actual shortages of available

energy fuels for processing (such as natural gas and fuel oil)

would make allocations of priorities for energy by industries

necessary. In such a situation, small firms without auxiliary fuel

supplies and technical know-how could be mortally hurt.

Moreover, public and social concerns make it mandatory that a

governmental agency (rather than the local power company)

determine the priorities for available energy.

5, How to encourage industrial electricity self-generation in

dual-cycle mode for materials processing.

While some materials producers and application industries

have generated their thermal energy requirements for basic processing steps, it was generally agreed by the Task Force that

electrical generation can best be supplied by large utilities. There

is a strong move towards load-level management by both the

electrical utilities and the major industrial users, and this effort

should be encouraged and rewarded. One member cited a survey

that showed that effective load Ievelling alone by industry and

252
utilities could save 1.8 X 1OY barrels of oil per year out of 16 X 10”

barrels. Time/demand clocks, microcomputer control of processes, adaptive control for optimizing energy of manufacturing

processes, use of available waste heat for preheating precursor

material, DC power generation from thermal furnaces—all have

their place in energy conservation and should be encouraged.

Converting to low efficiency self-generation of AC electricity (or

switching to all electrical energy for furnaces) could result in a

paradox of higher thermal efficiency at the plant site but

increased overall fuel consumption.

6. Role of Federal funding in energy conservation as related to

materiaJs processing,

The Task Force agreed that experts in devising ways to conserve energy are needed in the specific industries that process

material or manufacture final product. For example, even large

companies that know their sub-contractors or vendors very well

lack the “degree of technical knowledge and judgement” to

advise them on energy-saving methods except in a general sense.

We feel even stronger that Federal agencies lack this necessary

knowledge and judgement. Tax credits for energy-saving R&D

and/or expedited writeoff of energy-saving processing equipment should be considered as state governmental and Federal

roles or options. Publicizing successful energy-saving methods

(where proprietary information is not compromised) for smaller

concerns lacking R&D capabilities should also be considered as

governmental roles or options. The Task Force felt that industry

in general is confused as to what the Federal policy actually is

towards encouraging conservation of energy. Moreover, regardless of the policy, we see no evidence of real, across-the-board,

governmental-originated incentives for energy conservation at

this time,

7. Tax policy for energy conservation in materials processing.

The answers to Question 6 apply to this tax policy query. The

Task Force repeats that most industry is not using all known

processes that conserve energy today for the following important

reasons:

● Profits generate capital too slowly to incur major expenditures for capital equipment. We can always turn off

lights, but real energy savings will incur high capital outlays (with their own energy content);

● High cost of replacing capital equipment plus high interest

rates on borrowed money would cause slow replacement

even if profits could provide capital;

● Expedited capital equipment writeoffs based on energy

saving are not available to encourage their early incorporation;

253
Ž Major capital investments to meet local, State, and Federal

mandatory edicts by OSHA/EPA/FEA have taken priority

over energy-conserving expenditures; and

Ž Energy saving alone has not had sufficient dollar impact to

incorporate known processing improvements.

To the extent that governmental relief via tax policy changes

can change the above basic factors, the Task Force encourages

their incorporation.

254
TASK FOUR (A): THE ROLE OF MATERIALS IN DEFENSE

Questions 1 & 3

I, How can materials research and development be made

more productive in a world of declining real dollar funding?

3. What is the best way to expedite the development of

materials and technologies that limit the development of

new systems and weapons?

The needs of the DOD in the areas of materials and structures

technology have expanded because of increased demands on

improved performance of DOD weapon systems, coupled with

increasing demands of structural integrity, minimum life cycle

costs, and enhanced safety. In many instances, systems requirements make it necessary to choose materials that are not completely characterized. Moreover, the data base in many cases is

not adequate for detailed design, and the constraints on the

system do not allow the necessary data base to be developed

under the basic and applied materials research programs of the

DOD.

One important and necessary method to expedite the development of materials and technologies that limit the development of

new systems and weapons would be in the creation and operation of a materials properties data bank between Government

and industry organizations involved in materials R&D and

materials properties characterization. Such a materials properties

data base would be most important to the development of

materials and processes specifications and standards, and in the

accomplishment of engineering design.

Much of these data are generated during the engineering

development phase of major weapons system design and in the

production of materials and mill-product forms relevant to that

application. It is accomplished on a large number of mill products

and heats at great cost. Because of costs for this type of data, it is

not economically possible to generate them in the applied research phase of the materials investigation. Therefore, what is

needed by the DOD is:

Ž a means of generating information about materials properties for the data base,

Ž a means of analyzing the data for the best statistical

analysis,

● a means of formatting the data so that they are readily

available in a meaningful manner, and

255
• a means of retrieving these data by potential users in an

expeditious manner and useful form.

The materials properties data base can serve to direct support

to basic and applied materials research so that the necessary

engineering materials properties will be available for use in

systems development.

As concerns making materials research and development more

productive in a world of declining resources in the face of an

inadequate technology base, selectivity in R&D programs in certain areas is mandatory. With this selectivity should be the

assured financial support of basic and applied research as a fixed

percentage of the materials R&D budget to insure that new ideas

and technology will be developed, and to insure that creativity

and innovative ideas are supported to supply the basis for the

needed technology.

Question 2

2. Can implementing the design team

materials engineer, nondestructive

approach (designer,

evaluation, process

planning and manufacturing, and maintenance and

repair) from the time of the conceptual stage provide a

significant increase in cost effectiveness?

The consensus of the Task Force is that the DOD should adopt

the design team approach, with the materials systems rationale in

DOD management in cases where materials area critical element

of a system. Matters like acquisition cost, life cycle cost, methods

of nondestructive evaluation, and general materials evaluation

must be considered as early as possible in the design program,

Question 4

4. Would permitting the allocation of DOD funds to basic

science ‘not directly tied to specific missions be more

effective in furthering the long-range, materials-associated needs of DOD than continuing the present restriction

largely to National Science Foundation funding?

There are often difficulties in defining the role of basic research applicable to DOD needs. The spectrum of research runs

from basic to applied areas, and all are needed, as long as they

comply to the concern of relevance to broad mission areas, It was

the view of the Task Force that the entire spectrum of research is

needed by DOD and that it would be unwise to relegate the basic

research component to another Government agency that might

not be in a position to recognize DOD’s needs. Since the economic

health of the Nation depends, among other things, on the techni256
cal community’s ability to innovate, the role of basic research

takes on added meaning to the innovation process when it helps

to accomplish added missions at minimum costs. The process is

not limited to the DOD, but involves industry and academic participation in the needs of the DOD.

It is not within the province of this Task Force to suggest how

research is to be funded, but rather to urge that DOD have a

strong “role in choosing its basic research and relating it to its missions, because it can best judge its overall needs.

Question 5

5. Can centers of excellence for areas, such as casting and

welding, that would involve individuals from industry,

academia, and government and multidisciplines be effective in advancing and disseminating technology? How

should it be structured—Government owned? Consortium of interested parties? Permanent or rotating personnel?

The Task Force agrees that there is value in identifying centers

of excellence for specific technology areas which impact significantly on the missions of the Department of Defense. The Task

Force believes that, except in unusual instances, acknowledged,

rather than Government-created, centers of excellence are more

likely to be effective and competent, and to have long-term

durability and real acceptance.

In addition to identifying centers of excellence, an analysis

should be made of gaps in technical competence which should be

corrected, for strategic and technological planning reasons.

More specifically, the Task Force recommends that:

1.

2.

3.

4,

Minimum ‘criteria for designation as a center of

excellence should be established but without any

minimum size limitation.

Centers of excellence which are important to the Department of Defense mission should be identified and evaluated.

Evaluation should be made by a group of (e.g., 3-5) peer

authorities in the identified field (not necessarily a part of

the Defense establishment).

Designation of centers of excellence should be reviewed

and considered for renewal after an appropriate time

period (e.g., 3-5 years). This action should include recommendations for adjustments in manpower and funding

levels, in accordance with evolving Defense Department

priorities.

257
The Task Force does not believe that there is one best structure

or institutional format for the centers of excellence, What is most

important is that the contribution from the Centers are effectively coupled to the relevant mission-oriented Defense Department programs.

Question 6

6. Is the trend toward reduction in DOD’s manpower and resources in its materials and structures divisions severely

reducing its effectiveness? Concomitantly, do reductions

of staff and effort in other agencies such as the Bureau of

Mines contribute measurably to the decline of materials

development and technology? How can policy level officials be made more aware of the importance of materials

to defense?

The Task Force expressed concern over the asserted reduction

in materials technology manpower as related to defense. This

reduction is taking place at a time when demand on materials

performance, reliability and cost effectiveness are complicated

by materials availability problems.

For years, Congress and DOD officials have not seen the need

for a comprehensive materials policy, and have not appreciated

the importance of and limitations of materials. The downward

trend in manpower and resources in the DOD and other agencies

devoted to materials and structures is further evidence that

experience in recent years has not brought home the message,

This Task Force recommends that increased effort be devoted

to bringing to the attention of all executives in Government and

business the critical dimensions of materials problems and

appropriate actions, Although efforts have been put forth by

many in the past, much more needs to be done, such as:

1. Increased support and awareness of the National

Academy of Science/National Academy of Engineering

efforts to make officials aware of materials problems and

options;

2. More effective coordination and participation by the DOD

with standards-setting committees of such societies as

ASTM and ASME;

3. Increased activity of the individual technical societies and

the Federation of Materials Societies to bring the message

not only to their individual members but also to the

executive level groups in Congress, Government agencies,

and business;

4, Encouragement to the DOD and its contractors to predict

materials performance needs; and

258
5. Encouragement to the continuing and improved analysis

of materials research now supported by the Federal

Government, and the adequacy of the current programs in

relation to a continuing assessment of needs.

Question 7

7.

The

How could the research and development programs of

Defense Services be coordinated better to more effectively develop new materials and technology? How could

Government-civilian agencies interact in such a system?

What international measures concerning materials would

be most effective in promoting and strengthening the

NATO alliance?

Task Force understands that through periodic summary

reviews (e.g., technical coordination papers) of-ongoing materials

technology programs, the DOD adequately disseminates information among its own research organizations, While coordination

with other departments and Federal agencies concerning its research programs is useful, we concur in the proposal that meetings be held to review these programs in concert with officials responsible for other Government R&D materials research.

The Task Force is concerned that unclassified information

from DOD’s periodic summary reports is not shared with the private sector. We believe it would be useful to make available

information on research areas which are of mutual interest and

recommend that (I) briefing sessions be held for this purpose

with industry representatives, and (2) unclassified versions of its

research summary reports be prepared and distributed. Responsible officials and organizations in the international community

likewise could be briefed and kept informed of unclassified research activities in the DOD.

The recommendations offered here, if implemented, could

yield as much, or more, information to DOD than it makes available to the private sector.

259
TASK FOUR (B): THE ROLE OF MATERIALS* IN DEFENSE

Rationale

The primary goal of the Department of Defense is to provide

adequate and sustained U.S. security. To achieve this goal, the

United States must develop and maintain modern defense

systems. Increasingly, such systems are constructed from

improved and advanced materials designed to meet high levels of

performance under the extreme conditions encountered in actual

service. Indeed, the materials required to carry out the 14 missions established by the Joint Chiefs of Staff are all materialslimited. Thus, continuing preparedness requires adequate supplies of strategic materials, a strong base of materials research

and development, and rapid exploitation of new technological

developments.

Though providing security is a primary national goal, pressures to achieve such other national goals as a benign environment and an adequate energy supply have led to a shift in the

available Federal R&D resources toward more civilian-oriented

technologies. As a result, an increasing proportion of military-related R&D is devoted to attaining short term objectives. Thus, the

basic research to meet future defense needs is not being carried

out at an adequate level, In addition, the growing U.S., dependence on imported raw materials, coupled with the advent of resource diplomacy as a feature of international relations, has

increased the vulnerability of the United States in the longer

term. To ensure national security, while at the same time meeting other national goals, the United States must efficiently allocate R&D resources not only among the several national goals but

also between short and long term objectives. Obviously, to

achieve this balance, U.S. materials policy must establish efficient systems for managing defense-related R&D, for coordinating this R&D with other agencies, and for transferring technology.

1. Materials R&D Management

POLICY: To develop, improve, and advance the technologies to

support future military systems and weapons, the Department of

Defense should adopt a more expansive materials R&D policy, Its

policy should encompass the efficient management of both fun-

● The term “materials”’ as used in this report is intended to include processes and structures.

260
damental and applied research necessary to maintain maximum

national security in the present and in the future.

Therefore, it is recommended that:

1, DOD strengthen its use of MBO (management by objectives) in the management of its programs by requiring that

the

a)

b)

c)

following steps be followed in each program?

Defining problems in greater detail.

All DOD Pacing Materials Problems (PMP) need to be

phrased in sufficient quantitative detail so that the

technical objectives are clear both to the scientist/

engineer who responds with a research proposal and

to the DOD personnel who review the proposal and

manage the subsequent research program,

The PMP should be updated from the 1972 edition

with quantitative objectives and kept current on an

annual basis.

The PMP was the title chosen for a statement of

materials limitations in various Army and Navy mission areas identified at a DOD materials conference

held in May 1972. (The Air Force should be

encouraged to publish their materials problems in a

similar format so as to make the approach of all three

services consistent.) The Joint Chiefs of Staff have established 14 mission areas to be covered by the Army,

Navy, and Air Force in compliance with the

Mansfield Amendment. In support of these mission

areas, which are intended to provide DOD with the

elements to attain its national security goal, a series of

technology coordinating papers (TCPS), including

one on materials technology, have been developed.

These papers identify the materials barriers or problems which, if not adequately solved, will result in

below-acceptable performance. These barriers define

much of the needed R&D program.

Mandatory reviews should be made of all service

needs to identify common materials problems, and

make the findings public (unclassified) as far as possible.

The grouping of common problems should make the

setting of priorities easier as the major materials problems should then be more apparent. Focusing on the

major problems should provide some of the increased

productivity and expediting sought by DOD. By making the documents unclassified, their usefulness to

261
2.

3,

d)

e)

f)

the materials community and, therefore, to DOD

itself, should be greatly enhanced.

Prioritizing the PMPs and subsequent R&D programs.

Publish an unclassified document containing pacing

materials problems (with a classified supplement if

needed) in a prioritized way so that the more critical

and important materials problems will be defined for

the technical community. For each PMP, a DOD lead

laboratory should be designated, and a technical contact listed from the lead laboratory staff. It is suggested that resources be emphasized on a relatively

few Pacing Materials Problems where good solution

ideas have been proposed, rather than arbitrarily

spread over all problems.

Make a mandatory annual assessment of R&D program progress.

Each DOD lead laboratory should be required to conduct and publish an annual assessment, of progress

toward program objectives on each of its assigned

PMP. The assessment needs to be critical and quantitative with respect to technical progress, in order to

provide a rational basis for the reprogramming recommendations which are the primary goal of the

progress assessments.

Reprogram materials R&D activities as required.

The reprogramming action is essential in order to terminate unproductive research and development projects, to increase effort on productive work if warranted, and to initiate innovative new projects.

The design team approach should be followed with

emphasis on recognition of an adherence to common

standards and specifications.

Design, materials engineering, nondestructive evaluation,

process planning, manufacturing, maintenance, and repair

should all be brought in at the conceptual stage to save

time and expense due to reworking as a result of omissions of these factors, thereby providing a cost reduction.

This concept could be tested by trying a few experimental

cases.

Some larger, significant percentage of total military

materials funding should be dedicated to basic knowledge

seeking research in areas identified by DOD as relevant to

future systems needs. A method for accomplishing this

could be via the “earmarking” of a certain percentage of

the RDT&E costs already incorporated into the billing for

foreign military sales (FMS) for fundamental research,

262
4,

5.

6.

The present NSF-funded program in basic research is not

providing enough new materials ideas to adequately support future DOD hardware requirements. Hence, it is

recommended that the DOD expand its dialogue with NSF

with the objective of correcting this deficiency. The earmarking clause in FMS for fundamental research needs

could be accomplished with minimal changes in present

accounting procedures. It is suggested that the receipts

from this procedure could be placed in a revolving fund

administered either by the DOD, or by the NSF with performance input from the DOD.

“Centers of Excellence” or Process Centers for Innovation

and Development, should be identified or created for

specific areas of materials, process, and structure expertise which would serve as a resource and training ground

for well qualified personnel to staff Government and

industry.

(The reasoning for the establishment of these Centers is

presented in section II under recommendation 4.)

The effective coordination of materials R&D programs

and results should be improved further through formalized inservice technology exchanges, In addition,

interagency inputs, as well as those from industry and

academia, should be more fully utilized.

Implementation of the policies outlined in the above ‘will

improve tri-service coordination, and should lead to the

development of new improved materials and materials

technology. Interaction of Government and civilian

activities will be improved by dissemination of the

prioritized Pacing Materials Problem document. A series

of briefings may be useful in dissemination of these

materials needs; and distribution of the document to

industry, universities, and professional/technical societies

may also be usefuI. In this respect, removal of security

classifications to the maximum extent possible would be

very helpful.

With regard to the NATO alliance, the Advisory Group

for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD) is

functioning and could be improved by increasing technical activity within its charter. In addition, it may be useful

to broaden the tri-partite technical coordination program

(TTCP) activity to other NATO countries,

A continuous evaluation of DOD materials research programs should be carried out in order to isolate projects

suitable for application in commercial markets, The efficiency of a research effort is to some extent dependent on

263

87-315 0 -77 - 18
the ability to utilize research results in any application

regardless of the primary goals. In situations where research results indicate possible application outside the

general objectives of the organization it is desirable to

provide license-free rights to private industries that may

be interested in further developing or marketing the process or product. The benefits of such endeavors may

include the following: (a) DOD research may accomplish

improved contact with materials research and process

technology, (b) DOD scientists and engineers will have

the opportunity to follow the idea from conception to

implementation, (c) DOD scientists and engineers will be,

to a greater extent, exposed to limitations and possibilities

in the production of materials, (d) in general, successful

research projects will create a more innovative research

atmosphere which in turn will attract creative scientists.

H. Technology Transfer and Coordination

POLICY: To expedite development and improvement of new

military systems and weapons, the Department of Defense

should adopt a policy to facilitate the flow of information relating

to the promotion and development of advanced and improved

materials and process technology within the Government, private industry, and academia. This effort should provide broad

support for early implementation of research results both in areas

for which the work was originally undertaken and in other areas

where new knowledge may be applied.

Therefore, it is recommended that:

1. DOD should continue to support materials information

systems and weigh the subsidization, if any, needed to

better disseminate the available data pertinent to specific

areas. Technical data and information are the foundations

on which materials technology and processing are built.

Information systems still are in early stages of development regarding the best methods for collection, retrieval,

and dissemination at minimal costs. Continued innovation and support are necessary to develop the most flexible system to utilize the voluminous data that are generated continuously.

2. The DOD should improve its technology transfer and

information exchange mechanisms by initiating a variety

of programs such as: (a) a more extensive visiting scientist

program at its service laboratories, (b) promotion of con264
3.

4.

tact with researchers involved in apparently

technologies, (c) expansion of the existing

Exchange program between DOD and industry.

unrelated

Executive

to include

non-executive level scientists and engineers, (d) expansion of contacts with the private sector to encourage the

use of the civilian sector of new technologies developed

by DOD research, and (e) educational programs for the

DOD research management structure in order to inform

them of materials problems.

Technology and information transfer are the cross fertilization of principles and information between disciplines and people and may be affected by methods such

as (a) the implementation of research and development

into the applied research and production areas, and (b)

the innovative transfer of research results into areas and

disciplines not contemplated when the program was planned originally. Generally, it is believed that such transfer

is effected best through personal contacts by individuals

in discussions during informal meetings, seminars, or

conferences.

DOD should use contract provisions to require that data

(such as mechanical and physical properties of materials

and structures, including processing where applicable)

developed under Government contract be submitted in an

orderly fashion to designated Government information

systems for storage and retrieval.

Considerable data (mechanical and physical properties,

and material characterization) and processing information

have been developed by various DOD contractors. Such

data are not required to be assembled or submitted by the

contractors in any orderly manner and generally are lost

to the Government or are redeveloped by subsequent programs. To utilize and disseminate these data, DOD must

establish appropriate contractual requirements and insist

on compliance,

The Government should fund on a continuing basis “centers of excellence” of process centers for innovation and

development, on Government owned property to develop

the expertise and manpower as needed for emerging DOD

goals. It is believed that these centers should be operated

by a relatively permanent, innovative managerial staff

with possibly one relatively permanent resident scientist

in each discipline, The remaining personnel should be

recruited from industry, academia, and Government on a

rotating basis in order to promote the introduction of new

ideas.

265
High productivity in the development of new knowledge

is dependent on programs which will fund efforts of

individuals who have developed after many years within

a stable, invigorating, and innovative leadership and

atmosphere. If many disciplines are involved in this

effort, increased creativity may result. To achieve and

maintain such excellence, particularly in areas where the

commercial payoff is distant or jeopardized by the

vicissitudes of the business cycles, “centers of excellence”

appear desirable, “Centers of excellence” are defined as

Government-owned establishments devoted to (a) using

applied research in materials and processing in solving

DOD roadblocks in specific military systems, (b) developing needed manpower in particular areas, (c) establishing

the engineering criteria upon which to base standards and

specifications. These centers should be on Government

property and could be directed to processes such as melting, casting, joining, powder, metals, and polymer chemistry.

5. DOD and non-Government standards-writing organizations should coordinate and integrate a national effort on

specifications and standards.

The manufacture of materials and products of uniformly

high quality require specification and standards that

characterize materials properly and clearly state the

requirements— function, minimum life, inspectability,

and maintainability as appropriate, These specifications

and standards should be up-to-date and responsive to the

needs of Government and industry. To develop the

engineering data upon which to base such specs and

standards, it is believed that there should be a coordinated

and integrated national effort involving Government and

industry.

266
TASK FIVE (A): UTILITY OF ORGANIC RENEWABLE

RESOURCES

Organic renewable resources provide a significant reserve of

potential energy supplies, This reserve ameliorates, to a limited

degree, the threat of rising costs of liquid and gaseous fossil fuels.

According to the report of the Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial Materials of the National Academy of

Sciences (CORRIM Report), the total residues from agricultural

and forest crops at 1970 levels of production and use efficiency

could provide energy equivalent to 11 percent of U.S. energy

requirements.

In projecting the use of renewable resources for fuel, other

points, in addition to potential contribution to total energy needs

must be considered. These points include ecological impact, cost

of collection, cost balance between fossil fuels and organic

renewable resource fuels, and available technology.

It is the conclusion of the CORRIM study that, in general, the

environmental impacts associated with the production and use of

biomass for fuel are much less severe than are those resulting

from the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power in terms of duration of impact or effect upon human health or welfare. Nonetheless, the Task Force concludes that more information on the

effects of total or near total removal of biomass from land is

needed.

Costs of agricultural and forestry residues in place in a dry

condition at conversion plants or power generating plants are

estimated to vary from $15 to $34 per ton. A likely cost for a

dependable supply in significant quantities (1,500 tons per day)

over the long term might cost $30 per ton. For use as fuel, this

would be equivalent to about $1.75 per million Btu’s. Oil costs are

at this level now and are projected to increase in constant dollar

values through 1985.

With this situation it is indicated that industries located close

to such residue sources as pulp mills would soon be in a favorable

position to switch from the use of liquid and gaseous fuels to the

use of more fuels from residues.

More rapid change in sources of fuel for pulp and paper mills

could be encouraged by greater efforts in development of

machines and processes for harvesting, processing, transporting,

and using residues. This would be a beginning step toward conserving the fossil fuel supply and decreasing our dependency on

imports.

Recovery boilers in

means of using isolated

fuel. There is an added

pulp and paper mills are an effective

lignin and making it available for process

bonus in burning lignin since it has a sig267
nificantly greater fuel value than other wood components. By the

same token, there is a good potential for using lignin in higher

value applications than for fuel.

According to the CORRIM report, if all U.S, energy needs were

to be filled by using coal as the fuel source, we could obtain about

148 years of our requirements based on 1970 consumption rates.

Much of our coal has a significant sulfur content which causes

problems in emission control when the material is burned as a

fuel, If coal is burned in combination with low sulfur fuels such

as agricultural and forest residues, the emission control problem

is significantly reduced.

Technologies for burning coal in combination with other fuels

with low sulfur content should be advanced. There should also

be increased efforts in planning land restoration after strip mining and erosion control after other land disturbances to establish

biomass for economic as well as aesthetic purposes.

Recently, there have been recurring suggestions for growing

trees and annual crops, such as grasses, for fuel, Conceivably,

fuel from such plantations would be used in boilers to power

electrical generating plants. There is no question that production

of agricultural and forestry biomass could be increased with the

application of more intensive cultural practices.

However, we believe that only in comparatively few locations

should biomass be grown exclusively for fuel. Generally, there

are more important uses than fuel for most biomass crops. Fuel

can often be a secondary use for portions of the crop or tree harvest. In considering biomass crops for fuel, fresh and salt water

plants should not be overlooked. The possibility of using solar

energy to dry biomass fuels, especially those from water plants,

should be explored.

We believe more attention should be given to cultivation of

grasses in place of feed grains for animals in production of red

meat.

In the utilization of renewable resources, we believe that economics is the controlling factor. Technology for using biomass

residues for fuel and chemical feed stocks can be improved, but

generally it is not limiting.

We agree with the tutorial lecturer, Dr. Falkehag, that it is

desirable to attempt to use agricultural and forest crops at their

highest enthalpic value, We should not increase entropy and

destroy a composite material when we do not have to in order to

meet our need,

We recommend that past research results on biomass for fuel

and chemical feedstocks be reviewed and that possibilities for

their application in today’s economy be analyzed.

268
We have defined the following objectives for research in

renewable organic materials:

a. Control the biosynthetic process in order to improve the

yield of fibers suitable for paper production, to improve

the yield of wood polymers for fuel or other purposes, and

to improve the yield of chemical byproducts from pulp

and paper manufacture;

b. Develop new enzymatic and fungal systems to manufacture chemicals or feedstocks from organic materials;

c. Develop new materials based on the carbohydrate backbone polymerized with other synthetics. Specific efforts

should be aimed at biodegradable polymers, high impact

strength polymers and strong absorbent polymers;

d. Conduct research in the areas of fiber and cellulose

morphology, biosynthesis of natural polymers, enzymatic

systems in growing plants, rheology and physics of

crystalline materials and physical chemistry of woodbased polymers;

e. Increase research on the potential for lignin for applications other than fuel;

f, Develop new techniques for reducing energy consumption and materials savings in the pulp and paper industry

including improved efficiency of the recovery boiler,

reduced energy consumption in mechanical pulping,

increased dryness after wet pressing, improved control

and process knowledge to obtain a functionally-oriented

product and increased strength potential of recycled

paper; and

g. Increase efforts to apply intensive culture in forestry and

thereby increase forest productivity.

We recommend that international seminars on the subjects of

controlled synthesis of polymers in plants and plants as sources

of chemical feedstocks be established. We recommend that

exchange of scientists between national and international locations be encouraged. We encourage universities to build up programs in physics of wood-related polymers.

The Task Force does not feel competent to recommend policies

for regulating use of land for competing purposes in the future. In

like manner we have no recommendations with regard to multiple use, dominant use, or restricted use policies. However, we

feel that land use considerations are important enough to warrant

the establishment of a National Commission on Land Use. This

National Commission should develop land use plans for regional

269
implementation, but it should have representation and input

from all affected areas.

We believe that the combined use of natural fibers and fibers

made from hydrocarbons other than plants will progress only as

economic conditions favor this development,

270
TASK FIVE (B): UTILITY OF ORGANIC RENEWABLE

RESOURCES

Renewable resources in the foIlowing discussion means: wood

and wood-based materials; agricultural sources such as nonfood

oils, fats, cereal products, natural fibers, crop and animal

residues; and biomass in general not used for food.

In order to examine and derive policy implications of importance to engineers and scientists of the potential increased

availability and use of renewable organic resources, questions

posed to the Conference were considered in some detail. Some of

the points, issues and rationale developed in these considerations

are listed in association with each question.

1. Policy Implications of Rising Costs of Liquid and Gaseous

Fossil Fuels.

It seems most likely that rising costs of liquid and gaseous

fossil fuels will restrict their use, the degree of restriction

depending on the extent to which such costs will relate to those

of feasible alternative fuels. Restriction of use of fossil fuels will

have the three major impacts of (1) reducing the rate at which

they approach possible exhaustion at present recovery levels, (2)

increasing the incentive to extend recovery technology to lower

recovery levels, and (3) hastening the time at which alternative

materials become competitive. Deregulation of oil and gas prices

in the United States will tend to accelerate these indicated movements. Other efforts to meet the stated national goal of reducing

dependence on oil imports will also encourage development and

feasible substitution of alternative fuels,

It seems likely that coal resources will be developed and

substituted first for liquid and gaseous fuels, before extensive

development and substitution by renewable resources. However,

development technology for renewable resources for alternative

fuels should be encouraged and will be accelerated by rising

prices of currently-used liquid and gaseous fuels. In this connection, it will be important to conduct periodic economic analyses

of the relative feasibility of fuel supplies from coal and from

renewable resource materials.

Since we are dealing here with a shifting economic base, it

seems unwise to attempt to focus on one option for alternative

fuel supplies. Rather, multiple R&D approaches are needed.

These would include, but not be limited to, research and development aimed at improving the substitutability of renewable

natural resource materials.

to exploring the feasibility

agricultural residues that

stream.

Particular attention should be given

of alternative fuel use of forest and

do not now enter the production

271
We see opportunities for substantial substitution in some areas.

Examples are the substitution of Iignin and starch derivatives for

carbon black, and the adhesives derived from wood processing

for phenolics derived from petrochemicals. For fuels substitutions we would see these first occurring on farm, and near locations where they are generated. Rural residential heating, drying

of crops, and processing of wood products are applications which

come to mind,

2. Relationship between the soJid fossil fuels and the renewable organics and opportunities for a symbiotic relationship between the renewable organics and exhaustible minerals to maximize utility.

Prior to development of low cost, petrochemical building

blocks, wood and grain by-products were major sources of

organic chemical intermediates such as acetone, methanol,

dienes, and ethanol, With the expansion of the petrochemical

industry after World War II, basic petrochemical building blocks

were produced economically on a very large scale, and biomass

sources became generally uneconomic except for special uses

(e.g., potable grain alcohol). During this period aromatics

(benzene, toluene, and xylene) were extracted from refined

gasoline components, and olefins were produced by cracking

natural gas liquids (ethane, propane and butane). Rapid growth

in the 1960’s (12 percent/yr) of building block production continued into the early 1970’s and by 1973 consumed about 7 percent of petroleum supplies as fuel and feedstocks. Natural gas

was the principal source of fertilizer (NH3) and methanol. Over

75 percent of olefins and aromatics are used to manufacture

materials (plastics, fibers, and synthetic rubber).

Liquid petroleum fractions will be the principal source of basic

building blocks through 1985 or 1990, after which coal-source

chemicals and OPEC imports will extend domestically manufactured petroleum source material, It does not appear likely that

renewable sources can develop new product technologies for

substitution by 1995. It is possible that in the 1995 timeframe,

technology could be developed to produce olefins and carbon

black substitutes. The key idea is that utilization of renewable resources in selective situations over the timespan considered will

be possible, Coal liquefaction should become a massive source of

competitively economic aromatics, and coal gasification should

become an economic source of synthetic gas for ammonia and

methanol. Olefins and carbon black substitutes appear to be the

most fertile area for post 1995 development to extend plastic,

fiber, and rubber supplies from renewable resources without

development of complex downstream technologies.

272
3. Significance of quantities of renewable organics and

amenability of production to technological measures to increase

abundance.

Potential increase in yield of products from commercial forest

lands is estimated as two to three times current levels and can be

attained through improved management practices, on forest

holdings in all ownership classes, and enhanced utilization based

on broad application of the best techniques, A continuation and

strengthening of current incentives to encourage better management should receive continued attention as a necessary element

in attaining these increases.

These increases are. sufficient to meet increasing demand in

traditional uses without the necessity of increased imports, The

extent to which wood is available for substitution of petroleumbased, energy-intensive, or resource-limited materials is not

known, but is not considered extensive without significant technological improvement in all phases of production,

A significant and abundant source of underutilized biomass is

that of agricultural residues. Agricultural residues left in the field

annually amount to almost one-half the heating value of coal

produced annually. Two-thirds of these residues can probably be

safely removed from the soil and used for energy or materials

purposes. The use of agricultural residues is environmentally

favorable, would encourage the production of more food, and can

begin within a crop year.

The energy farm concept, in which plants selected for rapid

and efficient capture and storage of solar energy are grown and

harvested to be substituted for fossil fuels, may also have potential for materials applications.

Abundance ,of agricultural products from cereal grains, oil

seeds, animal fats and hides suitable for use as engineering and

other materials is such that some replacement of other materials

is possible.

4. Policy principles governing the utilization of renewable

organics.

It seems likely that economic value will provide the principal

driving force for utilization of renewable organics. Periodic economic evaluation of the potential for such utilization will be

needed to capture economic benefits that may arise.

However, such economic utilization will be dependent on establishing a strong base of science and technology, as is treated

under items 5 and 6 of this task. A general principle for such

technological development should be that of retaining the highest

possible energy levels of organic molecules. This governing principle will both guide the technology along lines that are likely to

273
be most productive of practical utilization options and enhance

economic feasibility.

There may be merit to considering resource values in terms of

highest, long range public benefit, rather than leaving development and use of increasingly scarce materials entirely to the

influence of the market. Development of materials policy regarding alternative use of renewable organics should include consideration of the degree to which such a principle could be

applied to that case and of mechanics for its implementation.

5/6. Research and development needs and directions.

As a matter of science and technology policy, the materials

foundation of science of renewable resources should be

strengthened and extended. The structure/property /performance/requirement relationships for renewable resources alone

and as composites should be the subject of an extensive basic research program. For this “research the methods of material

science and materials engineering should be applied to wood and

its components and materials of agricultural origin. Wood and

plant components should be viewed as members of the family of

materials. Wood science groups should be brought into centers of

material science and engineering. This approach should also be

extended to education.

The incorporation of wood and wood-related materials

(materials derived from the biomass) in the domain of materials

science and engineering (MSE) would hold substantial potential

benefits for wood science. At the same time, for MSE it would

represent the addition of a major new component with a consequent strengthening of this still-developing, multidisciplinary

field.

Materials research laboratories, polymer and material science

departments of universities, and existing concerned Government

laboratories should be given incentives for the development of

strong and imaginative programs on the material science and

engineering of renewable materials. The roles of various Federal

agencies in relation to the materials science and engineering research effort should be defined. There are some immediately

applicable research areas such as ligin and starch substituting for

carbon black in rubber reinforcement or as an adhesive in

reconstituted wood products. There should be new emphasis on

long-range research leading to substitution of natural macromolecules and structures for petrochemically -derived materials

and the development of new synergistic combinations of natural

and synthetic materials.

Multidisciplinary studies and joint programs between forestryand agriculture-related research groups should also be encouraged, A quantitative and qualitative survey of all types of

274
potentially available biomass is essential to selective development of applications. The potential for major improvement of

bioproductivity, the extended use of biological nitrogen fixation,

and the selective production of high value chemicals from plants

and other photosynthesizing systems should be the subject of

major cooperative basic and applied research programs.

An assessment should be made of the technical and economic

feasibility of the feedstock approach of producing chemicals for

polymers from renewable resources, Specifically, a demonstration program on an integrated ethanol —furfural —phenol

production from hardwoods should be evaluated. These applied

efforts should be backed up by research on the improvement of

processes of enzymatic hydrolysis of various IignicelIulosic and

carbohydrate materials. Basic research on a “biological

feedstock” approach for production of small molecules by organisms of microbes should be encouraged as well as work on photolysis for hydrogen production.

7. Competition for land resources

Complex interactions are involved in the use of land for production of renewable resources, production of food, production

of energy, and for social uses. In some cases, increased emphasis

on one may increase the production of another, while in other

cases direct competition will occur as pressures on these resources are intensified.

Land policy at Federal, State, and local levels needs to be

examined and tailored to national resource development in

satisfying needs for energy, materials, food and social purposes.

In particular, this policy is important in resolving conflicting

priorities among critical and sensitive needs.

Question 8 was considered to address a technical matter

beyond the expertise and resources of the task force.

The Task Force considered it very important that both the

public and the scientific and engineering communities be aware

of the factors limiting the use of renewable resources. In particular, the term “renewable resources” should not become equated

with unlimited resources, Renewable resources are dependent on

land, plant nutrient availability, and ultimately on genetic limitations and the photosynthetic process.

Other limitations arise through the vulnerability of plant

materials to fire, vagaries of weather and climate, disease and

pests, all of which create an element of unpredictability in yields.

This is not to suggest a pessimistic view of the utility of renewable resources, but rather to avoid creating an oversimplified and

unbridled enthusiasm for renewable resources as a major and an

immediately available solution to all materials needs which

might divert attention from other alternatives.

275
SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE DISCUSSION PERIOD

TASK No. 1: Materials Assessments for Congress:

Stresses on the Total Materials Cycle

Discussion on the two Task Force reports revolved around five

of the major issues raised in the reports: the implications of technology transfer for the U.S. competitive position; the suggestion

in the reports that more governmental actions could be utilized as

responses to stresses; the role of education in relieving stresses;

the importance of recycling as a means to respond to stresses; and

an apparent shift in conferees attitudes toward the needs of

industry.

Some attendees were concerned that the suggestion to aid

developing countries in their mineral exploration and extraction

technologies might eventually place these “new” suppliers in

competition with the United States in world markets. Although

others agreed that such actions did pose such a risk, they felt that

trade-offs might be necessary in order to develop adequate world

supplies. It was agreed that OTA should undertake an examination of all these alternatives and should attempt to determine the

impacts,

It was noted that one of the stresses mentioned had been a

proliferation of uncoordinated (and sometimes conflicting)

Government actions, such as environmental, health, and safety

regulations, It seemed to some conferees that the suggestion of

further Government actions in so many of the responses was in

conflict; however, the OTA representatives did state that they

considered no Government action as an acceptable alternative to

be examined. Others in the audience suggested that some actions

would be useful such as: Government support of information

systems; performance of R&D; or, absorption of the nontechnical

risks in international development,

In briefer comments, various attendees noted that recycling

should have been given greater attention as a means to relieve

stresses on the materials cycle. It was felt that technology was in

hand to retrieve usable materials from municipal wastes, but that

the more obsolete sources of secondary materials needed

examination. There was some disagreement on this issue, since

one attendee said that industrial materials users are aware of the

value of their materials waste and attempt to recycle such,

The role of the FMS in public education of materials cycle

stresses was brought up, This group has a new program for this

and desire to have short “papers” in lay language which can be

used for talks to public groups.

276
It was observed that the responses in both reports seemed to

indicate a shift in the attitudes of the attendees toward more

understanding of the needs and problems of private industry and

market forces,

TASK No. 2: Government, Supplies and Shortages

Only two issues were raised in the discussion period in response to the two reports: various points about a materials information system; and the question of economic stockpiling,

Attendees discussed the fact that one report suggested that a

materials information system need not be sensitive to political

considerations. It was agreed that data should always be

unbiased, but that attention to policy considerations could make

such a system more able to respond effectively and quickly to

immediate needs. It was suggested that data format in an information system could be varied according to the apparent decisions that might be called for in the near future. It was cautioned

during the discussion that a top-down modification of existing

materials information systems could have major perturbations on

the accuracy and reliability of subsequent data for many years.

. OTA representatives pointed out that their report had recognized

this possible effect,

It was pointed out that the two task forces had opposite views

on the desirability of economic stockpiles. One viewed stockpiles

as undesirable for normal conditions, while the other suggested

that the strategic stockpiling concept could be extended to

include this. Both groups accepted stockpiling of certain commodities in anticipation of abrupt supply disruptions as reasonable. Some attendees felt the task forces had not paid enough

attention to this topic, especially in view of the fact that the country has already embarked partially on such a policy by passage of

legislation to stockpile petroleum.

TASK No. 3: Conservation of Energy in Materials Processing

Most of the comments on these reports concerned the selection

of certain policy tools to control the conservation of energy and

materials, It was suggested that the task forces had been too narrow in their recommendations, since they had focused on tax

credits alone. It was stated that such tax credits are generally

considered to be ineffective and inefficient for accomplishing a

chosen goal. Other policy tools suggested were: taxation of

inefficient energy users; direct subsidies; guaranteed loans for

equipment modifications; and others. Although one task force

said they had discussed punitive measures, they had rejected

277
them since such measures often resulted in extremely negative

economic impacts on certain industries. An industry representative expressed the opinion that certain of the suggested alternatives would result in Government control, an option the industry

would not generally be willing to accept. It was also noted that it

should not be assumed that industry was not currently attempting to conserve energy on its own, as a response to rising costs

and potential scarcities. The problem was that major processing

modification took a number of years to gain full utilization.

Other comments from the audience included the notion that

perhaps conservation should not even be pursued as a policy.

This conferee suggested that energy needs could be met now by

conversion of all stationary facilities (coal consumption). New

technology could then be relied upon to provide energy solutions

for the long term.

Another conferee commended both task forces for making

valuable contributions to the reduction of short term energy use

but wondered why they hadn’t condemned some of the suggestions that are often made about the possibilities for certain long

term percentage reductions in energy use by the adoption of certain conservation policies now.

In the final comment, an attendee wondered whether a group

such as this could help industry plan for changes in energy costs

due to rising prices and conservation measures. He explained

that industry must plan years in advance for costing purposes

and that the fluid situation in energy costs and payoff from conservation measures made such planning difficult. He felt that a

“cross-over” point could be desired in these costs which would be

helpful to industry.

TASK No. 4: The Role of Materials in Defense

Much of the discussion of these reports centered on the “centers of excellence” concept or on the suggested allocating of a set

percentage of foreign military sales as R&D costs to be diverted

back into fundamental R&D.

The conferees differed on these concepts, although support for

and disagreement with each idea could be heard. One of the task

forces had supported the idea of creating “centers of excellence”

if existing facilities could not be identified, One conferee said

such centers never do turn out to be “excellent” and suggested

instead that short-lived, interdisciplinary task forces could be

formed to solving processing problems, The other task force

clarified that they had taken a cautious approach to the idea of

these centers and had not suggested creation of permanent centers by the Government,

278
There was concern among some of the attendees about the suggestion for earmarking of part of the RDT&E costs in foreign

military sales for a revolving fund for fundamental/basic research. It was clarified by the task force members that such funds

would not be tied to any particular budget but should relate to the

basic research needs for meeting broad DOD objectives. One

industry participant felt that such a clause would only increase

the price of the equipment, and decrease the competitive edge of

the United States, or would be taken out of the profit portion of

the supplier. He thought that a better method for increasing fundamental R&D efforts for DOD needs would be to change the

effects of the Mansfield amendment.

A university participant felt that all the talk of “more fundamental R&D” was rather useless. He suggested that basic research has nothing to do with the real needs of DOD, or any other

mission-oriented agency. In further remarks, he stated that the

Federal agencies/institutions were “psychologically incapable” of

performing basic research in any case.

TASK No. 5: Utility of Organic Renewable Resources

Most of the discussion on these reports centered on the definition of “resource” in this context, and on two issues not considered by task forces in their reports.

One attendee pointed out that the real resource, in his opinion,

had not been clearly defined by these two reports. He felt that it

was important when talking of “renewable resources” to consider

topics such as genetic stock, nutrients in the soil, and sunlight.

Too much emphasis had been placed on biomass, which is really

the product of the renewable resources. He suggested that a

change in point of view would have led to discussion in the reports of such topics as soil conservation and preservation. The

task force chairmen agreed that these topics were important and

that they would have included such discussions in any comprehensive report on this subject. They clarified that it was

important to distinguish the definition of “resource” as used in

this discussion, and that used by the US. Bureau of Mines, or the

Department of Interior, in their work. It was noted that the CORRIM report did try to define the term “renewable resources” and

could be consulted when in doubt.

One attendee suggested that it would have been interesting to

consider whether materials science programs in universities

should include wood-derived materials. He said that there was

still some lack of acceptance of these materials in design and

engineering which could be overcome partially by university

curriculum improvements.

279

87-315 0- 77 - 19
Another conferee wondered whether the task forces had considered the extent to which this sort of technology could be used

to help underdeveloped countries, rather than concentrating so

much effort on trying to substitute such materials for established

uses in developed countries. Although the reports did not address

this issue, the task force members agreed that the issue warranted examination. The opinion was voiced that wood was

already used to a great extent by such countries. It was pointed

out, however, that poor management practices in such countries

had destroyed major areas of the world for renewable resource

production. Therefore, it would be useful to examine the possible

uses of technology to revitalize these areas,

280
V. Friday Morning Papers

SUBSTITUTION –SOME PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

by H, Dana Moran

Manager, Materials Policy and Information Programs

Battelle, Columbus Laboratories

“Substitution” is a term and a concept which has been much

overworked in recent years. It has been, directly or subliminally,

the subject of many papers, of conferences, and of studies by both

Government and industry. It has been blessed by Congress,

encouraged by the Administration, and will be thoroughly

assessed by OTA in coming months. But in the context of future

constraints on the supplies of materials, substitution is not a

unique solution; it is only part of a larger response. Typically, the

replies to threats of shortages are “conservation” and “substitution.” Both of these require substantial changes in social attitudes

and in technology. If our experience with the energy “crisis” is a

precedent, the latter will be more easily achieved than the

former, And yet real growth in technology also requires

modification of the prevalent community attitudes on science

and technology, so one might argue that the initial burden is on

the social scientist rather than the technologist.

Further, I’m not comfortable with the popular implications of

the terms; “conservation” seems to infer sacrifice and deprivation, and “substitution” suggests to many the use of less satisfactory or ersatz materials. The objective, in my view, is the

“Intelligent Use of Material Resources,” the equitable sharing of a

finite (although theoretically inexhaustible’) body of resources

among a steadily growing quantity and variety of demands.

Goeller and Weinbergi foresee an “Age of Substitutability,” an

era in which we have solved all the necessary technical problems

to permit essentially infinite interchangeability of materials. I am

persuaded by their arguments, but underline their observation

1 Although I subscribe to the Frascheian view that total exhaustion of any mineral resource will never occur (see D. F. Frasche. NAS-NRC Publication 1OOO-C, p. 18 (1963 ),) at

any given time, the availability of a resource is 1 imited by the current technology; hence.

at any given time the usable resource is finite.

J H. E. Goeller and Alvin M. Weinberg, The Age of Substitutability, Science, Volume

191. No. 4228, pp 683-689, February 20, 1976.

281
that achievement of that ideal circumstance and accessibility of

the essentially inexhaustible natural resources of our planet

depend on timely development of the necessary technologies.

The ultimate burden is, indeed, on the technologist.

James Boyd, Materials Policy-Maker Emeritus, prefers to use

the term “interchangeability of materials.” But this expression,

too, has implications of the ideal world, of technological Nirvana.

In the Goeller-Weinbergian Stage 3, interchangeability will be

the order of the day; but in our age the process is impeded by the

realities of a pragmatic society.

Lacking semantic innovation, I am thus resigned to accept for

the moment the term “substitution” to describe one of the basic

processes in the Intelligent Use of Materials Resources. The fundamental philosophy of substitution has been well reasoned. In

their excellent appendix to the COMRATE Report, Chynoweth,

Huddle, and Speer’l examined the concept of substitution and

provide, in my judgment, the definitive statement of the subject.

Their study addresses the practical considerations in response to

shortages by replacement of critical materials. They provide a

very realistic introduction to the substitution issue.

Rather than attempt to construct heady forecasts or Newtonian

hypotheses, I’d like to expand a bit on the CHS (Chynoweth/

Huddle/Speer) concept of substitution. The following discussion

is based primarily on a recent Battelle report to the Office of

Technology Assessment as part of the Assessment on Materials

Information Systems.’ Battelle’s study examines the information

systems implications of substitution analyses. I’ll not go into the

information requirements in detail, but address the motivations

for and nature of substitution analyses.

Defining Terms

Let’s begin at the beginning —with a definition of “materials.”

As you will already have recognized, there is some debate about

the limits of the term. For the purpose of this review, we’re defining “materials” very broadly—to include all substances used by

mankind, except food and drugs, It is useful to classify materials,

~ A. G. Chynoweth, F. P. Huddle, and F. Speer, Materials Conservation Through

Substitutes and Product Design. Appendix to Section 1, Report of Panel on Materials Conservation Through Technology, Mineral Resources and the Environment (COMRATE Report), NAS, PB 239580, February. 1975.

4 J. L. Mccall! H. D. Moran. and W. L. Swager, Materials Substitutability and Information Systems Implications, Volume IV, Assessment of Materials Information Systems, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, February, 1976.

282
—

however, both in accordance with their intended use and relative

to their state of manufacture, as done in table 1.

TABLE I.—Definition of Materials

By Use Category By State of Manufacture

Physical/Structural Raw, Semifinished and Finished

Reagents and Intermediates Components/Applications

Energy/Fuels Systems

The terms used in table 1 may be further defined as follows:

Physical/Structural materials include all substances in

raw, semifinished, and finished form used in the manufacture of goods, which remain in identifiable form during a

period of use, They include metallic minerals, metais, construction minerals, wood, paper, cotton, wool, plastics, and

ceramics.

Reagents and Intermediates include all substances which

are used in the manufacture of a finished product but do

not remain as part of it. Such substances generally include

chemicals, fertilizers, abrasives, solvents, and industrial

gases.

Energy/Fuels materials include the various mineral fuels

and products refined from them. They include petroleum

coal, natural gas, natural gasoline and liquified petroleum

gases.

Raw, Semifinished, and Finished materials include ores,

concentrates, and basic metals and alloys. Also included

are agricultural and wood products.

Components/Applications include all parts of consumer

and industrial durables. Also included are pesticides, pharmaceuticals and household cleaners, as well as finished

grades of petroleum products.

Systems include all finished household and industrial

durables. The term “systems,” as applied to energy/fuels

and reagents and intermediates, usually refers to the

method by which these classes of materials are used.

283
The reasons for this little classification system are made

clearer by the examples in table 2. Using both classifications, we

can begin to categorize substitution in order to separate the concept into manageable elements. The nature of substitution

analyses vary according to classifications of this sort.

But then we also need to agree on a definition of “substitution,”

It is obvious, and CHS have told us, that the concept of substitution cannot be limited to the simple replacement of one material

with another, It also involves the replacement of one process

with another or changing the functional characteristics of a

material or part, Further, these three classes of substitution—

material, process, and function—can occur at any of the steps in

the resource, processing, and manufacturing cycle, from raw

materials through primary products, parts manufacture and components, to final system desigfi and assembly. Table 3 offers some

illustrative examples of these classes:

In proposing these three classes of substitution, we’ve departed

slightly from Chynoweth, Huddle, and Speer in that we’ve separated process from material-for-material replacement, Since the

objective—presumably — is conservation of essential materials,

processes which offer reduced wastage (and/or reduced energy

consumption) may achieve the same purposes more efficiently

than introduction of an alternative material. And CHS included

the additional category of “System Substitution,” wherein an

entire system may be replaced, with concomitant changes in

materials utilization. Examples would be mass transit to replace

personal automobiles, optical communications replacing

electronics, or solar power alternatives to fossil fueled systems. I

would contend, however, that such overwhelming developments

are not in themselves initiated for the purposes of conservation

of engineering materials and, hence, are beyond the context of

this discussion, They may alter or eliminate the demand for

essential materials, but as an effect rather than a cause.

A glance at table 3 reveals the obvious: that the distinctions between these classifications are tenuous, They overlap in many

instances; for example, replacement of a basic material will, in

perhaps a majority of instances, require process changes; process

changes may affect the design; design changes almost inevitably

mean new material requirements. Nonetheless, each analysis

begins with an initial objective falling into one of these classifications,

Those of our colleagues who are diligently pursuing the

difficult goal of metrication refer to the process of conversion as

“hard” or “soft” –development of completely new metric standards versus conversion of English units to metric in existing

284
TABLE 2.—Examples of Substitution Involving Various Classes of Materials

Category of Material,

by State of Manufacture

Raw, Semifinished, and

Finished Materials

Components/Applications

Systems

Physical/Structural

Alunite for bauxite

Raw polyester for raw cotton

Alcoa’s chlorlde alumlnum

reduction process for the

Hall process

Basic oxygen furnaces for

open hearth steel-making

New copper alloy for present alloy in auto radiator

Aluminum alloy for copper

alloy In auto radiator

Air-cooled auto engine for

water-cooled engine

Mas s Transi t f o r

automobiles

Video phone communications for busines s

transportation

CLASS OF MATERIAL—BY USE

Reagents and Intermediates

Recovered suIfur fo r

Frasch sulfur

Natural brines for rock salt

Mining of natural soda ash

for Solvay process soda

ash

Phosphoric acid from furnace phosphorus for wet

process acid

Hydrochloric acid pickllng

for sulfurlc acid pickling

Direct application to soil of

anhydrous ammonia for li -

quld application of ammonim salts

Not applicable

Energy/Fuels

Western coal for Eastern coal

Gasified coal for natural gas

Fuel 011 for natural gas

Formed coke for metallurgical coke

Lead-free gasollne for regular

Propane for fuel 011

Geothermal for coal-fired steam boiler

Solar heating system for natural g a s

system
TABLE 3.—Examples of Three Broad Classes of Substitution

One Material for Another

Aluminum for Copper in a Bus Bar

No. 2 Yellow Pine for No. 1 in Woodwork for Home

Mica-Based for Asbestos-Based Insulation

Polyester Fabric for Cotton

Painted Plain Carbon Steel for Stainless Steel

Aluminum Building Wall Studs for Wooden

Graphite Golf Club Shafts for Steel/Hickory

Copper Laminate Coin for Silver

One Process for Another

Friction Welding of Metal Parts for Butt Welding

Rolled Threads on Screws for Cut Ones

Castings for Forgings

Float Glass for Ground Plate Glass

Continuous Melt Extraction of Wire for Drawing

‘Net Shape’ Processes

One Function or Level of Functlon for Another

Bulk Distribution of Oil Products in Place of Unit Containers

Elimination of Chrome on Automobiles

Air-Cooled Engine as a Substitute for Radiators in WaterCooled Engines

standards. Similarly, a substitution action may be “soft” or

“hard.” Although perhaps trite, the distinction is one of economic

significance, as illustrated in table 4. And this comparison

reminds us of what might_be termed the Law of the Obvious: The

Simpler the Application, the Easier the Substitution.

Decisions and Decision Makers

With something of a framework for categorizing substitution

decisions, let’s consider who is concerned with such decisions,

and why. Although in some manner literally every one of us

makes materials substitution choices (viz., the housewife who

must choose between plastic wrap and aluminum foil), those

whose actions will have a significant effect on the utilization of

essential materials fall into two general categories: the Materials

User and the National Policy maker (table 5).

286
—

TABLE 4 .—’Hard’ Versus ‘Soft’ Substitution

Soft Substitution:

Introduction of a replacement material without significant changes in

tooling, processes, or design.

Example: Steel number plates for aluminum; minimal impact on costs

Hard Substitution:

Introduction of replacement material requiring changes in design and processes

Example: Aluminum baseball bats for hickory; substantial changes in

tooling, processing, and labor costs

Table S.—The Decision Makers

The Materials User category includes literally anyone in the

entire cycle, from raw material producer to scrap processor. Even

producers of raw materials are users of materials in a less refined

state, e.g., the alumina producer is a user of bauxite. Policymakers are a more austere classification, including only those

who define, implement, or influence public policy.

But why consider substitution in the first place? Four primary

reasons, from the viewpoint of the National Policy maker, were

spelled out in the COMRATE Report:

Ž Environmental and safety controls, which have introduced

a whole new set of social specifications, creating a need to

287
deal with shortages resulting from prohibited facilities,

materials and processes

Ž Government intervention in the industrial system to overcome large dislocations such as the combined shortage of

electric power and petroleum fuels

. Future prospects of dislocations in the flow of materials

from sources in developing countries and unstable sources

● The need to reduce reliance on materials of rising cost

from foreign sources to balance U.S. payments abroad and

control inflation at home

Motivations for Substitution

On the other hand, the Materials User is motivated to consider

substitution for one (or more) of three fundamental reasons: to

reduce costs, to improve performance, or to replace a scarce

material or component. His motivations are less ethereal, more

pragmatic, and every bit as important to the maintenance of the

free enterprise system. A variety of more subtle incentives derive

from those basic motivations. Some examples are given in table 6:

Although our Materials User is an honest, dues-paying

patriotic American citizen, we must recognize that there may

exist, from time to time, a dichotomy between his pragmatic,

profit-oriented purposes and those objectives deemed by the

Policy maker to be in the National interest. It may be incumbent

upon the Policy maker, then, to offer some incentives for substitution, when that action is necessitated by gross societal or political

pressures, This is an aspect of the substitution issue which has

received insufficient attention to date and which demands early

consideration. Substitution, by the Materials User, may be voluntary — in response to motivations such as cited in table 6; or it

may be enforced –by price controls, rationing, regulation, or

decree, Surely all of us who are reasonable Policy makers eschew

arbitrary enforcement. We must offer, then, suitable acceptable

incentives to the Materials User, such as those listed below:

. Capital Investment Credits,

● Simplified and/or Relaxed Government Specifications and

Standards,

Ž Subsidies,

● Tax Incentives,

. Low-Interest Loans,

288
TABLE 6.—Examples of Materials User Motivations

for Substitution

Material Shortage/Potential Shortage

Price/Cost Advantage-Uncertain Future Cost

Higher/Better Performance

Increased Reliability/Decreased

Maintenance/Increased Life

Increased Marketability

Skilled Labor Shortages

Fabrication/Production Facility Shortages

Poor Performance of Present Materials

 Regulatory Actions 

Development of Self-Sufficiency 

Elimination of Single Source Dependency 

Use of Internal Materials , 

Risk Minimization Political Advantages 

 

Follow the Competition *

. -. - . . .

● Protective Tariffs,

• Preferential Shipping Rates,

● Relaxed Regulations, and

• Appreciation

Other examples might include:

• Relaxed anti-trust regulations to encourage cooperative research and development,

● Modification of Patent Law to provide protection with

earlier disclosure and protection beyond the development

period–which often may exceed 17 years, and

• Some form of liability deferment in instances where the

consumer should share the risks as well as the benefits.

The last suggestion is not entirely facetious. Hundreds of corporations and labor groups have been proud to fly the “E” for

Effort/Efficiency/Energy banner originated in World War II. A

289
—

letter of thanks from the White House might not do much for the

Finance Committee, but it can do wonders in explaining a two

point drop in dividends to the stockholders.

If we are serious about planning for future constraints on

essential materials—and I hope we are—policy development

must include consideration of practical and positive incentives to

industry for the implementation of conservation measures.

The Process of Substitution Analysis

Our two classes of substitution decision makers differ not only

in their motivation but also in their approach to the analysis of

alternatives. The Policy maker enjoys broader horizons and more

flexible prerogatives, but because the impact of his actions may

affect the entire society, his justifications must be significantly

more persuasive, The Materials-User, on the other hand, must

balance technical and fiscal considerations in assuring that

revised designs will not compromise the profitability of his organization.

The Battelle study develops DELTA charts–logical networks

of Decisions, Events, Logic, Time sequence, and Activity—for the

two categories of substitution analysis. We include those charts

here without detailed explanation,’ merely to illustrate the

differing nature of the decision processes and yet the relative

complexity of any substitution analysis. We also wish to

introduce a consideration on which we’ll elaborate below—the

requirement for an extensive variety of reliable information and

data, much of which are not adequately available, especially to

the Policymaker.

In both instances, the trigger is recognition that prevailing or

prospective conditions are such that a substitution must be considered, The Policy maker must examine all present use patterns

of the original material. He must consider the direct effects —economic, performance, and social —of the introduction of alternatives. And he must determine whether substitution of Material B

for Material A will generate shortages of Material B, then

necessitating the substitution of C for B—and so on—the socalled “ripple effect.” The Policy maker must have sufficient

knowledge (and understanding) of the state-of-the-art to deter-

? For detailed discussion see: j. L. McCal 1, H. D. Moran, and W. L. Swager, Materials

Substitutability and Information Systems Implications. Volume IV, Assessment of

Materials Information Systems, Office of Technology Assessment. U.S. Congress. February 1976.

290
mine the facility with which a substitution can be introduced. He

has to consider available capacities, capital resources, and raw

material supplies. He must contemplate the possible requirements for R&D investment to develop the alternative applications, He must especially consider the international and social

impacts of dramatic changes in consumption patterns. And then

he must be clever enough to frame suitable legislation or other

policy actions to encourage and implement the change. Each of

these decisions is depicted in figure 1,

Many of the sam e considerations—perhaps on a less

macroscopic level— must occur to the Materials User, However,

his analysis examines the design aspects for given applications.

He is concerned with performance, cost trade-offs, and assurance

of supplies of needed materials or components. He must take into

account his present facility commitments, labor resources, and

time lost in the market place, He must look into the applicable

environmental and safety regulations and assure avoidance of

conflict. Proprietary aspects are important, New capital requirements must be examined, And will he expose his organization to

new liabilities? Ultimately, the question is simply, are the incentives sufficient to justify the change? Figure 2 displays the logic

pattern for a manufacturing industry; similar DELTA charts can

be developed for other Materials Users, e.g., process industries,

A moment’s reflection on this logic process of the Materials

User reveals a significant conclusion: from the standpoint of the

Materials User, substitution is nothing more than a special case of

materials selection, one in which one given material must be

omitted from the candidates for a particular application. The

decision procedure otherwise is identical to that followed in the

original selection of a material for that application. And the information and data requirements, therefore, are the same. Materials

selection takes place with a particular set of criteria; when those

criteria are revised, another selection takes place— this time

called substitution.

Information Requirements for Substitution Analyses

The DELTA Chart is particularly helpful in defining the separate—and common—requirements of the Policy maker and the

Materials User for information and data. Although the Policymaker may operate in a larger universe, enjoying a loftier and

perhaps more detached viewpoint, he requires much of the same

pragmatic background for his comparison of alternatives. And

the Materials User, especially under today’s social constraints,

must consider his actions in the light of community impact. In

291

87-315 0 - 77 - 20
FIGURE 1—Substitution Analysis by National Policy Makers

1

11

4

[

E End-u= pmtorns

A. Oc4qn rc~w~onw

B Economc com,hrat,ons

292
13

14

OR

1

m

I“, t,ate ,esea,ch

and develqmwnt

A

I

6

I Ye,

7

ESIWWW ,nwstrnents

t,me, and commercial

fea%, b,l, ty to add

Cqlacllles

‘

1

9
b1
table 7, we endeavor to summarize those mutual requirements

for information to support substitution analyses, in particular distinguishing between information required by one user group versus that required by the other, Since this table was extracted from

the Battelle study, a word of explanation is necessary. Part of the

objective was to define those quantitative data currently available, and those needed but not accessible to the particular user

group, Further, the table indicates those types of subjective information needed in the decision processes, but not amenable to

centralized collection and dissemination, i.e., those coded “O,”

These information requirements are restated in tables 8 and 9,

identifying separately the needs of the two user groups, These

tabulations certainly are not exhaustive, and many of the suggested items could be argued. However, the intent is to initiate

the formulation of criteria for a National Materials Information

System$

A morphology of the concept of Substitution is beginning to

emerge, The important benefit is not in the academic exercise,

but in the opportunity it provides for identification of those tools

which are essential to the decision makers in Government and

industry who are responsible for the intelligent use of our

materials resources.

295
TABLE 7.—Information Requirements for Substitution Analysis

A. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Customer Acceptance

Esthetics

Personal Bias

Market Acceptablllty

Performance Criteria

Materials Performance

Mechanical Properties

Chemical Properties

Physical Properties

Fabricability

Machinablllty

Toxicity

Ease of Joining

Corroslon, Oxidation, and Fire Resistance

Compliance with Specificatlons and Codes

Protection Against Misuse

Vandallsm Protection

Reuse/Recyclability/Disposal

Compliance with Speclfications and Codes

Rellablllty and Malntainability

B. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Material Cost

Cost/Price Stablllty

Transportation Costs

Marketing Costs (to use substitute)

ProductIon Costs

Investment Required to Incorporate

Life-Cycle Costs

Tariffs and Taxes

C. PRODUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Avallablllty of Fabricatlon Facilities

Avallablllty of Labor (specific skllls)

ProductIon Rates Achievable

Time Required to Incorporate Substitute

Use of Existing Facilities and Labor

Energy Requirements

Inspectability

National National

Materials Policy- Materials

Users

Policymakers Users makers

0

0

0

0

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

0

1 0

l-o

1 0

I

I

10

0

:

0

l-o

10

10

0

0

I ‘o

o

N

N

N

o

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

l-o

10

l-o

I

I

10

N

10

1 0

0

I

I

I

I

10

1 0

I

N

D. MATERIALS SUPPLY/AVAILABILITY CONSIDERATIONS

Supply - Present and Future, Current and

Potential

Resources/Reserve$

Stockpile Level

Imports/Exports

Defense Allocation

Inventories

Supply Assurance (including trade

agreement)

Identity and Location of Supplies

Forms of Materials Available

Dellvery Time (Lead Time)

E. END-USE PATTERNS - Historlcal and Projected

F. RISK CONSIDERATIONS

Legal Liablllty

Technical/Professional

Business

Polltlcal

G. NATIONAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Regulatory Agency Compliance (Federal,

State, local)

Environmental

Health/Safety

Energy

Economic Impacts of Using Substitutes

Politlcal Impacts of Using Substitutes

1 = required and possible m system (hard

economic)

O = required but obtained outside system

N = generally not required by user group

data

10

10

1 0

10

10

0

I

I

I -o

I -o

0

0

0

0

I

I

I

I

I

10

I

I

I

I

N

N

o

0

l-o I

l-o I

l-o I

I -O-N I

O - N o

either technical or
TABLE 8.—Information Requirements for Substitution

Analysis: Those Specifically Required by

Materials Users are Underlined

A. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Customer Acceptance

Esthetics

Personal Bias

Market Acceptability

Performance Criteria

Materials Performance

Mechanical Properties

Chemical Propertles

Physical Properties

Fabricability

Machineabillty

Toxicity

Ease of Joining

Corrosion, Oxidation and Fire Resistance

Compliance with Specifications and Codes

Protection Against Misuse

Vandalism Protection

Reuse/Recyclablllty/DIsposal

Compliance with Specifications and Codes

Reliance and Maintainability

B. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Material Cost

Cost/Price Stability

Transportation Cost

Marketing Costs (to use substitute)

Production Costs’

Investment Required to Incorporate

Life-Cycle Costs

Tariffs and Taxes

C. Production CONSIDERATfONS

Availability of Fabrication Facilities

Availability of Labor (specific skillsj

Production Rates Achievable

D. MATERIALS SUPPLY/AVAILABILITY

CONSIDERATIONS

Supply Present and Future,

Resources/Reserves

Stockpile Level

Imports/Exports

Defense Allocations

Inventories

Supply Assurance (including

Current and Potential

trade agreements)

Identify and Location of Supplies

Forms of Materials Available

Delivery Time (Lead Time)

E. END-USE PATTERNS & Historical and Projected

F. RISK CONSIDERATIONS

Legal Liability

Technical/Professional

Business

Political

G. NATIONAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Regulatory Agency Compliance (Federal, State, local)

Environmental

Health/Safety

Energy

Economic Impacts of Using Substitutes

political Impact of Using Substitutes

Time Required to Incorporate Substitute

Use of Existing Facilities and Labor

Energ y Requirements

Inspectability

297
TABLE 9.—Information Requirements for Substitution

Analysis: Those Specifically Required by

Policy Makers are Underlined

A. DESIGN REOUIREMENTS

Customer Acceptance

Esthetics

Personal Bias

Market Acceptability

Performance Criteria

Materials Performance

Mechanical Properties

Chemical Properties

Physical Properties

Fabricability

Machineabllity

Toxicity

Ease of Joining

Corrosion. Oxidation, and Fire Resistance

Compliance with Specifications and Code

Protection Against Misuse

Vandalism Protection

Reuse/Recvclabilitv/Diaoosal

Compliance with Soedifications and Codes

Reliability and Maintainability

B. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Material Cost

Cost/Price Stablllty

Transportation Cost

Marketing Costs (to use substitute)

ProductIon Cost>

Investment Requlred to Incorporate

Life-Cvcle Costs

Tariffs and Taxes

C. PRODUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Avallabllity of Fabrlcation Facllltles

Avallablllty of Labor (speclflc skills)

Produ ctlon Rates Achievable

Time Requlred to Incorporate Substitute

Use of Exlsting Facllltles and Labor

Energy Requirements

D. MATERiALS SUPPLY/AVALASILtTY CONSIDERATIONS

Current and Potential

Inventories

Supply Assurance (Including Trade Agreement~

Identity and Location of Supplies

Forms of Materials Available

Delivery Time (Lead Time)

E. END-USE PATTERN--Historical and Projected

Supply--Present and Future, Current and Potential

Resources/Reserves

Stockpile Level

Imports/Exports

Defense Allocation

Inventories

Supply Assurance (Including Trade Agreement)

Identity and Location of Supplies

Forms of Materials Available

Delivery Time (Lead Time)

F. RISK CONSIDERATIONS

Regulatory Agency Compliance (Federal, State, Local)

Environmental

Health/Safety

Energy

Economic Impacts of Using Substitute

298
THE COMMISSION ON CRITICAL CHOICES FOR

AMERICANS

by Michael J. Deutch, Consulting Engineer

The Commission on Critical Choices for Americans, a

nationally representative, bipartisan group of 42 prominent

Americans, was brought together at the end of 1973 by Nelson A,

Rockefeller to develop information and insights which would

bring about a better understanding of the problems confronting

America in these troubled times, and attempt to identify the critical choices that must be made by our people.

In bringing the Commission on Critical Choices together, Mr.

Rockefeller said:

As we approach the 200th Anniversary of the founding of

our Nation, it has become clear that institutions and values

which have accounted for our astounding progress during

the past two centuries are straining to cope with the massive

problems of the current era, The increase in the tempo of

change, and the vastness and complexity of the wholly new

situations which are evolving with accelerated change,

create a widespread sense that our political and social

system has serious inadequacies.

We can no longer continue to operate on the basis of reacting

to crises, counting on crash programs and the expenditure of

huge sums of money to solve our problems. We have got to

understand and project present trends, to take command of

the forces that are emerging, to extend our freedom and

well-being as citizens and the future of other nations and

peoples in the world.

Because of the complexity and interdependence of issues facing America ahd the world today, the Commission organized its

work into six panels, which emphasize the interrelationships of

critical choices rather than treating each one in isolation, Raw

materials problems were considered by Panel III, together with

industrial development, capital formation, employment, and

world trade. 1 want to stress that the areas subject to the Commission’s inquiry were quite extensive, and since the Commission on

Critical Choices for Americans did not do research or make

recommendations—but only placed before the public the

choices–you cannot look to the Commission for any detailed

study or conclusions on our materials problems.

299
Materials Supply and the Less-Developed Countries

My own view today on our problems with the supply of critical

materials and the less-developed countries may be summarized

as follows:

The United States, and most consuming nations, are overwhelmingly dependent on imports for only a few raw materials,

and for some of these we have already “lived in coexistence”

with cartels, The apprehension that other less-developed countries might emulate OPEC and deny us the supply of essential

raw materials is less than for energy.

Materials prices are another matter: as compared with prices

for petroleum, they are highly cyclical, The LDC’S prosper only

when prices of their exports of materials are high, but when they

rose sharply in 1973/74 in sympathy with OPEC, the LDCS could

not compensate for the increases, Then materials went down

from their peak throughout 1975 as a result of the protracted

recession in most industrial economies, and began rising as the

economic recovery set in. UNCTAD now feels that the richer

countries of the world should provide for price escalation with

the cost of essential imports to the LDCS.

The more relaxed view of the ability of the less-developed producers to emulate OPEC considers that there are few groupings

of producing countries that could control over 50 percent of

world demand in specific materials. Only in the case of bauxite

has a cartel grouping been able to increase sharply the taxes and

royalties paid by Western companies that own ore deposits in

these countries, and the aluminum market was well able to

absorb these higher ore costs.

Trouble could arise in three or four other minerals. However,

embargos or severe shortages are not likely to occur, particularly

if our mining trade is alert, our stockpiling is realistic, and the

international environment does not deteriorate further,

This optimistic scenario is not that persuasive. While a detrimental cartel pricing or embargo that could endanger our

materials system does not seem impending, it remains a potential

threat that public officials will have to take into account in the

formulation of our long term economic policy:

– The poorer nations of the world, where vast untapped resources of raw materials have been discovered (often by

mining interests from the industrialized countries), have

been hit mercilessly by OPEC, inflation, and by the recession in world trade. Their despair has already brought

about in UNCTAD a clamor for a moratorium on LDC

debts (some $142 billion) and further price increases (or

price stabilization) of their crops. It could, in a bad inter300
national environment, bring about an unreasonable urge

to emulate OPEC, or to expropriate natural resources

owned by foreign interests.

— Paradoxically, this threat to the proved discovery,

development, and marketing of much needed additional

reserves of raw materials is pressing even in those lessdeveloped countries that suffer most from unemployment and could not by themselves finance new production or gain access to the world markets. As long as this

uncertainty persists, the world materials system will

remain unstable.

– Much can be done to protect ourselves. A conservation

ethic, eradication and recycling of waste, substitution of

scarce materials by others that are more available, and by

new materials, specially conceived for our future needs,

etc. But all this will require much developmental talent,

institutional change—and money.

There are two new international trends to which we will have

to adjust. The first is the quest of the LDCS for more political

independence and more economic growth, which leaves the

industrialized nations in a more vulnerable position. The second

is the realization that independence from materials imports can

be achieved only at terrific cost, and security of supply is now

possible only if we establish common economic objectives that

will draw the world together to engage in fruitful exchange in

commodities, transportation, and communications,

Thus, economic interdependence, with all its political stresses,

is now the bellwether of a new world economic order, For the

United States there is need to expand relationships with Socialist

countries, and our relationships with the LDCS, from whom we

now import one-half of our industrial materials and to whom we

sell one-third of our exports to the LDCS, and where we have 25

percent of all our foreign investments. The even greater dependence of Europe and Japan on supplies from the LDCS also

affects U.S. policies and supplies, We cannot remain indifferent

to the plight of our allies,

Concluding Remarks

The main concern of this meeting is to determine whether the

adverse impacts of the Nation’s materials problems can be anticipated, effective responses devised, and the respective roles

defined for Government and business to implement the right

policies. I would be less than candid if I ducked these questions

by a ringing endorsement of free trade, high technology, the min301
ing industry, the old-line specialized Government agencies—and

the most high and mighty of them all—the National Laboratories

and the Think Tanks. Each of these constituencies has richly

deserved its fame and acquired some excellence and a function

in the system, mainly through specialization and a lengthy record

of performance in given roles and missions.

But the difficulties we now face (in energy, materials, economics, foreign policy, and defense) are interwoven, and quite

different in that a technological breakthrough (e.g., a satellite, a

new plane, or a new bomb) will not necessarily reduce the

perilous impacts of world-wide changes, destabilization, and

novel international and societal pressures. Also, most of our

problems now involve much recrimination, damage, and uncertainty as to what may become of now-powerful constituencies,

There is an erosion of confidence and persistent doubts as to

the soundness of our institutions that preclude assigning policy

formulation and remedial action to any one of the academic disciplines, business interests, or administrative entities that served

us well in the past. Whether the free marketplace together with a

cyclical upswing will bring back lasting prosperity and quality of

life is questioned even in the Establishment. Some feel that we

should trust the future. Others worry that even if and when the

cyclical upturn raises the rate at which we utilize our producing

facilities (from 74 percent now, to a profitable 93 percent),

demand is likely to overshoot capacity (that was not expanded or

modernized during the recession because of shortages of energy

materials or capital and institutional uncertainties). A new inflationary spiral may well ensue when the recession is over. Then

there is the anti-business view that favors no-growth, “pristine

living” syndromes, and others.

I submit that only a group of private citizens dedicated to

public service but not beholden to any power center can undertake a thorough interdisciplinary diagnosis of the causes and

remedies to our ills, and make policy recommendations that are

not tainted by the daily responsibilities of organized leadership

nor obscured by loyalty to their particular bureaucracy (public or

private).

This is what the Commission on Critical Choices attempted to

do at a time of severe stress on our society. From the obscurity of

my station in the world of R&D societal planning, I feel that the

Commission’s endeavor was a laudable patriotic effort – whether

or not it produces a book or a chapter on materials.

302
HR14439/S3637: NATIONAL MATERIALS POLICY BILLS

by Philip Yeager, Counsel

Committee on Science and Technology,

U.S. House of Representatives

The commentary which you heard earlier from Mr. Teague

and Senator Moss suggests a main key to the very genuine

interest of the legislative branch in this conference.

I think it is important to reiterate that Congress–or at least a

number of entities within it—are most anxious to have the

results and findings of your various task groups, At a minimum,

there are three or four Committees in each House of Congress,

plus the Office of Technology Assessment, and the Congressional Research Service included in this group.

I believe it is important to bear in mind that, as a whole, we in

the Congress are relatively unsophisticated with regard to the

matters you will be discussing. We will, therefore, find it very

useful if we can have described for us (1) the major materials

issues as you see them and (2) what you believe are the various

options for their solutions. We understand that individuals and

groups alike are often hesitant to suggest solutions, but it seems

to us that we have reached a point where it is time to start

answering some questions as well as posing them.

Certain things are making an impression on current congressional thinking. As we look at employment problems, for example, we are beginning to realize that the traditional American

stance of being short on labor and long on materials has now reversed itself. This is going to require drastic realignment in our

thinking and our policy,

I think many of us, whether or not we will admit it publicly,

are beginning to understand that we are not likely to make such a

transition without somebody getting hurt.

This transition is what the Symington-Mosher bill and the

Moss bill are designed to facilitate–that is, put the thinking process in motion. As you have already heard, the authors of these

bills do not offer them as a basis for immediate legislative consideration, but we believe they will serve their catalyst purpose

in this Congress and the next. I would like to quote from a recent

letter received from Dr. Frederick Seitz, President of Rockefeller

University:

While our national energy situation has its precarious

aspects, the fact remains that we have enormous reserves of

coal and fairly complete knowledge of how to use uranium

and related materials in fission reactors. In contrast, many of

303
our most useful materials are available only abroad or are

not available within our own borders on an economic basis.

As a result I believe that our Nation has need of a materials

policy. I am delighted that Mr. Symington is joining Mr.

Mosher in taking a substantial initiative in this matter.

In conclusion, we hope that you will be blunt about whatever

determinations you reach, that you will lay them on the line and

that you will duck nothing. Most important, we are confident that

your findings will not be on the basis of what you think people

want to hear— for whatever reason, political, economic, or otherwise. That element, of course, is always difficult to avoid, but it is

one which we now know that our people and our Government

cannot afford to harbor much longer.

304
SUMMARY OF PANEL DISCUSSION ON HR 14439 /S3637

In general, the panel was supportive of the efforts to enact a

National Materials Policy. Some felt, however, that such a policy

should be more comprehensive in order to take into account the

relationship between materials, energy, and the environment.

This position was held by those in “Task Force No. 1“ who

included a special section dealing with the proposed act in their

report on “Government, Supplies, and Shortages.” This section

follows:

The Task Force commends the interest, imagination, and concern of the authors of these bills. We encourage the articulation

of a National Materials Policy, However, recognizing the

inseparable relationship between energy, environment, and

materials (and the necessity of integration of relevant national

objectives), we believe the objective should be the expression of

the National Resources Policy, encompassing all these issues,

rather than the more limited implications of the proposed act.

We find that the Bill does not, in its present form, define a

Materials Policy, The major function of legislation on this subject

should be to state National Policy Goals perhaps using the five

elements of policy voiced by the National Commission on

Materials Policy as a basis). And the responsibilities for implementation of those policy goals should be clarified. (The structure of the Energy Resources Council appears to be a useful

example for executive branch authority; Congressional analogs

also are needed . . . in this respect, we endorse the proposed legislation,)

The Bill focuses on materials research and development, which

we recognize as an important ingredient of policy—but only one

of many. We note with some surprise the omission of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from the proposed Commission on Materials Research and Operations, and

suggest that, in view of its major contribution to materials R&D,

the Department of Defense should also be represented in such

councils. But we would also voice some concern with the scope

of the functions proposed for this Commission, which would

appear, in many respects, to overlap those of existing agencies.

Concern was expressed that factors other than research and

development be sufficiently woven into a National Materials

Policy– to think that R&D will solve all our materials problems is

“overly simplistic.” Criticism was also leveled at the fact that

representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency and the

Department of Defense (which performs about 20 percent of the

305
Nation’s materials R&D) were not included on the proposed

Commission on Materials Research and Operations.

Many of these subjects were of concern to other individuals as

well, One participant, in expressing his strong support for this

legislative activity, reminded the other participants (as had Phil

Yeager in his presentation) that it is important to consider not

only what legislation may be desirable, but also what it is possible to move through the legislative process. This participant

specifically referred to the fact that, although the conference participants recognize the inextricability of resources, energy, food,

the environment, etc., in practice the Congress is not set up to

deal with things in this way.

The general tone of “Henniker IV” was one of antipathy

towards increasing Government bureaucracy, and this was

reflected in many of the panelists’ comments as well as in the

task force report cited above. Some felt that it is now time to

move on the findings and recommendations of the National Commission on Materials Policy and the National Commission on

Supplies and Shortages, and that Congress should not “rehash” in

hearings the work already done by these bodies, Some felt that

we should “build on what we already have” in the materials area

and avoid setting up another bureaucratic structure.

One panelist spoke forcefully about the need to make a

national materials “policy” highly flexible. Another praised the

inclusion of renewable resources within the scope of the bill, as

he believed that this would open the way for some much needed

discussion of their role in the materials field.

In summary, we heartily endorse the concise statement of a

National Materials Policy, provided that it is in the context of the

larger issue of National Resources, and that it does not add to the

burden of Federal bureaucracy.

306
VI. Summary

THEMES OF THE CONFERENCE

Four, clear, unmistakable themes emerged from the Henniker

IV Conference on national materials policy.

First, there was almost universal recognition of the need for a

national materials policy, clearly expressed, well understood and

agreed to, formally promulgated, and cooperatively implemented.

The scope of such a national policy should, of course, include research and development goals and institutions, but it should

extend much further. In particular, the policy should deal

explicitly with enlisting the close mutual support of Government

and industry by providing a national basis for cooperation of

these two sectors in the public interest.

Second, there was an underlying concern over indications of

excessive present and prospective bureaucratization of the relationship between Government and industry, or indeed Government and the public at large. This concern was manifest in such

expressions as “overweening growth of bureaus and agencies, ”

“over-r emulation,” and a persistent tendency toward reacting

violently to crises instead of carefully, systematically, and

perspicaciously analyzing trends in national affairs to avert and

diminish crises before they occur. A specific example that commanded general acquiescence was that cited by George Eads: the

idea of materials shortages as a self-fulfilling prophecy, caused

by a “shortage mentality” that motivated actions that disrupted

supply, violated the market, distorted prices, and led to

uneconomical industrial inventories and distress buying.

Third, there was a general recognition that materials illustrated par excellence the need for the systems approach. That is

the idea that everything is related to everything else. Materials

policy for the United States needed to be formulated while bearing in mind the policy needs— for resources, markets, and

capital—of other nations of the world. Materials policy in the

United States could not be formed independently of policy for

energy and the environment. The institutions of the Federal

Government dealing with materials needed to be coordinated

with each other, and all of them with other institutions, State,

local, and private. Cooperation of the universities, industry, and

Government again became seen as essential. An example of this

interdependence was the discussion of renewable resources.

307

87-315 0- 77 - 21
Were they materials or substitutes for materials? Shou d policv

aim to exploit biological resources for engineering applications~,

or as a source of energy, or both? Ultimately, the issue turned on

the question of entropy: what was the “energy cost” of any particular policy, process, or application? And energy cost, economic

cost, and social cost all interacted in the decision process.

Fourth and last, there was the warning, stated well in the discussion of national security aspects of materials: we do not

devise sound policy or creative implementation with dollars,

with institutions, nor masses of people; we achieve these necessary purposes only by creative approaches, fresh ideas, and

innovative concepts. Instead of throwing dollars at problems, we

must think about them.

308
KENNETH H. ABBOTT

Special Assistant

Army Mat. & Mechanics

Research Center

Watertown, MA 02172

Appendixes

Appendix A

Conference Participants

J. C. AGARWAL

Director–Developmen t

Kennecott Copper Corp.

Ledgemont Laboratory

128 Spring street

Lexington, MA 02173

ALLEN F. AGNEW

Senior Specialist

Mining & Mineral Resources

Congressional Research

Service

Library of Congress

Washington, DC 20540

R OBERT S. ALLCAIER

Materials Technology Program

Administrator

Naval Material Command

Code 0342

Washington, DC 20360

D. W. BALLARD

Division Supervisor

Sandia Laboratories

NDT Division

Albuquerque, NM 87115

MICHAEL B. BEVER

Prof. of Materials Science

and Engineering

M.I.T.

Room 13-5026 M.I.T

Cambridge, MA 02139

S. L. BLUM

Director

The MITRE Corporation

P.0, BOX 208

Bedford, MA 07130

WILLIAM C, BOESMAN

Analyst in Science& Tech.

Congressional Research

Service

Library of Congress

Washington, DC 20540

J AMES B O Y D

President

Materials Associates

600 New Hampshire Ave NW

No, 250

Washington, DC 20037

M ARVIN S. BRIN N

Mgr.– Planning

Energy & Materials Dept.

Dupont Company

Wilmington, DE 19801

DR DONALD A. BROEST

Geologis~

Branch of Eastern Min.

Resources

U.S. Geological Survey

Washington, DC 20548

JOHN A. BROWN

Supervisory Auditor

US General Account Office

Room 7926

441 G Street NW

Washington, DC 20548

0. NORMAN C ARLSO N

Professor

Ames Lab-Iowa State Univ

125 Metals Dev Bldg.

Ames, IA 50010

J. BEVERLY CLARK

Associate Graduate Dean

Univ. of Missouri –Rolla

Rolla, MO 65401

M ARV C LEMENT

Research Economist

Battelle-Pacific Northwest

Richland. WA 99352

309
S ANFORD S. CO L

E

Director

Engineering Foundation

345 East 47th Street No. 303

New York, NY 10017 CORNELIUS M. COSMAN

Senior Technical Advisor

Nat]. Commission Supplies

and Shortages

1750 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006 ANDREW M. COWAN

Staff Specialist

US Dept. of Agriculture

Room 215, Building 005

BARC-West

Beltsville, MD 20705 DENNIS P. Cox

Geologist

US Geological Survey

National Center–Stop 913

Reston, VA 22092

C. R. CUPP

Research Mgr/Physical

Analytical Group

International Nickel Co.

Sterling Forest

Suffern, NY 10901 MICHAEL J. DEUTCH

Consulting Engineer

Comm. on Critical Choices

2820 32nd Street NW

Washington, DC 20008 EDWARD J. DYCKMAN

Materials Engineer

Office of Assistant

Secretary of Defense

DTNSRDC Code 2803

Annapolis, MD 21402

GEORGE C. EADS

Executive Director

Natl. Commission Supplies

and Shortages

1750 K Street NW Suite 800

Washington, DC 20015 INGEMAR FALKEHAG

Research Section Leader

Westvaco Research Center

P.O. BOX 5207

N. Charleston, SC 29406 THOMAS V. FALKIE

Director, Bureau of Mines

US Dept. of Interior

2401 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20241

JOSEPH R. FERRI

Assistant Director

US General Accounting Office

Room 5019

425 I Street NW

Washington, DC 20548

CURRY E. FORD

President

Federation of Materials

Societies

270 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10017 G EORGIANA J. FRANCISC

O

Public Information

Specialist

US Dept. of Agriculture

4201 31st Street South

Apt. 823

Arlington, VA 22206 RAYMOND B. GAVERT

Staff Specialist –Materials

US Congress, O.T.A.

120 C Street NE

Washington, DC 20510 HAROLD E. GOELLER

Senior Engineer

Oak Ridge Nat]. Laboratory

P.O. Box X

Oak Ridge, TN 37830 ROBERT M, GOLDHOFF

Mgr. Materials Tech.

General Electric Co.

Bldg 55 Room 107

Schenectady, NY 12345 ALLEN G. GRAY

Technical Director

American Secy. for Metals

Metals Park, OH 44073 ROBERT GRAY

Professional Staff Member

Joint Cte. on Defense Prod.

US Congress

Senate Annex III A 421

Washington, DC 20510 R ICHARD E. HARMO N

Manager Govt. Products

PPG Industries

Fiberglass Division

300 N Lee St. Rm 302

Arlington, VA 22314 PAUL HAUSER

Energy & Materials Dept.

DuPont Company

Wilmington, DE 19801

310
WALTER R. HIBBARD J

R.

Univ. Distinguished Prof.

Virginia Polytechnic inst.

& State Univ.

210 Holden Hall

Blacksburg. VA 24026 JAMES L. HOLT

Asst. Program Mgr. for

Materials

US Congress, O.T.A,

120 C Street NW, Rm 202

Washington, DC 20510

MICHAEL HOCH

Prof. of Materials Science

Univ. of Cincinnati

Dept. of Matls. Sci & Met.

Engrg.

Cincinnati. OH 54221 ROBERT D. HORST

Mgr. Purchasing Economics

Shell Oil Co.

P.O. BOX 2463

Houston, TX 77001 MARY R. HOWES

Materials Division

Bureau Domestic Commerce

US Dept of Commerce

Room 2007

Washington, DC 20230 HUGH IRWNE

Senior Advisor

Exxon Chemical Co. USA

1333 West Loop South

Houston, TX 77027 JAMES A. KENT

Dean, College of Engineering

Michigan Technological U.

Houghton, MI 49931 HAROLD Kirkemo

Chief, Off. Minerals Exp

US Geological Survey

stop 953

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 22092 BEN A. KORNHAUSER

Staff Engineer

National Materials Advisory

Board

Natl. Academy of Sciences

2101 Constitution Avenue

Washington, DC 20418

J EROME K RUGER

Chief, Corrosion & Electrode

Posit ion Sect ion

Natl. Bureau of Standards

Rm B254 Materials Bldg.

Washington, DC 20234 JOSEPH R. LEAL

Senior Staff Associate

Celanese Research Co.

Box 1000

Summit, NJ 07901

A. Levin

Consul of Israel

Consulate General of Israel

800 Second Avenue

New York, NY 10017 F RANK M ASLI N

Project Director

Futures Group

124 Hebron Avenue

Glastonbury, CT 06083 CAROLEE McBee

Prof. Staff Physicist

US Congress. O.T.A.

Washington, DC 20510 JAMES L. MCCALL

Manager

Battelle-Columbus

505 King Avenue

Columbus, OH 43201

Vincent E. McKelvey

Director

US Geological Survey

12201 Sunrise Valley Dr

Reston, VA 22092 K AREN M OLZEN

2339 Inez DriveNE

Albuquerque, NM 87110 JOHN H. MYERS

Gen. Mgr. Research & Dev.

Trustee-Fed. Matls. Socs.

Plantica Div.

Container Corp. of America

1204 E. 12th Street

Wilmington, DE 19898

H. 

DANA MORAN

Mgr. Matls. Policy Programs

Battelle-Columbus

505 King Ave.

Columbus, OH 43201

3 11
WALTER S. OWEN

Prof. of Matis. Science &

Engineering

M.I.T.

Cambridge, MA 02139

Albert E. Paladino

Prog, Mgr. for Materials

US Congress, O.T.A.

120 C Street NW Rm 202

Washington, DC 20510

Elio PASSAGLiA

Chief, Metallurgy Div.

Natl. Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

JEROME PERSH

Staff Specialist for Materials

& Structures

OSD/ODDR&E

Pentagon, Rm 3D1089

Washington, DC

GAIL M. PESYNA

Science Consultant

Science and Technology

Committee

U.S. House of

Representatives

Rm. 2321 Rayburn Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515

P ROFESSOR H. J. PICK

Prof. Matis. Technology

Univ. of Aston in Birmingham

Dept. of Mechanical Engrg,

Gosta Green, Birmingham B47ET

ENGLAND

WM. R. PRINDLE

Executive Director

Natl. Matis. Advisory Bd.

2101 Constitution Ave.

Washington, DC 20418

N. E. Promisel

Consultant

Conf. Co-Chairman

12519 Davan Drive

Silver Spring, MD 20904

S. Victor Radcliffe

Resources for the Future

1755 Massachusetts Ave NW

Washington, DC 20036

Dennis W. READY

Materials Sciences Program

US Energy Research Admin.

Washington, DC 20545

CURT W. REIMANN

Scientific Ass’t to

Director IM

Nat]. Bureau of Standards

Bldg. 223, Rm B354

Washington, DC 20234

Emil A. ROMACNOLI

Special Ass’t to Director

Materials Division

Bureau — Domestic Commerce

US Dept. Commerce Rm 2007

Washington, DC 20230

Alfde Ruvo

Reasearch Director

Swedish Forest Prod.

Research Lab.

Box 5604

S-II476 Stockholm, Sweden

S PENCER A. Schilling

Section Manager

Technical Economics &

Business Planning

Battelle-Columbus

505 King Avenue

Columbus, OH 43201

Murray A. S CHWARTZ

Staff Ceramic Engineer

Bureau of Mines

2401 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20241

MRS. GLORIA C. SERIG

Nat]. Bureau of Standards

B348 Materials Bldg.

Washington, DC 20243

DR. I.S. SERVI

Director-Procduct Dev.

Kennecott Copper Corp.

128 Spring Street

Lexington, MA 02173

F RANK A. SMIT H

Economist

US Environmental Protection

Agency

Resource Recovery Div.

(AW-463)

Washington, DC 20480

Morris A. STEINBERG

Director of Tech.

Applications

Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

P.0. Box 551

Burbank, CA 91520

3 1 2
Jacquelyn W. Stroud

Staffing Specialist

Natl. Academy of Sciences

130 Chanel Terrace

Falls Church, VA 22046

William L. Swager

Asst. Mgr. Dept. of

Metallurgy

Battelle-Columbus

505 King Ave.

Columbus, OH 43201

HAROLD A. TAYLOR JR

Commodity Industry Analyst

US Intl. Trade Commission

701 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20436

JOHN B. WACHTMAN, JR

Chief Inorganic Matis. Div.

Natl, Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

George A. WATSON

Executive Director

Ferroalloys Association

1612 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Robert F. WIDER

Editor, FMS Newsletter

Fed. of Matis. Societies

20501 Ford Road

Dearborn, MI 48128

M. L. Williams

Dean of Engineering

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, PA 15261

Guests

Mrs. Agarwal

Marion Bever

Edith Blum

Ruth Boyd

Tania Cosman

June Cowan

Pearl Ferri

Lillian Ford

Martha Goldhoff

Kelly McElroy

Jean Gray

Louise Hibbard

Anita Kent

Ronald S. Wishard

Dir. Govt. Public Issues

Union Carbide

270 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10017

PHILIP Yeager

Counsel

Science and Technology

Committee

U.S. House of

Representatives

Rm. 2331 Rayburn Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515

Paul Yopes

Assistant Director

Metals, Minerals &

Materials

US Bureau of Mines

2401 E Street NW

Room 1050

Washington, DC 20241

RObert L. Youngs

Director US Forest

Products Lab

P.O. Box 5130

Madison WI 53705

A. F. Z AVIAT

Mgr-Major Appliance Lab

General Electric Co.

Appliance Park

AP35-1001

Louisville, KY 40225

JOHN I. ZERBE

Mgr, Energy, RDA Prod.

Forest Service USDA

Forest Products Lab

Madison, WI 53705

Mrs. Kirkemo

Ethel Kornhauser

Mary Leal

Karen Molzen

June Prindle

Mrs. Promisel

Robert Serig

Caroline Servi

Eli nor Swager

Marjorie Watson

Mary Yopes

Mary Zavist

3 1 3
TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP

Assignment To Task Forces

National Materials Policy Conference

Appendix B

Task Force No. I Task Force No. 2 Task Force No. 3 Task Force No. 4 Task Force No. 5

C. E. Ford, R. M. Goldhoff, D. Ballard, C. McBee, J. B. Clark,

Chairman Chairman Chairman Chairman Chairman

Tues–Task No. 1 Task No. 2 Task No. 3 Task No. 4 Task No 1

H. D. Moran, W. Hibbard, A. Gray, Z. Zerbe, A. Cowan,

Chairman Chairman Chairman Chairman Chairman

Wed–Task No. 2 Task No. 3 Task No. 4 Task No. 5 Task No. 5

W. Boesmann

J. Boyd

D. Brobst

C. Cosman

M. Deutch

R. Horst

J. Kruger

J. McCall

W. Owen

V. Radcliffe

E. Romagnoli

F. Smith

P. Yopes

J. Agarwal

J. Brown

R. Gavert

P. Hauser

M. Hoch

E. Passaglia

M. Schwartz

I. Servi

S. Schilling

H. Taylor

G. Watson

R. Allgaier

N. Carlson

C. Cupp

E. Dyckman

R. Gray

H. Kirkemo

D. Readey

M. Steinberg

W. Swager

R. Wishart

A. Zavist

K. Abbott

A. de Ruvo

J. Ferri

R. Harmon

B. Kornhauser

J. Leal

A. Levin

W. Prindle

C. Reimann

R. Youngs

A. Agnew

M. Bever

D. Cox

1. Falkehag

H. Goeller

H. Irvin

J. Kent

J. Meyers
Appendix C

DEFINITION OF RENEWABLE MATERIALS TERMS

by Ed Dyckman, DOD

Following the report of the Task Force Number Five on Utility

of Organic Renewable Resources, the following issue concerning

the term “renewable resources” was discussed.

A comment was made in the spirit of the Task Force’s stated

concern over the awareness of both the public and scientific and

engineering communities for the use of renewable resources. The

observation was made that materials technology, in today’s

industrially intense society, is all too frequently conceived as

minerals technology as not to include non-minerals such as

wood, plastics, agricultural products, and other organics.

Consequently, the attention of the public is often drawn by

citation of metallurgical examples when scientists, engineers,

and economists refer to important national issues as materials

scarcity, materials energy intensity, and defense materials

requirements. More public attention needs to be focused on

organics as a family of materials of equal importance to minerals

and metals when discussing the national issues.

As one means of accomplishing this objective, it was suggested

that we adopt and communicate a new or extended definition for

the term “renewable resources. ” To do this, we might borrow the

popular and widely understood terms “reserves” and “resources”

from the minerals community. In recent years, scientists,

engineers, and economists have made uniform use of “reserve”

and “resource” terminology following considerable urging by the

U.S. Bureau of Mines and the US. Geological Survey. These

agencies contend that such word-use is critical to better communication on the subject of minerals availability. Such may be

the case for renewable materials.

The distinction between minerals resources and reserves is

based on current geologic and economic factors. An extensive

explanation of these terms can be found in the current issue of

Minerals Facts and Problems which is prepared by the Department of the Interior. For the sake of brevity, however, a “resource” is a material in or on the Earth’s crust in such a form that

economic extraction of a commodity is currently or potentially

feasible, A “reserve” is that portion of the identified resource

from which a usable commodity can be economically and legally

processed at the time of determination.

315
Although the agricultural scientific community must reach

collective agreement, as did the minerals community, on the use

of terms, the following example was suggested for consideration:

let “renewable resources” relate to a young forest and let

“renewable reserves” relate to a mature or harvestable forest. In

this context it will be possible for the public and scientific and

engineering communities to conceptually quantify the distinction between different types of renewable materials. To this end,

such understanding will help agricultural scientists to focus

public attention on the need for long term research on renewable

resources to accomplish their successful transformation from

uneconomical into technically feasible and economically attractive sources of usable commodities.

316
Appendix D

A PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE HENNIKER IV

CONFERENCE*

by James L. Holt

Assistant Program Manager, OTA

Every new problem with materials supply evokes discussion

but when the problem fades, so does the discussion. Recently,

though, people have begun to say, “Let’s stop talking and do

something before the problem develops. ”

This new push for action was recently expressed by Representative Olin Teague and Senator Frank Moss in a joint letter to the

fourth Henniker Conference on National Materials Policy. They

wrote, “We do wish to impress upon you that materials problems

and materials sciences and technology are now infiltrating the

collective consciousness of the Congress to a degree that we

believe has not heretofore existed.”

The Henniker IV conference, August 8-13, 1976, sought to

identify and discuss several major materials issues and the

various policies and ways to deal with them. The traditional

stance of being short on labor and long on materials no longer

applies; we need a drastic change in our policy.

The Henniker conference, organized by the Federation of

Materials Societies for the Engineering Foundation, met at New

England College in Henniker, N.H. Franklin P, Huddle was

scheduled to chair the meetings, with Nathan E. Promisel as

cochairman. When Frank became ill, John Wachtman took over

for him.

Henniker IV looked at national materials policy, in the context

of “Engineering Implications of Chronic Materials Scarcity. ”

Special task forces spent several days discussing separately the

following topics: 1. OTA materials assessments for Congress:

stresses on the total materials cycle. 2. Government, supplies, and

shortages: the work of the National Commission on Supplies and

Shortages. 3. Conservation of energy in materials processing. 4.

The role of materials in national defense. 5. Utilization of organic

renewable resources.

● This article first appeared in Metals Progress, October 1976.

317
Value of Henniker Conference to U.S. Congress

The three previous Henniker conferences on National

Materials Policy have had strong congressional support, and the

results have helped Congress in a variety of ways. The first, in

1970, discussed the topic of “Materials Problems and Issues,” and

the proceedings were published by the Senate Committee on

Public Works which prepared the bill creating the National Commission on Materials Policy, signed into law the following October.

The second Henniker conference, in 1972, was entitled

“Resolving Some Selected Issues.” Its proceedings were

published by the National Commission on Materials Policy. The

findings and concerns of this conference were put to use by the

93rd Congress, during the debate of S.3279, a bill to establish a

National Commission on Supplies and Shortages. This bill was

signed into law on September 30, 1974.

The third Henniker Conference, in 1974, examined various

options in implementing a national materials policy. Its aim was

to assist the Office of Technology Assessment in developing

several assessments requested by Congress. Topics for discussion

and analysis at the Conference included “Economic Stockpiling”

and “Materials Information Systems.” Assessments covering

these subjects have since been completed by OTA and have been

extensively used by the National Commission on Supplies and

Shortages.

Need for a National Materials Strategy

The conference participants this year generally agreed on the

need for wise, proper, and prudent use of our natural resources,

but asked who should be involved in such determination. The

consensus was that both public and private expertise should be

included.

Equally important was the consensus that some overall

strategy should be developed to insure that the United States has

sufficient resources available to maintain the standard of living

which most Americans now enjoy. With this in mind, it is

interesting to remember what George Eads said during Henniker

IV regarding the work of the National Commission on Supplies

and Shortages. The Commission staff, he said, largely attributes

the 1972-74 petroleum and natural gas shortages to the uncertain

and vacillating nature of US. Government policies.

318
This conclusion was echoed by many people during the conference, among them Al Paladino, chief of the materials program

of the Office of Technology Assessment. Dr. Paladino stated that

OTA is considering the framework and component elements of a

conceptual strategy for systematically reassessing current and

alternative U.S. materials policies. Such an analytical framework

would recognize what some observers often forget: that a

national materials strategy need not intervene directly in the

market system; that such action is certainly not a panacea for all

problems; and that the most effective policy may be to do nothing

and let the market correct itself. On the other hand, the strategy

would also recognize that when the market system is not working effectively, it is the responsibility of Government to take

whatever action is appropriate to promote the general welfare of

the country.

Such a national materials strategy should ideally encompass

not just metals and minerals, but all resources, both renewable

and nonrenewable. Above all else, the strategy should provide

the decision mechanisms for systematically considering each

policy within the context of all other interrelated policies, taking

into account domestic as well as international factors, This consideration must include, among others, foreign policy, especially

economic policy; environmental policy; food policy; labor policy,

and tax policy,

Systematic analysis of the total resource system and its component elements is necessary to reconcile such conflicting issues as:

1, Increasing consumption vs. declining capacity expansion. 2.

The need for market initiative and creativity vs. growing

Government regulations. 3. The desire to maintain the U.S. standard of living vs. the growing interest of the less developed countries for the larger share of the world’s wealth. 4, The jurisdictional responsibilities of many current decision mechanisms vs.

the international nature of the resource problems, 5, U.S. selfsufficiency vs. the interdependent nature of the world economy.

Partnership for Mutual Benefit

The OPEC embargo taught us that materials technology, like

creativity, cannot be turned on and off like a faucet, and that dollars do not always produce good ideas. At Henniker we heard

repeatedly that what this country needs is a partnership of public

and private sectors, of experts and laymen, working together for

their mutual benefit,

319
To this end, we agree with Frank Huddle that both “. . . the

future generations of Americans whose needs ought to be voiced

today and the citizens of the world, our fellow passengers o n

spaceship Earth, whose views and attitudes transcend national

boundaries in the effort to achieve wise, effective management of

our total global pattern of resources” ought to be represented in

our resource planning.

320