Sources: Pre-1031, 1031-1955. A survey and analysis of the supply and cvailability of obsolete iron and steel scrap. Columbus, Battelle Honorial Institute, Loc. 31, 1957. 1956-1969 - Puttelis-Columbus estimates based on (3) (4) AISI, Annual Statistical Reports 17.5% x Totul Iron and Steel Supply; stcel generation ratio (5) This number is difficult to estimate, as trade statistics (6) (7) Purchased scrap, 1.e., mill receipts less cal¡ments + exports •.95 Prompt Industrial Scrap scrap 1.porta (8) .65 (Not inventory, 12/31/09); opproximately 20-year cycle TABLE IV-26. NEW SUPPLY IRON AND STEEL SCRAP POTENTIAL, Calculations 1970 NEW SUPPLY = Iron and Steel Products Available, for the first time, 1970 Product yield from shipments = Steel Mill Products at 30 percent; Ferrous Unrecoverable Losses 15 percent Calculated Obsolete Scrap Availability (Steel Mill Products + Iron and Prompt Industrial Scrap Availability A. B. C. Steel Mill Products 1970 Domestic Consumption, 97.1 million net tons x III. Total Scrap Availability, 1.e., Now Supply 20.2 million net tous IV. Total Purchased Scrap (Receipts-Shipaerts) + (ports) V. Available and Not Recycled 32.4 million net tons, approx 40 Percent of Source: Battelle Columbus Estimates. STATEMENT OF JEROME L. KLAFF, FORMER CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MATERIALS POLICY, ACCOMPANIED BY: BOYD OUTMAN, FORMER CONSULTANT TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MATERIALS POLICY AND DAVID TILLMAN, CONSULTANT TO MR. KLAFF Mr. KLAFF. Thank you. My name is Mr. Jerome L. Klaff, former Chairman of the National Commission on Materials Policy and president of H. Klaff & Co. of Baltimore. H. Klaff & Co. is a recycling firm specializing in stainless steel and nickel alloys. I am honored by this opportunity to discuss Senate bills 3277, 3549, and 3560 with you today. May I say I am accompanied by Boyd Outman, a former consultant to the Commission and Mr. David Tillman who is at the present time working in the status of a consultant to Dr. James Boyd and myself in pursuing the work of this Commission. Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Klaff, I recall that Senator Boggs of Delaware, a member of the Public Works Committee in 1970, offered the provision in our Resource Recovery Act that set that Commission into being. Give us a quick rundown. Do you believe that feature of the act was helpful? Mr. KLAFF. I certainly do, sir. I believe that the work that the National Commission did in 2 years was really, in my judgment, an excellent, fantastic job when it was supposed to have 3 years of term, but the President saw fit not to appoint the Commission until late June 1971. By the time we got started it was September of 1971. The Commission worked very diligently. We had a staff of approximately 34 research people, all of them expert in their field. We also had various studies made for the Commission-some by the National Materials Advisory Board; Battelle did a study for us. Dr. Wilfred Nalenbaum, of the University of Pennsylvania, did a study on the population explosion, but in general, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the work that was done by the Commission was very, very helpful and I think that if some of the suggestions and some of the recommendations that we made in that work were followed, I feel that the Nation would be a benefactor. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Mr. Klaff. I am not a harping critic, but over and over again we have had persons like yourself, who sit at the witness table and others who talk with us, who bring us face to face with the fact that apparently there are those within the agencies of the administration, not particularly any administration, but of late we find it accentuated, who seem not to want to carry the intent of the Congress into actuality. We find programs that I now could go into, and will perhaps later, where there is an insufficient response to the immediate need that is before us. Let us say in solid resource recovery, for example, where we have been unable to accomplish much even though Congress said it should be done, but the moneys have not been used. The staffing has remained dormant. You are cognizant of this, are you not? Mr. KLAFF. I certainly am. Not only am I cognizant of it, it is distressing to note that the Congress who particularly formed the Com mission have paid to a great extent little heed to the recommendations that were made and it is for that reason that Dr. James Boyd, who was the Executive Director of the Commission, and myself have maintained an office here in Washington to try to push some of the things that we had accomplished in our Commission's work. We are doing this on our own because we feel it is in the interest of the Nation. Senator RANDOLPH. If you will proceed now. Thank you very much. Mr. KLAFF. These bills under consideration are of considerable significance to me; for it was the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 which created the National Commission on Materials Policy. Basically, I agree that Congress must act to stimulate a more complete application of recycling at the municipal level. Thus, the goals and aims of these bills, in that regard, are laudable. I disagree with this proposed legislation in terms of the tone of the bills, however, and also with some of the specific provisions which they contain. This position stems from the conclusion of the National Commission on Materials Policy's final report. On page 4D-14 that report states: "The Federal Government by itself cannot increase resource recovery from wastes; the cooperation of private firms and local and regional governments is necessary." That report calls for Federal leadership to set the stage and for private industry to achieve the goal of recycling, in concert with local governments. Thus, the Federal rule should be to establish the proper climate for stimulating private industry through market forces. My objection to these four bills can be summed up as follows: They do not speak to the needs of the recycling community; they are not entirely consistent with overall materials policy. These bills achieve the following undesirable provisions: (1) Going beyond Federal leadership in this field they create a Federal autocracy; (2) going beyond encouragement of local governments these bills grant large sums of money to local political entities; (3) these bills treat municipal and industrial wastes with the same broad brush; (4) these bills fail to address themselves correctly to such questions as land use policy and research and development. These bills, particularly S. 3277, 3549, and 3560, place far too much authority in the hands of one man, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. He disburses funds for research, planning, and technology demonstrations in S. 3549. That is a lot of authorityand there appears no system of control or review. Further, these bills, in fact, give considerable material supply authority to EPA for environmental reasons, when other considerations may require equal or even greater attention. These bills, again with particular references to S. 3549, give large sums of money to local political governments. This money does not come back to the Federal Government in any way; also it is inconsistent with the report of the National Commission on Materials Policy. These grants, in many cases, contribute little to the problem solution. These bills fail to differentiate between industrial and municipal wastes. Specifically S. 3549 states: (3) the economic and population growth of our Nation, and the improvements in the standard of living enjoyed by our population, have required increased industrial production to meet our needs, and have made necessary the demolition of old buildings, the construction of new buildings, and the provision of highways and other avenues of transportation which, together with related industrial, commercial and agricultural operations, have resulted in a rising tide of scrap, discarded, and waste materials. These materials are of an industrial nature basically; they are not often found in the municipal dump. The normal practice is for those materials to be sold to scrap processors and returned to society in the form of new products. This bill's definition of solid waste also reinforces the lack of distinction between the municipal and industrial waste streams. It is interesting to note that recycling is already a $4 billion business. This business diverts such wastes from the waste stream and back into the economy-as the thrust of its activities. My final objection is that, in certain cases such as land use and research, these bills fail to address the appropriate questions. In the area of land use, it is not uncommon for a federally funded project such as a highway or a water and sewer improvement program to condemn land occupied by a recycling industry. In such a case, the scrap yard often finds itself zoned out of existence; the only approved land area is being taken by the federally funded program. Thus, recycling through the secondary materials industry development is severely curtailed. In the area of research and development, these bills call for grant funding by EPA of consulting contractors. The use of outside contractors does not accomplish what in-house work can. Thus, I believe that these bills do not address the central needs of the recycling industry. What, then, are the needs of the recycling community which, when met, will achieve the goals of more universal application of resource recovery? The needs of recycling are two-fold. They are detailed in "Materials, Energy, and the Environment: The Need To Produce, Conserve, and Protect," a report of the university forums conducted for the National Commission on Materials Policy. Page 13 of that report states: The principal developments needed to encourage recycling are connected to markets, technology, financial organizations, and supporting services for large, automated separation plants. The two major obstacles to increased recycling are technology and markets. The governmental role in technology should be to fund research and development to develop new hardware and improve processes for the collection and sorting of large volumes of municipal solid wastes, and to run pilot programs. Clearly, the indications from the symposia, which brought to the Commission the best available thinking from the academic communities, is that recycling needs financial incentives and technology development. That position is furthered by the report of the National Materials Advisory Board, "Elements of a National Material Policy," prepared for the National Commission; it is also reinforced by the following statements from the final report of the National Commission. Three recommendations of that final NCMP report are relevant here. |