ment value of existing steel plants and equipment, and 52 to 62% of the depreciated replacement value. It does not include costs for the control of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and possible additional water-quality related costs for monitoring and analysis. The figures also do not take into account unusual site-specific costs; the mining and beneficiation of iron ore, coal, and limestone; and potential expenses from Occupational Safety & Health Administration regulations. Old explains that these costs were not considered either because the regulations have not yet been issued or the technologies have not yet been developed. Further, the report says that meeting the pollution regulations would add 8 to 10% to the industry's operating costs. This, it points out, would amount to an increase of $25 to $30 per ton of steel. Cost figures are in 1975 dollars, which allow for a 40% escalation of investment costs for plant equipment, installation, and construction between 1972 and 1975. In all, the report estimates total projected capital requirement for the industry at $48 billion to $50 billion for the next nine years. On an annual basis, this comes to $5.5 billion per year. The expenditure is more than triple the $1.7 billion per year in capital expenditures by the industry during 1968 to 1972. Of the total capital outlay, the report estimates that $21 billion will be for the modernization of existing facilities and $15 billion for increasing steelmaking capacity by an additional 40 million tons annually to meet anticipated 1983 demand. The report notes that energy requirements for new pollution control equipment will increase by 11% or an additional 23 million bbl of fuel oil per year. About 50% of the 23 million bbl would be required for the control of fugitive emissions—smoke and particles that escape from other than normal exits. Control of these emissions would add $2.9 billion to the costs and storm runoff control another $1.8 billion. The ADL team questions the need for controlling fugitive emissions, which, it says, are "minimal" and their removal "cosmetic." It notes in the report that the economic impact on certain plants can be extremely severe. For instance, the report points out, for a group of smaller-sized medium alloy plants, the capital requirement for pollution control can range up to 128% of the individual plant replacement value and more than 1400% of the depreciated replacement value. And for fully integrated plants (those with coke ovens, blast furnaces, and steelmaking facilities), the figures can range from 88 to 117% of depreciated replacement value; for minimills (very small plants with only electric furnaces), the figure is about 35% of replacement value. Jaicks urges Congress to consider these marginally profitable plants that would be vulnerable to potential shut16
C&EN May 26, 1975
down as a result of diverting "vast sums to nonproductive investment" in pollution control. He views these plants as those which produce one or more "high-cost" products at costs 15% or more above the weighted average of calculated industry costs for these products. The report finds that 75% of the high-cost products were rolled on finishing mills that had less than the average rated capacity for the industry. Moreover, Jaicks notes, recent studies by the Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Commerce, and EPA had indicated that the capital problems faced by the iron and steel industry are greater than those faced by other industries. Copies of the ADL report have been transmitted to relevant committees of Congress and to EPA. Ling-yee Gibney, C&EN Washington
NSB takes stand on Bauman amendment Within two days earlier this month, the National Science Board—the National Science Foundation's policy-setting group—unanimously approved resolutions opposing the Bauman amendment to the NSF budget and reaffirmed preserving the confidentiality of the identity of reviewers and their comments on NSF grant proposals. And NSB threw a birthday party of sorts at the National Academy of Sciences and the State Department to celebrate NSF's first 25 years. As a social event for the science and technology community in Washington, D.C., NSB's black-tie affair ranks more or less on a par with a National Academy of Sciences formal reception at Washington's new Hirshhorn Museum in April. Still to come are the usually rather impressive National Medal of Science ceremonies at the White House, which includes an opportunity to meet the President. Both President Ford and Vice President Rockefeller were invited to the NSB affair, but neither attended. The President was hosting a state dinner for the Shah of Iran. About 250 guests did attend, however (most of whom paid $20 per head for the dinner at the State Department), including several former and present members of Congress, a few former Presidential science advisers, a former NSF director, numerous former and present NSB members, and an assortment of NSF and Congressional staff people. President Ford sent a message, which was read by NSB chairman Norman Hackerman. Among other things, Ford said that NSF has "become this nation's principal agency for the support of basic research and education in all fields of scientific endeavor," noting that "significant efforts promoted by [NSF] are at the very heart of our meteoric scientific . . . progress."
In addition to Ford's, "greetings"—short speeches, generally reminiscent in nature—to NSF were presented by Sen. Warren G. Magnuson (D.-Wash.), a Congressional founder of NSF; Dr. Frederick Seitz, president of Rockefeller University, representing the academic community; Dr. Paul F. Chenea, vice chairman of General Motors, representing industry; and Dr. Philip Handler, president of the National Academy of Sciences, representing "the world of science." Wrapping up the program, the present NSF director, Dr. H. Guyford Stever, announced that with the approval of Congress, NSF intends to establish the Alan T. Waterman Graduate Fellowship Award and Medal. Dr. Waterman was the first director of NSF. The award would go to distinguished scientists and engineers under the age of 40. It would provide up to $50,000 to each of three recipients annually for three years at the institution of the individual's choice for research and advanced study in the mathematical, physical, medical, biological, engineering, social, and other sciences. Provisions for the awards program, which could total $450,000 annually after three years of operation, are contained in the NSF budget bill passed by the Senate. The day after the NSF birthday party, NSB unanimously adopted resolutions opposing H.R. 5796, a bill introduced by Rep. Charles E. Bennett (D.-Fla.) that would require submission to Congress of all research proposals prior to the expenditure of federal funds—and a veto over such proposals, and opposing section 7 of H.R. 4723, the amendment to the NSF budget bill sponsored by Rep. Robert E. Bauman (R.-Md.). The NSB resolution says that "the proposed legislation has the potential for producing serious weakening of science, which has been made strong over the past 25 years by NSF sponsorship of the highest quality and priority research projects. Review of scientific proposals with a goal that the best be selected requires utilization of highly qualified and technical experts able to understand the proposed experiments, the achievability of goals, and the competence of researchers to undertake the proposed investigations. . . . The identification of the proposals to be supported has been performed effectively by a competitive system that includes peer review and involves several thousand distinguished experts in the country combined with the studied judgment of the NSF professional staff." The NSB resolution welcomes continued oversight of NSF programs by Congress, but "strongly urges" Congress to reject H.R. 5796 and section 7 of H.R. 4723: "It is our opinion that the two bills propose to extend Congressional control in too great a detail to be either effective or efficient." Fred H. Zerkel, C&EN Washington
