Editor's Focus

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

So goes the old saying. You’d think that a system that works well, doesn’t cost much and serves a useful function would be left alone, even in today’s slash and burn political climate. Not so.

The U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Mines, which since 1910 has worked for mine workers’ health and safety, advised the government on strategic mineral sources and substitutes and – most important for the recycling industry – kept excellent track of the production, import and export of various metals and other commodities, is slated to be abolished by the end of this year.

Why? Because the Bureau, while it employed a staff of seasoned experts and provided an important service to the industry, did not have a strong enough lobby to survive the budget axe. According to one government official, data and statistical programs are a key target of the Congressional budget cutters for that reason.

“Good data, good information tend to be taken for granted,” he says. “They are not high-level, politically sexy stuff. When you’re downsizing, you say ‘we don’t need to gather that stuff.’  Eventually, a time comes when someone asks ‘where’s the data?’”

While it is somewhat reassuring that $16 million has been allotted to transfer some of the Bureau’s data gathering functions and staff to the U.S. Geological Survey, at presstime it was still not determined exactly what – and who – would be kept.

Most scenarios estimate that only 600 or fewer of the Bureau’s existing 1,800 staff members will be retained, and $16 million will certainly not accomplish the same amount that $27 million – the Bureau’s former budget for information gathering – could. And the U.S.G.S. may not be willing to have the same close relationship with industry that we have enjoyed with the Bureau.

Some have suggested that various metals associations might take over some of the Bureau’s data gathering functions. But the extensive service the Bureau provided can not be easily duplicated.

To those of us who benefitted from Bureau of Mines’ experts, this is indeed a loss. Because of their unique position, these experts were able to see long-term trends in commodity use, which the rest of us did not have. And metal producers were usually willing to give production numbers to the Bureau that they may not be willing to release to others.

Concerned parties should contact Gordon Eaton, U.S.G.S. director, to let him know that many in the recycling industry think that these experts and their data collection system serve an important function and need to be maintained.