2. Assistant Director for Utilization and Engineering, Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries

3. Division of Food Science, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries

1. Mission of the Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior is concerned with the management, conservation and development of the Nation's water, wildlife, mineral, forest, and park and recreational resources. It also has major responsibilities for Indian and Territorial affairs. Most aspects of Interior's mission will be affected to some degree by metrication. The U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Office of Coal Research, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Saline Water and the Federal Water Quality Administration have the most significant research and development functions of the Department and can, therefore, be expected to bear the largest impact of metrication. The land survey responsibilities of the Bureau of Land Management would be affected by metrication. The Bonneville Power Administration, along with these nine organizations, is included in the "Internal Operations" Survey.

2. Extent of the Present Metric Usage. All 10 of the responding Interior Bureaus and Offices cited above use the metric system to a limited extent. Eight of the 10 subdivisions' use metric-based engineering standards. The metric system is generally used in internal and contract research projects in technical areas where the metric system is universally used and where contact with the public is not a primary mission. Examples of such use are laboratory measurements and calculations, photogrammetry, and electronic distance measuring. Some of the Department's publications use metric units. Metric standards are used in testing materials by American Society for Testing and Materials standard methods.

Advantages most often cited for present metric usage include: improved relationships to the main body of science, improved international cooperation, and operational improvement. Only the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries cites cost savings as a reason for metric usage. Most respondents cite no disadvantages in the present use of the metric system. In the few instances where disadvantages are cited, it was pointed out that difficulties are limited to metric engineering standards. The main problem appears to be the tendency by both industry and individuals to prefer customary standards because of unfamiliarity with metric measurements.

3. Anticipated Changes if There is No National Plan for Metrication (Assumption I). If there is no concerted national action for increasing the use of the metric system, there will, nevertheless, be significant movements toward metrication in the Department of the Interior. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the civil engineering activities of the National Park Service foresee total conversion to the metric system in their agency operations. Both feel that there will be time and cost savings due to metrication because of the increasing worldwide and domestic metric usage.

The two which do not use metric-based engineering standards are: Office of Coal Research and the Bureau of Land Management.

The Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the Federal Water Quality Administration foresee less dramatic moves to further metric usage. In these cases, the anticipated changes will basically involve greater metric usage in publications. An exception is that the Bonneville Power Administration will make increasingly greater usage of metric standards, especially in light of its heavy purchases of foreign-made metricbased equipment.

If the agencies make no changes toward further metric usage under Assumption I, eight of the 10 respondents predict problems of increasing intensity. The problems most often mentioned are increased use of dual dimensioning, more dual inventories, greater difficulties in international cooperation, and increased conversion and interfacing difficulties.

4. Anticipated Impact Under a Nationally Planned Program to Increase the Use of Metric Measurement Units (Assumption II). Under this assumption the Interior respondents find it difficult to specify cost impacts on the Department. Seven of the respondents (Bureau of Mines, Office of Coal Research, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Office of Saline Water, Federal Water Quality Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation) do not foresee any internal savings or added costs for their agencies resulting from metrication under Assumption II.

Only three respondents believe that there would be any cost impacts due to metrication under Assumption II. The National Park Service anticipates cost increases of less than 1 percent during the transition period. Costs would increase by $125,000 annually due to an increase of $5,000 for specification activities, $15,000 for work on signs, $5,000 for contract work, and $100,000 for land acquisition activities. During the post-transition there would be annual added costs of $50,000 for land acquisition activities.

The Geological Survey reports that costs would increase by 1 to 5 percent during the transition period (due to extra costs of $2 million for data collection and processing in dual system) and that there would be no effect on costs during the post-transition period. The Bonneville Power Administration thinks that there would be no net cost impact during the transition, but that there would be a savings of about $90,000 per year or 1 to 5 percent during the post-transition period.

Eight of the 10 respondents cite long-term advantages due to metrication. Cost decreases, operational improvements, promotion of U.S. standards internationally, improved international communication, and increases in international trade are all cited as advantages.

Only the Bureau of Land Management sees any long-term disadvantages. There would be the problem of the inconsistency between the metric system and the established system of land measurement in the United States, based as it is on the statute mile, which is subdivided into 80 chains. However, the Bureau observes that our customary land measures could be expressed in metric units, since all resurveys result in fractions of chains and fractions of acres, and these are carried only to the nearest one-hundredth (0.01) of a chain or acre. The Bureau states that, "Providing no attempt is made to change all past records, no problems are anticipated if future work were to be based on the metric system."

All respondents except those at the Bureau of Land Management and the Office of Coal Research believe that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages; the Bureau of Land Management says advantages would not outweigh disadvantages and the Office of Coal Research is uncertain whether or not advantages would outweigh disadvantages.

Under Assumption II, the respondents at the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, National Park Service, Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey, and the Bonneville Power Administration foresee problems of educating and retraining their employees, operational problems, and problems dealing with maintenance and equipment. Also, work production may be slowed to some extent during the transition period. Basic U.S. land survey laws would have to be changed and there would be several other legal requirements contained in enacted legislation that would have to be changed.

The main problem of adopting metric units is simply one of adaptation by people, both employees and clients, to an unfamiliar system. Long-life equipment, however, may also cause continued use of a dual system under Assumption II within some Interior activities.

5. Anticipated Impact Under a Nationally Planned Program to Increase Use of Metric-Based Engineering Standards as well as Units of Measurement (Assumption III). With regard to cost impacts on the Department of the Interior, eight of the 10 respondents give the same replies under Assumption III as they give under Assumption II. The two respondents (National Park Service and the Geological Survey) report under Assumption III slightly different increased costs than under Assumption II.

The National Park Service expects annual added costs of $127,000 during the transition period under Assumption III as against $125,000 annual added costs under Assumption II. For the post-transition period, land acquisition standards annual costs would increase by $50,000 under Assumption II; under Assumption III, the increase in annual costs would be "negligible."

The Geological Survey anticipates that added costs would be $3 million per year due to added costs for collection, processing, and dual dimensioning under Assumption III; under Assumption II, costs would go up by $2 million within the collection, processing and dual dimensioning areas.

The long-term advantages of metrication reported under Assumption III would be nearly identical to those given under Assumption II. The Bonneville Power Administration says that advantages coming under Assumption III, but not under Assumption II, would be an eventual unification of standards throughout the world and a greater interchangeability of parts.

Seven of the 10 respondents believe that the advantages of metrication under Assumption III would outweigh the disadvantages; the Bureau of Land Management says the advantages would not predominate, and two (the Office of Coal Research and the Federal Water Quality Administration) are uncertain. All respondents except the Federal Water Quality Administration give the same answer to the question of whether advantages would outweigh disadvantages under Assumption III as they do under Assumption II.

Generally, the respondents believe that the impacts under Assumption III (changes to metric standards as well as to metric units) would be similar to

those under Assumption II (changes in language only). There would be somewhat greater problems under Assumption III because retooling, changes from customary physical sizes to metric, and dual inventories would be required in addition to the problems listed under Assumption II.

6. Conclusion. Eight of the 10 respondents favor concerted national action to bring about changes toward metrication in measurement units. The Bureau of Land Management is uncertain whether there should be such action; the Office of Coal Research expresses no opinion.

Six of the 10 respondents definitely favor a concerted program to bring about changes toward metrication in engineering standards. The Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Saline Water, and the Federal Water Quality Administration are undecided whether there should be a concerted program. The Office of Coal Research expresses no opinion.

There is general agreement that conversion to the metric system should be enacted through a legislated program. Included in the plan for metrication should be a well-planned program of education and training, coordinated action by technical societies, governmental procurement in metric measures and achievement of a consensus of government, management, and labor on what changes should be made.

Most responding agencies are satisfied with 10 years as a transition period. The National Park Service and the Bonneville Power Administration, the only two agencies which definitely prefer a different transition period, suggest shorter periods in order to minimize costs and disruption.

Impacts of Metrication on Energy Technology

Present Metric Usage. At present the metric system is used in less than 25 percent of all work activities in the energy field in the United States. Except for the Southwestern Power Administration and the Bonneville Power Administration, there is no significant trend toward metric usage within Interior offices3 which deal with energy.

The Southwestern Power Administration says that most foreign-produced power equipment is constructed to metric dimensions and that some domestic manufacturers are now producing equipment according to metric dimensions. The Bonneville Power Administration believes that field maintenance personnel are becoming increasingly familiar with the metric system because of the increasing use of metric parts and equipment.

Impact on the energy field from current trends toward metrication is seen as moderate for most activities and is related to the difficulties of increased use of foreign equipment and maintenance parts. Impact on some activities (e.g., converting dimensions from non-metric in order to reconcile data on

2 These are: Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, National Park Service, Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration.

3 Five Interior organizations provided information on Energy Technology: Bonneville Power Administration, Alaska Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, and Office of Mineral Resources.

4 See "Classification of Intensities of Impact" scale on p. 79.

engineering drawings when applying new equipment in existing facilities) is negligible. The impact on project development activities is trivial.

Future Impacts of Metrication. There is little question that pressure toward increased use of the metric system will increasingly affect energy technology to a significant degree. Assuming that there will be no concerted national action to increase metric usage, all of the responding agencies believe there will be greater usage of metric threads which will require duplicate stocks of bolts and screws. There will be minor inconvenience in coordinating non-metric and metric dimensions on technical drawings and data, and there will be some duplication of tools. On the other hand, some advantages will result from the increasing metric usage: e.g., increasing simplicity in computation and recording of technical information and measurements. Already, there is a trend toward an increasing international standardization of engineering units in the metric system by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and other technical societies.

The respondents believe that the impact on their agencies' ability to perform their missions if there is no concerted national program will, in most cases, be slight. There will be a moderate increase in costs because of increased spare-part inventories, additional tools, and engineering drawing changes. The Office of Mineral Resources estimates the impacts to be negligible, the Southwestern Power Administration estimates the impact to be trivial, and the other three estimate impacts to be moderate.

If there were a concerted national effort to increase the use of the metric system, initial disadvantages are expected, but they would be offset by the faster accumulation of benefits provided by the metric system. Problems would especially arise when replacements for equipment become necessary. Duplicate spare parts and tools would be required. Additional effort would be required to convert technical data, drawings, and maintenance procedures.

A longer transition period than 10 years would mean that less immediate effort would be required for converting to the metric system since there would be time for orderly conversion of technical data, maintenance procedures, etc. On the other hand, the disadvantages of the dual system would be extended over a longer period, thereby increasing the total costs involved. The optimum period would be determined, most probably, by equip ment wear-out time. However, a generating unit or other large piece of equipment of domestic manufacture could last longer than 30 years if it is maintained properly.

Benefits, over the long run, of doing away with the dual system are: increasing international standardization of engineering units and standards by technical societies; uniform and simpler engineering calculations; and better international cooperation.

The Office of Mineral Resources sees little difficulty for the utility industry in changing completely to the metric system. "However, when it comes to the suppliers of materials and equipment for the utility industry, it is expected that changes would be extensive in such things as bolt sizes, and wire and cable sizes."