The Chemical world This week

PACKAGING, SOLID WASTES RULES PROPOSED Congress spent a busy first week stuffing the legislative hoppers, mostly with minor revisions of old bills. Among new proposals, how­ever, a draft bill—to set new, costly rules for packaging materials and major items of solid waste that otherwise would end up on the junk pile—promises to stir vigorous lob­bying by the chemical industry, par­ticularly among plastics, paper, rubber, and glass producers.

If Sen. E d m u n d S. Muskie (D.-Me. ) succeeds in pushing through his bill (hearings are likely to start in two months), then the Environ­mental Protection Agency will ac­quire new regulatory powers in the solid waste disposal/resource recov­ery area. Heretofore, this greatly underfunded effort in EPA has been largely an R & D and technology demonstration grant program.

Controversy will no doubt arise over giving EPA authority to set standards for packaging materials for foods, beverages, and other prod­ucts. Under the Muskie draft, EPA would classify materials as to their capacity to degrade or to be recycled and specify "safe and sanitary" dis­posal methods for nonrecyclables. Where a packaging material or pro­cess results in a container that is nondegradable and nonrecyclable, the containers would be banned. T h e Food and Drug Administration would certify the safe and sanitary re-use of packaging materials.

Equal ly controversial is the Muskie provision for standards for the re-use, recycling, and disposal of "major items of solid waste." Be­sides such obvious products as junked autos and major appliances, the standards would cover tires and barrels and other bulk l iquid con­tainers. The standards also would specify a product's min imum useful life and set up a fee system or other scheme to assure that such items are either recycled or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

What's more, the power of the federal purchasing dollar would be used to bring about some changes. Sale of throw-away beverage con­tainers would be banned on federal property, for instance.

There's no dearth of other dis­posal/recycling bills, of course. A revision of the proposal by Sen. Wi l l iam Proxmire (D.-Wis.) for a "penny-a-pound" disposal fee lev­ied on all items should be ready

Muskie: new power for EPA

soon, Leonard Bickwit, a counsel to the Senate Commerce Committee, tells C & E N . E P A could raise this fee where disposal costs are high— for plastics, for example—Mr. Bick­wit says, adding that the $5 billion a year in fees would be redistrib­uted to states and cities as "environ­mental revenue-sharing." A n d Rep. M a r t h a W . Griffiths (D. -Mich. ) has proposed tax breaks for using recycled materials in manufacture.

The thunderheads of social issues such as air and water pollution and health problems continue to dump surprisingly little rain on certain threatened major commodity mar­kets. A t the same time, at least one product group not under a cloud has made a windfall from social pres­sures.

In 1972 government reports just out show economic gains for lead, bromine, and asbestos, all sensitive to air pollution laws. Sodium tri-polyphosphate ( S T P P ) and cad­mium, suspected of water pollution, kept on the upbeat.

Though not affected directly by pollution legislation, platinum-­group metals made a sweeping turn-­around, and prices soared as their prospects rose for use in controlling auto exhaust emissions. Dealers' platinum tags rose from $102 to $105 per troy ounce in January to $142 to $144 in December. Booming palladium jumped from $36 to $37 per troy ounce in January to $69 to $72 in December.

Among threatened commodities, lead turned in perhaps the most surprising performance. M i n e pro­duction pushed up 8% over 1971 to

Reaction to the Muskie bill seems clear, unofficially at least, within the plastics industry. The Society of the Plastics Industry has stead­fastly opposed "restrictive" bills to tax plastics or ban nonreturnable containers. Sources close to SPI, however, have indicated in the past that there may be some merit to uni­form federal regulation if it pre­empts the hundreds of state mea­sures now pending. Unfortunately, the Muskie bill offers no relief on this score. Instead, it permits stricter state standards.

The plastics industry also can make a case that there isn't much of a solid waste problem from its prod­ucts. A n exhaustive study for the Manufacturing Chemists Associa­tion two years ago estimated that plastics wastes account for 3.9 mil­lion tons out of 190 million tons of collected refuse yearly in the U . S . A n d a National Research Council study of highway litter in 29 states estimates that 59% of all items were paper, 16% metal, 6% plastic, 6% glass, and 13% miscellaneous.

about 626,000 tons, close to the 1925 record of 684,000 tons.

One major reason lead is up comes from a greater use in gasoline antiknock additives—5% through October. C & E N has already pro­jected that lead antiknock output climbed 8% in 1972 ( C & E N , Nov. 20,1972, page 6).

Bromine, tied even more tightly than lead to gasoline additives with about two thirds of production going to this use, cl imbed 12% in pro­duction in 1972 to 398 million pounds. T h e U . S . produced and consumed 74% of the world's bro­mine requirements.

Although asbestos production in the U . S . dropped 5% below 1971 to 124,000 tons, the much greater value of imports from Canada rose 11% to 719,000 tons. Quoted as­bestos prices stayed even in 1972.

In the water pollution arena, S T P P for detergent builders con­tinued to belie its death notices in 1972, climbing 3% in production through three quarters. Cadmium production climbed 8.7 million pounds, and apparent U . S . con­sumption of 13.2 million pounds soared 22% over 1971.

Some products gain despite social issues

4 C & E N J a n . 15, 1973

Gas crunch will hit hardest in Gulf area Petrochemical producers in the South Central region of the U.S., along with other industries there, will bear the brunt of coming limits on the use of natural gas. Gas cur­tailment to industry nationwide could be as high as 30% in 1973. This cut will be felt particularly in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas as industry there is much more heavily dependent on natural gas than is industry elsewhere.

These fears, which are shared by many industrialists in the area, were expressed last week by David N. McClanahan at a meeting of the Natural Gas Men of Houston. He is a consulting engineer specializing in gas processes and economics.

He points out that much of the gas that will be diverted from in­dustrial to commercial and residen­tial uses will come from supplies now sold on the intrastate markets and going to industry in the South Central region. Gas sold intrastate does not now come under federal price regulations as does gas sold interstate. As a result of this, and of the pending shortage, intrastate gas prices have increased to 30 to 50 cents per million B.t.u., plus deliv­ery, to chemical and other indus­tries on the Houston Ship Channel. This is more than double the inter­state price.

Federal gas legislation, including controls on how it is used, likely will be enacted within the next two years, according to Mr. McClana­han. In other words, gas-producing states will no longer have the option to use, or not use, their own gas. The Federal Power Commission last week proposed priorities on the use of natural gas in a move to balance supply and demand.

To cope with the effects of such legislation, Mr. McClanahan calls on industry to have programs aimed at easing the economic impact of federal control on "low priority" or "inferior uses of gas such as boilej fuel in industrial and utility uses."

Based on a study of short-term shortages of gas, defined as the difference between unrestrained demands for gas and the supply from existing and foreseeable re­sources, Mr. McClanahan estimates the shortage as 13% of total gas vol­ume and no less than 31% of the un­restrained demand for gas for indus­trial uses in 1973.

in Brief:

A draft bill to set new, costly rules for packaging materials and major solid waste items promises to stir vigorous lobby­ing by the chemical industry. (Facing page)

Social issues, such as air and | water pollution, have failed to | stem economic gains in threat­ened commodity markets, in-

j eluding lead, bromine, asbestos, I sodium ^'polyphosphate, and

cadmium. (Facing page)

Coming limits on use of natural gas in the U.S. will have an especially harsh effect on petro­chemical producers and other industry in the South Central region of the U.S. (This page)

I Chemical stock prices in Japan | soared during 1972 as the Tokyo I Stock Exchange enjoyed the I greatest bull market in its history. I This occurred in spite of de­creasing earnings and generally subpar performance by chemical firms. (Page 8)

A hard line on trade for the U.S. in coming international negotia­tions is urged by SOCMA's new president, Harold Whittemore, Jr. (Page 9)

Surprise resignations of top fed-era! science officials may sig­nal, among other things, leaner times for federal R&D and a re­vamping of the White House Of­fice of Science and Technology. (Page 11)

What should be the role and functions of scientific societies

I in the future—particularly in light of today's far-reaching changes in society and in the status of science—was the focus of discussion at an AAAS symposium. (Page 17)

Scientists, faced with increasing attacks from irrationalists, are

I examining the point of view that

rational inquiry has alienated man from himself, led to tech­nological excesses. (Page 18)

New federal efforts to spur ci­vilian R&D are a disappointment, says former NBS director Lewis M. Branscomb, now at IBM. Two programs started by NSF and NBS haven't been well de­fined and have only slowed other excellent programs. (Page 19)

C&EN celebrates its 50th anni­versary (Page 21) by taking a look back and a casual look forward: • A 50-year history of C&EN re­counts its aims and directions as influenced by the people and events of the period. • The 1920's roared in but ended in a crash. Meanwhile the chemical industry began its climb. • The chemical world met the 1930 depression years head on, but man­aged to survive and prosper. • The world went to war in the 1940's, ended up in the Atomic Age. • The Atomic Age ripened in the 1950's and was replaced by the Space Age as man raised his sights. • The Soaring Sixties simmered down by decade's end—but man had walked on the moon. • C&EN talks to educators and busi­nessmen on what they see for 2000.

Chemical & Engineering News January 15, 1973 Volume 51, Number 3

3 Editorial 4 The Chemical World This Week

Concentrates 7 Industry/Government/ International

12 Science/Educat ion/Technology

The Departments

8 International ! 9 Industry/Business I 11 Government

17 Science 21 C&EN's 50th Anniversary

101 ACS News/People 114 Newscripts 114 Letters

| Cover design: Joseph Jacobs

Jan. 15, 1973 C&EN 5