Montedison. Scheduled to come on stream with commercial quantities of LLDPE available in the first half of 1982, the plant will be small compared to other low-density polyethylene plants. It will have an annual capacity of about 25 million lb. However, if it is successful, El Paso probably will build a larger facility. Montedison likely will wait to see how successful the Odessa plant is before committing to build its own plant. Union Carbide and Dow Chemical already have processes producing commercial quantities of linear, lowdensity polyethylene. •
Bids thicken in battle to take over Conoco The biggest U.S. corporate takeover battle of all time moved through act two last week. In this development stage, more of the significant players in the Conoco drama (C&EN, July 13, page 6) moved up in the wings, and the actors already on stage intensified their roles. Soon, all the important characters were expected in view. Du Pont and Canadian distiller Joseph E. Seagram & Sons both increased their bids for Conoco, and rival bids loomed from Mobil and possibly other oil giants such as Texaco and Standard Oil of California. How the upcoming war might end is unknown. Du Pont has the advantage of Conoco's blessing, Seagram the advantage of little antitrust trouble, and the oil companies the advantage of money. The crucial decision might come eventually from the U.S. government, which must rule on antitrust implications. Although the Reagan Administration has seemed much more friendly toward business combination than were preceding Administrations, the oil-to-oil connections would still be a major antitrust test. However, if Washington interprets antitrust law too stringently, it risks seeing the ninth largest U.S. oil and second largest U.S. coal company taken over by the Canadian firm. The result probably won't be known for several weeks, even if the bidding reaches stratospheric levels. Besides government scrutiny, stock tender offers and stockholder meetings will force delays. In the latest action, Du Pont raised its offer from an initial $7.3 billion to $7.5 billion. Du Pont increased its cash bid for Conoco stock from $87.50 per share to $95 per share for about
40% of Conoco's shares. And Du Pont increased its stock swap offer for the remaining Conoco shares from 1.6 to 1.7 shares of Du Pont stock for each Conoco share. To finance all this, Du Pont got an additional $1 billion in bank credit for a total of $4 billion. Du Pont will need the approval of its shareholders, in a meeting scheduled for Aug. 17, to issue the 89 million new shares of Du Pont stock in the stock swap. This is the same date Du Pont's tender offer for Conoco stock, already begun, is scheduled to expire. Meanwhile, Seagram increased its cash tender offer begun June 25 for 51% of Conoco's stock from $73 per share to $85 per share. This offer is scheduled to expire July 24. The Du Pont and Seagram offers were expected to be joined soon by another from Mobil. Mobil chairman Rawleigh Warner Jr. did nothing to hide his interest. In an initial statement on the matter, Warner said, "Conoco is a great company with fine resources and excellent personnel.... Preliminary studies indicate that a Mobil-Conoco merger would not create difficulties under existing antitrust guidelines." Mobil was arranging bank credit for its own offer. Separately, a number of other oil companies reportedly have arranged multibillion-dollar lines of bank credit, either for offers or defense. •
OSHA to use four-step in setting standards Despite the recent Supreme Court decision in the cotton-dust case that barred the Occupational Safety & Health Administration from balancing costs against benefits in setting health standards protecting workers from toxic substances, the agency's director Thorne G. Auchter says OSHA can comply with President Reagan's regulatory reform efforts by using cost-effective analysis. Auchter says that the court's ruling will not hamper the agency's timetable for promulgating cotton dust, lead, and hazardous materials standards. "What it has done is to outline more clearly the steps we should take in the promulgation of health standards," he explains. As a result of the court's decisions in the benzene and cotton-dust cases, and its refusal to hear the lead case, OSHA has developed a four-stage process for drafting and publishing health standards. First, because of the
Auchter: use least costly method
language found in the Supreme Court's benzene decision, OSHA must establish that a "significant risk" to workers exists. Second, the agency must show that the risk will be reduced by compliance with the proposed standard. Third, the agency must consider all relevant technical, medical, and economic data in setting the appropriate, feasible exposure limit. Economic feasibility applies to a whole industry, not a single company. And fourth, once that limit is determined, the agency must decide the most cost-effective means of achieving it. Cost-effectiveness determinations are not new to OSHA. Under OSHA's former director Eula Bingham, the agency followed President Carter's directive to assess the cost of compliance imposed on industry using the mandated protection—engineering controls, personal protective equipment, or medical removal or monitoring—as well as the cost of alternative means of compliance. Some segments of organized labor, however, are not certain that the present powers at OSHA know the difference between the two types of analyses, and thus are willing to embrace cost-effectiveness, the Supreme Court cotton-dust ruling notwithstanding. "Comparison of incommensurables is inappropriate and not cost-effective analysis," says Sheldon Samuels, health director of AFLCIO's industrial union department. "Regardless of the Supreme Court decision, we know that OSHA is going ahead with cost-benefit analysis in writing standards," Samuels tells C&EN. July 20, 1981 C&EN
7
