relatively safe to handle, transport, and store. The Department of Defense has twice requested funds (in fiscal years 1975 and 1976, though not in 1977) to begin production and deployment of the weapons, replacing the present stockpile of conventional nerve gas weapons. Both times, the requests were turned down by the House of Representatives. At the symposium, Dr. David N. Kramer of the Army's Edgewood Arsenal, "speaking for himself," strongly defended the necessity for development of binary weapons to counteract Soviet chemical warfare superiority. However, as seen by George R. Berdes of the House Committee on International Relations' Subcommittee on International Security & Science Affairs, a decision to proceed with binary weapons would result in several serious political implications. Chief among them, he says, is that it would prove highly destabilizing to the negotiations in Geneva aimed at reaching a comprehensive international agreement to limit or ban
chemical warfare. A decision to proceed, Berdes says, also would lower inhibitions elsewhere against chemical warfare and accelerate chemical warfare weapons assimilation, especially in less-developed countries. Dr. R. J. Rutman, professor of biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania, is concerned that binaries will make chemical warfare weapons common. Synthesis of highly specific chemical inhibitors of almost any physiological process can be expected, he says. Since such weapons are a direct extension of binary nerve gases, objection can be raised, he says, to banning other special weapons or special warfare systems on the grounds that countries with lessadvanced systems will be disadvantaged unless they can adopt special weapons of their own choice. This, he says, could include biological weapons, since the line between natural toxins and synthetic "toxins" becomes obliterated. So breaching the present rejection of special weapons such as the binaries can lead to an erosion of resistance to all special weapons systems, banned or not. D
Copyright reform bill clears another hurdle Copyright reform legislation has passed another major hurdle in Congress. Late last month the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 27 to 1 approved a bill, S. 22, prepared by its Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties & the Administration of Justice. A vote by the full House is expected later this month. And since the Senate passed, 97 to 0, a quite similar copyright reform bill last February chances for enactment of the legislation before Congress' expected final recess in October are excellent. Provisions of the House bill dealing with photocopying of copyrighted materials, sections 107 and 108, differ in two important ways from those approved earlier by the Senate. First, the House bill specifically says that teachers may make multiple copies of copyrighted works for classroom use, a practice that is prohibited under the Senate bill. And second, the House bill requires that the Registrar of Copyrights, after consulting with librarians, library users, authors, and publishers, report to Congress every five years on whether the new law has achieved the intended effect of balancing the rights of creators and the needs of users. If problems have developed, the registrar is to present Congress with legislative or other recommendations designed to solve them. Other House provisions of section
107 are identical to those contained in the Senate-passed bill. Both say that photocopying for purposes of criticism, comment, new reporting, scholarship, or research is a fair use of copyrighted material. Factors to be considered in determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair include the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the copyrighted work used, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for values of the copyrighted work. Both bills provide, in section 108, that under certain conditions it is not an infringement of copyright for a library to reproduce or distribute not more than one photocopy of a copyrighted work. These conditions include, among other things, that the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage; is done in response to a single request from an individual who intends to use the copy for his personal use; and the collections of the library are open to the public or are available, not only to researchers associated with the library, but to other persons doing research in a specialized field. The bills also change the term of copyright from the present term of 28 years with the option of renewal for a second 28-year term, to the life of the author or creator plus 50 years. D
Coal-based chemicals complex outlined The pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together for a potential U.S. petrochemicals industry based on coal instead of oil or natural gas. Whether such a radically different source of chemicals actually will come to pass is still conjectural—witness the General Accounting Office's recent highly skeptical report on government-supported synthetic fuels development (see page 18). However, engineers are pressing on with the technical framework for coal-based chemicals. What is beginning to appear is overall production plans linking the array of separate processes developed up to now by companies and government agencies. Last week, the outline of a giant production complex for coal-based chemicals was presented by a prominent engineering firm in this field, Ralph M. Parsons Co. of Pasadena, Calif., at the national meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers in Atlantic City, N.J. Expanding on a previous Parsons scheme for a coal-based chemicals complex based on hydroliquefaction technology, a Parsons scheme unveiled a comprehensive combined energy and petrochemicals production complex using a variety of processes. The plan is nothing less than the. coal-based counterpart of an oilbased petrochemical refinery. The dimensions of the complex are enormous. Without specifying the capital required, Parsons says that the complex would include 11 major process steps: coal liquefaction by the aromatics-favoring SRC II process now under development by Gulf Oil with Energy Research & Development Administration sponsorship; liquids production by the older, olefins-favoring Fischer-Tropsch process
Coal-derived ethylene could supply 10% of U.S. market 1—0 OMlpyl roto
Ethylene 3200 (MilHooe of lb) Propylene 1400 (MUHons of lb) Benzene 110 (Millions of gal) Toluene 50 (MimoneofgsJ) Xylene 230 (Mttttone of gal)
1tt0
% Of morfcot
10.0%
OUtpOt roto
% Of moite*
6400
10.0%
8.2
2800
8.2
6.4
220
7.5
3.8
100
4.6
19.2
460
23.0
SevtMc Ralph M. Partons Co.
Sept. 6, 1976C&EN
7
(after initial gasification of coal to produce feed gas and hydrogen); hydrocracking of liquids from the SRC II process to produce fuel oil and naphtha; desulfurization of naphtha from the SRC II process; naphtha reforming to produce aromatics; aromatics extraction to produce benzene, toluene, and xylenes; hydrodealkylation of higher aromatics from aromatics extraction to produce naphthalene; cracking naphtha from the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce ethylene, propylene, butylène, and a mixed five-carbon stream; hydrogénation of a stream from the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce fuels; and methanation of another stream from the Fischer-Tropsch
process to produce substitute natural gas. The volumes of both raw material coal and product fuels and chemicals would be huge. The complex would use 66,000 tons per day of coal—twice the total current U.S. ethylene pro duction. Volumes of the 17 major products would include 1 billion lb per year of ethylene, 434 million lb of propylene, 34 million gal per year of benzene, 16 million gal of toluene, 71.5 million gal of mixed xylenes, 2395 tons per day of sulfur, and 214 tons per day of ammonia. Parsons calcu lates that 3.2 of these complexes could supply 10% of U.S. ethylene needs in 1980, and 6.4 complexes 10% of U.S. ethylene needs in 1990. D
Some uses of mercury pesticides restored The Environmental Protection Agency and several producers of mercury pesticides reached settlement late last month on reinstating the uses of the pesticides for treating seeds and on golf turf diseases. These uses were banned by the agency last February because "mercury products can pose a threat to the human nervous system." Administrator Russell E. Train says that the settlement "provides for a certain end point of a lengthy and costly négation." And, he adds, the settlement should "more than offset any incremental advantage as may be achieved by cancellation of the uses." Further, it "releases additional agency resources needed for review of other pesticides possibly requiring regulatory action and for other important projects." EPA's action on mercury pesticides goes back to December 1975. At that time, the agency's administrative law judge had recommended that the pesticides' use in seed treatment and for summer golf turf diseases be canceled but that their use for winter golf turf diseases and in paints and coatings be retained. Last February, Train ordered the cancellation of mercury pesticides' use in paints, for seed treatment, and on golf turf (both summer and winter). Petitions for review were filed by Tenneco Chemical, Troy Chemical, Cosan Chemical, and others on the paint order, and by Ο. Μ. Scott & Sons Co., Troy Chemical, Gustafson Inc., and W. A. Cleary Corp. on the seed treatment and golf turf order. In May, Train reapproved mercury use in paints and coatings, saying that he had previously acted in error. And last month, he settled with the peti tioners on the seed treatment and golf turf order. Last month's settlement provides for the use of mercury pesticides to 8
C&EN Sept. 6, 1976
Train: end of a costly litigation
treat summer golf turf diseases and seeds within a specific time frame— up until Aug. 31,1978, or whenever an equivalent of two years of production is reached, which amounts to about 50,000 lb. For winter golf turf diseas es, the settlement provides for con tinued use of mercury pesticides, on the conditions that application be limited to professional golf course superintendents and to a distance of more than 25 feet from water bodies containing fish that might be eaten by man. D
U.K. code to monitor genetic engineering Concern over the potential hazards associated with genetic engineering experiments continues to engage the thinking of the scientific community and the public at large. In the U.K., a government White Paper has just been issued that proposes a code of practice for those involved in such studies. It also urges the setting up of a centralized system of advice and control of experiments through es
tablishment of a Genetic Manipula tion Advisory Group. The report was drawn up by a 16member team of experts headed by Sir Robert Williams, director of the public health laboratory service in London. The appointment of this working party in August last year was a direct outgrowth of the findings and recommendations of an earlier com mittee under the direction of Cam bridge University's Lord Ashby (C&EN, Feb. 3, 1975, page 17). In the intervening 12 months, Sir Robert and his colleagues contacted a num ber of prominent workers in the field in the U.K. as well as many U.K. in stitutions and associations. "Until further knowledge is gained on the use of the novel genetic tech niques, it seems to us essential that rigorous precautions, based on the best estimate of possible hazard, should be observed by all laboratory workers using the techniques," Sir Robert's committee concludes. "Work should be done only under appropriate containment condi tions." Toward this end, he and his asso ciates have formulated a set of guidelines for categorizing experi ments taking into account "both the conjectured hazards and methods available for biological containment." The recommended code of practice to be followed varies from one category to another. The code centers on de sign and operation of laboratory fa cilities, the role of biological safety officers, training and supervision of staff, the packaging and transport of samples, security, and special re quirements of experiments involving animals and plants. A central feature of this latest re port is that all supposed experiments involving genetic manipulation first should be screened by a genetic ma nipulation advisory group. The group's main functions should be to advise on the category in which a particular experiment should fall, and take account of the specific aspects of proposed experiments and the ap plication of the code of practice rec ommended for each category of ex periment. The group would evaluate the ex perimental protocols submitted to it and advise on the appropriate safety precautions. "We can envisage cir cumstances in which the group could advise against the conduct of a par ticular experiment because of the possible hazard, or could propose modifications of the experimental procedures or safety precautions," the report notes. "The experience gained should quickly build up into a body of 'case law' on which future experi mental protocol could draw." D
