Microelectronics changed all that, and the CFA is now portable and self-contained. If all goes well, the CFA may be in the instrument package on the first space shuttle. The newest version of the CFA was demonstrated at the Ninth Annual Symposium on Advanced Analytical Concepts for the Clinical Laboratory at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. According to Dr. John E. Mrochek, one of the developers, the instrument package of the CFA weighs 36 lb and occupies less than 1 cu ft of space. The additional power pack, either ac or dc, will not boost the total weight above 55 lb or the total volume much above a cubic foot. The CFA uses a centrifuge rotating at speeds up to 4000 rpm. Optical property analyses of multiple samples, including their transmission, fluorescence, or luminescence, are carried out simultaneously at 17 different locations on the rotor. Thus the composition of the material at each location can be determined using a reference material. Typical routine clinical analyses include those for protein, glucose, or triglycerides as well as assays for enzyme activities on minute amounts of serum. In the portable instrument, the microcomputer controls the various functions of the CFA in addition to data acquisition and analysis. In fact, one major advance in the portable version of the CFA is a new mode of data acquisition that enables fast reactions to be monitored within as little as 100 milliseconds of solution transfer and as frequently as every 15 milliseconds. All results are printed out on a tape by a thermoprinter in coded form. Although the CFA originally was developed for the clinical lab and remains thus dedicated, it is being tested for use in assaying such environmental pollutants as phosphates and silica in remote areas. •
EPA's Blum discusses federal water policy Environmental Protection Agency deputy administrator Barbara Blum went public on agency policy for the first time last week in Washington, D.C., at a meeting of the Water Pollution Control Federation. Predictably, her remarks focused on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, "one of our most complex laws," but "one of our most effective tools for cleaning up the environment." Blum warns that water quality improvements obtained thus far under the act should not lull the U.S. 6
C&EN April 4, 1977
time to delegate to the states more of the regulatory activities now performed by EPA. "We must be careful not to compromise the standards or goals mandated by [the act]. But in cases where it is clear that the state would use those powers scrupulously, I favor the idea of delegating more administrative and regulatory powers to the state." Such a move, she believes, could cut down on delay and confusion. On the costs of environmental improvement, Blum says that u we at EPA have a better idea of the longrange-impact of our decisions on commerce and employment. It is encouraging to be able to show that the costs of pollution control do not and Blum: delegate more power to states will not represent an unreasonable proportion of our gross national into a sense of security about the en- product. The costs of pollution convironment, even though "grossly trol contribute less than half of a per polluted waters" may be things of the cent of the annual rates of inflation past. She cautions that "mid-course" we have been experiencing." In ticking off a list of the environcorrections in the law currently before Congress should be approached with mental problems still facing the U.S., care, and adds that although "public Blum warns that "our continued support for environmental goals re- commitment to clean up the envimains strong, there is no longer the ronment . . . cannot be seen as a luxfervor and enthusiasm for those goals ury. . . . We are dealing with the protection of our present and future we saw just a few years ago." • Blum also suggests that it may be health and well-being."
Velsicol the object of gr< id jury probe Grand jury deliberations are supposed to be secret. But a long-running grand jury investigation of Velsicol— rumors of which have circulated for several months—surfaced officially in Chicago last week. Attorneys for Velsicol appeared in open court to ask for limits on the scope of subpoenas for company records and correspondence. In the course of U.S. district court proceedings, it became clear that a special grand jury was investigating whether Velsicol and its parent company Northwest Industries had willfully concealed information that they were legally required to report to various government agencies concerning possible health hazards of Velsicol-manufactured pesticides. The inquiry originally focused on chlordane, heptachlor, and endrin, but later was broadened to include the organophosphate insecticide Leptophos. Leptophos made headlines late last year when it was revealed that some workers who made the chemical at Velsicol's Bayport, Tex., plant had suffered nerve disorders (C&EN, Dec. 6,1976, page 6). Government agencies currently are investigating this situation. Velsicol attorney Lawrence Lucchino told the court that the company
had been advised informally that the local U.S. attorney would recommend indictments against it and certain of its officials. Nevertheless, Velsicol has been cooperating in the investigation for 19 months and already has turned over some 35,000 documents. Velsicol was not trying to hide anything that was material, but, Lucchino argued, the latest subpoenas were too broad and unreasonable. He cited a request for "any and all records containing any discussion of the question whether an adverse health effect experienced by any Velsicol employee may have been caused or induced by exposure to any chemical in the course of employment." That sort of thing amounts to a "fishing expedition." Lucchino said, noting that Velsicol makes hundreds of chemicals and that Velsicol health records go back more than 40 years. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Herbst countered that the subpoenas were not intended as a fishing expedition; the latest requests were made because other documents and testimony received by the grand jury had caused it to focus on certain individuals. At the conclusion of the hearing, the attorneys agreed to get together to work out modifications of the subpoenas so that they would be acceptable to both sides. •
