backyard and agricultural burning, we do not expect a substantial improvement in air quality," he says. Emission of visible smoke and dust are covered already, by Regulation 1 and 2 of the BAAPCD.
LBJ seeks new superdepartment
Six counties affected No more than 50 p.p.m. 1. Marin 2. San Francisco 3. Contra Costa
4. Alameda 5. Santa Clara 6. San Mateo
nies must adopt operating procedures via permit standards that are approved by the L.A. County Air Pollution Control District. Also, Regulation 3 is based on standards and performance deemed practical by existing technology. Some clauses of Rule 66, on the other hand can't be met at present, and in these cases, the industry involved must seek variances. Yet another difference is that the advisory council that helped formulate Regulation 3 didn't see fit to include chlorinated solvents as reactive gases. It reasons that the full role of these solvents as potential smog producers isn't fully proved. Rule 66 sets stringent standards on the amount of trichloroethylene that will be permitted to escape into the Los Angeles atmosphere. Regulation 3 will become law on Jan. 4, 1968. During the coming 12 months, oil refiners and industrial concerns will have to adjust their operations and reformulate their products where necessary to conform to the rule. The Bay Area technical subcommittee of the Western Oil and Gas Association worked closely with BAAPCD in formulating the new measure. The Bay Area League of Industrial Associations, which represents industry in the San Francisco Bay Area counties, also supports the measure. League president V. A. Fink notes, however, that Regulation 3's effect won't be obvious to the general public as an improvement in visibility. "Until there are some practical means devised to substantially reduce emissions from automobiles and to set limitations on 18 C&EN JAN. 16, 1967
President Johnson's State of the Union message, delivered to a joint session of Congress last Tuesday night under the hot glare of color TV lights, contained a couple of surprises. One proposal that seemed to baffle almost everybody would merge the Departments of Commerce and Labor into a superdepartment. It would be called the Department of Business and Labor. Sen. Thruston Morton (R.-Ky.) calls the proposal "that shotgun wedding." And, at first glance, it seems to be a rather unlikely coupling. Without defining roles, the merger might be called an attempt to get the lion to lie down with the lamb, a biblical precept that has not yet come to pass. However, a look at history shows that the consolidation would in fact be a repetition of the past. The Labor Department began as a mere bureau established in 1884 as part of the Interior Department. Later, the Labor Bureau was established as a separate Department of Labor but the new department did not have Cabinet status. In 1903 the Department of Commerce and Labor was created and on March 14, 1913, the separate Departments of Labor and Commerce came into being. In calling for creation of the new department, President Johnson said, "By combining the Department of Commerce with the Department of
Historian Johnson Shotgun wedding has precedent
Labor and other related agencies, I think we can create a more economical, efficient, and streamlined instrument that will better serve a growing nation. This is our goal throughout the entire Federal Government." No details were given on the "related agencies" that would be included in the new department. These will be revealed when the reorganization plan is submitted to Congress. However, one likely candidate for the new unit is the Small Business Administration. The rationale for the merger seems to be that as the world grows more complex the problems of business and labor more and more tend to become intertwined. This is especially true in labor-management relations. But it does not mean that the two groups see eye to eye or seek the same goals. If the proposed department is to represent both management and labor points of view within one entity, the new unit will have to be much more impartial than the Labor Department has been up to now. The AFL-CIO is withholding comment on the proposed new department until the President reveals exactly what he has in mind. AFL-CIO president George Meany urges both Congress and the public to await details and avoid hasty and uninformed judgments. "Meanwhile," Mr. Meany says, "we think it important to point out that the Department of Labor was founded in 1913 to eliminate a form of secondclass citizenship for workers whose interests then were relegated to a bureau in the Department of Commerce. We are fully confident that the President has no intention of returning to that concept." President Johnson's request for a tax increase was another surprise in the State of the Union message. Prespeech propaganda indicated that no final decision had been made on whether to ask for a raise in taxes. Congressional reaction to the proposed tax increase was split for the most part along party lines. Most Republicans denounced the tax boost. They demanded that the President cut back spending for domestic programs instead of asking for more taxes. Republican leaders charged that the President had not made a case for the proposed increase. Most Democrats were noncommittal but some Southern Democrats joined in the Republican chorus. Sen. Russell Long (D.-La.), majority whip and chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, said he would try to get any tax boost restricted to corporate incomes. The President wants Congress to vote a 6% surtax on the present in-
come tax. Rates would not be changed. Instead, the taxpayer would calculate the tax as at present and then add 6% of his tax to the bill. The tax would last for two years at most, would not be retroactive, and according to Administration plans would take effect July 1. Initial Congressional reaction shows that the proposal may have rough sledding in Congress. However, the simplicity of the method could forestall a lot of time-wasting debate on tax principles. Chances are the President will get what he asks for. The President discussed his upcoming program in general terms. The details will be forthcoming next week when he sends his budget for fiscal 1968 to Congress.
Nuclear stockpile targets set After three years of study and considerable prodding from Capitol Hill, the Office of Emergency Planning finally has come forth with new stockpile objectives based on nuclear war considerations. The new objectives reveal that the amount of strategic materials the U.S. presently has stockpiled against the possibility of a conventional war generally far exceeds that
which would be needed in the event of an all-out nuclear conflict. But despite the excess, current stockpile inventory levels will not be affected. The nuclear war levels were set by OEP for each of the 77 basic materials that comprise the National Stockpile of Strategic and Critical Materials. With the exception of one minor item, opium, the levels are no more than or, in the majority of cases, considerably lower than conventional war objectives (see table). In unveiling the new stockpile objectives for nuclear war, OEP director Farris Bryant pointed out that Defense Mobilization Order 8600.1, which spells out general policies for strategic and critical materials stockpiling, states: ". . . strategic stockpile objectives shall be adequate for limited or general, conventional or nuclear war, whichever shows the largest supply-requirement deficit to be met by stockpiling . . . ." Therefore, he says that, with the exception of opium, "inventory levels in the National Stockpile will be controlled by the current conventional war objectives/' In arriving at the new stockpile objectives, OEP has taken what other prominent Administration officials feel may be an overly optimistic view
Only opium has higher nuclear than conventional target (list shows sampling of 77 total stockpile items) Material
Conventional objective
Nuclear objective
Aluminum (short tons) Aluminum oxide (short tons) Bauxite, metal grade, Jamaica (long dry tons) Bauxite, metal grade, Surinam (long dry tons) Bismuth (pounds) Cadmium (pounds) Cobalt (pounds) Copper (short tons) Feathers and down (pounds) Fluorspar, acid (short dry tons) Fluorspar, metallurgical (short dry tons) Magnesium (short tons) Molybdenum (pounds)
450,000 300,000 5,000,000 5,300,000 2,400,000* 5,100,000 42,000,000 775,000 3,000,000* 540,000 850,000 90,000* 40,000,000*
0 37,000 1,450,000 0 732,000 0 10,220,000 0 3,000,000 0 0 0 0
Opium (pounds) Platinum group metals, platinum (troy ounces) Pyrethrum (pounds) Quinidine (ounces) Quinine (ounces) Rare earths (short dry tons) Rubber (long tons) Rutile (short dry tons) Tantalum (pounds) Thorium (pounds) Tin (long tons) Titanium sponge (short tons) Vanadium (short tons) Zinc (short tons) * Newly revised conventional war stockpile objectives. Source: U.S. Office of Emergency Planning
0 335,000* 25,000 2,000,000 4,130,000 3,000 130,000 200,000* 3,400,000 500,000 200,000 37,500* 1,500* 0
143,000 235,500 22,000 1,400,000 4,130,000 800 72,000 29,500 1,200,000 0 26,200 0 60 0
of the ability of the American public and the U.S. industrial complex to survive an all-out nuclear attack. OEP figures that about two thirds of the U.S. population or roughly some 130 million people would survive such a war and that considerable industry capacity would remain intact. (Defense Secretary McNamara, for one, is considerably more pessimistic. He has estimated publicly that fewer than 100 million would survive.) In addition to the nuclear stockpile objectives, OEP has announced new conventional war stockpile objectives for eight items. The most dramatic of these changes is caused by the rising demand for both titanium and the Ti0 2 -bearing mineral rutile. There has been no open reaction initially to the new nuclear objectives from the various stockpile interests in Congress. But it's a good bet that Congressional delegations from the western states, with their heavy stake in mining and minerals, will want to hear more from OEP on the rationale behind the new objectives.
Seaway toll rise uncertain The Canadian and U.S. agencies jointly responsible for running the financially troubled St. Lawrence Seaway have confirmed that they have formally asked their governments for the toll increases they first proposed last spring. But it is not clear if or when these increases may be granted. Undersecretary of Commerce Alan Boyd said last week in Washington that President Johnson should get a recommendation "in a matter of weeks." Mr. Boyd was testifying at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on his appointment as Secretary of the Department of Transportation. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. will become part of that department when it comes into existence 90 days after its secretary is confirmed by the Senate. The corporation's report on tolls, Mr. Boyd said, is now being studied by a group from State, Commerce, Treasury, and the Bureau of the Budget. This group's recommendation will go to Mr. Johnson for decision. The U.S. and Canadian agencies do not exactly agree on what they want. Their reports show that both groups seek approximately a 10% boost in tolls for the Montreal-Lake Ontario section of the giant Atlanticto-Great Lakes link. But the Canadians also want a lockage fee on the now-free all-Canadian Welland Canal. This connects Lakes Ontario and Erie. After a slow start the seaway is now doing well. Cargoes have more than JAN. 16, 1967 C&EN
19
