(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
