4
The problem now is to clothe the skeleton of PL 92-500 with muscle and flesh," Dr. Throdahl says. And "there are a number of things industry needs, if it is to help in improving the law and making it work." For example, industry has difficulty getting definitions made uniform, regulations explained consistently, and ranges of numbers agreed upon. Industry also is having difficulty getting its side of the problem presented to the proper officials. Thus, he says, "The first need is better two-way communication."
Throdahl: clothe the skeleton
Also needed, according to Dr. Throdahl, is free exchange of demonstrated control technology. Specifically, industries should be able to form "how-to-do-it" information exchanges without being subject to reprisals under the antitrust laws. Third, "We need to establish geographical consortiums of companies and industries—now—to perform the required systems analyses for specific watersheds." Along the same line, each industry should establish consortiums to see that better control technology is adopted as it becomes available. "Finally, and most important of all, we require technology assessment into second- and third-order effects of our decisions." With regard to the effluent guidelines being issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Throdahl observes that they "reduce concept to writing and to numbers. This is good. It is a major step toward a systems approach to the pollution problem." To him, the word "guideline" implies a broad range and suggests a direction. But because the guidelines give numbers, they appear to be exact.
Nixon outlines big energy program
$11.3 billion in federal I tofundsspend for energy R&D over the next
President Nixon, in the first of a series of mini-State-of-the-Union messages, has outlined a far-reaching energy program that includes committing the Government to spending $1.81 billion for energy R&D in fiscal 1975. That's $811.4 million more than the Government spent on energy R&D this fiscal year, and about $85 million more than was recommended for next year in an energy program prepared for the President by Atomic Energy Commission chairman Dixy Lee Ray. In other areas, the President calls for enactment of a potpourri of mostly old, but a few new energy legislative proposals. Among the new proposals, the President wants Congress to eliminate a 22% depletion allowance for foreign oil production, speed licensing and construction of nuclear facilities, require the labeling of products for energy efficiency, and reduce income tax credits allowed U.S. firms for foreign income taxes. Among the old proposals the President wants enacted are the establishment of a Federal Energy Administration and an Energy Research and Development Administration, relaxation of certain Clean Air Act requirements, and "market pricing" of natural gas. The President further has refined his Project Independence program. And the White House says that major program levels for energy R&D will include $427 million for coal R&D, $262 million more than in fiscal 1974; $725 million for nuclear fission R&D, $194 million more than in fiscal 1974 (with continued primary emphasis on the liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor); $42 million for improved oil and gas recovery methods and oil shale development, an increase of $23 million over fiscal 1974; $116 million for energy conservation, $51 million more than in fiscal 1974; $179 million for environmental control technology, $113 million more than in fiscal 1974; $45 million for geothermal energy development, $34 million more than in fiscal 1974; $50 million for solar energy development, $36 million more than in fiscal 1974; and $169 million for nuclear fusion, $68 million more than in fiscal 1974. The President also seeks $133.7 million for environmental and health effects research, and $82.3 million for basic research and manpower development. Overall, the President proposes I
five years. This compares with $11.0 billion suggested by Dr. Ray. Among differences in the two programs is varying emphasis on energy conservation and coal R&D.
Future availability of naphtha uncertain Confusion is continuing to grow in world petrochemical circles over how the petrochemical feedstock situation is likely to shape up within the next year or so in light of the world oil supply upheaval. Conflicting views abound, for instance, on the future availability of naphtha. Some industry observers see localized surpluses developing during the near term. Others claim that naphtha supplies will remain very tight and that talk of local surpluses opens the door to opportunists and speculators. Naphtha is the dominant feedstock for petrochemical operations outside the U.S. In the U.S. gas liquids are the prime feedstock, but use of naphtha is growing. The rationale for increased nearterm localized surpluses of naphtha in the world comes from increased vprice pressure, decreased motor fuel demands, and distribution problems. This view is expounded in a study of worldwide naphtha supply, demand, and pricing by a consulting group, Hydrocarbon Planning and Consulting Services, made up of DeWitt & Co., Inc., Houston, Tex., Parpinelli, Sri., Milan, Italy, and Dr. Charles A. Stokes, a consultant in Princeton, N.J. The group finds a shift in naphtha demand away from gasoline and jet fuels and an overall increase in supply encouraged by higher prices. Other oil industry consultants contacted by C&EN agree that higher prices for naphtha are inevitable. But they maintain that all of it will be used without any surpluses developing. Any potential excess will tend to go into more profitable uses, including chemical making. In the U.S., upcoming allocation of crude oil among refineries could potentially decrease the amount of naphtha available for petrochemical operations. The Government has suggested that crude-rich major oil companies increase crude sales to smaller refining operations. If this happens, supplies of naphtha for petrochemical use from the majors may decline as these firms strive to maintain output of other products, including gasoline. Jan. 28, 1974 C&EN
7
