reactor where the absorbed chlorine values are reacted with the hydrocarbon feed. Virtually any chlorinated hydrocarbon can be produced in this manner, such as methyl chloride, methylene chloride, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, or perchloroethylene. Therefore, Transcat can utilize the chlorine contained in the waste stream to make any chlorinated hydrocarbon that the manufacturer is interested in marketing. Indeed, it is possible to supply the entire chlorine requirement of the plant from the chlorinated wastes. By contrast, your three examples in the display on p 19 show that only 7-25% of the total chlorine in the products (including HCI) come from the original wastes, the rest is from make-up molecular chlorine. During the Transcat oxychlorination reaction the HCI by-product is reacted in situ with the hydrocarbon so that esssentially no objectionable pollutants-chlorine, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or HCI-are emitted from this plant. Obviously, from both commercial and environmental considerations, Transcat is the better way to dispose of chlorinated hydrocarbon wastes. Harvey D. Schindler
The Lurnmus Co. Bloomfield. N.J. 07003
FLEXIMESH pads and support grids are available in all suitable metals and plastics; 304SS, 316SS, monel, polypropylene and Teflon mesh are stocked. Emergency shipments in 24 hours - including identical replacement of mesh and grids made by others. Ask for Bulletin FM-3.
Bulletins on Other KOCH Products: Flexitrayse KT-5 FlexIringsB KF-3 & PFR-1 Column lnternals KI-4 Koch Sulzer Packing KS-1 Pollution Control-Air KPC-1 Pollution Control-Water TRF-1 Spray Dryers KSD-5
KOCH ENGINEERING COMPANY INC.
P.O. Box 8127, Wichita, Kansas 67208 3 16/838-0821
.
Technical Servlce 4 1 E a s t 42nd S t N e w 'lark N I 10017 Tel 212 682 5755 730 N o r t h Post Oah Road H o u s t o n T e a a s 77024 Tel 7136869315
CIRCLE 1 2 ON READER SERVICE CARD
296
Environmental Science & Technology
Clean air law Dear Sir: The article, "Clean Air Law to Change" ( f S & T , Jan. 1974, p 16) put extraordinary value on the views of Dr. Arthur Stern. Perhaps his views should be widely disseminated, since they are quoted frequently by industry representatives who have now apparently succeeded in crippling the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. However, the author of the article knows, if he attended the entire three-day National Conference on the Clean Air Act, that Dr. Stern's perspective was only one of many that the conference heard. One paper by Lois Jeffrey of the League of Women Voters Education Fund was at almost total odds with Dr. Stern's presentation. The major difference between the supporters of the general thrust of the 1970 amendments and its opponents appears to be the question of whether existing ambient air pollution levels are a threat to the public health and welfare. I f current levels of air pollution are considered harmful, then the timetables and goals of the 1970 amendments make sense. I f the existing air pollution is considered relatively harmless, then the law may appear unreasonable. The goals of the Clean Air Act were set to satisfy health needs. The ambient air quality standards are not arbitrarily set. The National Academy of Sciences is still reviewing the health effects of air pollutants. but at their
National Conference on Health Effects of Air Pollution (Oct. 3-5, 1973), they found no basis to revise the primary ambient air quality standards. The means to achieve the goals of the Clean Air Act will rely heavily on technological advances, but these will probably not be sufficient and societal changes may also be necessary. The technological infeasibility of a necessary goal does not negate that goal. I f the goals of the Clean Air Act are not attainable by technology alone, but the goals are still valid, then nontechnological solutions must be sought. The January article accepted the criticisms of the goals and failed to examine this aspect of the issue. Tim Lynch
Research Assistant to George E Brown, Jr. Member of Congress 38th C.D.-Calif. Lopac bottles Dear Sir: In the article on the use of Lopac bottles for beverage containers (ES&T, Feb. 1974, p 115), I hope your readers are aware that Lopac bottles may not be refilled satisfactorily for a rather large number of times. I f they cannot, it is not true that Lopac bottles are more ecological with respect to either energy consumption or effluent production when compared with returnable glass bottles. These important environmental factors need to be measured on the basis of energy and effluents per ounce (or gallon if you wish) of liquid delivered to the retailer. Many states (40) and the national government are considering bills on mandatory 5c deposit and production of only refillable bottles. I f these bills pass and if Lopac cannot be refilled (this is presently being studied), Lopac will not be nearly as "ecological" as claimed in the article. The proved returnable glass bottle, particularly in a shape which several bottlers could use (saving on sorting), would be superior in the beverage container field. The glass returnables are filled an average of 8 to 14 times depending on whose report you read. Hence, the energy and effluents reported for the glass bottle production should be reduced drastically for returnable glass. On the other hand, if Lopac can be refilled numerous times, then the only thing standing in its way would be the supply of organic-based polymer starting material which probably requires some crude oil distillates in the production process. Other than that, it would indeed be a very important innovation (even though it still resists biodegradation). Robert D. Place
Otterbein College Westerville, Ohio 43081
