after Congress reconvenes in Sep­tember, the Administration will submit it to Congress as a reorgani­zation "plan" rather than as a legis­lative proposal.

That way, the plan won't be subjected to time-consuming amendments. Congress, in a sense, will have to vote the plan up or down, just as it did with the trade legisla­tion.

It is hoped that Congress will act on the reorganization plan by Thanks­giving. At the outside, the Adminis­tration wants action by Jan. 1, when the nontariff barrier codes negotiated at the Geneva trade talks go into ef­fect.

Some Washington skeptics doubt that Congress and the Administration can stick to this timetable. Others, citing the success of the recently en­acted trade legislation, think it can be done.

Either way, the chemical industry should have formulated its own trade reorganization policy by now in order to be effective. It hasn't.

With the exception of a very few company trade experts, none of the usually active chemical industry trade spokesmen have had much to say on the subject. The Office of the Chem­ical Industry Trade Adviser (OCITA), focal point for overall in­dustry trade policy, has been notice­ably quiet.

Whatever the reason, it certainly is not because the chemical industry doesn't have a vital interest in how the government restructures its trade offices. Many important trade issues will be cropping up soon. How U.S. trade officials handle them will be important to an industry that ex­ported $12.6 billion worth of chemi­cals last year and sports a hefty $6.2 billion trade surplus.

One of the most important, for in­stance, is the possibility that the Eu­ropean Economic Community or one of its member countries may take action against surging imports of synthetic fibers from the U.S.

This problem could have serious repercussions for the U.S. chemical industry. The Europeans complain that U.S. domestic oil-pricing policies are tantamount to a subsidy and give U.S. fiber producers an unfair com­petitive advantage. If this complaint is upheld, it could set a damaging precedent for all petrochemical de­rivatives.

There are other potential prob­lems. Changes are pending in the generalized system of preferences, which permits qualified developing countries to export to the U.S. duty­free. Some U.S. chemical companies believe that they already have been hurt by such imports. Under the

proposed changes, they could be hurt even more.

The prospect of forming some sort of North American trade alliance (among the U.S., Canada, and Mexi­co) also could have a tremendous impact on the U.S. chemical industry. And with American Selling Price no longer available, chemical companies will rely more heavily in the future on antidumping and countervailing duty action for import protection.

How all of these issues are handled by government is important to the chemical industry. Referring to gov­ernment reorganization proposals, OCITA deputy Myron T. Feveaux says that the chemical industry has as much, if not more, at stake as any in­dustry in the country. But, he adds, this doesn't mean that the industry knows it.

Not knowing it may be a reason why the industry has yet to come up with a position paper on trade reor­ganization. If there is to be an "offi­cial" industry position at all, it ap­parently will be a carbon copy of the stance taken by the Business Roundtable. That isn't surprising.

At a recent Senate committee hearing, William S. Sneath testified in support of the Administration's reorganization proposal. Sneath is chairman of Union Carbide and he testified as chairman of Business Roundtable's task force on interna­tional trade and investment.

As head of OCITA, he also is the chemical industry's chief trade ad­viser. Because of that, what the

chemical industry thinks about trade reorganization no doubt will be what Business Roundtable thinks. And the roundtable thinks that, although no reorganization plan could be perfect, the Administration's proposal is one that can manage the trade problems facing the country.

Others aren't completely certain of that. They say that the President's proposal is too sketchy to tell exactly how it will work. Presumably, Con­gressional staffers and Administra­tion experts will be working this month to put some meat on the President's bare-bones proposal. But it won't be easy and it may involve some trade-offs.

Senators William V. Roth Jr. (R.­Del.) and Abraham A. Ribicoff (D.-Conn.) have introduced legislation calling for a completely new Depart­ment of Trade & International In­vestment. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D.-W.Va.) wants a new Department of International Trade.

On the House side, Representatives James R. Jones (D.-Okla.) and Bill Frenzel (R.-Minn.) have introduced a bill that differs only slightly from the Administration's proposal.

The Administration doesn't want a new department. Many Congress­men, disenchanted with the Depart­ment of Energy, don't want one ei­ther.

But what comes out of a compro­mise agreement remains to be seen. Whatever it is, the chemical industry will be affected.

Earl Anderson, C&EN New York

10 C&EN Aug. 20, 1979

Energy conservation enters tough second stage Fresh from an excellent performance in meeting its first goal of a 15% re­duction in energy use, the U.S. chemical industry has committed it­self to making another 15% saving. Although the second stage won't be nearly so easy, some companies are well on the way and will reach even this goal years in advance of the 1985 deadline set by the Chemical Manu­facturers Association.

In more specific terms, both energy savings goals are set in reference to energy per unit production in 1972. The first 15% reduction was due in 1980 but in fact was met industrywide in 1978. The second 15% drop is tar­geted for 1985.

The most ambitious single program surfacing to date is by American Cy-anamid. Cyanamid is confident of achieving the 30% total energy re­duction by 1980. Dow Chemical may not be far behind, having already surpassed its own 20% reduction goal for 1980.

Other companies have adopted the

1985 formal date for the 30% energy reduction but in practice have put themselves ahead of schedule. For example, Union Carbide in May an­nounced a four-point program to reach 30% energy conservation by 1985. However, Carbide was two years ahead of the 1980 goal of 15%.

The dollar value of energy conser­vation is impressive. Carbide presi­dent Warren M. Anderson says that the company's 15% use reduction worked out to saving the equivalent of 11 million bbl of oil in 1978 worth $150 million. By 1985, the second figure could rise to $320 million.

At American Cyanamid, Eugene W. Steele, corporate manager of en­ergy conservation, says that energy costs in 1978 were reduced $19 million or between 15 and 20%. Savings in 1979 will be larger as Cyanamid plants bear down on their collective 1980 goal of 30% savings.

Second-stage energy conservation is much more sophisticated than the first, which can be achieved largely

through plugging obvious leaks in process steam and investing in more insulation. The second stage requires full-scale plant-by-plant energy au­dits, frequently with outside help such as the audit service offered by Du Pont.

Besides the audits and leak-plugging, Carbide lists two other steps in its four-point program. Director of energy Ronald S. Wishart Jr. says these are plant retrofitting and new process development. Old plants de­signed in an era of cheap energy can now stand additional equipment, such as a heat recovery system at Carbide's huge complex at Texas City that gives an annual energy savings of $1.3 million.

New process development is slow work, since it starts from scratch, but the results can be phenomenal. Wishart points to Carbide's low-pressure process for oxo alcohols and aldehydes, which uses one third less energy than do conventional pro­cesses. Even more dramatic is Car­bide's low-pressure process for low-density polyethylene, which reduces energy use 75%.

At Cyanamid, energy conservation boss Steele says that corporate orga­nization is an important part of a successful program. Cyanamid has an energy committee with a corporate vice president as chairman. This puts the weight of top management behind the program.

Corporate authority also helped at Cyanamid in changing various ac­counting procedures to adapt to en­ergy conservation. Steele says that longer payouts than usual are gener­ally acceptable for energy-saving capital investments, although some payouts have been unexpectedly short.

Companywide, Cyanamid finds some product areas easier to attack than others for energy savings. Steele says that textile-related products have already achieved good reduction in energy use. Pharmaceuticals, be­cause of environmental requirements of cool storage and the like, rank low among product groups. Agricultural products rank in the middle.

To reinforce its conservation ef­forts, Cyanamid has set up a com­panywide energy saving awards pro­gram patterned after safety awards programs. Each plant receives its award when it passes the 15% reduc­tion in energy use. The awards, for­mally presented at a dinner for plant supervisory and technical personnel, include a flag to be flown with the safety flag and plaques showing the exact amount of energy use reduction achieved. William Fallwell, C&EN New York and Bruce Greek, C&EN Houston

ϋβΙΡ Wf^^^ÎÊ^^^^^^ê

ΙΨΜ lÄÄiÄiii

make acrylic monomers based on i a d ^ ^ ex-propylene at Houston to more ^ d f ^ i l i t i e ^ n Baton Rou^e to than 600 million lb annually by 800 million lb a i year of high-end of 1981. Current capacity is density p o l y ^ h y ^ up from

monomer plant, shut down in Chemical wühncrease capacity at

swimming pools jmd drinking • Tall^oil—Georgia-Pacitic will

first-quarter 1980. This inorganic

Charleston, Tenn. Completion is by-product from pulping pme

^^PVnHii^tQ1 ^WrVwTliqn^nlv facilities in Kankakee, DL, dou-

^ß^^0^^^:^^^

capacity in Mobile, Ala., to make

license from Sumitomo Chemical

specialized MDI isocyanates also

; will ^ei]^ESfa|üM • : $ i e ^ $ I ä ^ ^

pleted expansion of unspecified !

size at Pittsburg, Calif., to make semiconductor and low mobile

Aug. 20, 1979 C&EN 11

New Text