Coal must tackle smog problem The demand for clean air can be dis­regarded only at our own peril, W. D. Crawford, Consolidated Edison Co. vice president said last week at a con­vention of the National Coal Associa­tion in Washington, D.C. Automatic opposition to the use of natural gas for air pollution control could harden pub­lic opinion against the coal industry, he warns.

Noting the increasing public alarm about air pollution, Mr. Crawford notes that New York City's stringent new law cannot be viewed as an un­fortunate happenstance. It repre­sents the beginning of a trend, he says.

It's conceivable that coal could be legislated out of business in some areas due to its inability to meet the re­quirements of these laws at a compe­titive price (C&EN, May 23, page 56 ). A solution to the problem must be found quickly, Mr. Crawford says. All promising ideas must be investi­gated, and necessary funds must be forthcoming. "Your best efforts will be required to cope with this threat to your future well-being," he told the coal industry representatives.

TVA chooses nuclear power The Tennessee Valley Authority—the nation's number one producer of elec­trical power—has gone nuclear for the first time. In giving the nod to a nu­clear (over a coal) power generating station 10 days ago, TVA probably gave nuclear power its biggest boost to date. At the same time, it cast a shadow over the future of coal in the power market.

The $247 million nuclear power plant—a dual boiling-water reactor unit with a total capacity of 2.2 mil­lion kw(e).—will be located on Wheeler Reservoir just northwest of Decatur, Ala. The first unit is sched­uled to go on stream in 1970. Gen­eral Electric will supply the nuclear generators under a contract valued at nearly $122.7 million and TVA will design and build the facility itself.

TVA says its decision to go nuclear was based solely on cost considera­tions. In a "direct comparison of bids for the facilities and fuel for both nu­clear and coal-burning plants," TVA says it found that the nuclear station will "provide savings exceeding $8 million a year over the coal-burning al­ternative," for a total savings of nearly $100 million over the 12-year period of guaranteed nuclear fuel costs.

"Because of the great dissimilarity in the equipment and fuel, the offers TVA received were evaluated on the basis of cost per kilowatt-hour of en­ergy produced," TVA chairman A. J.

Wagner explains. "Total bus bar cost of energy from the nuclear plant is es­timated to be 2.37 mills a kilowatt-hour, 20% less than the 2.83 mills for the coal-using plant. Guaranteed av­erage fuel cost for the nuclear plant is 1.25 mills a kilowatt-hour during its first 12 years of operation, compared with 1.69 mills for the coal plant," he adds.

The coal industry and the railroads are particularly disturbed over TVA's decision, as well they might be. TVA is the nation's biggest user of coal, con­suming some 25 million tons of soft coal a year (roughly 5% of the total U.S. annual output). Coal producers fear that, because of TVA's size and importance in the power generating field, its decision to go nuclear may influence private utilities to follow suit.

FDA's diet rules sting industry After a four-year recess, the food supplement and health food indus­tries are again under federal siege. Once more the Food and Drug Ad­ministration is bringing industry to arms with regulations that would tell the generally diet-conscious average American that he doesn't really need vitamin pills, mineral supplements, dietary preparations, and sundry health foods. An extended legal donnybrook appears to be in prospect.

FDA actually began proceedings back in 1962 when it published pro-

Muitivitamin supplements

posais setting down revised regula­tions on special dietary foods and mineral-vitamin supplements. The proposals met with a cascade of ob­jections which sent FDA into four years of meditation on the shape of its followup orders. What has emerged is a set of regulations based on "definitions and standards of identity" that extend the list of foods affected and restrict a greater number of vitamin and mineral supplements.

At the forefront of the fight against FDA will be such groups as the Pro­prietary Association, Vitamin Foun­dation, National Vitamin Distributors, and National Health Federation. A counsel for two of the organizations says they hope to draw "50,000 to 100,000 objections against this diet dictatorship" on the part of FDA.

Dr. James L. Goddard, FDA Com­missioner, says he aims to make sure the public understands what it really needs in the way of supplementary dietary items. To that end, the agency would require, in its new reg­ulations labels, this provocative mes­sage on containers:

"Vitamins and minerals are sup­plied in abundant amounts by the foods we eat. The Food and Nutri­tion Board of the National Research Council recommends that dietary needs be satisfied by foods. Except for persons with special medical needs, there is no scientific basis for recommending routine use of dietary supplements."

In addition, FDA would:

Required ingredients Minimum

Vitamin A Vitamin D Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) Thiamine (vitamin Bi) Riboflavin (vitamin B2) Niacin or niacinamide

l f250 USP units 200 25 mg.

0.35 0.5 5.5

Optional ingredients

Vitamin Ε 10 fntematioi

Vitamin B6 Folic acid Pantothenic acid Vitamin Bi2

0.5 mg. 0.03 2.5

2

Maximum

5,000 USP units 400 70 mg.

1.4 2

22

30 International units

2 mg. 0.1 10 5

Mineral supplements

Required ingredients Calcium 350 mg. 1,400 mg. Iron 5 20

Optional ingredients

Phosphorus 350 mg. 1,400 mg. Magnesium 75 300 Copper 0.5 2 Iodine 0.04 0.15

JUNE 27, 1966 C&EN 21

• Restrict "low calorie" labeling to foods containing 15 or fewer calories per serving.

• Limit "reduced in calories" la­beling to products containing no more than half the calorie content of their counterparts.

• Establish seven classes of food eligible for fortifications with vitamins and minerals: cereals, fruit drinks, infant formulas, infant fruit products, alimentary pastes, fluid and powdered milk (whole and skim), and salt.

• Stipulate and quantify the added elements in such foods.

• Prohibit promotion of multivita­min and mineral supplements.

The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association replied with an immediate but diffuse statement that the order was not in the public interest. E. R. Squibb & Sons said FDÀ failed to rec­ognize the varying dietary needs of individuals. Miles Laboratories, the country's leading producer of vitamin supplements, last week said the FDA order "would not accurately inform and in fact would mislead the consum­ing public to its detriment." Miles added that a "vast number" of Amer­icans do not consume ideal meals.

Interested parties, which appear to be legion, have until Aug. 17 to file objections. The regulations, printed in the June 18 Federal Register, would become effective Jan. 9, 1967. In actuality, however, it could be years before the public sees altered labels on its special food wrappings and vitamin bottles. Hearings are certain to be held, resulting in one delay, and subsequent court battles could drag on interminably. The protesting groups are already meeting to draw up strategy.

BOB backs curb on teacher drain The Bureau of the Budget will go along part way with the recommenda­tions of the House Subcommittee on Research and Technical Programs on how to keep federal research pro­grams from diverting manpower from teaching into research at the nation's universities. But the bureau will study the implications and explore ways of carrying out some of the rec­ommendations instead of taking im­mediate action as urged by the com­mittee.

Last year, after investigating the problem, the committee issued a re­port of its finding that the federal R&D program has been a bad influence on university teaching (C&EN, Oct. 25, 1965, page 31) . To alleviate the problem the committee recommended that the Bureau of the Budget main­tain scientific manpower data, scruti­nize all federal R&D programs to bal-

Budget director Schultze Master-apprentice relationship

ance the needs for research and devel­opment and the needs for teachers at colleges and universities, and draw re­search contracts and grants in such a way as to encourage senior investiga­tors to teach—grants or contraots pro­hibiting teaching should be permitted only in unusual circumstances.

BOB director Charles L. Schultze, in a letter to the committee, says that the bureau will try to strengthen the capabilities of the National Science Foundation in analyzing scientific manpower information for purposes of program planning and budgeting. Mr. Schultze points out that NSF now has the responsibility for coordinating scientific manpower studies. In his opinion, there would be little or no gain in reassigning that responsibility.

One approach, which Mr. Schultze will try to arrange, is to have NSF change its annual presentation to the bureau and the Office of Science and Technology on key manpower issues relevant to the budget review proc­ess. He will try to have NSF provide insights into current and foreseeable requirements for scientific and engi­neering manpower and "indicate sig­nificant areas of either notable elas­ticity or shortage."

The other committee recommenda­tions are very desirable, Mr. Schultze says, but he is not sure how they can be dealt with at the level of central decision-making. He believes that it is primarily the responsibility of uni­versity administrators to apply re­straints on the nonteaching activities of their professional staffs. "However, I must agree that the Federal Govern­ment should explore further the im-paot of research support upon the teaching function, even though the present evidence seems to indicate that federal support of academic re­search has generally been beneficial to the universities," he says.

Mr. Schultze thinks that more anal­ysis of the interaction between re­

search and teaching would be a good assignment for the Federal Intera­gency Committee on Education and the Committee on Academic Science and Engineering of the Federal Coun­cil for Science and Technology.

The BOB director points out that the committee may be laboring under a semantic difficulty. There may sometimes be a degree of conflict be­tween research and undergraduate teaching duties. But teaching at the graduate level often involves a "mas­ter-apprentice" relationship rather than formal classroom lectures. As a result, it is difficult to separate re­search and teaching as discrete and differing functions, Mr. Schultze says.

In his opinion, the Government should develop guidelines on research and its relation to teaching. He has asked the Committee on Academic Science and Engineering to propose alternate ways of encouraging teach­ing by senior investigators, and defin­ing the limited circumstances (if any) under which the Government should go so far as to require full-time in­volvement of faculty in research.

Ch.E/s nix parts of goals report As stated by the American Society for Engineering Education's Preliminary Report on Goals of Engineering Edu­cation, the report " . . . is intended to serve as a basis for further comment and discussion . . . " Comment and discussion it has received. Last week in Pullman, Wash., ASEE's Chemical Engineering Division became the lat­est to add its voice to a clamor that hasn't ceased since the report was published last October.

At issue are three of 14 recommen­dations specifying that the first pro­fessional engineering degree be a five-year Master of Engineering de­gree without qualifying adjectives or phrases, that the four-year bachelor's degree be an introductory engineering degree, and that accreditation be changed from specific curricular ac­creditation to accreditation of the overall engineering unit.

A policy statement that seemed assured of adoption at press time by the Chemical Engineering Division during ASEE's 74th Annual Meeting strongly opposes the recommenda­tions. The division would thus join in­dividuals and organizations ranging from chemical industry and chemi­cal engineering education to the American Institute of Chemical Engi­neers.

Some of the arguments opposing the recommendations point out that satisfying and productive careers can result from current four-year curric-ulums and that adopting a five-year

22 C&EN JUNE 27, 1966