Phillips Petroleum, Β. F. Goodrich, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Monsan­to, Dow Chemical, and Mobil. Their last stop is Chevron Chemi­cal near San Francisco where they leave for home. The American Chemical Society cooperated with CSCPRC in setting up the itinera­ry.

At the various plants, the group will observe large-, medium-, and small-scale petrochemical works; production installations for sepa­rating ethane, propane, and butane from natural gas and oil gas; and purification of natural gas. They also will study ethylene pipeline transportation and storage; produc­tion of acetic acid, glycerine, rub­ber, and resin; and scientific re­search centers.

The petrochemical delegation is the fourth Chinese delegation brought over by CSCPRC this year. The first three were here to study solid-state physics, molecular biolo­gy, and communications tech­niques. Three more delegations are expected this fall, including repre­sentatives from the Chinese Scien­tific & Technical Association, an industrial automation delegation, and an immunology delegation. In exchange, five U.S. delegations have made or will make trips to China this year to study schistoso­miasis, paleoanthropology, rural small-scale industry, insect control, and solid-state physics. D

Hearings may trigger peer review changes Two weeks of hearings by the House Science, Research, & Technology Subcommittee on the National Sci­ence Foundation's use of peer re­view to evaluate research proposals hasn't resolved the controversy sur­rounding peer review. But it has aired fairly the views of critics and proponents alike. And although specific legislation to change the system isn't at all likely to be en­acted readily by Congress, adminis­trative changes instituted by NSF are a strong possibility. However, more subtle changes in the direc­tion of opting to support "safer" rather than higher-risk innovative proposals may well be a result of stinging criticism leveled at NSF re­search program managers by some Congressional critics.

The scope of the more substan­tive changes—specifically those re­sulting from legislation or adminis­trative action by NSF—appears to hinge in large measure on public and scientific community response I

Symington: fundamentally sound

to critics' charges. They also hinge on the outcome of a host of studies now under way by NSF and others on peer review and the whole issue of how the government goes about managing the R&D it funds. For in­stance, NSF and the National Sci­ence Board (NSF's policy-setting advisory group) are developing a survey to sample the scientific com­munity's reactions to opinions on peer review.

Other areas of "general agree­ment" were underscored by the House subcommittee chairman James W. Symington (D.-Mo.) on the last day of the hearings. Among other things, Symington noted that the witnesses "overwhelmingly agree" that some form of peer re­view should continue to be used to assist in the allocation of funds for scientific research. He observes that nobody—including witnesses from NSF—claimed that the peer review system and its decision-making ability are perfect. "Nevertheless, it appears that, as a base to work from, the peer review concept is seen as fundamentally sound," he says.

In the more controversial areas, there is obviously less agreement. For instance, Symington notes that there are mixed views as to how open or how confidential NSF's systems for making grant decisions ought to be or on how peer reviewers ought to be selected or in what modes they ought to work.

Finally, an increasingly adver­sary relationship continued to pre­vail on the last day of hearings be­tween NSF director H. Guyford Stever and Rep. John B. Conlan (R.-Ariz.), who is fast becoming chief Congressional critic of NSF. Among other things, Conlan be­rated Stever for failing to provide him with verbatim copies of peer re­view of curriculum development projects and reiterated his call for "total openness" of the peer review system. Stever says, in es­sence, that the system is open, is becoming increasingly so, is open to change, and is being studied thoroughly. D

Construction firms still are doing well Chemical makers are cutting back on their construction plans to help them through the recession, a move not likely to please construction en­gineering companies. But a spot sur­vey last week of many of these com­panies showed them to be weather­ing the cutbacks quite well. Al­though several companies ac­knowledge the stretching out and even the cancellation of some chem­ical contracts, a number say that their own business has not been af­fected at all by the announcements of chemical makers. And for some, especially those that are doing busi­ness on a large scale with the oil exporting countries, chemical con­struction contracts are at an all-time high.

A C&EN compilation of construc­tion backlogs for six major engi­neering companies shows that they have doubled over the past year and

Construction backlogs have doubled since early 1974 $ Billions 201

15

10

i 5 1974 1975

Source: C&EN survey of Combustion Engineering, Fluor, Arthur G. McKee & Co., Ralph M. Parsons Co., Pullman, and UOP

a half to nearly $19 billion at the end of the second quarter of this year.

Ralph M. Parsons Co., just finish­ing the best first half in its history, hasn't suffered any ill effects from the cutbacks in chemical construc­tion. For sulfur and sulfuric acid plants, where it has a number of contracts, Parsons has not seen any contract cancellations or stretch­outs, a spokesman declares.

Fluor, too, has not seen any shut­down in construction projects under way and has had a "tremendous in­crease" in new contract awards. Fluor's largest awards in recent months have come from the oil pro­ducing countries of the Middle East, shifting the company's bal­ance of foreign and domestic busi­ness from its 59% foreign level at the end of April to about 70% foreign business currently.

"Business still looks real good to us," says a spokesman for M. W. Kellogg Co., a Houston-based engi-

August 11, 1975 C&EN 5

neering subsidiary of Pullman Inc. Much of Kellogg's activity is in building ammonia plants, and con­struction here has not been cur­tailed in the U.S. nor abroad, the company says. Still, Kellogg is not growing at the almost frantic pace it has been in recent years.

But not all engineering com­panies are as sanguine about their current business. "Although back­logs remain high, the current inflow of new work has slowed somewhat, particularly in the petroleum and chemicals industries," says a spokesman for Arthur G. McKee & Co. "Economic uncertainties have caused some clients to delay planned projects" and others to pro­ceed "on a phase-by-phase, rather than fully released, basis."

An almost parallel comment comes from UOP's engineering sub­sidiary Procon Inc. President Lawrence C. McQuade says, "New business for contractors from both U.S. and European firms has not come in as fast in recent months as expected. Moreover, cancellations and revised schedules have affected some projects." Both companies are retrenching somewhat for the short term and have cut back on their professional hiring plans. McQuade adds, "Our present and prospec­tive contracts for complete plants provide a promising long-range out­look for Procon. " D

Coke-oven health rules irk everyone The federal government has pro­posed new occupational health standards for coke-oven operations, and the United Steelworkers of America (USW) union is not happy. In addition to the specifics USW objects to, a larger issue involving transfer of workers and hazardous jobs may be at stake. And to compli­cate matters further, the steel in­dustry's leading trade group has entered the debate, attacking the government position.

The Labor Department's Occu­pational Safety & Health Admin­istration has proposed a standard that would set an eight-hour time-weighted average concentration for particulates in work place air at 0.3 mg per eu m for coking operations. At the same time, however, OSHA backed away from spelling out methods of compliance with the standard, claiming that doing so would possibly "limit the develop­ment of new technology or neces­sitate frequent revisions of the stan­dard." But the proposed standard

Proposed standards would set limits on particulates in air at coking operations

does provide for regular medical examinations of workers, and places the responsibility on employers to transfer workers whose health may be endangered.

USW, which represents about 90% of the estimated 15,000 coke-oven workers in the U.S., views the OSHA action as a less than half­hearted attempt to ensure employee safety. USW believes that arbi­trarily setting a numerical standard is meaningless.

Union president I. W. Abel says that the proposed regulations "largely ignore" recommendations by an advisory committee made up of people from industry, labor, and the public. OSHA denies this.

Moreover, USW doesn't like the employee transfer provision in the regulation. The union wants a guarantee written into the regula­tions to ensure that workers switched to another job because of health reasons will retain seniority and salary status. If adopted, this provision could serve as a precedent for other allegedly hazardous indus­tries where workers are transferred for health reasons.

Meanwhile, the American Iron & Steel Institute says the proposed standard for particulate emissions "appears to be unattainable even with the implementation of the suggested engineering controls." D

Senate committee approves patent bill The Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights has taken the first step toward enactment of patent reform legisla­tion, approving by a 4 to 1 vote a compromise patent bill. The bill, S. 2255, introduced on Aug. 1 by subcommittee chairman John L. McClellan (D.-Ark.) still must be approved by the full Senate Judi­ciary Committee, passed on the Senate floor, and acted on in the House. During this lengthy process the bill undoubtedly will be

amended several times, but as it now stands S. 2255 makes a number of major changes to present U.S. patent law.

Among other things, the bill establishes a system of deferred examinations that permits deferral of search and examination of a pat­ent application for up to five years. Under this system a specific request must be made for examination pro­cedures to begin. If such a request is not made the application must be published within 18 months of its filing. Publication requires payment of a fee by the patent applicant, and if the fee is not paid the ap­plication will be considered aban­doned. Abandoned applications also will be available for public inspection. And it is left up to the board of examiners-in-chief of the Patent & Trademark Office to determine what, if any, trade secret information is to be deleted from an abandoned application before it is published.

Under other provisions of S. 22.55, the board of examiners-in-chief is expanded from its present 30 to 60 members and is given sweeping, new subpoena powers. The bill specifies that an applicant and his associates must disclose, up to the time a patent is granted, all information in their possession that might affect the application. And they must swear that everyone's information is complete. Challenges to granted patents must begin within 12 months of issuance and opposition will be an inter partes proceeding, meaning that the challenging party is allowed to participate in each step of the re-examination.

Other changes in the bill include changing the term for patents from 17 years from date of issuance to 20 years from date of filing, setting fees so as to recover about 50% of the costs of operating the patent office, and payment of maintenance fees— $300 on the seventh anniversary of a patent application, $600 on the 10th anniversary, and $1100 on the 13th anniversary. If the fees aren't paid the patent enters the public domain.

The American Chemical Society in a June 2 letter to patent subcom­mittee members said that it strongly favors postissuance, third-party op­position proceedings adding, how­ever, that it believes that challenges should be allowed at any time dur­ing the life of a patent. ACS also ex­pressed its agreement with main­tenance fees and deferred examina­tion. But it expressed concern over conferring broad subpoena powers on the examiners and requiring ex­tensive disclosure statements. D

6 C&EN August 11, 1975