fuels for gas and early arrangements to obtain emergency supplies of these fuels were the major reasons for the relatively small impact on the chem­ical industry.

Ammonia producers, however, were staggered by gas curtailments at times. For example, during the week beginning Jan. 30, a maximum of 95,000 tons of ammonia was lost be­cause of gas curtailments, according to estimates from the Fertilizer In­stitute. This loss is more than 25% of ammonia capacity, some 350,000 tons per week.

Between July 1, 1976, the begin­ning of the current agricultural year, and Feb. 21,567,400 tons of ammonia production was lost because of gas curtailments, according to the insti­tute's estimates. For the same period a year earlier, the comparable am­monia loss was 185,644 tons.

Lost production is declining but not eliminated. During the week of Feb. 6, less than 57,000 tons of am­monia production was lost, a bit more than half of the previous week's am­monia loss.

Other industries allied to the basic chemical industry experienced mixed effects. Textiles received some shock as gas limitations affected finishing operations. However, these impacts were short-lived, causing no reported inventory backups to limit fiber-making operations.

Glass producers experienced varying degrees of curtailment of the more than 200 billion cu ft of natural gas they consume annually. Plant operations affected were back to normal by mid-February, according to the Commerce survey. As with other segments of the chemical in­dustry, the impacts were minimized by early and extensive conversion to alternate fuels in many plants. •

OSHA's proposals for carcinogens draw fire The chemical industry, labor, and consumer groups again have clashed over the thorny question of how to define and regulate exposure to can­cer-causing agents. At issue this time is the Occupational Safety & Health Administration's proposal to streamline its procedures by catego­rizing chemical substances as car­cinogens, suspected carcinogens, or neither. Classification of a substance into any category would mandate a specific course of action, including fill-in-the-blank standards to limit exposure (C&EN, Jan. 31, page 5).

OSHA has referred the draft pro­posal to its National Advisory Com­mittee on Occupational Safety &

Health for evaluation and comments. And two of its subcommittees held public hearings earlier this month to get outside views on the proposal. Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe of the Public Citi­zens Health Research Group com­mended OSHA for its large-scale ap­proach to regulating carcinogens. According to Wolfe, "rearguing the same issues for each carcinogen, such as safe levels, the validity of extrap­olations from animal data to human risk, or the format of medical exams is a waste of time and literally a fatal mistake for OSHA to keep making." But Wolfe also recommends that OSHA make several changes to its proposal. These include setting a zero exposure limit for all carcinogens, and requiring employers to obtain a use permit before being allowed to use a regulated carcinogen.

However, Emil Christofano of Hercules, speaking for the Manufac­turing Chemists Association, told subcommittee hearings that the pro­posal attempts to develop a simple rule easily applied. "Unfortunately, the subject addressed is so complex that it will not respond to simple so­lution." For example, he says, OSHA should consider such things as dosage, duration and time of exposure, and interaction with other substances in determining a substance's effect in a workplace, not just tumor formation in animals.

In a lengthy analysis submitted to the subcommittees, the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association said that the proposal "ignores much available learning about carcinogenesis and postulates an unduly rigid and greatly oversim­plified framework for dealing with actual hazards in the workplace." Given the minimum criteria for clas­sifying carcinogens, SOCMA says that a large number of chemical sub­stances would be subject to regulation in very short order as carcinogenic hazards. SOCMA suggests that the agency concentrate on streamlining existing rule-making procedures and formulate criteria for priorities. •

Inmont, Kewanee are takeover targets Takeover may be at hand for two medium-sized chemical producers, Inmont and Kewanee Industries. Both companies have tripled their earnings in the past five years but are valued below average on the stock market. Both companies are pro­spective targets for acquisitions by firms whose operations are largely outside the chemical field.

Last week, Inmont's board of di-

Inmont's earnings rose while stock value fell

1971 72 73 74 75 76

rectors in New York City turned down an initial takeover proposal from Esmark, the chemicals-pro­ducing conglomerate in Chicago with its base in meat packing. The pro­posal was to acquire Inmont by cash tender offer or stock swap based on a value of $22.50 per share for Inmont's common stock. Esmark has owned 6% of Inmont's common stock since January and hence is offering to buy the rest of Inmont's common stock for a total investment of about $175 million.

Inmont, in a letter to stockholders last week, said that several other companies had shown an interest in acquiring the company, a major pro­ducer of inks, coatings, and other products. Inmont had 1976 sales of $534 million and net income of $20.1 million.

Kewanee Industries' proposed takeover involves prospective joint buyers, Crown Central Petroleum Inc., a domestic oil refiner, and Na­tional Cooperative Refinery Associ­ation of McPherson, Kan., one of the fast-growing midwestern farm co­operatives that already has integrated backward into oil refining. Crown Central, headquartered in Baltimore, had nine-month 1976 sales of $418 million and net income of $8.7 mil­lion. The Kansas co-op had 1976 sales of about $250 million.

The proposed offer to Kewanee Industries gives an acquisition bid of $45 per share for a total value of about $430 million. Kewanee's board of di­rectors took no action on the proposal last week at a regular board meeting. The key decision on the offer may come from Mary L. Smith, executrix of the estate of former company chairman Wm. Wikoff Smith. The estate controls about 68% of Ke­wanee's voting stock. Kewanee had 1976 sales of about $434 million and net income from continuing opera­tions of $33.5 million. •

8 C&EN Feb. 28, 1977