Local Officials Agree. Voluntary efforts of industry to curb air pollution are laudable and should be encouraged, says P. W. Purdom, Philadelphia Department of Public Health. But in a competitive market complete reliance on voluntary efforts is unfair because the worst polluter, by avoiding the cost of pollution control, may gain a price advantage for his products. Sound laws and regulations assure equitable requirements for all, he says. Air pollution control measures should be based on need, Mr. Purdom says. Thus, each community must be considered individually, because the effects of air pollution are usually realized near the source, and demand and support for control efforts are there. "When one considers need, it is likely that needs will vary from one local area to another and it would be very difficult and impractical to administer regulations on a statewide basis without regard to local need," he says. It seems proper for a state to adopt general laws on air pollution, says Charles W. Gruber, Cincinnati's air pollution control engineer. And the state should provide control over mobile sources of pollution, such as the automobile. But it would be impractical for states to apply controls in urban areas capable of supporting an adequate control program, he says. Federal Role. The Federal Government has plenty of authority to enforce air pollution control, but it would be a mistake to use this authority to solve local problems, says Rep. Kenneth Roberts (D.-Ala.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health and Safety. Even if Washington tried to exercise this authority, he says, the effort would be difficult and expensive, and without the cooperation of local citizens, little would be accomplished. A big job for the Federal Government is to conduct research on air pollution, Rep. Roberts says. The Government can do the job more efficiently and cheaper than the 50 states acting independently. Even if the states had the money, skilled manpower is limited and duplication would be unavoidable, he says. Rep. Roberts says proposals to authorize the Government to make grants for state and local programs had to be bypassed at the last session of Congress because of the heavy workload on his committee. But, he says, his committee will take another look at these proposals next year. 12
C&EN
DEC. 2 4, 196 2
Hydrocarbon Research Loses Export Rights Consent decree defines rules on export of technical data of U.S. origin Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., and its president, Percival C. Keith, have been barred by the Government from exporting to the Sino-Soviet bloc and Cuba for the next five years. Any trade the company or Mr. Keith undertakes with Free World nations also will be under special surveillance for the next two years. Their export privileges were taken away by the Commerce Department's Bureau of International Commerce after a finding that Mr. Keith and HRI violated U.S. export controls in connection with design and construction of a $17 million oil refining complex in Rumania. The bureau's order also puts HRI and Mr. Keith on probation for three years and permits the bureau to summarily suspend their export privileges for any subsequent export control violation. In addition, Mr. Keith's export privileges were revoked for six months, except for transactions specifically authorized. The bureau says, however, that there appeared to be no clear proof that the violations were willful. Both Mr. Keith and HRI consented to the bureau's order. Both had also consented to a limited temporary order put in effect in 1961 (C&EN, June 26, 1961, page 24) while the bureau investigated the charges. Published vs. Unpublished. The bureau's findings revolved around interpretation of regulations which bar export to Sino-Soviet bloc nations of unpublished technical data of U.S. origin unless prior approval is specifically granted by the bureau. Its investigation was concerned primarily with plans and specifications for an aromatic chemical unit for the Rumanian refinery. The unit uses a liquid solvent extraction process to produce benzene, toluene, and xylenes. According to the bureau, HRI and Mr. Keith used unpublished technical data of U.S. origin to design and build the aromatics unit. The process, the bureau says, was developed in the U.S. by another company. HRI built a similar unit in France previously and drew on the designs, specifications, and operating instructions for that plant to build the Rumanian one, the bureau charges.
In addition, it holds HRI's use of the know-how of its own American engineers constituted exportation of unpublished data of U.S. origin and as such would require specific approval from the Commerce Department. The consent order says that Mr. Keith seriously and negligently misconstrued the regulations, which distinguish between "published" and "unpublished" data. The bureau says published data are limited to technology which is generally available in published form—for example, data which are available in public libraries, in bookstores, by subscription, or otherwise furnished to anyone without cost. It also points out that technology of U.S. origin does not lose its U.S. character when it goes abroad. Keith Replies. Speaking for himself and HRI, Mr. Keith says: "We hope in signing this consent decree that we have aided the Department of Commerce in defining for the engineering fraternity what really is meant by the export regulations governing 'unpublished technical data of United States origin.' . . . This was, after all, the first case involving the construction and interpretation of the technical data regulations. . . . However sharp our differences of interpretation with the Department of Commerce, our loyalty to this country's interests comes first." Mr. Keith says he discussed the matter at length with Commerce officials before his company's bid was accepted by Rumania. Thereafter, he says, Commerce was supplied voluntarily with all material requested as the job progressed. He says the department did not voice any objection to the procedures he and his firm were following until March 1962. At that time, long after the design had been completed and construction was in its final stages, the formal charges were issued. He formally denied the charges and attacked the regulations as vague and misleading. However, the time and expense of a full hearing was more than he and his company could justify economically, he says, so it was decided to settle the matter by a consent decree.
