Unilever United States, Inc. Lever House, 390 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022
(212) 888-1260
Unilever PLC Unilever House PO Box 68 Blackfriars, London EC4P 4BQ, UK
Unilever N.V. Burgemeester S'Jacobplein 1 3015 CA Rotterdam
In 1990, Unilever worldwide sales revenues were $39.62 billion, an 18% increase over 1989. Before-tax earnings grew 14% over 1989 to $3.65 billion. The company ranked 55th in the 1990 Fortune 500 (based on U.S. revenues of $8.6 billion) and was ranked 2nd in the United States in the soaps and cosmetics industry. Unilever's United States base is in New York, and its Chairmen are Sir Michael Angus and F.A. Maljers.
1988 U.S. SALES AND TOXIC RELEASES
FORTUNE 500 RANK (by sales): 63
FORTUNE 500 RANK WITHIN SOAPS AND COSMETICS INDUSTRY
(by sales): 2
RANK BY TOXIC RELEASES: 170
RANK WITHIN INDUSTRY BY TOXIC RELEASES: 2
POUNDS OF TOXINS RELEASED PER $1,000 OF SALES: 0.40
AVERAGE RATIO (LBS./$1,000 SALES) WITHIN INDUSTRY: 0.19
1988 GRAND TOTAL, POUNDS OF RELEASES: 2,810,322
|
Unilever United States' operating companies are divided into four industry segments: foods and beverages, household products, personal products, and specialty chemicals. These products are offered through Unilever United States' major operating companies: Lever Brothers, Thomas J. Lipton, Ragu Foods, Van den Bergh Foods, Chesebrough-Pond's, National Starch and Chemical and through other smaller companies.
In 1987, Unilever bought the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Seed Development Organization (both were British groups). "By buying PBI, Unilever now has control over research on new crop varieties that are resistant to disease" and can potentially reduce the sales of fungicides. These organizations have been merged to form Plant Breeding International Cambridge Ltd.
In 1991, Unilever acquired an 80% share in a Polish detergent company, its first acquisition in Eastern Europe. The company, renamed Lever Polska, will add new brand name products to the Polish market.
Faberge/Elizabeth Arden and the Calvin Klein fragrance business are among 55 businesses newly acquired by Unilever in 1989.
The following is a list of manufacturing locations for Unilever United States in the U.S.:
Lever Brothers Company:
Los Angeles, CA Owings Mills, MD Cartersville, GA St. Louis, MO Hammond, IN Edgewater, NJ Baltimore, MD Englewood Cliffs, NJThomas J. Lipton Company: Santa Cruz, CA Sioux City, IA (Knox Gelatine) Prince Frederick, MD Hagerstown, MD (Gold Bond Ice Cream) Independence, MO Sikeston, MO (Gold Bond) Henderson, NV (Gold Bond) Flemington, NJ Harrisburg, PA Suffolk, VARagu Foods Company: Merced, CA Shelton, CT North Hollywood, CA Owensboro, KY Stockton, CA Rochester, NY |
Van Den Bergh Foods Company:
Carson, CA Baltimore, MD Sunnyvale, CA Detroit, MI Vernon, CA Madelia, MN Atlanta. GA Thorofare, NJ Dalton, GA Maplewood, NJ Bedford Park, IL Rochester, NY Joliet, IL Cleveland, OH Elgin, IL Greenville, SC Olathe, KS Dallas, TXChesebrough-Ponds USA Co: Chicago, IL Clinton, CT Monticello, IN Trumbull, CT Jefferson City, MO Jacksonville, FL Raeford, NC Gainsville, GA Las Piedras, PR |
National Starch and Chemical Company:
Berkeley, CA Bloomfield, NJ Los Angeles, CA Plainfield, NJ Rancho Dominguez, CA Buffalo, NY Atlanta, GA Leland, NC Marietta, GA Salisbury, NC Chicago, IL Cincinnati, OH Delaware, OH Meredosia, IL Hazelton, PA Momence, IL Montgomeryville, PA Indianapolis, IN Woodruff, SC Island Falls, ME Chattanooga, TN Minneapolis, MN Memphis, TN North Kansas City, MO Dallas, TX Englewood, NJ Richmond, VA |
Unilever Military & Export Company (Umex) was established under Unilever U.S. to market its products to the U.S. military worldwide and to civilian populations in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and Puerto Rico.
Henceforth in this report, Unilever will be used to mean Unilever PLC and Unilever N.V.. Unilever U.S. will mean Unilever United States. Unilever U.S.' headquarters are shared with Lever Brothers Company. As Unilever states in its environmental policy, Lever Brothers has been the focus of most of its environmental initiatives, and thus is the company about which CEP has the most information. Lever Brothers Company will be referred to as Lever.
Melinda M. Sweet Director of Environmental Affairs Lever Brothers Company (212) 906-4040 David V. Lustig Director of Government Affairs Unilever United States, Inc. (212) 418-8836
"The Unilever business is based upon supplying high quality goods and services which meet the daily needs of people and industries throughout the world.
"In doing this, Unilever is committed to managing all its activities so as to provide exemplary levels of care and safety for the environment, its customers and its employees.
"It is Unilever's policy to:
-Review and continuously improve the performance of its products, services, and operations as measured by their environmental impact.
-Work in co-operation with members of industry, government agencies, relevant environmental bodies, suppliers and customers to promote the achievement of high standards of environmental care.
-Promote responsibly the real advantages it has achieved whilst avoiding making false or misleading claims of environmental benefit.
"To implement this policy, all Unilever businesses are required to:
-Meet or exceed the requirements of legislation and responsible consumer opinion.
-Heighten employees' environmental awareness by appropriate training.
"Unilever has nominated its Research & Engineering Director to take overall responsibility for setting standards for Safety, Health and Environmental matters, closely assisted by Unilever's Environmental Safety Officer.
"Unilever operates in a number of different product areas. Within the framework of Unilever policy, each Unilever product group has a specific environmental policy emphasizing the special environmental factors important in its product field.
"Implementation of the policy is a major responsibility of the Chairman of each of Unilever's operating companies throughout the world. Standards and procedures are laid down in a series of Unilever guidelines and technical policy documents.
"Environmental considerations are recognised as being of major importance to Unilever and are taken into account throughout the decision-making, development, manufacturing and marketing processes.
"To assist in the implementation of this policy, individual companies are able to call upon the expertise of Unilever's central research, engineering and technological resources which include specialist teams in areas such as toxicology, ecotoxicology, energy conservation and environmental engineering.
"The Environmental Safety Officer is responsible for promoting good practice throughout the business worldwide, in support of the environmental policy.
"The close co-ordination of product safety, safety at work and environmental impact is an important part of Unilever's approach to policy, implementation and monitoring. This is reflected in its procedures and in the organisation of these functions within the business.
"Unilever's Principal Medical Adviser works closely with the Environmental Safety Officer. Through its extensive occupational Health Service, Unilever promotes the health and safety of employees with in the workplace."
In 1989, Lever created the new post of Director of Environmental Affairs, in addition to an Environmental Task Force. The Director reports directly to Lever Brothers' President and CEO.
In May 1990, Unilever U.S. established a Solid Waste Committee. The Committee is chaired by Lever's Director of Environmental Affairs and comprised of representatives of all of the Unilever U.S. operating companies.
"In order to further its commitment to further plastic recycling, Lever entered into a partnership with Sonoco Graham, its largest plastic bottle supplier, to use half the output of its new plastic recycling facility in York, Pennsylvania. This partnership was the first step toward making bottle-to-bottle recycling a reality. Lever's agreement with Sonoco Graham saves 50 million plastic bottles from landfills annually."
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a British group that monitors accuracy in advertising, "asked Lever Brothers [U.K.] to withdraw a leaflet which claimed that the ingredients in Persil and Domestos do 'not damage the environment'. The ASA concluded that they have the potential to do so," and that advertising should avoid the use of absolutes.
Lever's Canada Sunlight Laundry Detergent was the first 100% phosphate free national brand detergent sold in Canada. "Phosphates have been isolated as a cause of excess algae growth which can deplete the oxygen supply in rivers and lakes, resulting in harm to fish and other aquatic life."
Lever recently introduced the new Wisk Power Scoop, "a super-concentrated powder detergent that requires less detergent per wash load. It provides the same quality product in a smaller package, thus cutting down on post-consumer waste."
The "green" consumerism advocated by Lever Bros. in its Wisk ad, promoting less packaging, gained only 1 star (i.e."pathetic") from Advertising Age magazine, for its negligible environmental contribution. The magazine claims that these are "changes not for the betterment of the environment but for the perception thereof," recognizing that there is effort and improvement, but also lack of restraint in green advertising.
The Chairman and CEO of J. Walter Thompson Co., the agency that produced the Wisk ad, responded to the article in a letter to the editor of Advertising Age in which he criticizes the article for deeming the Wisk Power Scoop's positive environmental steps "unworthy of mention." He insists that Lever's environmental claims are appropriately modest and a positive step for the environment.
Lever test marketed "Bag-in-Box" packaging for Snuggle and Wisk in selected areas of the U.S. The "packaging design is constructed of a 100 percent recyclable corrugated paper outer carton and an easily removable inner plastic bag with spout, which is coded for recycling."
Lever has been encouraging plastics recycling to create a sustainable supply of recycled resin. Lever household product plastic bottle labels contain the following statement: "Please Help! We are now using technology that can include recycled plastic in our bottles at levels between 25 and 35 percent. But to do so consistently, we need more recycled plastic. So please encourage recycling in your community."
A task force of 11 State Attorneys General, in a report on environmental claims in advertising, cited Lever's plastic bottle label as an example of "clear, non-deceptive" labeling that encourages recycling "without being misleading."
Lever supports coding of plastic bottles according to plastic type. "Lever was among the first to use the voluntary Society of the Plastics Industry(SPI) codes, molded into the bottom of each bottle, to facilitate sorting plastic bottles by type for regrinding and recycling."
Environmentalists have complained that the recycling of plastics is not a 'closed loop' process, in which the commodity is recycled into its original function, and therefore does not eliminate the eventual dumping of the plastic.
It has been Unilever's policy "to increase the use of renewable raw materials in the specialty chemicals business. Today, half the turnover is generated by products derived from such renewable resources. These include starch from corn or tapioca, flavours from plants or yeast cultures, and polymer building blocks from oil palms or soya beans."
Unilever has developed Eco-foam, "an alternative to expanded polystyrene loose-fill packing material. It is composed of over 95 per cent corn starch, a renewable resource." The company claims that Eco-foam is "water dispersable and biodegradable."
"At Lever Brothers' plant in St. Louis, shredded cardboard, chipboard and other paper materials are collected and sold to a waste paperboard reclaimer, reducing a large amount of solid waste."
Lever Brothers voluntarily discontinued its use of pigments and inks containing heavy metals for plastic and paperboard packaging. This will make the company's packaging more conducive for recycling, because packaging containing certain pigments and inks requires an extra step in the recycling process to remove the dyes.
(see PRODUCTS AND CONSUMER ISSUES for additional information on Lever's plastics recycling programs)
In September, 1990, Lever opened a Packaging Development Center in Owings Mills, MD dedicated specifically to the development of innovative and environmentally responsible packaging.
Lever Brothers has encouraged the use of recycled plastic resins. Beginning June 1990, Lever began filling and shipping such containers. Lever claims the annual savings will be 50 million bottles from landfills. "The levels of recycled resin in the plastic bottles are between 25% and 35%," Lever said. As of September 1991, Lever reported that 54% of its bottles nationwide are made with recycled plastics.
Unilever employs a program of recycling white office paper, polystyrene, and aluminum cans at all of its operating headquarters. The company reports that approximately 20-25% of its office paper is currently being recycled, translating into more than 70,000 pounds recycled in the program's first six months.
1988 Releases
AIR - 1,516,210
WATER - 852,000
LAND - 442,112
TOTAL - 2,810,322
In describing the media into which the chemical releases reported
to the Toxic Releases Inventory fall, CEP uses the following
terminology:
"Air" is toxics emitted to the air through point sources (smokestacks, vents, or other discrete sources) and fugitive emissions (unintentional emissions that do not have a clearly identifiable point of origin, such as equipment leaks, general evaporation, etc.);
"Water" is toxics discharged to the surface water and public sewage treatment works (POTWs);
"Land" is toxics disposed of through on-site land disposal, underground injection, or off-site transfers.
Lever Brothers was the first corporate sponsor of the "Tree-Mendous Maryland" campaign, sponsored by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources,which included the planting 50 to 250 trees near state highways.
Unilever subsidiaries have been cited for a number of violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in recent years.
For an explanation of RCRA violations at the Chesebrough-Ponds site in Jefferson City, see Missouri under the OPERATION-SPECIFIC section.
RCRA violations reported by the EPA also include a Chesebrough-Ponds site in Shelton, Connecticut, and a T.J. Lipton site in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
The EPA reports that National Starch and Chemical sites in Illinois and New Jersey have been cited for Clean Water Act violations in recent years. (see Illinois and New Jersey in the OPERATION-SPECIFIC section)
Berkeley - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), this plant reported the release of 3,250 pounds of toxic chemicals (mostly teratogens) into the air, land and water.
Gardena - Ablestik Laboratories
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 58,350 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air and land.
Los Angeles - Lever Brothers
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 1,935 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air and water, someof which were acutely toxic.
Stockton - Ragu Foods
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 32,000 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals into the water.
Sunnyvale - Van den Bergh Foods
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 10,723 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals into the air.
On July 14, 1985, Chesebrough-Ponds Inc. was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Beacon Heights Landfill Superfund site. The site, ID# CTD072122062, is on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.(see COMPLIANCE)
On May 1, 1990, Chesebrough-Ponds Inc. was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Laurel Park, Inc. Superfund site. The site, ID# CTD980521165, is on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Atlanta - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 2,595 pounds of teratogens into the air, land and water.
Chicago - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 7,820 pounds of toxic chemicals (mostly teratogens) into the air, land and water.
Chicago - Unichema North America
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 1,620 pounds of toxic chemicals into the water.
Chicago - Van Den Bergh Foods
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 102,520 pounds of toxic chemicals (mostly suspected teratogens) primarily into the air.
Elgin - Van Den Bergh Foods
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 27,350 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals into the air and water.
Joliet - Van Den Bergh Foods
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 145,325 pounds of toxic chemicals (about half of which were acutely toxic) into the air, land and water.
Meredosia - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 187,774 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water.
According to the EPA, the Meredosia site had a total of five quarters of non-compliance with the Clean Water Act in 1989 and 1990.
Hammond - Lever Brothers
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 4,050 toxic chemicals (over half of which were acutely toxic) into the air, land and water.
Indianapolis - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 22,195 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals (most of which were suspected carcinogens and teratogens) into the air.
Sergeant Bluff - Kind & Knox Gelatin
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 18,550 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals mostly into the air.
Island Falls - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 3,080 pounds of acute toxics (most of which were suspected carcinogens and teratogens) into the air.
On June 6, 1986, National Starch and Chemical was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Sand, Gravel, & Stone Superfund site. The site, ID# MDD980705164, is on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.(see COMPLIANCE)
On October 11, 1990, National Starch and Chemical Holding Corp. was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Sand, Gravel, & Stone Superfund site. The site, ID# MDD980705164, is on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.(see COMPLIANCE)
Baltimore - Lever Brothers
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 3,050 pounds of toxic chemicals (some of which were acutely toxic) into the air and water.
Baltimore - Van Den Bergh Foods
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 26,010 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals into the air.
Rochester - Microlife-MPI
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of zero toxic chemicals into the environment.
Independence - T.J. Lipton
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of no toxic chemicals for that year.
North Kansas City - Bedford Ave. - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 16,738 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals(most of which were suspected carcinogens and teratogens) into the air.
North Kansas City - Taney Street - National Starch and CHemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 1,000 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water.
Saint Louis - Lever Brothers
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 102,520 pounds of toxic chemicals (mostly suspected teratogens) primarily into the air.
Jefferson City - Chesebrough Ponds
A March 1, 1988 inspection of Chesebrough-Ponds' site in Jefferson City, Missouri found RCRA violations in the contingency plan and storage areas, and discovered improperly documented hazardous waste training.
An inspection initiated on December 29, 1989 and continued on January 2, 1990 found several RCRA violations. Chesebrough-Ponds was cited for maintaining a two-inch opening in two satellite accumulation drums for intermittent addition of waste, for not obtaining a "signed" copy of one hazardous waste manifest within the required 45 day period, and for not including supplemental spill response equipment, acquired several days prior to the inspection, in the facility's RCRA Contingency Plan. Additionally, inspection logs pertaining to the temporary waste storage area did not document daily inspection results to the extent that the inspector required. Chesebrough was also cited for lack of a containment system, and completed design and construction of the system within four months of the inspection. Chesebrough was also cited for improper disposal of boiler ash. The company says this boiler ash exhibited none of the characteristics of hazardous waste, but it was determined to be hazardous by definition by the inspector.
According to the Missouri DEQ, the January 2, 1990 inspection of the site found repeat RCRA violations which a DEQ official has characterized as "significant." Chesebrough Ponds was cited for disposing of boiler incineration ash into an open landfill, for having an inadequate waste containment system, open satellite containers, an incomplete contingency plan, a missing manifest, and no inspection logs at the hazardous waste facility.
The company addressed each violation and was in compliance as of April 23, 1991 after paying a $17,000 civil penalty.
On May 17, 1985, Faberge, Inc. was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the SCP Carlstadt Superfund site. The site, ID# NJD070565403, is on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.(see COMPLIANCE)
On July 24, 1985, Chesebrough-Ponds Inc. was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Kin Buc Landfill Superfund site. The site, ID# NJD049860836, is on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.(see COMPLIANCE)
On July 24, 1985, National Starch and Chemical was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Kin-Buc Landfill Superfund site. The site, ID# NJD049860836, is on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.(see COMPLIANCE)
Bloomfield - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 157,991 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air and land.
Bridgewater - Permabound International
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 111,909 pounds of toxic chemicals (mostly suspected teratogens) into the air, land water.
Englewood - Permabound International
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 942 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air.
Mount Olive - Quest International Fragrances USA
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 2,502 pounds of toxic chemicals mostly into the air.
Plainfield - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 22,348 pounds of mostly acutely toxic chemicals, primarily into the water.
According to the EPA, a site in Essex, New Jersey had two quarters of non-compliance with the Clean Water Act in 1988.
Rochester - Ragu Foods
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 39,229 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals into the water.
West Seneca - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 1,000 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water.
Leland - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 457,750 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air and land.
Salisbury - Cedar Springs Rd. - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 156,032 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air and water.
Salisbury - Lumber Street - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 121 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals into the air.
Cleveland - Thiem Division
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of no toxic chemicals for that year.
Evandale - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 500 pounds of acute toxics into the air.
On November 18, 1981, National Starch and Chemical was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Carolawn Superfund site. The site, ID# SCD980558316, is on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Greenville - Van Den Bergh Foods
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 22694 pounds of acutely toxic chemicals into the air.
Enoree - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 388,582 pounds of toxic chemicals mostly into the air.
Chattanooga - Alcoa Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 537,202 pounds of mostly acutely toxic chemicals into the air and water.
On February 11, 1983 National Starch and Chemical was identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at the Bio-ecology Systems, Inc. Superfund site. The site, ID# TXD980340889, is on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.(see COMPLIANCE)
Grand Prairie - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 1,000 pounds of teratogens into the air, land and water.
Lever sponsored a clean-up campaign for the rebeautification of an inner-city park and recreation area in Dallas, TX. The event was called Wisk Power Scoop-Up. "In addition, Lever is helping to underwrite an environmental education program in the Dallas independent school district."
Richmond - National Starch and Chemical
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 3,490 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water.
Suffolk - T. J. Lipton
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 42,835 pounds of toxic chemicals into the water.
Milwaukee - Thiem Division
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 3,105 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water.
Oak Creek - Thiem Division
According to the EPA's 1988 TRI, this plant reported the release of 10,103 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, also called Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), was enacted in 1986. The Act provided several new ways for government and the public to monitor industrial toxic releases. One requirement of the law was the creation of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), an annual inventory to document the types and amounts of toxins released by manufacturing facilities. TRI covers 308 individual toxins and 20 chemical categories. These releases are permitted by law.
According to the EPA's Toxics in the Community, "Congress created the TRI list by combining chemical lists previously developed for similar reporting laws in the States of New Jersey and Maryland. These states had based their respective lists partly on toxicity information, but also on considerations of the amount produced or used in the state, the regulatory status, the presence in the environment, and professional judgement about potential hazards. Thus, the TRI list covers a spectrum of toxicity concerns, from mildly toxic to acutely toxic. Some chemicals may not be toxic at all, and will be removed from the TRI list in subsequent reporting years after careful review by EPA. On the other hand, toxic chemicals not currently on the list will be added."
TRI is a great step forward. Nevertheless, of the 60,000 or so registered chemicals, TRI covers less than 0.5%. Facilities which manufacture, import or process over 50,000 pounds, or use in any other manner over 10,000 pounds of TRI chemicals must report to the EPA and to States the quantity of chemicals released into the environment or sent off-site to treatment or disposal facilities.
According to analysis by USPIRG, under current TRI regulation, manufacturers are not required to report chemicals which are transferred to an off-site facility for "recycling or reuse". Often the transported chemicals are "reused" as fuel in unregulated cement kilns or boilers which can be extremely hazardous. This allows off-site treatment to go unreported while on-site incineration must be reported. According to USPIRG, such off-site incineration amounts to an estimated 3.6 billion pounds per year, more than all of the releases into the air for the top 25 TRI chemicals reported in 1987.
CEP includes TRI information for all subsidiaries which are at least 50% owned by the company being profiled.
There are probably few things as murky and serpentine as the EPA's approach to environmental compliance enforcement. While the headquarters does include an Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, most actual enforcement duties are divided among the seven EPA program offices, the ten operating regions and fifty state-level agencies. Tracking down who is responsible for what actions -- which office levied the fine covered in every major paper, or why Company X was never charged with violations when it experienced 19 major accidental releases of benzene and toluene -- requires the persistence of a bionic mole.
Some enforcement data can be obtained from headquarters through Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests. In the last few years, the EPA has made strides in computerizing and streamlining data. In some cases, agency data is now available from the Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service (NTIS), which charges the purchase of public data.
Anyone who has tried to collect data from state environmental agencies knows how frustrating such efforts can be: most states have not computerized the data, staffing is short, and often one must go in person to "look through the files." Environmentally progressive states, such as Minnesota and California, stand out as shining examples, moving toward comprehensive, user-friendly reports.
After accounting for exceptions, exemptions and extenuating circumstances (of which there are many), a general hierarchy might look like this: Administrative actions: This is the first level of EPA response. It could be a letter written to a facility that had recently exceeded its air emissions permit. It might mean some inspectors were sent out to look over a plant.
Enforcement actions: Enforcement actions are taken if a problem is not resolved after Administrative actions have been used. Enforcement actions include listing a facility as out of compliance, getting a company to sign a consent decree that promises future improving, levying a penalty, and so forth.
Civil Judicial actions: If the previous efforts still fail to bring the offender into compliance, the EPA goes to court and files suit. These suits are usually brought by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA, and often seek only cost recovery and remedial action.
Criminal Judicial actions: If the offending situation is serious enough, or the offender recalcitrant enough, criminal charges are filed.
In 1980, Congress passed a law called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries. The money collected from the tax, known as the Superfund, goes toward the cleanup of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The discovery of a potential hazardous waste site can occur in the course of required reporting or routine inspections or when there is physical evidence of contamination (drums, odors, etc.). The Superfund process then begins. The basicsteps of the Superfund process are discussed below.
1) Preliminary investigations, usually conducted by the State environmental agency, provide preliminary information regarding the history of disposal at the site. It is here where PRPs are determined.
2) If the EPA decides that there is a potential for contamination at the site, a Hazard Ranking Study is conducted. A site is ranked using a scoring system that evaluates many factors, including potential for substances to contaminate groundwater, air, or surface soil; harm to individuals from contact with substances; and potential for site to contaminate drinking water.
3) If a site is considered to present a potentially serious hazard, the site is placed on the National Priority List (NPL). Sites on the NPL present the most serious problems among hazardous waste sites nationwide and are eligible for Superfund money.
4) Once a site is placed on the NPL, a Remedial Investigation (RI) is conducted. An RI assesses the nature and extent of contamination on site and determines the potential risks to the community and environment. In addition to the RI, a Feasibility Study (FS) is conducted. The FS examines the pros and cons of various cleanup options (e.g. removal of contaminated soil, installation of water purification systems, or containment of contaminants).
5) Before choosing one or a combination of cleanup methods, the EPA addresses Public Comments. The purpose of this is to determine which of the proposed cleanup alternatives would most effectively meet the desires of the local community.
6) The optimal cleanup alternative is documented in the Record of Decisions, after which a cleanup plan is designed.
7) Cleanup is the last step in the process. The method of cleanup may vary according to the type and amount of contamination present at a site, the possible receptors of contamination near the site, and the concerns of the community.
But the Superfund process has drawn much criticism. A 1989 study by Congress' Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) warned, "Unless serious consideration is given to making fundamental changes in the Superfund program...significant risks to public health and the environment will remain poorly managed, public expectations will remain unmet and public confidence will worsen." This should not come as a surprise, since of over 1,200 sites on the NPL, only 53 have been entirely cleaned up. And the OTA believes up to 9,000 additional sites will need help. A January/February 1991 article in E Magazine stated, "studies have found that, once a problem site is discovered, up to five years can lapse before the EPA undertakes studies [RI/FS] on how best to clean it up, and another five years can pass before actual cleanup work begins."
In addition to the time it takes to clean up Superfund sites, the methods of cleanup are problematic. Many efforts to contain the wastes, rather than use treatment technologies to neutralize them, have caused spillage or release of the toxins. When Congress reauthorized Superfund in 1986 (known as the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act, which created the Toxics Release Inventory), it ordered the EPA to give preference to treatment technologies. But in 1987, the EPA approved containment for two-thirds of the sites it reviewed and half for those it reviewed in 1988.
CEP has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this report. Although data has been collected from reliable sources, CEP cannot guarantee full accuracy or completeness.