p2infohouse.org · ! I INFORM, Inc. 120 Wall Street New York, NY 10005-4001 Tel2 12.36 1.2400 Fax 212.361.2412 E-mail [email protected] 0 1997 by INFORM, Inc. All rights reserved

Tracking Toxic C emicals The Value of Materials Accounting Data

Shipped asli n

Product

Mark H. Dorfman and Marian Wise

!

I

INFORM, Inc. 120 Wall Street New York, NY 10005-4001 Tel2 12.36 1.2400 Fax 212.361.2412 E-mail [email protected]

0 1997 by INFORM, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congrw,s Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Dorfman, Mark H., 1955- Tracking toxic chemicals: the value of materials accounting data

/ Mark H. Dorfman and Marian Wise. p. cm.

Includes bibiiographical references (p. ) ,

1. Hazardous wastes--Tracking--New Jersey. ISBN 0-9 18780-68-3

2. Material accountability. I. Wise, Marian, 1957- . 11. INFORM, Inc. 111. Title. TD1042.N5D67 1997 363.17’9 1’09749--dc21 97-36 146

CIP

Printed on 100 percent recycled, 20 percent postconsumer, chlorine-free paper using vegetable-based inks.

INFORM is a national nonprofit organization that identifies practical ways of living and doing business that are environmentally sustainable. INFORM is supported by individual, foundation, government, and corporate contributions, and by book sales. All contributions are tax-deductible.

A copy of INFORM’S Annual Report may be obtained by contacting the Offices of Charities Registration, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12231, or INFORM, Inc.

~

Visit INFORM’S new Web site at http:llwww.informinc.org.

mailto:[email protected]:llwww.informinc.org

Table of Contents

Preface .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6

I . 1 Beyond Industrial Waste ................................................................................................... 9 1.2 The Figures Reveal the Difference: TRI and Materials Accounting ................................. 10 1.3 This INFORM Report ................................................................................................... 12 1.4 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 12

Chapter 2 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................ 13

Chapter 3 Information as a Vehicle for Change .................................................................................................. 16

3.1 New Jersey Materials Accounting Data: Broadening the Scope of Chemical Use Reporting ... 16 3.2 The National Toxics Release Inventory: The Waste Picture .......................... .- .................. 16 3.3 Comparing Data Elements: TRI vs . Materials Accounting ............................................. 17 .

Chapter 4 Pollution Prevention Progress in New Jersey ...................................................................................... 18

4.1 Tracking the Generation of Nonproduct Output ............................................................ 20 4.2 Tracking the Quantity of NPO Reduced at the Source ................................................... 21 4.3 Tracking Toxic Chemical Use in New Jersey ................................................................... 22

4.3.1 Tracking Changes in Use for All Reportable Chemicals .................................. 23 4.3.2 Tracking Changes in Use for Chemicals of Special Concern ........................... 23

4.5 Tracking Chemical Use Efficiency Based on Reported Activity-Use ................................ 25 4.6 Connecting Use Information to Chemicals in Products .................................................. 33

4.4 Tracking Chemical Use Efficiency .................................................................................. 24

Chapter 5 Transport and Storage of Chemicals in Products and Waste ............................................................... 33

Transport of All Reportable Chemicals ................................................................................. 34

On-site Storage of Chemicals ............................................................................................... 36

~~

Transport of Chemicals of Special Concern .......................................................................... 34 -~

Chapter G Some Key Questions Uniquely Raised by the Materials Accounting Data .......................................... 37

6.1 Comparison of Two Facilities Using the Same Chemical to Produce the Same Product .. 37 6.2 Identifying Reporting Errors in TRI ............................................................................... 38 6.3 Bioaccummulators: Release vs . Use ................................................................................. 39

Chapter 7 Improving the New Jersey Materials Accounting Data ....................................................................... 40

7.1 Database Management ................................................................................................... 42 7.2 Quality Control of the Database .................................................................................... 42 7.3 Expanded Information in the Database .......................................................................... 42

Chapter 8 Looking Ahead: Toxic Chemicals in Commerce ................................................................................ 43

Notes .............................................................................................................................................................. 44

Appendix A: Rankings of New Jersey Chemicals ............................................................................................. 47

Appendix B: Material Accounting Data for Chemicals of Special Concern in New Jersey ............................... 52

Appendix C: Rankings of New Jersey Facilities ............................................................................................... 52

Appendix D: Rankings of New Jersey Industries ............................................................................................. 56

Appendix E: Rankings of New Jersey Counties ............................................................................................... 59

Appendix F: Activity-Use Combinations Used for INFORM Grouping ......................................................... 61

Appendix G: Glossary ofTerms ...................................................................................................................... 63

Appendix H: DEQ-114 (Sample Form) .......................................................................................................... 72

~ ~~~~

.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank many people for their valuable contributions to this report. A special thanks goes to Catherine G. Miller, Thomas E. Natan, Warren R. Muir, and Sharon Martin at Hampshire Research Institute for their invaluable creative and analytical contributions throughout all phases of research and writing.

We would like to thank the following people who reviewed the final draft of this report: Carolyn Hartmann and Alpa Pandya of the US and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, respectively, Christopher J. Daggett, former Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and INFORM Research Asso- ciate Carolyn Nunley.

Many people at INFORM contributed to the successful completion of this report. We thank Joanna D. Underwood, president of INFORM, and past and present research directors Phyllis Arnold and Nevin Cohen for their support throughout the research, writing, and production of this report. Special thanks go to Sharene Azimi, director of publications, and Jason Fox, production editor, for their expert guidance and tireless energy in helping create a finished document that is thorough, concise, and clear.

INFORM is especially grateful to the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Schumann Fund for New Jersey for their support of this project, and the Victoria and Geraldine R. Dodge Foundations for their continuing support of INFORM’S work in New Jersey. While this report benefited from the help of these organizations and individuals, the content and analysis are the sole responsibility of INFORM.

3

Preface

This new report, Tracking Toxic Cbemicah: The Vaue of Materials Accounting Data, offers a fresh INFORM perspective on what government, business leaders, and citizens know about the use and movement of toxic chemicals in this country. The report focuses on the opportunity we see to move more effectively toward much safer use of chemicals by adopting guidelines for national corporate reporting on toxic chemicals that include information now compiled in New Jersey Our research is particularly timely because the nationwide expansion of chemical reporting requirements is now under consideration by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, by members of Congress, and by many leaders in the environmental community.

~

~-

In the crucial efforts of the United States and other industrialized countries to become “sustainable societies,” that is, responsible stewards of their natural resources for the use of future generations, one of the greatest challenges is how to safeguard the health of our workers, families and children, as well as the environment, from the threats posed by the growing use of toxic chemicals. In just 50 years, more than 200,000 United States factories that make or use these chemicals have come into operation, and industrial expansion is rapidly occurring around the globe.

On the positive side, the use of the more than 70,000 toxic chemicals in commerce has enriched our lives with products ranging from durable plastics, solvents, and adhesives to life-saving drugs. However, it has also meant a flood of toxic materials pouring into our economy: materials known to cause cancer like benzene, vinyl chloride, and dichloromethane; chemicals that cause nerve damage like phosgene and lead; and substances like chlorine, that are known to be toxic and highly reactive with living bodies and other materials. -

What do we know today about the use of these toxic chemicals and the potential risks they pose? And why, with all the information that government now requires from chemical producers and users, should we need more? We know that almost 6 trillion pounds of toxic chemicals a year are produced or imported for use every year in the United States.

chemicals are not clear. We know that the toxicity, long-term health effects, and environmental impacts of the vast majority of these

We know that, despite the best efforts of government regulators and scientists to improve their measurement and assessment of risks, the reliance on risk assessments as the main method to evaluate chemical safety has proven inadequate. Over the last five decades we have learned about the negative effects of certain chemicals only after people and the environment had been exposed and harmed.

We know, based on the experience of learning too late about chemical hazards, that we cannot afford to be sanguine about the safety of the flow of toxic materials. Most recently, we have become aware that some classes of chemicals may be responsible for disruptions to the endocrine system and the reproductive processes of many animal species and possibly humans as well.

-~ Finally, we know that we must take a precautionary approach to toxic chemical use. While risk assessment

analyses must continue, the obvious new policy focus of public and private sector leaders must be a goal of exposure prevention, with the ultimate goal of safe, exposure-free uses of chemicals.

4

What role does public data, the topic of this INFORM report, play in moving our nation toward this important goal? Over the last decade, we have learned that the collection and disclosure of data can accomplish a great deal. A vital part of the public information needed was fmt put in place when, under the Superfund Reauthorization Act of 1986, major chemical producing firms were required to report annually on a chemical-specific basis the quantities of major toxic chemicals released as waste into our air and waterways and transferred for recycling, treatment, and disposal. With this information, called the Toxics Release Inventory, the US Environmental Protection Agency, industry officials, environmental groups, and local communities had a revolutionary new capacity to identify local, regional, and national waste streams of concern and develop ways to prevent them at the source (often with economic benefits), to recycle them, or as a last resort, to more safely treat and dispose of them.

Our research of the data required to be publicly reported in New Jersey, called materials accounting data, shows how this information permits a much more sophisticated analysis of chemical-related exposures than the national Toxics Release Inventory. The materials accounting data requirements obligate companies to report on the movement of toxic materials, not merely as production wastes, but in transport to and from factories, stored on plant sites, and leaving plants in or as products.

The New Jersey data enable us:

To better assess the threats chemicals pose to workers, communities, and the environment - information that is invaluable as we seek to move toward exposure-free chemical transportation and storage, and closed-loop, exposure-free industrial operations.

to our air, land, and water identified in the future can be traced to possible toxic chemical uses. To track regional and national trends, thereby improving the chance that damaging impacts to public health or

To begin assessing problems related to the toxic chemical constituents in products.

accountable for materials stewardship. To evaluate progress in source reduction and the more efficient use of chemicals by companies, and to hold firms

Perhaps one of the most important effects of corporate compilation of full materials accounting data is the clearer picture managers then have of their own operations and exposures related to the chemicals they make and sell. This opens the door to the kind of creative thinking within companies about changes in their plant practices, products, or feedstocks that will be vital to their future economic competitiveness as well as to progress toward achieving the all- important vision of an economically and environmentally sustainable world.

Joanna D. Underwood President

5

I. INTRODUCTION

Since the emergence of the US chemical industry in the mid- 1940s, the manufacture and use of chemicals in the nation has steadily risen as industry turns to synthetic chemical compounds to make the products on which modern commerce and consumers depend. The way of life made possible by the manufacture of new chemical products includes features of safety, com- fort, and convenience that would not have been fea- sible 50 years ago. The benefits of products such as refrigerants, pharmaceuticals, and plastic protective gear are clear to the millions of people who rely on them. Much less clear is the extent to which the use of chemical constituents in these and other commercial and consumer products pose risks to human health and the environment - whether during manufacturing, product use, or disposal.

More than 77,000 chemicals have been in “commerce” since 1979, meaning they have been manufactured in or imported to the United States. In the only such analysis ever performed in the United States, the Na- tional Research Council (NRC) estimated in 1984 that toxicity information, often minimal, was only available for about 20 percent of the chemicals in commerce at that time. Based on its statistical sample, NRC further concluded that none of these chemicals’ health and environmental risks had been adequately charac- terized. ’ Indeed, a number of chemicals have been found, some- times only after years of use, to cause serious health and environmental problems. For example, the harmful properties of lead and mercury on the human ner- vous system have been known for centuries, but only recently has science recognized that exposure to these and other chemicals, such as dioxin, can cause harm - even at very low exposure levels. Other chemicals, such as benzene, formaldehyde, and styrene, can cause cancer; asbestos can cause lung cancer. Knowledge of the effects of many others have come as a series of particularly nasty surprises. For instance, DDT accu-

mulates in the food chain, threatening reproductive health of a range of species, along with DDE, the more potent chemical to which it decomposes over time; PCBs also persist in the environment and accumulate in fatty tissue, building up to levels that can cause human birth defects and possibly learning disabilities; and the same characteristics that make CFCs nonhazardous when used as coolants and solvents (stable and unreactive), allow them to migrate unscathed into the upper atmosphere where they become unstable and deplete the ozone layer.

Most recently, rising evidence in many animal, rep- tile, and bird species suggests that chemical compounds

. once thought safe might actually mimic the hormone estrogen. These estrogen imitators may disrupt endocrine systems and damage reproductive organs and fertility cycles in a range of organisms - possibly even humans.’

How can we begin to address the potential risks posed by these tens of thousands of substances circulating in our workplaces, communities, and homes? Two factors contribute to the potential risk posed by a given substance - its inherent toxicity and the extent and means of exposure to it. The dose is particularly crucial: for example, Vitamin A, a beneficial compound, can be lethal at high levels. The level and frequency of exposure is largely a result of how and where the chemical is used in the environment. Even a highly toxic chemical, if used in a contained system, should not cause adverse effects; however;if it is used dispersively, for example, as an aerosol pesticide, the effects might be so widespread as to be effectively unmeasurable. The route of exposure plays an important role as well: one chemical might be poisonous when inhaled but will not cause harm when it comes into direct contact with the skin.

The current approach authorizing the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to regu- late toxic chemical use places the burden on US EPA to prove that a chemical poses an “unreasonable” risk

6

to humans and the environment. Yet the basic information required to meet this burden of proof - ad- equate information on toxicity and exposures - does not exist for the vast majority of chemicals in commerce, and US EPA does not have the capacity to collect this information. Since the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act more than 20 years ago, US EPA has only been able to use the power of this act to limit some uses of just nine chemicals.

Given the limitations of this approach, which assumes that chemicals are “safe until proven dangerous,” a more protective strategy would seek to reduce or elimi- nate potentially harmful exposures, even in the ab- sence of extensive toxicity information. The first step to avoiding these exposures is to identify where and how chemicals are being used. Making information on industrial chemical use publicly available would engage a wide range of stakeholders - including manufacturers, policymakers, workers, health care pro- viders, consumers, and communities - in identifying routes of exposure, potential problems caused by these exposures, and solutions.

Nowhere in the United States is all of this information collected in a comprehensive and publicly accountable manner. O n the national level, industrial

facilities that 1) manufacture or process a reportable chemical in quantities of more than 25,000 pounds per year, or 2) use more than 10,000 pounds of a reportable chemical per year must report their annual releases and transfers to the federal Toxics Release In- ventory (TRI) if it is one of the roughly 600 toxic chemicals listed by TRI. New Jersey is one of only two states in the nation that requires the same facilities that report to TRI to provide more data on chemical use.3 New Jersey requires industrial facilities to report quantities of chemicals flowing through facilities. This includes chemicals that: have entered the facility; were used and consumed in the process (inputs); have left the facility in waste (released to air, water, land, and off-site transfers); and that have left as (or in) a product (o~ tpu t s ) .~ This reporting system of the chemicals moving through a facility is known as materials accounting data.

New Jersey’s materials accounting database came out of the 1984 Worker and Community Right to Know Act (NJRTK),5 which was the first law of its kind to require industrial facilities to publicly report quantities of toxic chemicals transported in and out of facilities as (or in) products, chemically converted in production processes, stored on site, and generated as waste and subsequently released to the environment

The Pollution Prevention Act of I990 defines industrial source reduction as any practice which I) reduces the amount of hazardous substance, pollutant, o r contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, o r disposal; and 2) reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

Source reduction techniques fall into five broad categories: I) chemical substitutions involve replacing toxic or hazardous chemicals with nonhazardous or less hazardous ones; 2) product changes (reformulations) involve changes in the product itself that can be achieved without changing the fundamental manufacturing process; 3) process changes involve any change in the production process that reduces the generation of waste, ranging from simple alterations of process conditions to discovery of new chemical pathways and production technologies; 4) equipment changes involve modifications of, and additions to, equipment used in any stage of the manufacturing process;and 5) operational changes involve changes in the way toxic o r hazardous materials are handled at a plant that can reduce the generation of waste and decrease the potential for other toxic hazards.

INFORM3 research has found that facilities pursuing industrial source reduction often become more efficient in their operations and reduce their costs significantly (as documented in INFORM3 Environmental Divi- dends: Cutting More Chemical Wastes, 1992).

7

or transferred off site for recycling, treatment, and disposal. Following New Jersey’s lead, Congress passed the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986, marking the emergence of the “right to know” as national policy.‘ Under EPCRA, the Toxics Release Inventory was created.

In this report, INFORM takes a close look at the materials accounting data collected in New Jersey and its utility as a mechanism for tracking industrial toxic chemical use and product shipments. While New Jer- sey does not collect all of the information needed to systematically identify exposure reduction opportunities and track progress, INFORM has found that the information contained in the state‘s database allows for three types of analyses that would not be possible with TRI data alone:

Tracking quantities of industrial toxic chemicals used. Materials accounting data provide information on the amount of specific industrial toxic chemicals imported to, consumed, produced, shipped off site as product, or stored at industrial facilities in New Jersey. Recording the total quantity used of a given chemical at a facility in one year can show whether all uses of that chemical have been accounted for. Track- ing all uses is an important step toward describing their associated exposures, because while certain contained uses or immediate chemical conversions may not result in exposures, other dispersive applications (such as spraying) may expose workers and the local environment.

Evaluating the reduction of industrial toxic chemical use and waste at the source. Only New Jersey requires industrial facilities to report on any reductions achieved in the use of toxic chemicals or the generation of waste through pollution prevention measures, compared with the previous year. Reducing the use of toxic chemicals at an industrial facility and the generation ofwaste is the most direct way of eliminating human or environmental exposure that might occur during handling, storage, recycling, treatment, disposal, or release to the environment.

Assessing the efficiency of industrial toxic chemical use. Materials accounting data allow a variety of measures of how efficiently a facility is using particular chemicals. From an environmental standpoint, using a chemical more efficiently during manufacturing would mean that more of the total amount used goes to its intended purpose (such as an ingredi- ent in a product, a processing aid, or a reagent) and less is generated as waste. (Efficient material use as defined here might also be the most cost-effective way of using the given material, but this is not necessarily the case in all situations.) New Jersey’s data can be used to shed light on those facilities that should be recognized for improvements already achieved or that might be targeted for technical assistance due to lack of evidence of such improvement.

____

____

For industry, government, communities, and public interest groups concerned about the use of chemicals at industrial facilities, the availability of materials accounting data can bring significant benefits.

- Businesses can plan better. Businesses can use the data to identify opportunities for preventing waste and measure their own performance over a specific period of time. In particular, businesses can examine the efficiency with which they are using chemicals, not just in terms of waste generation but also whether the chemical is used for its intended purpose or whether it is ending up in a product when it does not need to be there. In addition, companies can compare the performance of their facilities to similar facilities owned by other companies.

Government can target regulatory programs more effectively. Government can use the data to identify which chemicals are used in the largest quantities

also use the data to identify which facilities or industrial sectors are responsible for these uses. From a regulatory or programmatic standpoint, this information would assist in targeting chemicals for reduction and in targeting facilities or communities for technical assistance. In addition, government agencies responsible

and in the most inefficient manner; government can -

8

for public health can use the data to track what chemicals are leaving facilities as (or in) products and to evaluate the potential links between these uses and adverse health effects over time.

Communities can identify local problems and promote constructive change. Communities in the neighborhoods of industrial facilities can examine the data to track quantities of chemicals entering and leaving the facilities. The data will also provide public interest groups studying industrial activity with a new set of questions to raise with companies, such as: why is this toxic chemical being shipped as part of this product, when the company reports that this chemical was not intended to be part of the product?

As this report goes to press, the United States Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (US EPA), which man- ages the TRI reporting program and database, is con- sidering the expansion of the federal TRI to include materials accounting data. Public hearings have been held on the subject, but a decision has yet to be made. INFORM’S research for this report makes it clear that this data, if collected throughout the nation on chemical producing and using facilities, would enable a new and valuable means for industry leaders, government agencies, and environmental groups to measure, and thus promote, pollution prevention progress. These data would also provide a critical component of the basic information necessary for tracking the movement of toxic chemicals throughout commerce and would help identify opportunities to avoid harmful exposures.

I. I Beyond Industrial Waste Until the dawn of the modern environmental movement in the early 1970s, little public attention was focused on toxic materials. But at that time, the vis- ible emissions from industrial plants, as well as a series of widely publicized chemical spills and illegal dump- ing incidents, turned the attention of communities, public interest groups, government, and even industry to the nation’s toxics threat. In the 1970s, a number of federal laws were enacted to address the prob- lem of how to safely manage toxic chemicals. Over

the ensuing two decades, the national sense of priorities about sources of industrial contamination shifted from regulation designed to control toxic emissions (end-of-the-pipe management) to concern about the cost of such pollution controls, and then, with the passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, to policy that promoted the reduction of waste at its source. Over time, the public’s perception of where the risks from toxic chemicals come from has also broadened to include products containing toxic constituents. This concern is reflected in the growth of new businesses selling alternative nontoxic cleaning fluids, laundry detergents, clothing, paints, and other products.

Each year some 20 billion pounds of chemicals are released from industrial manufacturing facilities in the United States as waste. The variety of chemicals in- cluded in industrial waste is vast in its composition, in its physical and chemical characteristics, and in its range of toxicity and potential health and environmental effects. In some cases, the waste consists pri- marily of a single chemical or chemical compound; in other cases, the waste is a complex mixture of substances of varying composition. From the moment chemicals are brought onto a plant site - as they are stored on the site, moved from one storage vat or tank to another, used in production, or integrated as constituents of products - they pose potential risks of routine or accidental exposures to workers, neighbors, and the environment. When chemicals are lost from the industrial process as waste - whether as emissions into the air, water, or land or as on- or off-site transfers for recycling, treatment, or disposal - they may cause environmental exposures and thus potential danger to both humans and wildlife.

While most public attention and legislation has focused on the billions of pounds of waste generated at US industrial plants, this is only one source of potential threats to public and environmental health from chemicals. INFORM’S research in Zxics Watch 1995 produced a striking perspective: the tens of billions of pounds of toxic industrial wastes is dwarfed in com-

9

parison with more than Gtrillion pounds of chemicals flowing annually into commerce. The analysis in Toxics Watch of data on a variety of contaminated environ- ments found contamination sources to be, to a significant degree, toxic ingredients incorporated in products used throughout society, such as solvents, paints, oven cleaners, and pesticides.

Once chemical-containing products leave a manufacturing facility, many can potentially cause widespread exposures and contamination. For example, consumer products that have heavy metals in them, such as bat- teries and thermometers containing lead and mercury, may be safe when used but will eventually pose problems upon disposal, when their placement in munici- pal landfills or incinerators could lead to toxic leachate or air emissions. Contaminants deposited in plant mat- ter and simple organisms can move to higher organisms, including humans, through the process of bioaccumulation. Other products are designed in such a way that chemicals are released to the environment immediately during use, such as dry cleaning solvents, home pesticides, air fresheners, and spray cleaners. According to a US EPA study, the use of everyday products containing toxic chemicals creates indoor air levels of toxic substances that average at least two to five times outdoor levels? These substances often include volatile organic compounds or VOCs (carbon-based chemicals that readily vaporize at room temperature, such as the perchloroethylene common in dry cleaning solvents). Still other products may emit contaminants continuously during their long product life, such as paints, adhesives, and building materials. For example, formaldehyde, a probable human carcinogen, is a raw material used for manufacturing the adhesives found in particleboard, insulation, and carpeting. Over its lifecycle, formaldehyde is slowly released into the air. Each of these types of exposures may cause adverse health effects to the users of these products.

Another potential hazard created by the use of toxic chemicals in consumer and building products is the exposure of workers to these chemicals in the workplaces where such products or their constituents are

made. Some 32 million US workers are potentially exposed to one or more of an estimated 575,000 ex- isting chemicnls and chemical mixtures8 - many of which are directly involved in making consumer and building products. Chemical exposure may cause or contribute to many serious health effects in workers, such as heart ailments, kidney and lung damage, ste- rility, cancer, burns, and rashes. Occupational illnesses like lung disease and lead poisoning led to 60,300 deaths and 862,200 illnesses in 1992, with direct and indirect costs totaling $171 b i l l i~n .~ Some chemicals may also be safety hazards and have the potential to cause fires and explosions and other serious accidents, such as sulfuric acid, acrolein, and ethylene oxide.

_____

-~

The continuous growth of a vast array of toxic chemicals parallels mounting public concern about the potential threats they pose. The demand for accurate, understandable information within the context of the public’s “right to know” has grown significantly. More questions are being asked than ever before about the effects of toxic chemicals in homes, workplaces, and the environment. That is why more information on toxic chemicals in industrial facilities -how much of which chemicals are used, disposed of, and incorporated into products - would provide a critical piece of the toxics puzzle.

~

I .2The Figures Reveal the Difference:TRI and Materials Accounting Of the more than 200,000 industrial facilities making and using chemicals in the United States today, almost 22,000 manufacturing plants produce or use toxic chemicals in quantities that make them subject to reporting requirements under the TRI. The 1995 national releases and off-site transfers of toxic chemicals reported to the TRI totaled close to 6 billion

the air, water, or land (including on-site disposal), as well as management off site (including recycling and energy recovery). Total production-related waste (the amount generated from routine production prior to recycling, energy recovery, treatment, disposal, or

pounds. This includes the amount released directly to -

-

I O

release) from all reporting facilities was about 20 billion pounds.

The 1995 TRI figures for New Jersey alone indicate that 14.6 million pounds of toxic chemicals were released into air, water, or land, 110.4 million pounds were transferred off site, and 537.1 million pounds were generated as production-related waste. It is important to remember, however, that these national and state TRI figures represent roughly 600 plus of the tens of thousands of chemicals circulating through commerce."

While TRI data quantifies toxic chemicals leaving a facility as waste, the New Jersey materials accounting data present a much broader picture of quantities of toxic chemicalsflowing through industrial facilities. A simple comparison between New Jersey TRI and materials accounting figures sheds new light on the value of these more extensive data for guiding further in- quiry into the threats that may be posed by use of toxic chemicals at industrial facilities.

Materials accounting data show that the quantities of chemicals used by industrial facilities in New Jersey was three times the quantity generated as waste in 1994." Use was about 1,000 times the quantity released and about 100 times the amount transferred. While it is critical that releases be a small percent of total use, this differential points to the magnitude of industrial chemical use in New Jersey. Data on use are available for just over 600 facilities in New Jersey's manufacturing sector, calling into question what the totals might be if the materials accounting data were available for all of the state's 21,743 facilities (1994 figure) that report having chemicals on site in quantities greater than 500 pounds, if not the entire nation.

'

The data on chemical use became instrumental in the passage of the state Pollution Prevention Act (NJPPA) in 1991.12 Environmental groups used the data to put a spotlight on the billions of pounds of toxic chemicals used in the state, which dwarfed the millions of pounds of toxic chemicals released or transferred off

site for disposal. To address this concern, NJPPA requires industrial facilities to prepare pollution prevention plans that contain numerical goals for reducing the use of toxic chemicals and the generation ofwastes.

As the New Jersey program takes shape and facilities are reporting on their achievements, the materials accounting data have now become the best available in- strument for measuring pollution prevention progress in the country. According to a recent study of the state's pollution prevention program, materials accounting data collection is being successfully used by industrial facilities as a key pollution prevention planning tool in examining their production processes for reduction opp~rtunities.'~ Further, numerical reduction goals in the facility plans can also be compared to materials accounting figures as a check for consistency in projected goals and reported red~ctions.'~ However, IN- FORM has found that the data are still used infre- quently, partly owing to the lack of public awareness of their availability and partly owing to the limited accessibility of the database. (Chapter 7 includes rec- ommendations for improvement of the database to make it a more useful resource.)

Since the passage of both the New Jersey Right to Know Act (NJRTK) and the New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act (NJPPA) more than a decade ago, TRI data show that New Jersey has experienced reductions in the generation of waste, while the rest of the nation - on average - continues to show increases. For example, a recent analysis of New Jersey and national toxic chemical reduction trends indicated that New Jersey facilities in Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SIC) covered by NJPPA in 1994, the first year in the state's pollution prevention planning program,15 showed declining figures in the generation of nonproduct output (NPO -toxic or hazardous substances generated as a byproduct prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; in other words, waste) in comparison with national figures that report increases in NPO for facilities in the same SIC codes.I6 Three out of five possible factors that the study suggested contributed to the relative reduction in NPO in New

Jersey were related directly to New Jersey’s toxic chemical regulation history: 1) strict environmental laws and enforcement; 2) the reporting of materials accounting data since 1987; and 3) the strong focus on pollution prevention for more than a decade.”

I .3 This INFORM Report Two INFORM publications have analyzed the New Jersey materials accounting data, demonstrating its value in measuring efficiency in toxic chemical use and reductions in both chemical use and generation of waste: A Clearer Kew o f Toxics: New Jersey; Reporting Requirements as a Modelfor the United States (1994) and Toxics Watch 1995, Chapter 10 (1995). Building on this research, this report will:

Provide an in-depth analysis of the New Jersey materials accounting data as it compares to the nar- rower data elements required under the Toxics Release Inventory.

Highlight the most effective uses of the data in defining the quantities of toxic chemicals used throughout industrial facilities, transported in communities, and incorporated into products so potential exposures can begin to be assessed.

Track changes in toxic chemical use and the generation of nonproduct output over time in order to demonstrate the state’s overall progress in pollution prevention.

Analyze the materials accounting data with a specific focus on the efficiency with which facilities are using chemicals as it relates to the purpose for which they report using them.18

Discuss opportunities for improvement of the data and management of the database to make it an even more effective tool in New Jersey, while suggesting the potential value of extending this database to the federal level.

I .4 Methodology INFORM’S research for this report was derived pri- marily from the New Jersey Community Right to Know materials accounting databa~e,’~ which we pur- chased from the New Jersey Department of Environ- mental Protection (NJDEP). The data from reporting years 199 1 and 1 99420 were matched according to chemicals required to be reported in both years, in order to demonstrate changes in quantities of toxic and hazardous substances used and generated as waste over time. Thus, the 32 chemicals that were added to the TRI list of chemicals in 1994 and the two that were dropped from the TRI list were excluded from the data analysis so that an identical list of reportable chemicals could be used to compare the two reporting years.

The individual data elements reported have changed slightly from 1991 to 1994. In 1994, the following new data elements were reported: the amount representing total nonproduct output (NPO); the amount of energy recovery on site; and the amount of NPO going into ending inventory. These amounts were not reported in 199 1. However, since NPO can be calculated, INFORM used the calculation method for both years in this analysis, rather than relying on reported values. Similarly, the amount of use is not reported, but can be calculated from the separate data elements reported in both years.

Use is calculated as the sum of starting inventory + produced on site + brought on site + recycled on site - ending inventory. Nonproduct output is calculated as use - consumed - shipped as (or in) product.”

A check for reporting consistency was also conducted. This was accomplished by using another method to calculate NPO and then comparing that calculation to the original NPO figures.

The alternate method of calculating NPO is achieved using the following TRI data quantity de- stroyed through treatment + releases + transfers + en-

I2

ergy recovery on site + recycled on site. If the figures derived from this formula were substantially different from NPO as calculated from the first method, or one or both of the calculations differed substantially from the reported total NPO (available in 1994 only), then we contacted the facility or NJDEP and in many cases were able to obtain company-reported revisions or data-entry corrections to the data.

In a few cases, specific chemical report forms were omitted from INFORM’S analysis because the calculation of nonproduct output by the two methods were substantially different due to different types of measurement and estimation methods. For example, inputs may be estimated from material safety data sheets for the typical input stream, but releases and transfers may be actually measured for each output stream.

2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

INFORM’S research in this report shows three unique ways in which the materials accounting data are useful:

Materials accounting data provide preliminary information needed for assessing potential worker and community exposures because they identify which toxic chemicals are used at industrial facilities in New Jersey and in what quantities.

Materials accounting data provide a means of measuring the results of source reduction activities by assessing the efficiency with which companies are using chemicals. An increase in efficiency suggests that source reduction activity is occurring.

Materials accounting data provide a means for regulators to verify the accuracy of chemical quantities reported to the Toxics Release Inventory.

Using materials accounting data to conduct analyses, INFORM found:

While New Jersey facilities used more toxic chemicals and generated more waste between 199 1 and 1994, they appeared to use chemicals more efficiently in terms of reducing the percentage of total use that ended up as waste (nonproduct output dropped from 3.6 percent to 3.5 percent of use).

However, the data show that facilities were less efficient in other ways: for chemicals that were not intended to be part of the final product, a larger portion ended up in the product anyway.

This report also compares the picture of toxic or hazardous substances flowing through an industrial facility that can be seen using data available through a materials accounting system versus the picture seen using the more limited TRI information.

Toxic chemical use increased in New Jersey from 1991 to 1994, but the use of particularly hazardous chemicals dropped.

The use of toxic chemicals in New Jersey increased by 633 million pounds, about 5 percent, to 13.3 billion pounds.

In contrast, the use of chemical classes of special concern in New Jersey decreased as follows: bioaccumulators, 33 percent; carcinogens, 5 percent; chloroorganics, 14 percent; haloorganics, 16 percent; heavy metals, 18 percent; and ozone depleters, 64 percent. (See the Glossary for a description of these chemicals.)

Nonproduct output in New Jersey increased from 1991 to 1994, but facilities reported the highest level of source reduction in 1993.

The quantity of NPO generated increased by 9.3 million pounds, about 2 percent, to 466 million pounds in 1994.

13

In 1993, the latest year for which such data are available, New Jersey facilities reported reducing 4.4 percent of NPO through source reduction, the highest percentage source reduction reported in New Jer- sey this decade. As of the 1994 reporting year, citizens of New Jersey are not able to quantitatively track source reduction progress because the NJDEP no longer col- lects data on the pounds of waste reduced through source reduction for those facilities that are required to prepare pollution prevention plans. Eventually, all reporting facilities will be required to prepare plans and will not be required to report the quantity reduced at the source.

New Jersey facilities required to prepare pollution prevention plans project a greater percent decrease in waste generation than those not required to plan. On average, New Jersey facilities project a decrease in waste generation, while the rest of country’s facilities project an increase in TRI waste generation.

The efficiency of chemical use by New Jersey facilities increased from 1991 to 1994 according to some measurements of efficiency and decreased according to others.

A smaller portion of the total amount of chemicals used ended up as waste: NPO as a ratio to use dropped from 3.6 percent to 3.5 percent.

New Jersey facilities were more efficient in 1994 than in 1991 at incorporating toxic chemicals intended to be part of the product into products, thus avoiding their becoming part of the waste stream.

New Jersey facilities were less efficient in 1994 than in 1991 at keeping chemicals (such as solvents, catalysts, and other processing aids) out of products when the chemical was not intended to be part of the product. That is, the ratio of the quantity shipped as (or in) product to use increased for this group of chemicals, with 1.63 billion pounds shipped in products. This raises the possibility of additional human or environmental exposures during product use or disposal.

New Jersey facilities were also less efficient in 1994 at using chemicals that were not intended to be part of the product: the ratio of nonproduct output to use increased for this group, meaning more ended up in the waste stream per pound of chemical used. (A total of 178.5 million pounds of these chemicals were generated as NPO in 1994.)

The use of chemicals of special concern used only as reactants (chemically converted in production processes to form the product) increased in efficiency in 1994; that is, a larger portion of these chemicals used was converted to product and a smaller portion was generated as waste or shipped as a contaminant in the product.

For chemicals of special concern (except heavy metals) that were intended to be incorporated into the product shipped from the facility, efficiency decreased in 1994; that is, less of the chemical was shipped as (or in) product per pound of chemical used, and more was generated as NPO per pound used. (A total of 6.6 million pounds of these chemicals were generated as NPO in 1994.)

Of the 20 industry sectors required to report materials accounting data in New Jersey in 1991 and 1994, the petroleum industry (SIC code 29) ranked first in inefficient use of chemicals not intended to be part of the product, shipping 1.6 billion pounds of such chemicals in product in 1994. At the same time, materials accounting data show that this industry appeared to achieve some progress in 1994, shipping a smaller percentage of such chemicals in product in 1994 than in 1991 (93.6 percent comparedwith 95.4 percent).

Three out of 20 industry sectors showed improved efficiency at using chemicals that were intended to be part of the product: petroleum (SIC code 29), chemicals (SIC code 28), and primary metals (SIC code 33). All of these industries incorporated a greater portion of such chemicals into the final product in 1994 than

14

in 1991 and kept a greater portion out of the waste stream.

Five out of 20 industry sectors showed a decline in efficiency at using the chemicals that were intended to be part of the product: stone/clay/glass (SIC code 32), measurement/photography (SIC code 38), fabri- cated metals (SIC code 34), machinery (SIC code 35), and plastics (SIC code 30). These industries generated a greater portion of these chemicals as waste in 1994 compared with 199 1 and incorporated a smaller portion into the final product.

Three of four industry sectors in New Jersey showed improved efficiency at using materials as reactants; these are chemicals which by their nature react easily with other chemicals, including those in organisms and the environment. Measurementlphotogra- phy (SIC code 28), chemicals (SIC code 28), and petroleum (SIC code 29) consumed (it., chemically converted) a greater portion of chemicals used as reactants in 1994 than in 1991. Plastics (SIC Code 30) remained steady during this time period.

pounds in 199 1 to 6.5 million pounds in 1994, while materials accounting data show that imports of carcinogens as (or in) products to NJ facilities decreased by a few thousand pounds in 1994 and shipments of carcinogens as (or in) products reportedly fell from 635 million pounds in 1991 to 572 million in 1994.

Materials accounting data can raise important questions about industrial facilities that would remain completely hidden by a TRI analysis. For example, because materials accounting includes use data, a comparison of two facilities using the same chemical (ph- thalic anhydride) for the same reported activity-use (as a reactant) to produce similar products (synthetic resins) revealed one facility to be more efficient than the other in terms of the portion of total use converted to product or generated as NPO between 1991 and 1994. While materials accounting data do not provide answers as to why this difference would occur, without such data, the question (likely to be of interest to the community, NJ DEE and the facilities them- selves) would not have been raised in’the first place.

Materials accounting data provide a broader picture of toxic chemical use than the Toxics Release Inventory.

A comparison between waste transfers (TRI data alone) and product importslshipments (New Jersey materials accounting data) for all chemicals and all facilities in New Jersey reveals that chemicals transported as (or in) products shipped to (or from) facilities represent the lion’s share of the chemicals transported in New Jersey, suggesting that the potential risks posed by the movement of chemicals in products de- serves greater scrutiny.

Another example of questions uniquely raised through materials accounting data analysis is the iden- tification of inaccurate or underreported releases or discrepancies in waste management figures. This was the case for ethylene oxide reported by the Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products facility in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The total materials accounting input and output quantities reported by the facility did not match, thus raising questions as to the fate of over 115,000 pounds of the chemical. TRI data alone would not have caught this reporting error.

Which chemicals are identified as priorities for reduction in New Jersey depend on whether TRI or materials accounting figures are examined. For example, TRI figures show that the amount of carcinogens transferred as waste increased from 3.6 million

15

3. INFORMATION AS AVEHICLE FOR CHANGE

" " erating facilities were asked to vol- untarily provide facts, on a chemical-by-chemical basis, on the storage, use, and discharge as waste of more than 160 chemicals. This sur-

3. I Materials Accounting Data: Broadening the Scope of Chemical Use Reporting Until 1984, there was virtually no public accounting of the overall use of toxic chemicals or discharge into air, water, and land. Neither the federal nor state gov- ernments required information that would give our public leaders or communities even the most rudimen- tary overview of the industrial use, movement, and disposal of toxic chemicals.

outputs trial facilities to prepare Inputs Consumed and submit to US EPA

Brought on site Nonproduct output reports on their annual Shipped as (or in) releases from a list of Produced on site product more than 600 chemi- Recycled on site Ending Inventory

inventory

~

The exception was a little-known, one-time toxic chemical industrial xesearch survey conducted by New 'Tersey environmental officials in the late 1970s. In this

Chemical Waste (Waste Stream) The amount of waste generated before recycling, treatment, or disposal (known as nonproduct output or NPO). Releases to air, land, and water. Off-site transfers to recycling, treatment, and disposal.

In Table 1, the sum of the amounts on the left would approximately equal the sum of the amounts on the right.

3.2The NationalToxics Release Inventory: The Waste Picture The Emergency Planning and Community Right to

_ _

survey, all of the state's thousands of chemical-using and waste-gen-

Know Act currently requires individual indus-

. . " ... .

16

On- and Off-site Waste Management Recycled. Used for energy recovery, Treated. Discharged to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).

Direct Releases to the Environment In fugitive air emissions.

In surface water discharges.

Discharged to land.

In point source air emissions.

Injected underground in deep wells.

The TRI has become the baseline measurement many companies rely upon in publicly affirming their progress in waste management, recycling, and source reduction. The data have also been widely used by local and national environmental groups and community leaders to track waste generation at local plants, hold plants accountable for their waste, and to nego- tiate reductions. While creation of the TRI marked a revolutionary advance in public information, it reports only emissions to the environment and transfers of wastes to other sites. It does not provide a compre-

0 RaporuldroTRI

TRI Data

FIGURE la

hensive picture of the toxic or hazardous substances that come into a plant, that are used, consumed, and stored in it, and that leave it as (or in) a product. Ex- pansion of the TRI to include this type of data would be a major contribution to the current sources ofpub- lic information on toxic and hazardous substances flowing through industrial facilities.

3.3 Comparing Data E1ements:TRI vs. Materials Accounting New Jersey’s materials accounting system provides a fuller picture of industrial chemicals flowing through a facility than federal TRI data. In Figure l a and 1 b, the space on the left side of the diagram provides information on inputs - the quantities of a given chemical imported to, produced at, or stored within a facility. The space on the right provides information on outputs - the quantities of a given chemical shipped as or in products, chemically consumed, or generated as NPO from the same facility, With the TRI data alone, most of this information is unavailable.

Materials accounting data, on the other hand, sheds new light on toxic chemical flows. Each side of Fig- ure l b could be represented by a 100 percent bar

New Jersey Materials Accounting Data

FIGURE I b

17

chart: the left side illustrates IO0 percent of the quantity of toxic chemical inputs to the facility (the size of each component representing the relative amounts of each toxic or hazardous substance produced, recycled, stored, or brought on site); the right side represents 100 percent of the quantity of toxic chemical outputs from the facility (the relative amounts of each toxic or hazardous chemical converted within production processes, shipped in (or as) products, stored at year end, or generated as NPO).

Total inputs should approximately equal total outputs. It is approximate because of limits of the accuracy of measurement equipment or estimation techniques used for each materials accounting component. How- ever, differences in inputs and outputs too large to be explained by such limitations might be an indication that serious errors in one or more of the materials accounting components exist and need to be checked.

The quantity of waste reduced at the source during the reporting year is also collected in New Jersey. This is useful in accurately tracking progress over time in reducing the use of toxic or hazardous substances and the generation of wastes at the source. Measurement of source reduction is discussed in Chapter 4.2. (See also the Glossary for more specific information on source reduction).

Table 2 (next page) presents a snapshot of New Jersey in 1991 and again in 1994 for all reporting facilities and a common set of chemicals. The shaded areas represent those data available only through the state’s materials accounting data collection system but not through the US EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory.

From the TRI data alone, we see that fewer forms submitted by fewer facilities resulted in a reported decrease in releases and transfers between 199 l and 1994. While this paints an apparently improved environmental picture for the people of New Jersey, a somewhat different, and more complete, picture, is available when one considers materials accounting data: while use and

NPO generation actually increased during this time period, so did use efficiency. Here are the numbers:

633 million pounds more toxic or hazardous substances were used in the state than were used in 199 1.

Over 9 million pounds more toxic or hazardous NPO was generated in the state in 1994 than was generated in 1991.

The percent of toxic or hazardous substances used in the state that ended up as NPO decreased from 3.6 percent of use in 1991 to 3.5 percent of use in 1994.

Therefore, it appears that for the state as a whole - though more toxic or hazardous chemicals are being used and more NPO is being generated (which for certain chemicals may be of concern to government officials, public interest groups, and citizens) - the efficiency of using those chemicals has increased. That is, less of the chemical quantities being used are ending up in waste streams.

A closer look at individual chemicals and facilities can help to identify and acknowledge where successes are actually occurring, where technical assistance is needed or where other action should be taken. For example, it would be useful where chemicals are being shipped in product but are not actually an intended component of the product. Chapter 4 provides this more in- depth analysis.

4. POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRESS IN N E W JERSEY

The 199 1 New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act contains a specific public policy goal of:

‘X significant reduction over five years after the preparation of the pollution prevention plans re-

18

N R = not reported in that year. Shading indicates data available from New Jersey but not reported toTRI. *Available fromTRI but not reported to New Jersey.

quired by this act, calculated on the basis of 1987 amounts, in the use of hazardous substances, at industrial facilities, and a 50 percent reduction over five years after the preparation of the pollution prevention plans required by this act, calculated on the basis of 1987 amounts, in the generation of hazardous substances as nonproduct output.”Z6

This INFORM report shows materials accounting data to be far superior to TRI data alone for measuring

progress in reaching these goals through pollution prevention.

Reduction of toxic chemical use and NPO generation through pollution prevention techniques is character- ized by cleaner, more efficient manufacturing. This means that more pounds (or units) of product are produced per pound of chemical used, or conversely, fewer pounds of NPO are generated per pound of chemical used. Often this is achieved through low-tech, low- cost pollution prevention options such as better house-

19

keeping practices and procedural changes, or through potentially more cost-intensive innovations, such as fundamental changes to production process design, and product formulations.

4. I Tracking the Generation of Nonproduct Output There are three major reasons for industry, government, and public interest groups to track progress in reducing the quantity of reportable chemicals generated as nonproduct output (NPO). First, decreased quantities of NPO can reduce potential environmental and public health risks associated with the handling and management of these substances. Second, New Jersey’s Pollution Prevention Act states the goal of reducing NPO by 50 percent in five years; measurement is needed to assess if the goal is being met. Third, facilities in New Jersey that complete pollution prevention plans are required to set their own goals for reducing NPO generation; measuring progress could help them set realistic goals.

Figure 2 shows that total quantity of NPO increased from 1991 to 1994, with fluctuations in 1992 and 1993. However, as mentioned above, New Jersey reporting facilities decreased the amount of NPO generated per pound of toxic chemical used in 1994, suggesting they were using chemicals more efficiently.

FIGURE 2: An Increase in Nonproduct Output

1991 1992 I993 I 994

Quantity of toxic chemicals generated as nonproduct output in New Jersey, I99 I - 1994. (Common set of chemicals not added, changed, or deleted from 199 I through 1994.)

FIGURE 3: Projecting a Decrease in NPO in NJ Compared to the United States

6

E J2 al M c m

2’ 993 199s -4

\ -6

-0 -+-All TRI Facilities %,

- lo *NJ Planning Facilites

I996

NJ Non-planning Facilities

-12

-14 ~~

Change in quantity of NPO generation reported toTRl (all chemicals and facilities).All data taken from I994 report forms;values for 1995 and I996 are projections.

Figure 3 illustrates how the change in NPO generation at New Jersey facilities compares with that of TRI reporting facilities around the country. Comparisons of facilities nationwide can be made only with TRI release, transfer, and NPO quantities (often referred to as ‘hroduction-related waste generation’’ in the TRI context) since other materials accounting data elements are not collected outside of New Jersey and Massa- chusetts.

On average, facilities in the US project an increase in total production-related waste generation for 1995 and 1996, while facilities in New Jersey project an encour- aging decrease. Those facilities required to prepare pollution prevention plans in New Jersey projected a greater percent decrease in waste generation than those not required to plan, suggesting the value of planning. As mentioned earlier, the NJDEP, in their December 1996 report on pollution prevention trends in the state,*’ suggests that one possible factor contributing to New Jersey’s superior performance is that facility- level materials accounting data collection has been required in the state since 1987.

Facilities often calculate process-level materials accounting and up these numbers to arrive at their facil-

20

ity-level materials accounting numbers. In fact, the Hampshire Research Associates pollution prevention planning study cited earlier in this report found that those facilities that used process-level materials accounting data to “track NPO per unit of product prior to planning set percent use reduction goals slightly higher than facilities that had not tracked NPO per unit of product prior to planning.”28 The study also noted that process-level materials accounting required under the New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act, was “key to successful planning, especially in terms of set- ting higher reduction

4.2 Tracking Quantity of NPO Reduced at the Source The preferred means of reducing the generation of NPO is through source reduction. In fact, Congress declared it to be the national policy of the United States that “pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever fea~ible.”~’ NPO that is not generated is not available for possible exposure to humans or the environment through its handling, storage, transport, or disposal.

The most accurate way to track source reduction progress is to compare the actual quantity reduced at the source from year to year. The reported change in pounds of NPO generated from year to year does not, in and of itself, indicate source reduction progress, nor the economic and environmental benefits to the reporting facility that are associated with this strategy.

Reductions in NPO from year to year for a given chemical might also be a result of:

Closure of a production process that is not a result of improvements in production process operations, equipment, product formulation, or chemical substitutions.

Delegating the production process in which the chemical is used to another facility, which shifts potential health and environmental risks elsewhere.

Changes in estimation methods.

Changes in customer specifications (which can have a direct effect on product mix and production levels for the year) rather than improvements in production process operations per se.

Up until reporting year 1994, New Jersey had been collecting data on the pounds of source reduction achieved each year, the amount of change due to dis- continuation of use or export of the use to another facility, and changes in production level. Thus, the reasons for changes in NPO generation from one year to the next have been much clearer in the New Jersey data than in TRI.

Beginning in reporting year 1994, New Jersey’s pollution prevention planning requirements went into effect. As a result, covered facilities were required to

Questions deleted from the annual Release and Pollution Prevention Report Forms Submitted by Facilities Required to Prepare Pollution Prevention Plans in New jersey

I. Quantity of toxic chemical reduced through reformulation or redesign of product.

2. Quantity of toxic chemical reduced through process or procedure modifications.

3. Quantity of toxic chemical reduced through equipment o r technology modifications.

4. Quantity of toxic chemical reduced through improved operations (due to housekeeping, training, material handling, or inventory control).

5. Quantity of toxic chemical reduced through miscellaneous (other than discontinuance of operations or transfer of operations to another facility).

6. Projected reductions in the quantity of the toxic chemical used or generated as NPO per year due t o pollution prevention assuming constant production in two and in five years.

21

submit annual progress reports to the New Jersey De- partment of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to reflect progress in achieving the facility’s self-declared reduction goals.

The NJDEP incorporated these progress reports as Section C into the “Release and Pollution Prevention Report” form (otherwise known as DEQ-114 (see Ap- pendix H), the same form that all eligible facilities use to report materials accounting data. While the new section on the form asks for some new information not available elsewhere, such as the process by which source reduction activities were conducted, reporting facilities are instructed to bypass the last six questions on the old form. Yet these last six questions provide the very data needed to determine how much source reduction is occurring (see previous page). While just five SIC codes are required to plan currently, all reporting SIC codes will eventually be part of the planning process in New Jersey and will not be required to report quantitative information on source reduction.

This change raises concern because the quantity of waste reduced at the source in New Jersey for all chemicals, and for chemicals of special concern, has been extremely modest or nonexistent. Eliminating the reporting of these quantities has the unfortunate effect of reducing the emphasis on source reduction; this, in turn, may reduce incentives for further progress.

Figure 4 illustrates the minimal, yet increasing, progress that New Jersey facilities have made in reducing NPO at the source. Between 1990 and 1992, less than two percent of the waste was reduced at the source. For 1993, that percentage jumped to 4.45 percent ofwaste that was not generated due to source reduction.

In 1993, the relative level of source reduction of carcinogens and bioaccumulators was higher than the average for all reportable chemicals, while the percent reduction of ozone depleters, haloorganics, chioroorganics, and heavy metals was lower than average (see Table 3 on next page).

FIGURE 4: An Increase in Source Reduction

I993

I992

1991

I990

0 I O 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent

Source reduction as a percent of nonproduct output in N e w Jersey.

However, as of reporting year 1994, these analyses are no longer possible in New Jersey because the facilities are no longer required to report source reduction data.

4.3TrackingToxic Chemical Use in New jersey Why track use? Recording the total quantity used of a given chemical at a facility in a reporting year can show whether all uses of that chemical have been accounted, for providing the basis for analysis of the exposures associated with those uses. While certain closed-loop processes or uses in which the chemical is immediately converted may not result in exposures, other open or dispersive uses may result in significant exposures. New Jersey materials accounting data do not yet provide this level of detail on how a chemical is used, but it does provide valuable information on the amount of specific industrial toxic chemicals imported to, consumed, produced, shipped off site as product, or stored at industrial facilities in New Jersey. INFORM’S use analysis looks at the following quantities reported annually in New Jersey:

~

1) Total pounds used equals starting inventory + brought on site + produced on site + recycled on site - ending inventory.

-~

~

2) Maximum pounds stored on site.

22

Category I Source Reduction (percent* *) (pounds) (pounds) NPo I All Chemicals 4.45 20,666,433 443,857,969

Carcinonens 5.48 I ,2 I 7,24 I 20,989,053 ~

Chloroorganics 2.96 542, I63 17,799,698

Haloorganics 2.94 542, I63 I 7,87 I ,354

Heavy Metals I .80 748, I 69 40,842,6 I9

Ozone Depleters 2.27 I 33,044 5,733,627

Bioaccumulators 22.44 9 10,538 3,147,360

-

.~

1993 was the last year in which New Jersey required quantitative reporting of source reduction for all facilities. &Percent source reduction = amount reduced as a percent of (NPO + amount reduced at source).

3) Total pounds transported equals brought on site + shipped as (or in) product + transported as waste. (See Chapter 5, page 33, for INFORM’S discussion of toxic chemical transport.)

4.3. I Tracking Changes in Use for All Reportable Chemicals Figure 5 shows that toxic chemical use in New Jersey increased in 1994 to 13.3 billion pounds from 12.6 billion pounds in 1991. The figure includes the amounts reported in 1992 and 1993 to show the fluctuations that occur from year to year. As the total quantity of toxic chemical use increases in the state, it is more urgent than ever that industry aggressively pur- sue pollution prevention opportunities as a means to minimize exposures to chemicals used at their facilities. Equally important are public data that govern-

FIGURE 5: An Increase in Use of Toxic Chemicals

1991 1992 1993 1994

Use of toxic chemicals in N e w jersey, 199 I - 1994. (Common set of chemicals not added, changed, o r deleted.)

ment agencies and environmental groups can use to track industry progress. The data on use quantities, together with toxicity and other data on individual chemicals reported in the state, can assist government agencies, research organizations, and environmental groups to more effectively focus the emphasis of their respective programs by identifying those chemicals or chemical groups that are used in the greatest quantities in a given year, or have increased in quantity used from previous years.

4.3.2 Tracking Changes in Use of Chemicals of Special Concern INFORM selected chemicals of special concern in New Jersey, based on US EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration data showing that they are linked to severe known and potential human health and environmental effects. These categories include: carcinogens, bioaccumulators, ozone depleters, chloroorganics, haloorganics, and heavy metals.31 The TRI list of covered chemicals contains toxic or hazardous substances that fall into each one of these categories. (See the Glossary for descriptions of these chemical groups and their potential impacts and Chap- ter 9: Rankings of New Jersey Chemicals for a break- down of each of the chemicals of special concern, comparing use, NPO, and releases and transfers for reporting years 1991 and 1994).

23

Chemical Groups of I Special Concern 1991 1994 Percent Change I Carcinogens I , I71,492,4 I6 I, 106,700,580 -5.53 I Chloroorganics 865,467,35 I 737,727, I93 - 14.76

739,754,560 - 16.55 _____ 886,447,293 ~ __-_ ~ 1 Haloorganics Heavy Metals ... 6 16,969.9 I 7 503,129,754 - 18.45 Ozone Depleters 199,058, I26 7 I ,398, I 36 -64. I 3

89,630, I I7 59,888,564 -33. I 8

. ____._______

-~ _________ __

.- _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ~ Bioaccumulators

All Chemicals Reported in NJ I2,647,842,37 I I3,28 1,485,478 5.0 I ._ -

Quantities of chemicals of special concern used in New Jersey (in pounds).

Table 4 shows the quantities of chemicals of special concern used in New Jersey from 199 1 through 1994. While the total amount of chemicals used in New Jer- sey increased by 5 percent, use of chemicals of special concern decreased by levels ranging from 5.5 to 64 percent less than three years earlier. This largest drop, for ozone depleters, may reflect the phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons following the Montreal Proto- ~ 0 1 . ~ ~ Despite the drop in chemicals of special concern, it should be noted that these chemicals are still used in amounts ranging up to 1.1 billion pounds per year.

Table 5 shows that the percent decrease in forms submitted for chemicals of special concern (except for heavy metals) was slightly greater than for all reportable chemicals, suggesting that New Jersey facilities are decreasing or eliminating the use of these chemicals faster than for other reportable chemicals.

4.4Tracking Chemical Use Ef'ficiency This section shows how materials accounting data can be used to show changes in the efficiency of toxic chemical use in New Jersey; that is, to show what portion of total chemical use ends up being chemically consumed, shipped as (or in) product, or generated as waste. As a facility implements pollution prevention

1991 Number of Forms

1994 Number of Forms

Percent Change

Total Forms 2,247 2,191 -2.5

Carcinogens 313 300 -4.2

Chlorooreanics 266 I66 -37.6

Halooreanics 279 I 77 -36.6

Heaw Metals 44 I 465 5.4

Ozone DeDeleters 151 63 -58.3

Bioaccumulators 52 46 -I 1.5

All forms for each chemical group of special concern.

14

practices, its operations are likely to become more efficient. As a facility increases its efficiency, the percent of total chemical use that is generated as NPO would be expected to decrease. Figure 6 shows that the percent of total chemical use that is generated as NPO decreased in 1994 compared to 199 1 and 1992 levels, although it increased from 1993 levels.

4.5 Tracking Chemical Use Efficiency Based on Reported Activity-Use To get a sharper picture of just where facilities are using chemicals efficiently, it is necessary to go beyond broad figures like the percent of a chemical that is generated as waste and conduct an analysis of whether a given chemical is used efficiently for its specific intended use. Reporting facilities in New Jersey, as well as TRI reporters nationwide, are required to report the activity-use of the reportable chemical on each form, raising questions such as: if the chemical was intended to become part of the product, did it end up there?

In this section, INFORM links the reported activity- use of a chemical with materials accounting data elements. This combination of materials accounting data (available only in New Jersey) and activity-use information (available in New Jersey and on the Toxics Release Inventory) provides greater insight into chemical use efficiency at industrial facilities since such measurements are different for different types of activity- uses.

For example, a chemical that is used as an article component (e.g., arsenic used in wood preservatives) should be present in a product shipped from the facility. There- fore, a measure of efficiency would be to track the percent of the total amount of the chemical used that is shipped as (or in) product from year to year. If the facility is improving its efficiency, then more of the chemical should be in the product and less generated as nonproduct output per pound of chemical used.

FIGURE 6: Improved Efficiency in Avoiding Waste Generation

1991 I992 I993 I994

Percent of total chemicals used that is generated as nonproduct output in New Jersey. (Common set of chemicals not added, changed, or deleted form I99 I rhmugh 1994.)

On the other hand, a chemical used as a processing aid (such as methanol used as a solvent in chemical manufacturing) should not be present in the product shipped from the facility. If the facility is improving its efficiency, then less of the chemical should be in the product and less generated as NPO per pound of chemical used.

The reporting form calls for activity-use information in three categories: manufacturing, processing, and otherwise using each chemical, and lists these categories and their subcategories (see Table 6 next page.)

A facility can check as many of the categories and subcategories as apply to the activity-use of a given chemical at that facility. In some cases, there is just a single use reported for a given chemical at a facility. For example, Permabond International in Bridgewater, New Jersey, reports producing formaldehyde only for use/ processing as a reactant. By definition, reactants change their chemical composition to form the product. Therefore, if Permabond were continuously improving the efficiency of its operations, a decrease from year to year in the amount of formaldehyde shipped in product from the facility per pound of formaldehyde used would be the expected outcome.

On the other hand, some chemicals may have multiple activity-uses at a single facility. For example, C J Osborn Division of Suva Corporation in Pennsauken, New Jersey, uses ethylbenzene as a formulation

25

Category Subcategories

Manufacturing the Produce If produce or import: Chemical For on -s ite use/ p rocess i ng

For sale/distribution As a byproduct As an impurity

Import

Processing the Chemical

As a reactant As an article As a formulation component Repackaging

Otherwise Using the Chemical

As a chemical processing aid As a manufacturing aid

Ancillary o r other use

component (thus one would expect the chemical to be present in the product shipped from the facility), and as a chemical process aid (such as a solvent or catalyst - in which case the chemical would not be expected to be shipped in the product associated with that use). However, New Jersey does not collect suf- ficient information to indicate what percent of total ethylbenzene use is handled as a formulation component and what portion is handled as a chemical processing aid. In this case, we cannot use materials accounting data to determine whether or not the facility is increasing or decreasing its expected use efficiency of ethylbenzene.

Activity-use information allows for analyses to be performed that shed light on chemical use efficiency in New Jersey. In order to make these use-efficiency measurements, INFORM divided all of the activity-use information reported on the form into three environmentally meaningful groupings:

1) All of the chemical used should end up in the product. For example, if the activity-use of the chemical is reported as an article component, formulation component, or repackaged for sale/distribution, but not reported as a chemical processing aid or byproduct, then all of the chemical used should end up as (or in) the product shipped from the facility.

2) None of the chemical used should end up in product.33 For example, if the activity-use of the chemical is reported as a chemical processing aid, reactant or byproduct, but is not reported as an article or formulation component or repackaged for saleldis- tribution, then none of the chemical used should end up as (or in) product shipped from the facility,

3) All of the chemical used should be chemically converted (it., consumed34 or reacted). This is a subset of the group in which none of the chemical used should end up in product, such that the only reported activity-use of the chemical is as a reactant.

INFORM found that the vast majority of forms could indeed be grouped in this way (see Appendix F). INFORM’S grouping method based on reported chemical activity-use in New Jersey covered about 87 percent of all forms in both 1991 and 1994. Th‘ is cor- responds to just over half (56 and 55 percent in 1991 and 1994, respectively) of the total amount of chemicals used and about two thirds (68 and 63 percent in 199 1 and 1994, respectively) of all nonproduct output generated.

Some report forms submitted by facilities in New Jer- sey did not fit into any of these groups because: 1) activity-use information was not reported on the form,

26

or 2) multiple activity-uses of the chemical at a facility is such that some of the chemical should be in product while some should not. There is no way of making that quantitative distinction with the information reported in New Jersey at this time.

In order to best characterize changes in use efficiency for a given chemical, INFORM limited its analysis to those forms in which the reported activity-use of the chemical was the same in both 1991 and 1994. More than half (1,179) of all the forms were successfully matched. Ninety percent of all forms that could be matched were amenable to INFORM’S grouping method. Table 7 lists the total quantity and percent of forms, pounds used, and pounds generated as NPO for forms matched by activity-use category and grouped by INFORM.

To determine whether facilities were using toxic chemicals more efficiently or less efficiently between 1991 and 1994, INFORM compared the quantities of chemical shipped as (or in) product, consumed, and

generated as NPO per pound of chemical used for each matched pair of forms. For those chemicals with a reported activity-use suggesting that it should be in the final product, greater efficiency would be marked by an increase in the portion of the total quantity of the chemical used that ended up in the product. In other words, the ratio of the amount shipped as (or in) product to use should increase. Table 8 (next page) shows that this is exactly what happened: the ratio did increase, suggesting that New Jersey facilities became more efficient at incorporating toxic chemicals into products when they were intended to be part of the product. Efficiency also increased for material that was used as a reactant, where a larger portion was generated as waste and a smaller portion was shipped as (or in) the product.

However, the data also suggest that New Jersey facilities were less efficient in 1994 than they were in 199 1 at keeping chemicals out of products when the chemical was not intended to be part of the product: the ratio of the quantity shipped as (or in) product to use increased for this group of chemicals.

Group I Quantity Percent Forms Use NPO Forms Use NPO I I .Total Should Be in Product 50 I 1,249,366.80 I 33.093, I71 42 13 13 I 2.Total Should Not Be in Product 557 3,149,153,779 I 24,O I 1,032 47 33 50 I Reactant Only 24 I 2,824,300,945 40,63 1.592 20 30 16 I Subtotal 1,058 4,398,520,580 I 57,104,203 90 46 63 I Total Matched Forms in I99 I I, I79 9,489,503,

Documents

p2infohouse.org · ! I INFORM, Inc. 120 Wall Street New York, NY 10005-4001 Tel2 12.36 1.2400 Fax 212.361.2412 E-mail [email protected] 0 1997 by INFORM, Inc. All rights reserved