EPA-230/1-73-019
AUGUST 1973
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
OF
PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
QUANTITY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Planning and Evaluation
Washington, D.C. 20460
\
-------
ERRATA
In the report, “Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines —
Organic Chemicals Industry,” there is a misplaced decimal in Table 2,
page 13, for the abatement cost per pound for ethylene dichloride (EDC).
It reads 0.32 but should read 0.032c /lb. This in turn reduces the cost
of abatement as percent of sales price to 1.15% instead of 11.51% (Table 3),
and the average weighted abatement cost for the seventeen products for
which data was available from 4.23% to 3.86% of sales value. This is a
reduction of about 10%, but as it only is applicable to half of the
products in the industry, the error represents a 5% overstatement of the
industry’s minimum annual total cost, a range well within the limits of
accuracy of this initial study. In any event, it does remove EDC from
the list of potential serious problems.
The estimated new capital invested by the organic chemicals industry
of $525 million in 1972 is low. The actual figure for 1971 (the most
recent year published) was $939 million. We believe 1972 spending was at
a comparable level, so that the annual capital cost estimated to be needed
over the five years 1973—1977 to meet the suggested guidelines is equivalent
to 61.5% of the total industry investment in 1972, not 110%. However, this
still very major cost burden would have a serious effect on the industry’s
ability to expand.
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Profitability Abatement Economic
Index 1) Cost Index 2) Impact Index 3)
Small—Volume Intermediates
6 End—Product Organics
Dyes & Organic Pigments 2
Rubber Processing Chemicals 1
Flavors 6 Fragrances 1
Unformulated Pesticides 1
Plasticizers 3
1) 1 — Product had better than industry average profitability in 1972.
2 — Product had industry average profitability in 1972.
3 — Product had below industry average profitability in 1972.
2) Abatement cost as percent of sales cost based on Table 3.
1 less than 1% 4 = 8 to 12%
2 =lto4% 5=morethan l2Z
3 4 to 8%
Abatement cost index X profitability index.
NOTICE OF ERROR
The above should be substituted for page 24.
Page 32 should be deleted.
24
-------
EPA-230/1-73-019
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES - ORGANIC
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
(MAJOR PRODUCTS)
August 1973
Contract No. 68-01-1541
Office of Planning and Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office of
Planning and Evaluation, EPA, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
PREFACE
The attached document is a contractors’ study prepared for the Office of Planning and
Evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). The purpose of the study is
to analyze the economic impact which could result from the application of alternative
effluent limitation guidelines and standards of performance to be established under sec-
tions 304(b) and 306 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
The study supplements the technical study (“EPA Development Document”) sup-
porting the issuance of proposed regulations under sections 304(b) and 306. The Develop-
ment Document surveys existing and potential waste treatment control methods and
technology within particular industrial source categories and supports promulgation of
certain effluent limitation guidelines and standards of performance based upon an analysis
of the feasibility of these guidelines and standards in accordance with the requirements of
sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act. Presented in the Development Document are the
investment and operating costs associated with various alternative control and treatment
technologies. The attached document supplements this analysis by estimating the broader
economic effects which might result from the required application of various control
methods and technologies. This study investigates the effect of alternative approaches in
terms of produce price increases, effects upon employment and the continued viability of
affected plants, effects upon foreign trade and other competitive effects.
The study has been prepared with the supervision and review of the Office of Planning
and Evaluation of EPA. This report was submitted in fulfillment of Task Order No. 6,
Contract 68-01-1541 by Arthur D. Little, Inc. Work was completed as of August 1973.
This report is being released and circulated at approximately the same time as
publication in the Federal Register of a notice of proposed rule making under sections
304(b) and 306 of the Act for the subject point source category. The study has not been
reviewed by EPA and is not an official EPA publication. The study will be considered along
with the information contained in the Development Document and any comments received
by EPA on either document before or during proposed rule making proceedings necessary to
establish final regulations. Prior to final promulgation of regulations, the accompanying
study shall have standing in any EPA proceeding or court proceeding only to the extent that
it represents the views of the contractor who studied the subject industry. It cannot be
cited, referenced, or represented in any respect in any such proceeding as a statement of
EPA’s views regarding the subject industry.
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables and Figures vii
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1
THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 5
Its Size 5
Companies and Plants 5
Basic Organics 5
Large-Volume Intermediates 5
Small-Volume Intermediates and Finished Products 6
Geographic Location 6
Industry Growth and Profits 6
THE IMPACT OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ON THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 9
The Cost of Water Pollution Abatement 9
THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT 19
APPENDIX A — THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY A-i
APPENDIX B — REGIONAL PLANT LOCATIONS FOR MAJOR ORGANIC
CHEMICALS WITH POTENTiAL WATER POLLUTION
PROBLEMS B-i
V
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table No.
1 Potential Water Pollution Problems Due to Raw
Effluent Load in the Organic Chemical Industry 10
2 Specific Water Pollution Control Costs, Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available — 95% Removal 13
3 Cost of Water Pollution Control Costs as Percent of Sales
Prices for Specific Organic Chemicals — Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available 21
4 Profitability and impact on Specific Organic Chemicals
Best Practicable Water Pollution Control Technology
Currently Available (95% Removal) 23
5 Companies in the Basic Chemical Industry According to
Assets 31
Figure No. Page
1 Aqueous Pollution Abatement Costs — Category B (Process Water
COntaCts as Steam Diluent and/or Absorbent) Best Practicable
Control Technology — 95% Removal 15
2 Aqueous Pollution Abatement Costs — Category C (Aqueous
Liquid-Phase Reaction Systems) Best Practicable Control
Technology - 95% Removal 16
vu
-------
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This final report is submitted on a best efforts basis in compliance with Phase HI of
Contract No. 68-01-1541 with the Environmental Protection Agency on the “Economic
Impact of Water Pollution Control on the Organic Chemical Industry.” It must be empha-
sized that the estimates in this initial study must be considered as order-of-magnitude
figures.
Using the Effluent Limitations Guidelines supplied to us by the EPA, we evaluated the
70 products or product classes developed during Phase 1, which cover about 75% of the sales
and volume of the organic chemical industry. Thirty-six of these products or product classes
present potential water pollution problems. Of these, we could make a quantitative eco-
nomic impact evaluation for only 17 products; lack of data prevented a similar study of the
other products on the list. On the basis of data supplied by the EPA, which was compiled by
Roy F. Weston, Inc.,’ we first determined the cost of suggested best practicable control
technology currently available (using the 95% treatment efficiency at the suggestion of the
EPA) and compared that to the average selling price in 1972, the base year selected because
it represents a more average year with regard to profits than most other recent years.
Costs of water pollution control, as a percent of sales value, ranged from a low of 0.4%
to a high of 11.5%, for a weighted average value of about 4%, using best practicable
technology at the most rigorous suggested guideline level of 95% removal. The cost
differences among the several levels of removal efficiency are reported to be marginal. Using
a profitability index developed during Phases I and II of this project, and combining it with
an abatement cost index, we arrived at an economic impact index for those products for
which specific abatement cost data was available. Of the 17 examined, 8 face a difficult
problem because of either high abatement costs, a poor market picture, or a combination of
both. These products, in roughly declining degree of concern, are: ethylene glycol, ethylene
dichioride, caprolactam, methanol, acetic acid, acetone, phenol, and aniline.
It must be emphasized that in our belief other products or product classes face
significant problems, even though we do not have the cost data to back up our belief. In our
judgment these include (but may not be limited to) coal tar products, ethyl cellulose, dyes
and organic pigments, and possibly some unformulated pesticides.
Insufficient data was supplied to us by the EPA to make a judgment of the economic
impact of suggested best-technology economically achievable standards, new source effluent
standards, or new source pretreatment standards. Costs for the first two standards were
prepared only for a single size facility, and no cost data was developed for the new source
pretreatment standards. All comments about the economic impact on the organic chemical
industry are limited to the best practicable control technology currently available standards.
1. “Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance,
Organic Chemical lndustry ” Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., for the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract Number 68-01-1509, dated June 1973.
1
-------
We have made a minimum and maximum estimate of the economic impact on the
organic chemical industry. The minimum is based on the estimate that half of all organic
chemicals had such minor pollution problems that the cost of meeting the suggested effluent
guidelines would not exceed 1% of sales price. This estimate of half of all organics is based
on categories given in the EPA Development Document and on those developed by this
contractor of the raw effluent load of 70 products or product classes that represent about
75% of the industry’s volume and sales. The other half would have an average cost of about
4% of sales. On the basis that the organic chemical industry’s sales in 1972 equaled $8
billion, we estimate the total cost in complying with the guideline would reach $210 million
annually. This cost would depress the organic chemical industry’s after-tax profits by 9% of
the 1972 base if two-thirds of the cost could be passed on to customers. Some of the costs
probably could not be passed on to consumers, since the more efficient producers, we
believe, would try to enhance their competitive position by not meeting all price increases
of the producers that have higher manufacturing or higher pollution control costs. Prices
would rise by 1.75% over the five years but growth in demand would not be influenced.
On the basis of capital costs needed to meet the suggested guidelines using the best
practicable control technology currently available, we arrived at a maximum cost estimate.
This estimate indicates that the industry would have to make a capital investment of $2.88
billion over the five-year period 1973-1977 to meet suggested standards. During this period,
the average annual capital investment required would be $576 million, which is $50 million
more than was spent by the industry for all purposes in 1972.
Amortization charges at an annual rate of 10.2% represented about half of total annual
costs, so the industry’s total cost is projected at $590 million annually when in full
compliance. We believe that only half of this total could be passed on to customers, in part
because of competitive pressure within the industry, but more because of the large price
increases expected as a result of the rapidly rising costs of energy and feedstocks and the
competition with products made by other industries. Consequently, the industry’s net
after-tax profit would be depressed by 37% of the 1972 base; prices would rise by.3.7% over
the five years but this price increase would not significantly affect growth in demand.
However, lack of sufficient capital to invest in increased production coupled with the
closing of a significant number of small plants could be a serious hindrance to meeting the
growth in demand.
These two figures are the maximum and minimum limits of the economic impact on
the industry. The truth lies between them and in our belief closer to the minimum than the
maximum.
In any event, plants will be closed and the industry further concentrated in larger
companies, since the most vulnerable companies will be those that are small, are marginally
profitable and have plants in isolated locations. While quite a few such plants are expected
to close, the unemployment should not be great, since it is those plants employing 20 or less
that are must vulnerable.
2
-------
The limitations of this study are obvious. Extrapolations to an industry level, based on
a relatively small sample, can be very unreliable. The EPA must develop more detailed
control cost data for the four levels of effluent standards before the range in estimates of
economic impact can be narrowed to a reliable level. Particular attention is called to the
practical necessity to limit this study to 70 products or product classes. Although these
cover about 75% of the industry’s sales, there is no reliable way to extrapolate the results to
the 25% of the industry not covered. Because the fraction omitted is not large, the overall
dislocation is not expected to be major. However, there are likely to be hardship cases in the
unstudied sector of the industry and such companies will require special consideration. In
any further study, therefore, not only must more detailed data be prepared on the 70
products oi product classes, but also on the other quarter of the industry, which represents
a very large number of small-volume products.
3
-------
THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Its Size
The organic chemical industry produces 80 to 90 million tons of chemicals each year.
Thousands of compounds are made, ranging in production volume from a high of about 10
million tons of ethylene to very small quantities of reagent chemicals. However, 70
chemicals or classes of chemicals account for about three-fourths of the industry’s sales,
which in 1972 totaled an estimated $8 billion. Appendix A gives a more detailed statistical
description of the organic chemical industry.
Companies and Plants
Nearly 500 companies are engaged in producing organic chemicals; however, the four
largest producers account for a minimum of 36% and the first hundred for more than 92%
of total shipments. Not only are there very large companies producing large volumes of
chemicals, but also major companies in other industries such as petroleum, have significant
chemical production. At the other end of the spectrum are many small companies operating
small plants. There are about 27 plants employing more than one thousand, and about 220
plants with less than 10 employees. The large plants produce a wide variety of different
chemicals and their effluent will generally be treated in a centralized water treatment plant.
On the other hand, many of the smaller plants dump their effluent into public utility sewer
systems.
Basic Organics
The products are primarily basic organic chemicals, which are generally petroleum
based and to a much, and increasingly, lesser degree, coal based. These basic organics are
generally produced in large-volume continuous process plants whose location is heavily
oriented to their raw material (feedstock) source — natural gas fields, petroleum refineries or
coke oven operations.
Large-Volume Intermediates
Because the basic chemicals are the raw material for upgraded intermediates, these
intermediates are frequently made in the same plant to save freight cost, or by purchasers at
adjacent plant sites that receive the basic organics by pipeline. Hence, the major portion of
large-volume intermediates is also likely to be produced where their raw materials are found.
Most large-volume intermediates are also produced via continuous processes and their unit
value is likely to be at least double that of the basic organics.
5
-------
Small-Volume Intermediates and Finished PrOducts
While many of the large-volume intermediates are used directly in the production of
finished chemicals — generally in the form of polymers such as resins, plastics, and synthetic
fibers — a significant quantity goes into the production of the smaller-volume intermediates
and finished products such as plasticizers, dyes and organic pigments, and pesticides.
Typically, these products are likely to be located nearer the markets than the raw materials
and their unit value may average more than 20 times that of the basic organics, although
their physical volume is less than one-tenth that of the basics. Producers of small-volume
intermediates and end products in many cases are producers of basic organics, but increas-
mgly with upgrading the raw material costs become a less important part of total cost of the
chemicals and other nonintegrated companies become more important. Continuous pro-
cesses are used, but batch processes are likely to be more common and with this labor costs
become a larger share of total cost.
Geographic Location
This general pattern of raw material or market orientation is evident in the geographic
distribution of the organic chemical industry. About 35% of the industry, based on number
of employees, ‘is located in the Northeast, with much of it located in New Jersey, which
accounts for about one-quarter of the industry’s total employment. The South is responsible
for nearly 45% of employment (and much larger percentage of tonnage) with Texas and
Louisiana responsible for much of that. The Midwest accounts for less than 20% and the
West has less than 5% of the organic chemical industry’s employees. The Gulf Coast,
principally Texas and Louisiana, is predominantly the source of basic organics — large-
volume, low-cost and -priced, continuous processing — while the Northeast accounts for a
major share of the upgraded products such as dyestuffs, flavor and fragrances, and other
high-value, low-volume products.
Appendix B shows the location of those organic chemicals plants that face a significant
water pollution abatement cost to meet proposed standards based on best practicable
control technology currently available. The plant locations oriented to raw material are
clearly indicated for basic and large-volume intermediate organic chemicals, as is the market
orientation of most small-volume intermediates and finished products.
Industry Growth and Profits
Dollar sales of the organic chemical industry have grown at an annual rate of about
7-1/2% over the last 15 years, but in actual volume of production growth has been closer to
8-1/2% per year because the unit prices of organic chemicals, on average, have actually
declined in current dollars by nearly 15% over that 15-year period, 1958-1972. (Many
categories of organics have declined by much more.) Although productivity improvements
have helped maintain the unit labor costs in the industry, increases in raw materials, energy,
and plant construction and erection costs have not permitted costs to be reduced by a
6
-------
corresponding 15%. The difference has come out of profits and the industry’s profitability
has definitely been squeezed over the 15 years, with periodic upturns in profits generally the
result of better utilization of production capacity, as is the case in 1972 and so far in 1973.
Competition between chemical and petroleum companies, many of whom over-
expanded in the sixties and had poor marketing programs, competition with foreign imports
in some cases, and finally, competition with nonchemical substitutes, contributed to the
general decline in prices and the industry’s profits.
7
-------
THE IMPACT OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ON THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
In an industry as diverse and complex as the organic chemical industry one cannot
generalize beyond saying that all members of the industry will be affected. The degree of
the economic impact will vary considerably among companies, plants, and products. In an
effort to differentiate among products and product classes, we have developed a grouping of
products and product classes that account for about 75% of the organic chemical industry’s
total sales. Table I lists this grouping and the raw effluent load categorization.
The Cost of Water Pollution Abatement
Data submitted in the EPA Development Document have been used to calculate the
cost of meeting the proposed guidelines for specific chemicals that may have serious impact
potential. Of the 70 products or product classes reviewed, about half exhibit a potentially
severe impact because of their raw effluent load. In Table 2 we have compiled a list which
includes all of the chemicals in categories C&D of the EPA Development Document plus five
we believe may present a potential problem even though they are not in categories C&D. Of
this list of 36 products, the Document includes survey data for 22.
We have been able to apply the Development Document results to the calculation of
the cost of pollution abatement for 17 products. Of the other five surveyed, three yield
results not considered reliable because of the degree of extrapolation required (tetraethyl
lead, bisphenol, and phthalate plasticizers), one on which we take exception to Document
data (coal tar in which problems related to tar acid and tar base refining were not
considered), and one where the data is not specific enough to make the calculations (dyes
and pigments).
Cost Based on Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available . For this
analysis we have used, as reported, estimates given in the EPA Development Document of
treatment plant investment and operating costs, and of effluent hydraulic load. With regard
to cost for best practicable control, the data appear to be reasonable. In the second instance
we have no way to judge the reasonableness of the hydraulic load but note that it is stated
to be the result of a field survey.
Estimates of the pollution abatement costs are included in the EPA Development
Document for each product category, as a function of the waste treatment plant hydraulic
load. At the instruction of EPA, we used the data for categories B-i and C-l. These
estimates were based on 95% treatment efficiency, and costs are marginally higher than for
less efficient waste treatment. Costs given in the EPA Document include both a depreciation
charge (20% of investment per year) and an “amortization” charge equal to full capital
recovery in five years with interest at 7% on the unpaid principal. For our Cost calculation
we deleted these charges and substituted an “amortization” charge equal to capital recovery
in 20 years with interest at 8%. This charge is equivalent to 10.2% of investment per year.
9
-------
TABLE 1
POTENTIAL WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS DUE TO
RAW EFFLUENT LOAD IN THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Develop
Document 1)
A. Basic Organic Chemicals Category
1. Coal Derived Basics
‘Coal tar acids C
Coal tar crudes C
Coal tar distillates C
Naphtha solvents C
Naphthalene C
Anthracene C
2, Creosote c
Cresols C
Cresylic C
Acid C
Pitch C
Tar C
(BenZene A
2) . Toluene A
Xylene A
2. Petroleum Derived Basics
Acyclic
2’ ,/Ethylene B
‘ 1 Propylene
2) Acetylene B
2) Butadiene B
Cyclic
fBenzene A
2) Toluene A
Xylene A
B. Large—Volume Interiaediates and Finished Organics Including:
3. Resin Intermediates
2) Ethyl benzene & styrene A & B
2) Vinyl chloride A & B
2) Ethyl acrylates & methylinethacrylates C
2) Vinyl acetate c
10
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Develop
Document
Cat gory
4. Fiber Intermediates
2) Cyclohexane A
Acrylonitrile C
Adipic acid C
Hexamethylene diamine & tetramine B
2) Caprolactam C
2) Dimethyl terephthálate C
5. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Methyl chloride B
Methylene chloride B
Chloroform B
Carbon tetrachioride B
Ethyl chloride B
2) Ethylene dichloride B
Trichloroethylene B
Perchloroethylene B
Methyl chloroform B
Fluorinated hydrocarbons B
6. Miscellaneous, Generally Derived From :
Cl
2) Methanol B
2) Formaldehyde B
Pentaerythritol C
Phosgene A
C2
2) Acetaldehyde B & C
2) Acetic acid c
Acetic anhydride B
Ethanol c
Ethyl cellulose C
2) Ethylene oxide and glycol B & C
2) Tetraethyl lead C
C 3
Glycerin B
Isopropanol B & C
Isocyanates C
Propylene oxide C
Propylene glycol C
2) Acetone C
11
-------
TABLE I Continued)
Develop
Document
Category
C 4
Methyl ethyl ketone C
2) Oxo chemicals (including long—chain alcohols) C
Aromatics
Cwnene A
2) Phenol/Acetone C
2) Aniline C
2) Bisphenol C
Phthalic anhydride B
2) Para—cresol C
C. Small—Volume lnterme4iates and End Product Organics
2) 7. Dyes & organic pigments D
8. Rubber processing chemicals D
9. Flavors and fragrances D
10. Unformulated pesticides D
2) 11. Plasticizers - B & D
D. Miscellaneous Intermediates Not categorized
1) Development Doc” n t Category
A — Non—aqueous processes
B - Process water as steam diluent and/or absorbent
C — Aqueous liquid—phase reaction systems
D — Batch and semi—continuous processes
2) Draft document investigated effluent control costs for this product or product clasE
12
-------
TABLE 2
SPECIFIC WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS,
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE — 95% REMOVAL
Develop Typical
I cu nt Pl t 3
Product Category Size Hydraulic 1.o.d 3) ate ent Cost 4)
(aillio i lb/yr) (galII000 ib) (gpd) ($Iyr) (c/lb)
Basic Orgsnic Ch .icals 1 2 2
— 405
Large Vol s jnte sdiate. -
Resin Inter sdtatsa
* Vinyl Chloride A i. B 400 336 379,000 310,000 0.08
* Ethyl Acrylit. C 250 3,000 2,113,000 2,950,000 1.18
* Methyl Methacrylate C 80 260 59,000 450,000 0.56
* Vinyl Acetate C 300 28 24,000 300,000 0.10
Fiber 1nter edistss
Acrylomitrile c 2) 2)
Adipic Acid c 2) 2)
Caprolactaa C 150 1,334 564,000 1,450,000 0.97
* Di.ethyl Terephthal*te C 250 450 317,000 1,050,000 0.42
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon.
* Ethylene Dichioride B 500 96 135,000 160,000 0.32
?4iacellaneoua Derived froa C 1
* Methanol B 659 50 93,000 130 000 0.02
Pentarythritol C L) 2 >
)fiscellaneoUa Derived I roe C 2
* Acetaldehyde B & C 300 61 52,000 440,000 0.15
* Acetic Acid C 300 500 423,000 1,230 000 0.41
Acetic Anhydride B 2 )
* Ethylene Oxide 8 200 20 11,000 50,000 0.03
* Ethylene Glycol C 250 584 411,000 1,200,000 0.48
* Tetreathyl Lead C 300 12.000 10,141,000 (6,900 000)5)(2.3U)
Ethanol C ) 2)
Ethyl Cellulose C 2) 2)
Mi cel1aneous Derived f roe C 3
isopropan ol B & c 2) 2)
isocyanates C 2) 2)
Propylene Oxide C 2) 2)
Propylene Glycol c 2) 2)
* Acetone C 120 230 78,000 120,000 0.10
Miscellaneous Derived froa C 4
Methyl Ethyl Eaton. C 2) 2) 2) 2) 2)
Miscellaneoua Derived I roe Aroastics
* Oxochealcals C 200 420 237,000 860,000 0.43
* Phenol /Acetone C 400 200 225,000 850,000 0.21
* Aniline C 70 190 37,000 35 ,000 0.50
* Bisphenol A C 50 61 9.400
* fara —cresol C 10 1,291 36,000 350,000 3.50
Seall Volu.e Intermediates & End Product Organics
* Dyes 4 Organic Pigments D — — 13,700/124,000 2) 2)
Rubber Processing Chemicals 2) 9
Flavors & Fragrances 2) 2
Unformulated Pesticides 2), 2)
* Plasticizers B & 0 75 78.3 16,500 2) 2)
Gal/1000 gal — does not include waste water from tat acid or tar base operations.
Insufficient data available to determine cost.
Based on data supplied by EPA, ‘Draft — Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
of Performance — Organic Chemicals Industry”; Roy F. Weston, Inc., June 1973.
Derived by Contractor from source cited in footnote 3).
fliis data is suapect; a re detailed survey is required.
* — Draft document investigated effluent control costs for this product or product class.
13
-------
After this adjustment was made to Tables VLiI-2 and VIlI-5 in EPA Development Docu-
ment, we plotted waste treatment flow (gpd) versus annual cost (Figures 1 and 2).
For each of the products we next selected a typical plant size. This selection was based
on our knowledge of the industry and was assisted by tabulation of plants given in the EPA
Development Document for each product. Effluent flow to the treatment plant was then
calculated by multiplying the plant size by the tabulated flow factor (gal effluent/1000 lb
product). Annual cost was then read from Figure I or Figure 2 and unit cost (i/lb product)
calculated. These results are also summarized in Table 2.
It is recognized that many of these products are manufactured at a common plant site
with others, and therefore share a consolidated treatment plant. The EPA Development
Document suggests this problem be analyzed for specific plant sites by a “building block”
approach which sums up the contribution of each product. In a plant where all products had
similar waste problems the result, as a back charge cost to each product, would be about the
same as our calculation, and for the generalizations necessary at this time is the best
estimate possible.
Costs of Advanced Levels of Control . Our discussion of the cost of pollution abate-
ment has been addressed to best practicable control, that is, best practicable control
technology currently available. We were also commissioned to consider: (1) best available
technology economically achievable, (2) new source effluent standards, and (3) new source
pretreatment standards. However, data to make an adequate study are sorely lacking. The
cited Document recommends a single guideline for (1) and (2) above, and presents cost data
(in its Table VIII-!!) for only a single size of facility (720,000 gpd of effluent) with
treatment based solely on activated carbon adsorption of impurities.
The best available technology investment for Category C is stated to be $1,178,000,
and annual costs adjusted to our basis would be:
Operating & Maintenance $124,200
Energy & Power 14,000
10.2% Investment 120,200
$258,400
Only three products listed in Table 2 have effluent loads of 400,000 to 900,000 gpd; and
any unit not in that range is not considered appropriate for application of this cost. These
products and the result of adding treatment, on the basis of the data given in the EPA
Development Document, are:
14
-------
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
a
0
Cu
E 3.0
4
2.0
1.0
0
0 0.2
Effluent Flow (Million Gallons per Day)
Source: Adapted from Table VllI-2 “Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards of Performance — Organic Chemical Industry”,
Roy F. Weston Inc.. June 1973.
FIGURE 1 AQUEOUS POLLUTION ABATEMENT COSTS — CATEGORY B (PROCESS WATER
CONTACTS AS STEAM DILUENT AND/OR ABSORBENT) Best Practicable Control
Technology — 95% Removal
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
-------
3.5
0.5
Effluent Flow (Million Gallons per Day)
lourcs: Mapsed from Table Vlll-6 “Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guideline and Standards of Performance — Orgsnic Chmical Industry”.
Roy F. Weston Inc., June 1973.
FIGURE 2 AQUEOUS POLLUTION ABATEMENT COSTS — CATEGORY C (AQUEOUS LIQUID —
PHASE REACTION SYSTEMS) Best Practicable Control Technology — 95% Removal
3.0
2.5
2.0
0
1.5
1.0
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
-------
Best Economically
Effluent Achievable Best Practicable
Product gpd Plant Size Control Cost Control Cost Total Cost
(million ($/yr) (i/lb) ( fIb) ( /lb)
Ibs/yr)
Caprolactam 564,000 150 258,400 0.17 0.97 1.14
Acetic Acid 423,000 300 258,400 0.09 0.41 0.50
Ethylene Glycol 411,000 250 258,400 0.10 0.48 0.58
This calculation indicates best economically achievable abatement would add only
about 20% to the cost of best practicable control; it is a highly suspect result when one
considers the uncertainty of guidelines which may, in fact, be proposed and when the
specific problems for meeting those guidelines at specific locations are considered. We have
included this calculation only to illustrate our point of view, and we do not recommend an
attempt to extend it to other products.
The cost consideration of pretreatment for new plants using municipal facilities were
not included in the study reported in the EPA Development Document. Its application
would be to the segment of the industry typified by the large number of small plants in
urban areas sUch as New Jersey. We have pointed out elsewhere in this report the special
problems such plants pose; they will present severe economic impact problems and they
require plant-by-plant analysis not possible in this assignment.
17
-------
THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
The ability of a company to absorb or pass on the cost of water pollution control for
its products depends on the products’ average profitability and/or price elasticity in the
marketplace. If the product or product class is producing a profit margin better than the
industry in general, the producer may be able to absorb the increased cost due to water
pollution control and if, in addition, he can pass on all or at least some of the cost to his
customers in selling price, his profits will be depressed only slightly or not at all. At the
other extreme is a company that currently suffers a poor profit margin and that will lose its
market to other more efficient producers, imports or other competitive substitute products
if it raises prices. In this case the company or the product is already marginal, and the cost
of water pollution control, or a combination of water, air and solid waste pollution costs
plus OSHA will act as severe pressures to close his plant or discontinue the particular
product or product line, especially if he can see no opportunity to realize at least a positive
cash flow. In many instances, because the product has not been very profitable, the plants
are old and have not justified major reinvestment and the resulting depreciation will not
generate sufficient cash flow to offset direct operating costs or warrant continued operation.
Production Costs. Production costs are very sensitive to capacity utilization, since
organic chemicals are fairly high in their capital intensiveness, that is, the amount of fixed
capital investment needed to generate a specific amount of sales, to say nothing of profits.
For example, in 1967, the last year for which reasonably accurate statistics are available,
organic chemical commercial shipments (nearly the same as sales) of about $5.6 billion
required a depreciable fixed investment of $8.5 billion; that is, each dollar of fixed
investment generated about $0.65 in sales. That fixed Investment will obviously produce
more profit if it is operating at 96% than at 78%, each an average figure experienced in one
of the last five years.
Although fixed cost, particularly depreciation, is high, other fixed costs — such as
technical service, distribution and sales costs — also contribute to total cost. Depreciation
accounts on average for 10-15% of cost.
Variable costs for raw materials, labor and utilities loom very large in production costs,
averaging for the industry 75-80% of total costs. In recent years raw materials and utility
costs particularly have risen more rapidly than the price received for chemicals. Based on a
price of 100 for 1967, the average price for all industrial commodities rose to an average of
117.9 in 1972, and utilities and fuels to 118.6. Organic chemicals were at 96.2 or less on
average in that year.
Unit labor costs had been kept relatively stable, thanks primarily to increased produc-
tivity, which in turn is due largely to increased capital investment. It is likely that increased
production costs due to pollution control cannot be absorbed by increased productivity,
especially in view of the increases in cost being experienced by the chemical industry for its
hydrocarbon feedstocks and energy. As a generalization, we believe production costs will
19
-------
increase with or without the additional burden of air, water, or solid waste pollution costs,
to say nothing of operating expenses required through OSHA.
Price Elasticity . If, as we believe, operating costs will not be reduced, nor for that
matter maintained at their present level (especially as plants are already operating close to
their capacities), it would appear that the only way organic chemical companies can recover
the cost of water pollution control, if they are to recover it at all, is through increased
selling prices in the marketplace.
Companies’ ability to increase priáes depends on whether the Government permits
price increases (Price Control Phase IV and its sequence), whether more efficient or less
realistic competitive organic chemical producers will also raise prices, or whether customers
will feel justified in paying more for a particular chemical in preference to a competitive
alternative chemical or a nonchemical product. In general terms, organic chemicals have
grown at a rate of 8-1/2% in physical volume in part because their cost to customers has
risen far less (in fact, dropped) in comparison to many competitive nonchemical materials.
Hence, in general terms, it is reasonable to assume that even with an increase in selling puce,
and the resulting decline in the annual rate of growth, there will still be steady growth by
the organic chemical industry. However, generalities do not take into account specific
organic chemicals.
The Economic Impact of Water Pollution Control on Specific Organic Chemicals . We
are assuming that those products in Development Document Category A — that is, those
where water is not a process material, and aqueous waste is discharged only as utility unit
blow-down or as an incidental wash stream — do not face a water pollution control problem
of sufficient magnitude to justify further review in this study. Similarly, those products in
Category B — where water is an inherent process material used as a steam diluent and/or
absorbent but is discharged only as a purge stream in quantities small in comparison to the
production rate — need no further attention in this study in view of Development Docu-
ment estimates of the cost of control using the best practicable control technology currently
available. (See Figure 1.)
However, Categories C&D — Aqueous Liquid-Phase Reaction Systems and Batch and
Semi-Continuous Processes, respectively — require further review. One measure of the
impact of pollution control is to compare the cost of treatment as a percent of selling price
for those products which have developed sufficient data to permit us to estimate abatement
cost per pound of product produced. The results are shown in Table 3. These products had
sales of about $1,050 million in 1971 and the weighted average abatement cost, as a percent
of sales price, was 4.23.
We have also evaluated the profit margin to absorb the increased cost and/or ability to
pass on all or some of the increased cost to consumers for all products in Categories C&D. In
general, a product that normally has a profit margin lower than the average of the organic
20
-------
TABLE 3
COST OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS AS PERCENT OF
SALES PRICES FOR SPECIFIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS — BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Development 1972 Abatement Cost
Document Abatement Sales As Percent of
Product Category Cost 1) Price 2) Sales Price
(c/lb) (c/lb) (%)
Large-Volume Intermediates
Vinyl chloride A & B 0.08 4.17 1.92
Ethyl acrylate C 1.18 17.90 6.59
Methyl methacrylate C 0.56 18.50* 3.03
Vinyl acetate C 0.10 7.79 1.28
Fiber Intermediates
Caprolactam C 0.97 17.56 5.52
Dimethyl terepbthalate C 0.42 14.00 3) 3.33
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Ethylene dichioride B 0.32 2.78 11.51
Miscellaneous
Methanol B 0.02 1.98 1.01
Acetaldehyde B & C 0.15 9.00* 1.67
Acetic acid C 0.41 5.71 7.18
Ethylene oxide B 0.03 7.12 0.42
Ethylene glycol C 0.48 6.40 7.50
Acetone C 0.10 3.94 2.54
Oxo chemicals C 0.43 11.00 3) 3.91
Phenol C 0.21 6.56 3.20
Aniline C 0.50 11.19 4.47
Para—cresol C 3.50 42.00* 8.31
1) from Table 2
2) Average sales price as derived from U. S. Tariff Commission preliminary
“Synthetic Organic Chemicals” — 1971 and assuming price constant through
1972 because of price freeze, except where asterisks (*) price is that
listed in .June 26, 1972 Chemical Marketing Reporter, using lowest price
quoted.
3) Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates.
21
-------
chemical industry has been put in that position because competitive pressures — more
efficient produceis, lower-cost imports, or other chemical or nonchemical alternatives -
have precluded passing on increases in production costs. Hence we combined both factors in
our judgment evaluation of chemicals or classes of chemicals with a potential water
pollution impact and used a scale of 1 to 3 to grade the economic impact; for this we took
1972 as an average year and 6-7% as an average after-tax profit return on total capital
employed.
A profitability index of 1 (Table 4) implies that the product enjoys above average
margins and can, in general, pass on a large portion of increased costs without adversely
affecting its market prospect. A profitability index of 2 implies the product has average
industry margins and will have lijnited opportunity to pass on a major share of added costs
without jeopardizing its market. A product with a profitability index of 3 is under severe
competitive pressure, has profit margins below the average of the industry, and cannot pass
on its increased cost in the face of competition from more efficient producers, imports or
alternative products.
The results are shown in Table 4, as well as an abatement cost index for those products
for which we have sufficient data to estimate water pollution control costs. These two
indices combined give us a rough, but we believe valid, economic impact index.
Of the 70 products or classes of products considered as representative of about 75% of
the value of sales of the árganic chemical industry, approximately half are in categories A&B
and hence face a minimal dislocation inmeeting the proposed guidelines of 95% removal
using best practicable control technology currently available. The other half, in categories
C&D, as listed in Table 4, are all vulnerable to a significant degree in meeting the proposed
guidelines. Of those 36 products in this group, we have estimates of abatement cost for only
17 products. Of these, about eight face a difficult problem either because of high abatement
costs, a poor market picture or a combination of both. These eight products are discussed in
further detail below. However, prior to discussing these products, it must be emphasized
that we believe other products or classes of products listed in Table 4 face a significant
problem, even though we do not have the cost data to back up our belief. In our judgment
these include coal tar products, ethyl cellulose, dyes and organic pigments, and possibly
some unformulated pesticides.
Ethylene Glycol . Ethylene glycol normally is made from ethylene oxide produced in
the same complex. About half of the production goes directly to the automotive antifreeze
market and a third to polyester fiber, films and resins. The balance is consumed in numerous
small uses. Because prices for ethylene oxide have been depressed in the recent past, little
new capacity has been added and ethylene glycol supply will be tight for the next few years,
and prices are expected to improve. Although raw material and energy costs are expected to
rise significantly in addition to the cost of pollution control, we expect that a good portion
of the latter cost can be passed on to customers, particularly in antifreeze. Any plant
closings will probably be restricted to the older small-capacity plants that account for aboijt
5% of current capacity.
22
-------
TABLE 4
PROFITABILITY AND IMPACT ON SPECIFIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS
BEST PRACTICABLE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
(95% REMOVAL)
Profitability Abatement Economic
Product Index 1) Cost Index 2) Impact Index 3)
Basic Organic Chemicals
Coal Tar 3
Large Volume Intermediates
Resin Intermediates
Vinyl Chloride 2 2 4
Ethyl Acrylate 1 3 3
Methyl Methacrylate 1 2 2
Vinyl Acetate 2 2 4
Fiber Intermediates
Acrylonitrile 2
Adipic Acid 1
Caprolactam 2 3 6
Dimethyl Terephthalate 1 2 2
chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Ethylene Dichl.oride 2 4 8
Miscellaneous Derived from C 1
Methanol 3 2 6
Pentaerythritol 2
Miscellaneous Derived from C 2
Acetaldehyde 2 2 4
Acetic Acid 2 3 6
Acetic Anhydride 2
Ethylene Oxide 3 1 3
Ethylene Glycol 3 3 9
Tetraethyl Lead 1
Ethanol 2
Ethyl Cellulose 1
Miscellaneous Derived from C 3
Isopropanol 3
Isocyanates 2
Propylene Oxide 2
Propylene Glycol 2
Acetone 3 2 6
Miscellaneous Derived from C 4
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 2
Miscellaneous Derived from Aromatics
Oxochemicals 2 2 4
Phenol 3 2 6
Aniline 2 3 6
Bisphenol A 2
Para—cresol 1 4 4
23
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Profitability Abatement Economic
Product Index 1) Cost Index 2) Impact Index 3)
Basic Organic Chemicals
Coal Tar 3
Large Volume Intermediates
Resin Intermediates
Vinyl Chloride 2 2 4
Ethyl Acrylate 1 3 3
Methyl Nethacrylate 1 2 2
Vinyl Acetate 2 2 4
Fiber Intermediates
Acrylonit rile 2
Adipic Acid 1
Caprolactam 2 3 6
Dimethyl Terephthalate 1 2 2
Chlorinated Rydrocarbons
Ethylene Dichloride 2 4 8
Miscellaneous Derived from C 1
Methanol 3 2 6
Pentaerythritol. 2
Mis ceflaneous Derived from C 2
Acetaldehyde 2 2 4
Acetic Acid 2 3 6
Acetic Anhydride 2
Ethylene Oxide 3 1 3
Ethylene Glycol 3 3 9
Tetraethyl Lead 1
Ethanol 2
Ethyl Cellulose 1
Miscellaneous Derived from C 3
Isopropanol 3
Isocyanates 2
Propylene Oxide 2
Propylene Glycol 2
Acetone 3 2 6
Miscellaneous Derived from C 4
Methyl Ethyl etone 2
Miscellaneous Derived from Arometics
Oxochemicals 2 2 4
Phenol 3 2 6
Aniline 2 3 6
Bisphenol A 2
Para—cresol 1 4 4
24
-------
Ethylene Dichioride (EDC) . The major use for ethylene dichioride is as an interme-
diate in vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) production. Well over 80% of production is used
captively in complexes that produce ethylene and chlorine and make vinyl chloride
monomer. In fact, in many instances it is not directly isolated and hence not reported in
production figures. EDC is a convenient method of transporting chlorine and can expect to
remain important in export for this reason. EDC and vinyl chloride monomer are in short
supply and can be expected to remain so, at least through 1975. We would expect some
plants to be retired as new capacity comes on-stream in 1975, 1976, and 1977.
Even though pollution abatement costs are high, we doubt that any plants will be
closed for this reason alone, because EDC is an integral part of vinyl chloride production,
which represents a substantial additional investment. In most cases pollution costs will be
included in the transfer price of EDC to VCM, and will be passed on to VCM users at least in
part. Because it takes about 1.72 pounds of EDC to produce a pound of VCM, the total
water abatement cost carried by VCM will be 0.63 /lb, equal to 15% of the 1972 sales price.
It is unlikely that more than half this cost can be passed on in view of the fact that higher
raw material costs will also be forcing the price of VCM to higher levels and threaten
polyvinyl chloride’s market share in competition with other plastics as well as competing
metals and wood products. These higher prices will slow the growth of VCM from a growth
rate of about 14% per year during the last decade to a level closer to 10% in the foreseeable
future, a growth rate still substantially above the 8 to 8-1/2% average annual increase in
volume experienced by the industry.
Caprolactam . Caprolactarn is used primarily as a raw material for nylon 6. We expect
that costs of water pollution abatement will be passed on by the four caprolactam producers
through the nylon 6 prices.
Methanol . Methanol’s chief market is formaldehyde, frequently produced at a separate
location. About 40% goes to this use, with dimethyl terephthalate the second most
important market. During the last two years, prices have dropped from 25 per gallon to a
low of 10 per gallon; prices have risen slightly since that low was reached in 1972. The
precipitous drop in price was due to new plant construction coming on-stream with capacity
equal to over 50% of total demand. Many older smaller plants can be expected to close
down. While pollution control may hasten their closing, it will not be instrumental.
Producers are all large companies.
Acetic Acid . The production of cellulose acetate and vinyl acetate accounts for about
three-fourths of acetic acid demand. All is produced by large companies in production
complexes. Acetic acid is essential in its major uses; hence direct substitution is unlikely,
although the major end products, cellulose acetate and vinyl acetate, may be vulnerable to
substitution if pollution abatement costs of their own plus that of acetic acid are passed on
to customers. With one exception it is unlikely that plants will be closed since most of the
smaller ones produce acetic acid as a by-product of other chemicals.
25
-------
Acetone . Acetone goes to many uses, including methyl methacrylate, cellulose acetate,
bisphenol A, and many solvent applications. Half of the total capacity is produced in
cumene process plants which has as a co-product, phenol. Small cumene plants, of which there
are four, will be vulnerable to closure through the combined effects of scale efficiencies and
pollution abatement costs for both phenol and acetone.
Phenol . Phenolic resins account for about half of phenol’s markets. Caprolactam and
bisphenol A are two other major markets. Since the major share of production is made via
the cumene process, the total cost for the acetone/phenol will be allocated according to
each company’s policy. In general, we believe most of the costs due to water pollution
abatement will be passed on to subsequent products and users except where noted under
acetone above.
Aniline . Aniline’s primary markets are in rubber processing chemicals, dyestuffs and
increasingly in isocyanates, all products affected by the suggested water pollution guideline.
Yet aniline is a critical component in all these products, and we anticipate the costs will be
passed on without major dislocation in market growth or producing plants.
Coal Tar Products . Coal tar and its distillation products go into a variety of products —
light oil distillates such as benzene, toluene, xy!ene, and solvent naphtha, and the heavy
fractions — naphthalene, tar acids, cresylic acid, creosote, tar and pitch. The main pollution
problem resides in the heavy fractions, the tar derivatives. The industry has been beset by
many problems, a shrinking coal tar raw material as town gas plants closed down and steel
mills used the tar captively as a low-sulfur fuel, loss in markets for naphthalene as
synthetically made orthoxylene took over much of the phthalic anhydride market, price
pressure from petroleum based pitches and lower-priced imports. With margins already
depressed, in anticipation of the combined cost of federal and state and water pollution
abatement and OSHA, at least three plants will be closed this year. More closures, especially
of small isolated plants, can be expected over the next few years. This product area should
receive a more detailed review by EPA.
Ethyl Cellulose . A special technical problem faces ethyl cellulose. It is manufactured
from wood pulp fiber by a process which depends on the difference in solubiity of the
product in hot and cold water. Losses of product due to its solubility impose unusually
high loads on the bioxidation system. While its profitability has been above average in the
past, and its markets relatively price insensitive, we do not know how much it will cost to
meet the proposed water pollution abatement guidelines.
Dyes and Organic Pigments . This group of organic chemicals consists of more than a
dozen major classes of dyes and pigments consisting of more than a thousand different dyes
produced in the United States. About two-thirds of the production goes to the textile
industry, another sixth is used in paper production, and the balance is used mainly in leather
and plastics. There are about 60 producers in the United States; many of them are small and
many are located in urban or suburban areas of New Jersey.
26
-------
While prices have risen by over 10% in the last five years, in contrast to many more
basic organic chemicals, the profit margins of the small nonintegrated dye producers are
slim. Foreign imports have been equivalent to over 10% of U.S. production, and a small
number of U.S. and foreign controlled firms account for a major share of domestic sales.
Furthermore, shifts in textile fashions — materials and colors — make those producers of a
limited line of dyes vulnerable to erratic sales demand.
Many of the dyestuff producers in urban and suburban areas put their effluent into
municipal sewer systems. No guidelines have been published for present plants dumping into
municipal sewer systems, so we cannot comment on their potential vulnerability. It is likely,
however, that the pretreatment standards which will ultimately be promulgated will affect
expansion in built-up areas more because of limited space than any other reasons. Those
small dyes and pigment producers located in rural areas and not currently using municipal
systems will be faced with a potential problem.
We have insufficient data to estimate the extent of potential impact, but recommend
this be reviewed by the EPA in further detail. The data offered by the Development
Document can be used to make an arithmetic calculation of the cost of abatement for dyes
and pigments. At the low end of the range, the result is a low cost (i/lb) at a high hydraulic
load. We have not included this calculation because it leads one to a probable erroneous
conclusion that the industry has a minimal problem. As stated above, we regard it more
likely that a number of smaller producers have a serious problem that will require individual
consideration.
Unformulated Pesticides . These products are used in making insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, and other biologically active compounds for agricultural, home, health, and
commercial uses. Many scattered small plants, particularly in the Midwest, many of them in
rural areas, may face special problems. We have no effluent abatement costs for this segment
of the organic chemical industry, but believe this area deserves a more detailed review by the
EPA.
Extrapolating the Economic Impact of Water Pollution Control From the Specific to
the General . We recognize the hazard of trying to draw general conclusions on the basis of
very limited data, but will attempt to do so in this section. All of our comments are
confined to the economic impact of the initial level — best practicable technology currently
available — to be met by the organic chemical industry by 1977 and are based on the
assumption that the water pollution abatement costs given to us by the EPA are accurate
except where noted above. In view of the lack of data, we can make no comments regarding
advanced levels.
Our coverage of about 75% of the value of the organic chemical industry’s sales and the
Development Document’s coverage of about 75% of the industry’s volume of production
imply a conservative three-fourths coverage of the total organic chemical industry. Of that
75% covered, we found about half (both in number and sales value) was in Categories A&B.
We assume, for the purpose of this study only, that the other 25% not identified has
characteristics common to those covered in our work.
27
-------
Water Pollution Abatement Operating Costs . On that basis, about half of 1972 sales of
about $8 billion of organic chemicals have nominal water pollution abatement problems
with costs equivalent to about 1% of sales value, that is, about $40 million annually. The
other half, Draft Development Document Categories C&D, have in varying degrees a
significant economic impact.
The cost of water abatement to achieve 95% removal with best practicable control
technology currently available (shown in Table 3) had a weighted average of 4.23% of sales
value, with a range from 0.42% to 11.51% of sales value. Mindful of the fact that total
after-tax profits averaged 6-7% of capital employed and about 5% of sales in 1972, there
would be a very serious economic impact if the industry were not able to pass these costs on to
their customers. In any event, costs for this half of the industry are estimated at about $170
million annually, for a total industry cost, on the basis of 1972 sales, of $210 million per
year when it is fully meeting suggested 1977 guidelines. As will be seen below, we believe
this to be a minimum cost figure, with a figure of $590 million annually a maximum.
Impact on Profits . While the organic chemical industry will be under severe cost
pressures because of increased prices for its hydrocarbon raw materials and energy as well as
air, water, solid waste pollution control and OSHA, we estimate, purely on judgment, that it
will be able to. pass on about two-thirds of the minimum cost figures incurred in water
pollution abatement. Again on the basis of 1972 values, the industry would have to absorb
about $70 million of the cost. Assuming a 50% tax rate, this would represent a depression of
after-tax earnings of about 9% per year for the industry when it is fully meeting 1977
requirements.
In our maximum estimate of $590 million annual cost, we question whether the
industry would be able to pass on more than one-half of these total costs because of more
efficient producers and fear of losing market share to competitive products and/or imports,
and would have to absorb $295 million. As 1972 net after-tax profits for the industry were
about $400 million, the maximum absorbed costs would depress earnings by 37% of the
1972 base.
Price Effects . Assuming the organic chemical industry can pass on two-thirds of the
minimum cost of abatement, or about $140 million, this represents an average increase in
prices of 1.75% over the period 1972-1977, while the maximum of $295 million would
represent a rise in price of 3.7% over the period.
Effects on Growth of the Industry . Of course, it must be realized that different
products would have different costs, with increases ranging from zero to ten percent or
more. Price increases of 1-1/2% over five years will have very minor overall effects on the
industry’s growth, although again certain products and companies will suffer. Even a
maximum increase of 3.7% will not present a major dampener on growth. However,
increases due to inflation, raw materials and energy will be much greater and will be the
main dampener on demand growth, which will slow below the average growth rate of
28
-------
8-1/2% per year experienced in the 1960’s. We are in no position to estimate how much
effect these other factors will have on the organic industry’s growth.
Capital Needs and Availability . The 1967 Census of Manufactures made a water usage
census in 1968. The organic chemical industry reportedly discharged 2,162 billion gallons of
water from a total of 239 establishments consuming water out of an industry total of665
establishments contacted. (By comparison the 1967 Census of Manufactures tabulated 454
establishments; the discrepancy may be due to including warehouses, distribution facilities
and other nonproductive establishments in the industry.) Of this total, 413.3 billion gallons
was process water. This process water usage is equivalent to an average discharge per
establishment (plant) of 1.73 billion gallons per year or 4.7 million gallons per day.
Although we are not saying a plant with such a discharge exists, since some may have
much greater and many lesser water usage, it is a useful figure from which to estimate the
fixed capital required by the industry to meet water pollution guidelines using the best
practicable control technology currently available.
According to the data supplied to us by the EPA, the capital cost using best practical
technology for each category having a volume of 720,000 gallons per day is as shown below.
Our estimates of a 4.7-million-gpd plant in each category are also included. The latter are
based solely on a 0.7 exponential factoring (not 0.6, because of the need for land).
Best Practicable
Category Technology 720,000 gpd 4,700,000 gpd
A — $1,410,000 $ 5,231,000
B 95% removal $2,538,000 $ 9,416,000
C 95% removal $8,144,000 $30,214,000
D 90% removal $1,878,000 $ 6,967,000
On the assumption that the industry’s volume is divided about equally among the four
categories A, B, C, and D (and from Table I this appears reasonable) about 60 establish-
ments in each of the four categories will have to make fixed investments in water treatment
facilities. The total capital required on this basis is $3,110 million. However, we assumed
facilities already installed would partially fulfill the 1977 needs. From data collected by the
Manufacturing Chemists Association’ we estimate the organic chemical industry already had
invested $230 million in water abatement facilities by the beginning of 1972. Hence, total
new fixed investment to meet proposed 1977 guidelines will be $2,880 million by 1977,
averaging $576 million per year. It does not take into account the cost of developing new
processes to reduce the effluent load, which should at least correspondingly reduce the
capital needed to treat the effluent.
1. Manufacturing Chemists Association “Environmental Commitment — 1972,” June 1972.
29
-------
The fixed capital invested by the basic chemical industry in the United States in 1972
was $2.18 billion; we estimate the organic chemical industry invested $525 million of the
total in that year. Obviously, if the capital cost figure for water pollution abatement is
correct, the industry will be hard pressed to raise the capital needed for both nonproductive
water pollution abatement facilities and for production units needed to supply the growing
demand and replace obsolete units. Furthermore, amortizing this investment alone would be
a burden of about $295 million annually, substantially more than the $210 million total
water pollution abatement operating cost we cited above, based on the average cost in the
Draft Development Document for a very limited number of products. Because annual
amortization costs are about half total annual costs, a figure of $590 million per year may
be considered as a maximum figure of added cost, while $210 million should be considered
the minimum figure. We recommend a more detailed review of this question in any further
work undertaken by the EPA.
Plant Closings . Even at the minimum level of water pollution abatement costs for the
organic chemical industry, some plants will be closed. These plants, in relation to others in
the same product or product line, are the marginal plants, probably old, inefficient, seldom
in a complex, and frequently small. The capital cost of putting in pollution abatement
facilities may well hasten their closure. Although many of the large companies have such
plants, they are more apt to be prevalent in small companies, which make up the bulk of
companies, as can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5 is a compilation of the Internal Revenue’s 1970 tax returns from 3,287
companies classified by the Internal Revenue in SIC 281, Basic Chemicals. While we have no
similar breakdown for the organic chemical industry, it is reasonable to assume a similar
profile. Ninety-five percent of these companies had assets of less than $5 million; many of
these probably have no plants, but some do. (See Table A-l0 of Appendix A.) Within the
organic chemical industry 220 establishments of the 665 establishments in the industry
employ less than ten people. It is primarily in the small plants owned by small companies
that most closures will take place. The industry will be further concentrated in the larger
companies.
We cannot estimate the number or location of plant closures, although the tabulation
of plants producing the chemicals in categories C and D, the potential serious pollution
problems (see Appendix B) give some indication of likely candidates.
Employment Effects . Products made in chemical complexes are less vulnerable than
those in isolated locations, since such complexes will have a commonly shared water
pollution abatement facility. Because each product must carry its own share of the cost, the
complex is not likely to be in jeopardy, although the product may be discontinued. It is
likely that the personnel connected with the discontinued operation can be absorbed in
other operations in the complex. In the case of isolated plants, they will be unemployed.
Although the impact on the individuals and small companies will be substantial, it probably
will not be substantial to the communities involved, since in most cases it will be the smaller
plants that will close.
30
-------
TABLE 5
COMPANIES IN THE BASIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY ACCORDING TO ASSETS
Number of Percent Cumulative
Assets Companies of Total Percent
($1000)
0 — 100 1161 35.4 35.4
100 — 250 645 19.6 55.0
250 — 500 539 16.4 71.4
500 — 1,000 387 11.8 83.2
1,000 — 5,000 390 11.8 95.0
5,000 — 10,000 59 1.8 96.8
10,000 — 25,000 36 1.1 97.9
25,000 — 50,000 20 0.6 98.5
50,000 — 100,000 12 0.4 98.9
100,000 — 250,000 15 0.4 99.3
Over 250,000 23 0.7 100.0
Source : Internal Revenue Service
31
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued )
Profitability Abatement Economic
Index 1) Cost Index 2) Impact Index 3)
Small—Volume Intermediates
& End—Product Organics
Dyes & Organic Pigments 2
Rubber Processing Chemicals 1.
Flavors & Fragrances 1
Unformulated Pesticides 1
Plasticizers 3
1) — Product had better than industry average profitability in 1972.
2 — Product had industry average profitability in 1972.
3 — Product had below industry average profitability in 1972.
2) Abatement cost as percent of sales cost based on Table 3.
1—lesathaniX 4—8to12%
2 — 1 to 4% 5 — more than 12%
3 —4 to 8%
Abatement cost index X profitability index.
-------
APPENDIX A
THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Definition of the Industry
For the purpose of this study, the organic chemical industry is defined as primary
producers of products listed in Standard Industrial Classification 1 Industry numbers 2865
(formerly 2815), “Cyclic (coal tar) Crudes, and Cyclic Intermediates, Dyes, and Organic
Pigments (Lakes and Toners),” and SIC number 2869 (formerly 2818) “Industrial Organic
Chemicals, not elsewhere classified,” with minor modifications.
To make the results of this study more meaningful, it was desirable to break down
these two major SIC numbers into smaller segments. We have developed a grouping of
chemicals into four major segments and eleven subsegments. See Table A-I. In making these
groupings we have taken into consideration four major factors: (I) the naturally occurring
business segmentation, (2) the availability of statistics, largely those of the Bureau of the
Census and the U.S. Tariff Commission, (3) a commonality of production economics based
on process and scale, and (4) compatibility with four basic water effluent treatment
categories established by the EPA. 2 In an industry as diverse as organic chemicals, it is
difficult to satisfy the four major factors listed above without some compromises and
omissions. Nevertheless the breakdown shown in Table A-I is a realistic segmentation of the
industry, and sales from this grouping account for 55% to 60% of total shipments and 75
to 80% of commercial shipments (sales), as estimated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
(Based on commercial shipments being 77.5% of total shipments or $6.576 billion in 1970
versus $4.947 billion accounted by our industry segmentation. 3 )
The Size of the Industry
In the absence of any better statistics, we must depend upon the data provided by the
Bureau of the Census and U.S. Tariff Commission. Even these data must be accepted with
reservation; generally they have errors of omission.
The Organic Chemical Industry consists of those establishements (plants or parts of
plants) classified as primarily producers of Cyclic Intermediates and Crudes and of Industrial
1. See pages 121-123 of “Standard Industrial Classification Manual,” Statistical Policy Division, Office of
Management & Budget, Executive Office of the President, GPO 1972.
2. Category A — Non-aqueous processes; Category B — Process water contact as steam diluent and/or absor-
bent; Category C — Aqueous liquid-phase reaction system; and Category D — Batch and semi-continuous
processes.
3. See Tables A-3 and A-4.
A-I
-------
T*BU Al
ORGAMC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
A. Basic Organic Chemicals
1. Coal Derived Basics (Tar 6 Tar Crudes) SIC 28155
Coal tar acids
Coal tar crudes
Coal tar distillates
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Naphtha solvents
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Creosote
Cresols
Cresylic acid
Pitch
Tar
2. Petroleum Derived Basics — Part of SIC 2818 & 2815
Acyclic
Ethylene
Propylene
Acetylene
Butadiene
Cyclic
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
B. Large Volume Intermediates and Finished Organics Including:
3. Resin Intermediates — Part of SIC 2815 & 2818
Ethyl beazene & styrene
Vinyl chloride
Ethyl acrylates & methylmethacrylates
Vinyl acetate
A-2
-------
TABLE A-i (cont naed)
4. Fiber Intermediates — Part of SIC 2818 & 2815
Cyclohexane
Acrylonitrile
Adipie acid
Hexamethylene diamine & tetramine
Caprolac tarn
Dimethyl terephthalate
5. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons — Part of SIC 2818
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachioride
Ethyl chloride
Ethylene dichioride
Trichloroethylene
Perchloroethy lene
Methyl chloroform
Fluorinated hydrocarbons
6. Miscellaneous Generally Derived From : Part of SIC 2815 & 2818
C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 Aromatics
Methanol Acetaldehyde Glycerin Cumene
Formaldehyde Acetic acid Isopropynol Phenol
Peataerythritol Acetic anhydride Isocyanates Acetone
Phosgene Ethanol Methyl ethyl ketone Aniline
Ethyl cellulose Propylene oxide Bisphenol
Ethylene oxide Propylene glycol Phthalic anhydride
and glycol Acetone
Tetraethyl lead
C. Small Volume Intermediates and End Product Organics
7. Dyes & organic pigments SIC 2815 2 & 3
8. Rubber processing chemicals SIC 28183 31
9. Flavors & fragrance SIC 28183 11
10. Unformulated pesticides SIC 2818 4
11. Plasticizers SIC 28183 51
D. Miscellaneous Intermediates
A-3
-------
Org inic Chemicals n.e.c. In addition, they produce other secondary products classified in
other industries; similarly, other industries produce some organic chemicals. The dimensions
of the industry can be seen from the value of shipments for 1967 (Table A-2), the latest
year for which detailed statistics are availaI te.
Total shipments of organic chemicals equalled $7,193.6 million in 1967. Commercial
shipments in that year are estimated by the Bureau of the Census at about $5,560 million,
or 77.5% of total shipments. Commercial shipments are about 88% of the $6,325 million
sales reported by the U.S. Tariff Commission in I 967. The difference in all shipments from
Tariff Commission’s reported sales is due primarily to intracompany (plant or plant section)
transfer of material for further processing. The Census’ lower commercial shipments can be
explained by differences in classifications, for example, including coke oven operations, not
just tar distillers in the Tariff statistics. The former are omitted from the Census statistics.
Total shipments of organic chemicals for other years are shown in Table A-3, while
Table A-4 shows the sales of organics that are included within the segmentation of the
industry as used in this report, and Tables A-S and A-6 yearly sales value and production
volume of the segments for 1963-1971. On the assumption that 1972 shipments rose about
12% above those in 1971, total industry shipments would be nearly $10 billion in that year,
with commercial shipments on sales about $7.75 billion. Rounding this figure off to the
nearest billion because of inadequate statistics we assume in this report that organic
chemical industry sales in 1972 were $8 billion.
Characteristics of the Industry
Companies . About 454 companies produce organic chemicals; they operate a total of
665 establishments. The four largest companies account for a minimum of 36% of the
industry’s shipments and the hundred largest companies account for over 92% of all
shipments. (See Table A-7.) The U.S. Tariff Commission in 1970 identified 281 companies
as producers of chemicals in segments of the industry. (See Table A-8.)
Companies producing chemicals in five or more of the twelve segments are listed in
Table A-9. Tables A-8 and A-9 are based on U.S. Tariff Commission data and hence
probably omit some producers. Furthermore, the miscellaneous segment, which accounts
for about one-quarter of all sales, has not been included. While many companies in other
segments also produce miscellaneous chemicals, a small number produce only these miscel-
laneous products and they are missing from the list.
Establishments . The Bureau of the Census defines an establishment as “producing a
single product or more or less closely related group of products.” Within the cyclic
intermediates, dyes, organic pigments (lakes and toners) and cyclic (coal tar) crudes and
4. See 1967 Cen is of Manufactures MC 67(2)-28A-2.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2
THE DIMENSIONS OF THE U. S. ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 1967
(millions of dollars)
By
Establishments
By Establishments Classified In Other
Total Shipments Primarily In: Subtotal Industries Total
Cyclic Industrial
Intermediates Organic
and Crudes Chemicals
(SIC 2865) n.e.c.
(SIC 2869)
Cyclic Intermediates
& Crudes 1,092.1 360.2 1,452.3 201.9 1,654.2
Industrial Organic
Chemicals 168.4 4,461.2 4,629.6 909.8 5,539.4
Other Products & Service
Not Included in Above
SIC 336.3 1,556.4 1,892.7
Total Shipments 1,596.8 6,377.8 7,974.6
Value of All Organic
Chemical Shipments 7,193.6
Source : U. S. Bureau of the Census MC 67(2)—28A
A-5
-------
TABLE A•3
A. BY ALL MANUFACTURERS
VALUE OF SHIPMENTS OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS
(millions of dollars)
Year
1947
1954
1958
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Cyclic Intermediates
and Crudes
444.9
778.7
893.8
1,195.2
1,277.0
1,452.0
1,591.1
1,654.2
1,786.9
1,896.3
2,014.4
2,077.5
Industrial Organic
Chemicals n.e.c.
965.9
2,027.5
2,787.3
4,183.8
4,457 .1
5,023.3
5,366.1
5,539.4
6,056.8
6,356.0
6,470.4
6,814.8
Total
1,410.8
2,806.2
3,681.1
5,379.0
5 ,734 .1
6,475.3
6,957.2
7,193.6
7,843.7
8,252.3
8,484.8
8,892.3
B. BY ALL MANUFACTURERS IN SIC 2815 AND 2818
SIC No .
2815 Cyclic intermediates & crudes
28151 Cyclic intermediates
28152 Synthetic organic dyes
28153 Synthetic organic pigments,
lakes & toners
28155 Cyclic (coal tar) crudes
28150 Cyclic intermediates & crudes, nsk
2818 Industrial organic chemicals, n.e.c.
28181 Miscellaneous cyclic chemical products
28182 Miscellaneous acyclic chemicals
& products
28183 Synthetic organic chemicals
(except surface active)
28184 Pesticides and other unformulated
organics
28185 Ethyl alcohol and other industrial
organic chemicals
28180 Industrial organic chemicals, nsk
Source : Bureau of the Census
1971 1970 1967
(2,077.5) (2,014.4) (1,654.2)
1,308.9 1,308.8 1,066.1
434.7 397.4 325.6
178.2
169.1
162.2
110.9
100.3
87.6
44.8
38.8
12.7
(6,814.8) (6,470.4) (5,539.2)
393.4 371.2 315.1
785.5
718.7
585.6
387.1
331.2
308.2
492.1
466.2
239.4
60.0
57.5
38.7
4,696.7 4,525.6 4,052.2
A-6
-------
TABLE A-4
ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
SALES VALUE FOR 1967 & 1970
(millions of dollan)
Average Price
(s/lb )
1970 1967 1970 1967
A. Basic Organic Chemicals 870 728 .031 .036
1. Coal Derived Basics 178 132
2. Petroleum Derived Basics 692 596
a) acyclic 419 363
b) cyclic 273 233
B. Large Volume Intermediates
and Finished Organics 2,221 1,879 .076 .092
1. Resin Intermediates 368 278
2. Fiber Intermediates 345 236
3. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 407 338
4. Miscellaneous 1,101 1,027
C 1 104 95
C 2 463 520
C 3 133 120
C 4 39 41
Aromatics 362 251
C. Small Volume Intermediates
and End Organics 1,856 1,713 .685 .659
1. Dyes & Organic Pigments 513 440
2. Rubber Processing Chemicals 149 132
3. Flavors and Fragrances 89 93
4. Unformulated Pesticides 870 787
5. Plasticizers 235 261
D. Miscellaneous Intermediates ?
Total 4,947* 4,320*
* Excludes Miscellaneous from Total
Source : U. S. Tariff Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U. S. Production
and Sales.
A-7
-------
TABLE A-5
D. Miscellaneous Intermediates
ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
SALES VALUE
miIlions of dollars)
Note; Totals do not add up due to rounding.
*Pre ljmjnary
Source : U. S. Tariff Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U. S. production and sales.
A.
Basic Organic Chemicals
1963
529
121
1964
579
129
1965
648
139
1966
747
139
1967
728
132
1968
737
138
1969
815
178
870
178
833
159
1. Coal Derived Basics
2. Petroleum Derived Basics
408
450
509
608
596
599
637
692
674
B.
Large Volume Intermediates and
1,549
222
1,684
250
1,764
243
1,890
273
1,879
278
2,023
312
2,198
359
‘2,221
368
‘
2,208
384
Finished Organics
3. Resin Intermediates
.
°°
4. Fiber Intermediates
5. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
148
265
185
292
226
317
243
339
236
338
299
339
362,
389
345
407
329
409
6. Miscellaneous
913
958
979
1,035
1,027
1,073
1,089
i,lQ1
1,086
C.
Small Volume Intermediates and
1,053
320
1,170
348
1,305
386
1,500
439
1,713
440
1,867
490
1,873
518
‘
‘1,856
513
2,033
553
End Products
7. Dyes and Organic Pigments
8. Rubber Processing Chemicals
119
123
123
138
132
151
144
149
159
9. Flavors and Fragrances
77
84
85
93
93
97
94
89
84
10. Unformulated Pesticides
369
427
497
584
787
849
851
870
979
11. Plasticizers
168
188
214
246
261
280
266
235
258
Grand Total Accounted for:
3,131
3,433
3,717
4,137
4,320
4,627
4,886
4,947
5,074
-------
TABLE A-6
ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
PRODUCTION VOLUME
(billions of pounds)
1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969. 1970 1971*
A. Basic Organic Chemicals 27.9 31.6 34.9 38.9 41.6 46.1 56.9 58.1 57.9
1. Coal Derived Basics 5.5 5.8 6.2 6.0 5.6 6.0 12.1 11.6 10.1
2. Petroleum Derived Basics 22.4 25.8 28.7 32.9 36.0 40.1 44.8 46.5 47.8
B. Large Volume Intermediates and
Finished Organics 34.1 39.0 43.0 49.6 50.8 58.0 66.5 69.3 69.9
3. Resin Intermediates 6.2 7.9 8.8 9.9 10.1 12.0 14.7 14.7 15.6
4. Fiber Intermediates 3.1 3.7 4.6 5.9 5.3 6.7 7.4 6.6 7.1
5. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 4.4 5.0 5.7 7.1 7.6 8.7 10.5 12.2 12.2
6. Miscellaneous 20.5 22.4 24.0 26.6 27.8 30.7 34.0 35.8 35.0
C. Small Volume Intermediates and
End Products 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.4
7. Dyes and Organic Pigments .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
8. Rubber Processing Chemicals .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
9. Flavors and Fragrances .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
10. Unformulated Pesticides .8 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1
11. Plasticizers .8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.5
Grand Total Accounted for: 64.1 72.9 80.5 91.4 95.3 107.3 126.6 130.5 131.2
D. Miscellaneous
Note: Totals do not add up due to rounding.
*preljmjnary
Source : U. S. Tariff Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U. S. production and sales.
-------
TABLE A7
CONCENTRATION OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 1967
Total industry
4 largest companies
8 largest companies
20 largest companies
50 largest companies
177
21
44
71
110
1,596.8
12 719
25 1,021
40 1,326
62 1,550
30.0
45 13.2
64 18.0
83 24.5
97 28.8
20.3
44 9.3
60 12.4
83 17.1
96 19.7
Industrial Organic Chemicals, NEC — SIC 2869 (formerly 2818)
Total industry
4 largest companies
8 largest companies
20 largest companies
50 largest companies
339 488
29
49
98
175
6,377.8
6 2,868
10 3,700
20 4,770
36 5,860
95.1
45 40.0
58 50.4
75 67.5
92 83.7
62.4
42 26.8
53 34.3
71 44.2
88 54.9
Source : Bureau of the Census, 1967 Census of Manufactures, Concentration Ratios in
Manufacturing — MC67(S)2.l, 2 & 3.
Companies
Cyclic Intermediates & Crudes — SIC
Establishments
No. Z
Value of
Shipments
$MM
2865 (formerly 2814 6 2815)
115
Number of
Employees
thousand %
Production
Workers
thousand %
46
61
84
97
43
55
71
88
A-b
-------
TABLE Al
ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
PRODUCING COMPANIES — 1970
A. Basic Organic Chemicals 71
1. Coal Derived Basics 14
2. Petroleum Derived Basics 60
B. Large Volume Intermediates 101
1. Resin Intermediates 38
2. Fiber Intermediates 26
3. chlorinated Hydrocarbons 24
4. Miscellaneous 67
C. Small Volume Intermediates 185
1. Dyes and Organic Pigments 56
2. Rubber Processing Chemicals 27
3. Flavors and Fragrances 49
4. Unformulated Pesticides 78
5. Plasticizers 54
Total 281
Note: Totals do not represent additions. Companies have not been
double counted.
If a category is manufactured in more than one division of
a company, the reference is to the company and not to the
individual division.
Does not include producers of miscellaneous intermediates.
Source : U. S. Tariff Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals,
U. S. Production and Sales, 1970 — TC Publication 479.
A-Il
-------
TABLE A-9
COMPANIES MANUFACTURING SIX OR MORE CATEGORIES *
Basic Large
Company Name Volume Small Volume Total
41
P4
4141
41 U U
o
0 L
41 .0
41 1. U . 1
414141 P4 U 0 U
41 .e4
U 410 I
U U 0 00
414114 0 bOS
4 P 4O P 4 4141
•0 41
14 41 41
0 14 U0 4)14
004$
0 )4141W 000 U 41
P4 U U U 0 Ii 4141 N
4)41
P4 ‘ P4.-I
110
0 0 $1114) 41011 U
$4 ‘.4 4) 0 U 41 .0 0 41
40 U 41.0,141
409.140
i-I P4
Allied Chemical Corp. X X X X X X X X X K X 11
American Cyans mid Co. X X X K X X X X 8
B. F. Goodrich Chemical K X X X x x x 7
Company
Dow (—Badische, —Corning) Chemical Co • X K K X X K X X 8
E. I. du Pont de Nea urs & Co., Inc. K K I K X K X X X 9
Eastman Kodak Co. X X K X X X 6
FMC Corp. X X X X X X 6
}Iercules, Inc. K X X X K X 6
Monsanto Company X K I X X X K 7
Tenneco Chemicals, Inc. K K K X X X 6
Union Carbide Corporation X X X K X K K X 8
* Except miscellaneous
A-12
-------
industrial organic chemicals, not elsewhere classified, which is the SIC classification used to
define the organic chemicals industry, there are about one dozen closely related groups. As
the organic chemical industry is, in general, highly integrated, many large plants produce
one or more closely related groups; quite frequently, therefore, a plant may, in Census
terms, consist of more than one establishment.
Table A-b shows the size distribution (by employment) of the establishments in the
organic chemical industry as of 1967. The number of establishments and employees in
1972, our base year, is not significantly different from 1967, because the industry’s normal
growth, particularly in employment, was halted and reversed during the recession of
1970/71. The geographic distribution of the industry is shown in Table A-Il. The Middle
Atlantic and West South Central states together account for 46% of the establishments and
54% of employees in the organic chemical industry.
Growth of the Industry . Over the last decade those companies whose primary produc-
tion is in cyclic intermediates grew at a rate of about 6% per year, a slower rate than in
industrial organics, n.e.c. The average growth in sales for both together between 1958 and
1972 was 7-1/2% per year. (See Table A-l2.) The industry is maturing; hence, despite any
impact of pollution control, the industry’s average rate of growth can be expected to
continue to decline. The impact of pollution control and the availability and cost of
hydrocarbonsand energy will, if anything, accelerate that decline in growth rate.
In a very real sense, the value of shipments does not reflect the increase in physical
volume. Unlike many industries, where inflation and price increases overstate the growth of
the industry, the decline in prices of organic chemicals understates the rate of growth in
physical volume. As can be seen from the last column of Table A-I 2, the physical volume of
shipments of the organic chemical industry grew at a rate of about 8-1/2% per year between
1958 and 1972.
Prices in the Industri . The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects price information and
develops price indices for the chemical industry in connection with the development of the
wholesale price index. While these prices are based primarily on list prices, and hence do not
take into account the widespread discounting practiced in the chemical industry when
capacity utilization is low, the indices do nevertheless represent the best available general
indicator of price trends. Tables A-13 and A-l4 show this trend from 1958 through 1972.
Table A-I 5, which is based on prices realized and reported to the U.S. Tariff Commission,
shows price trends in the segments of the industry since 1963; these trends generally
correspond to the price indices.
In general the decline in prices has not been accompanied by a similar decline in cost.
While unit labor costs have been held down by improved productivity, the cost of raw
materials from outside the industry, the cost of energy, and the cost of construction have
risen at a much more rapid rate. The price index for all industrial commodities rose to an
average of 11 7.9 (1967 = 100) during 1972; fuels, related products and power rose to 118.6,
and construction materials and components have risen to 126.2 (to say nothing of the cost
of erecting plants).
A- 13
-------
TABLE *10
ESTABLISHMENT BY EMPLOYMENT SIZE IN THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 1967
Establishments Cyclic Intermediates Industrial Organic
by Size and Crudes Chemicals, n.e.c. Total
(No. of Employees) (SIC 2815/2865) (SIC 2818/2869)
1—4 26 125 151
5—9 20 49 69
10—19 24 46 70
20—49 27 69 96
50—99 16 50 66
100 — 249 37 70 107
250 — 499 13 38 51
500—999 7 21 28
1,000 — 2,499 7 13 20
2,500or re 0 7 7
Total. Establishments 177 488 665
Companies Represented 115 339 454
Total Employees (1000) 30.0 95.1 125.1
Production Workers 20.3 62.4 82.7
Total Payroll ($ million) 251.1 844.9 1,096.0
Source : 1967 Census of Manufactures, Industrial Chemicals 28*.
A-14
-------
TABLE All
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 1967
Cyclic Intermediates Industrial Organic
and Crudes Chemicals, n.e.c.
( SIC 2815/2865) ( SIC 2818/2869) Total
Establish— Total Establish— Total Establish-
ments Employees ments Employees ments Employees
(1000) (1000) (1000) %
Northeast Region 95 16.6 168 26.6 263 43.2 34.5
New England 17 0.9 36 3.9 53 4.8
Kiddie Atlantic 78 15.7 132 22.7 210 38.4
New York 18 3.1 37 6.0 55 9.1
New Jersey 43 10.0 75 14.8 118 24.8
Pennsylvania 17 2.5 20 1.9 37 4.4
North Central Region 29 6.0 98 17.3 127 23.3 18.7
East North Central 26 ‘v 6.0 80 14.5 106 20.5
Ohio 12 1.8 28 2.7 40 4.5
West North Central 0 0 18 2.9 18 2.9
South Region 44 7.1 160 47.8 204 54.9 43.9
South Atlantic 20 3.6 55 13.5 75 17.1
East South Central 10 1.2 25 7.2 35 8.4
West South Central 14 2.3 80 27.2 94 29.5
Louisiana 3 n.a. 26 n.a. 29 n.a.
Texas 11 n.a. 52 18.7 63 18.7+
West Region 9 0.3 62 3.3 71 3.6 2.9
Total 177 30.0 488 95.1 665 125.1 100.0
Source : Ti. S. Bureau of the Census
A-IS
-------
TABLE A-12
VALUE OF SHIPMENTS OF ThE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
(mimes. of dolls)
Cyclic Volume of Shipments
Intermediates Industrial Organic in Constant 1967
and Crudes Chemicals, n.e.c. Total Organic Chemical Dollars (1)
(SIC 2815/2865) (SIC 2818/2869)
1958 934.4 3,098.0 4,032.4 3,616.5
1959 1,114.8 3,609.2 4,724.0 4,236.8
1960 1,127.2 3,712.9 4,840.1 4,348.7
1961 1,136.2 3,947.2 5,083.4 4,737.6
1962 1,152.0 4,430.1 5,582.1 5,393.3
1963 1,212.8 4,840.2 6,053.0 6,010.9
1964 1,289.6 5,265.3 6,554.9 6,614.4
1965 1,456.3 6,012.5 7,468.8 7,521.5
1966 1,556.3 6,541.1 8,097.4 8,129.9
1967 1,596.8 6,377.8 7,974.6 7,974.6
1968 1,716.1 6,965.8 8,681.9 8,769.6
1969 1,847.9 7,383.0 9,230.9 9,536.1
1970 1,804.0 7,379.7 9,183.7 9,371.1
1971 1,967.6 8,214.3 10,181.9 10,368.5
1972 eat. 2,100 8,800 10,900 11,331
Percent average
annual growth
1958—1972 6 8 7 1/2 8 1/2
(1) Value of Shipments
Price Index Organic C 1 ’s.icals (See Table A-13)
Sources : U. S. Bureau of the Census 1958—1971; 1972, Arthur 1). Little, Inc., estimates.
A16
-------
TABLE A-fl
PRICE TRENDS IN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 1958-1972
(1967 a 100)
Chemicals & 1) Industria1 1 Organic 1
Allied Products Chemicals ‘ Chemicals
(SIC 28) (SiC 281) (SIC 2815 & 2818)
1958 102.0 102.6 111.5
1959 101.6 102.9 111.5
1960 101.8 103.2 111.3
1961 100.7 101.0 107.3
1962 99.1 98.9 103.5
1963 97.9 97.3 100.7
1964 98.3 96.7 99.1 Misc.
Cyclic Acyclic
1965 99.0 97.5 99.3 Intermediates Chemicals
1966 99.4 98.3 99.6 (SIC 28151) (SIC 28182)
1967 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1968 99.8 101.0 99.0 95.3 100.0
1969 99.9 100.3 96.8 91.4 91.6
1970 102.2 100.9 98.0 89.7 90.0
1971 104.2 102.0 98.2 86.6 88.7
1972 104.2 101.2 96.2 84.5 86.3
1) While the Department of Labor’s classification is different from the
Standard Industrial Classification, it corresponds roughly to the
SIC numbers shown here.
Note: These indices are based on list prices, hence do not reflect discounts
of f list prices.
Source : Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor.
A-17
-------
TABLE A-14
PRICE TRENDS IN THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 1958-1972
(1967 a 100)
Organic Organic
Organic Crudea Intermediates Dyes Chemicals n • e • C .
(06—12—01) (06—12—02) (06—12—03) (06—12—04)
1958 123.9 121.4 94.9 108.2
1959 120.1 118.9 92.8 110.2
1960 120.6 118.7 93.7 110.5
1961 114.8 118.7 95.8 106.2
1962 107.5 110.6 94.2 102.5
1963 101.4 107.2 89.0 100.5
1964 95.6 103.8 89.4 100.1
1965 96.4 101.5 97.2 99.9
1966 97.0 102.3 100.0 99.3
1967 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1968 99.6 94.2 100.9 99.7
1969 97.8 91.1 104.8 96.9
1970 99.1 90.4 116.3 97.8
1971 103.8 89.4 125.9 96.8
1972 104.4 87.3 128.4 93.9
Note: These indices are based on list prices, hence do not reflect discounts
off list prices.
Source : Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor.
A-18
-------
TABLE A-15
ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
SALES VALUE
(Sub)
1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971*
A. Basic Organic Chemicals .040 .040 .038 .038 .036 .034 .032 .031 .031
1. Coal Derived Basics .034 .O3 .034 .035 .034 .035 .026 .026 .027
2. Petroleum Derived Basics .042 .042 .039 .038 .036 .033 .034 .033 .032
B. Large Volume Intermediates and
Finished Organics .110 .102 .098 .094 .092 .084 .078 .076 .073
3. Resin Intermediates .096 .087 .080 .082 .079 .072 .066 .061 .060
4. Fiber Intermediates .110 .107 .101 .087 .085 .087 .090 .092 .093
5. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons .117 .112 .113 .111 .107 .096 .082 .081 .082
6. Miscellaneous .112 .103 .098 .096 .093 .085 .079 .077 .070
C. Small Volume Intermediates and
End Products .563 .564 .568 .592 .659 .666 .669 .685 .687
7. Dyes and Organic Pigments 1.43 1.63 1.69’ 1.78 1.82 1.88 1.98 1.90 2.00
8. Rubber Processing Cheniicals** 67 .67 .64 .66 .66 .64 .63 .65 .65
9. Flavors and Fragrances** 1.15 1.05 .96 .94 .97 .89 .90 .97 1.25
10. Unformulated Pesticides** .57 .62 .65 .71 .88 .88 .92 .99 1.03
11. Plasticizers** .22 .21 .28 .21 .22 .23 .21 .19 .18
Weighted Average of Those Above .107 .104 .099 .098 .100 .095 .086 .083 .086
D. Miscellaneous Intermediates
* Preliminary
** As reported by the U. S. Tariff Conunission
Source : U. S. Tariff CommIssion, Synthetic Organic Chemicals, U. S. production and sales.
-------
The cost-price squeeze has, in general, come out of profits. While the level of capacity
utilization is a major component of profitability, the average profitability of the basic
chemical industry, which is the closest corresponding to the organic chemical industry (but
which also includes inorganics, plastics, resins, fibers and fertilizers), has declined substanti-
ally since 1964, and the average in the sixties was substantially below those experienced in
the 1950’s. Table A-16 shows the profitability of the basic chemical industry since 1960.
Water Consumption by the Or onic Chemical Industry
The data collected in connection with the 1967 Census of Manufactures on water usage
in 1968, insofar as it relates to the organic chemical industry (i.e., SIC 2815 and 2818), is
shown in Table A-Il.
A-20
-------
TABLE A-16
PROFITABILITY OF U. S. 8ASIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Return on Return on
Year Net Sales Net Profit Equity 2) Total Capital 2 )
($ billion) ($ billion) (percent) (percent)
1960 12.7 1.1 11.1 8.6
1961 13.0 1.1 10.5 8.2
1962 14.3 1.2 11.6 8.8
1963 15.8 1.3 12.5 9.2
1964 18.4 1.6 14.2 10.1
1965 20.9 1.7 14.3 9.7
1966 23.6 1.9 14.0 9.5
1967 24.4 1.6 10.9 7.3
1968 26.2 1.7 11.1 7.4
1969 27.1 1.6 10.5 7.0
1970 27.4 1.4 8.6 5.6
1971 29.5 1.5 8.7 5.8
1972 33.2 1.8 10.0 6.7
1) After tax.
2) Total capital employed — long—term debt (+ other nonrecurring liabilities)
+ stockholders’ equity.
Rounding of profits, equity and total capital does not permit checking
against above figures.
Source : Securities & Exchange Commission 1960-1972.
A-21
-------
TABLE All
WATER USAGE, ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 1968
Cyclic Intermediates Industrial Organic
and Crudes Chemicals, n.e.c. Total
Value of shipments
(5 million) 1,301.7 6,000.5 7,302.2
Value added ($ million) 611.0 3,386.9 3,997.9
Employees of those consuming
water (thousands) 25.0 88.0 113.0
Water intake
(billion gallons) 139.1 2,140.3 2,279.4
Of which treated prior to use
(billion gallons) 16.8 172.3 189.1
Total used including recycled
(billion gallons) 366 3,965 4,331
Water use (billion gallons)
Process 19.3 394.0 413.3
Air conditioning 1.1 24.5 25.6
Steam electric power
generation 0.8 483.8 484.6
Other cooling and
condensing 107.0 1,180.1 1,287.1
Boiler feed, sanitary &
misc. 11.0 57.9 68.9
Water discharged 129.0 2,033.3 2,162.3
(billion gallons)
Of which treated prior
to discharge 50 142 192
Water discharge, by point
of discharge (billion gallons)
Public utility sewer 4.7 39.2 43.9
Surface water body 56.9 860.4 917.3
Tidewater body 66.7 1,107.9 1,174.6
Ground 0.5 8.4 8.9
Transferred to other uses 0.2 17.4 17.6
129.0 2,033.3 2,162.3
A-22
-------
TABLE A-17 (continued)
WATER USAGE. ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 1968
Cyclic Intermediates Industrial Organic
and Crudes Chemicals, n.e.c. Total
Number of establishments treating
water prior to recirculation
or reuse
Total establishments consuming
water in industry 62 177 239
Total treating water 31 93 124
Of which:
Aeration 4 14 18
Coagulation 1 8 9
Filtration 6 14 20
Softening 2 12 14
Ion exchange 3 10 13
Corrosion control 24 71 95
pH 19 60 79
Settling 2 15 17
Flotation — 2 2
Other 4 14 18
Number of establishments treating
water prior to discharge
Total treating water 46 114 160
Of which:
Coagulation 6 12 18
Settling — Primary 23 57 80
Settling — Secondary 8 21 29
Trickling filters 1 5 6
Activated sludge 7 13 20
Digestion 4 8 12
Ponds or lagoons 17 57 74
pH 29 63 92
Sand filtration 2 2 4
Chlorination 5 13 18
Flotation 10 24 34
Other 16 63 79
Source : 1967 Census of Manufactures, Water Use in Manufacturing MC67(1)-7
A-23
-------
APPENDIX B
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATIONS FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH
POTENTIAL WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Notes
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) including a group of cities (example:
Allentown-Bethiehem-Easton, Pa. —N.J. SMSA) are listed by the name of the first city
(e.g., Allentown SMSA).
2. When products are made in towns of two different states which belong to the same
SMSA, the SMSA is repeated under all states concerned; the products are listed only
under that state in which they are produced.
3. Products made in the same plant are joined by a vertical line.
4. Capacities, when available, are listed in parentheses in millions of pounds per year.
Sources
For organic chemical producers by location: 1973 Directory of Chemical Produc-
ers, United States of America, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California.
For organic chemical producers by location: Chemical Economics Handbook,
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California.
For town/city locations by county: Directory of Post Offices, United States
Postal Service, July 1971.
For SMSA and county components: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas,
Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, 1967.
B-I
-------
KEY TO AB8REVIATIONS OF CHEMICAL PRODUCTS
Abbreviations Chemicals’
AcAc Acetic Acid
AcAn Acetic Anhydride
Acet Acetone
Aceth Acetaldehyde
Acryl Aciylonitrile
Adip Adipic Acid
Anil Aniline
Anth Anthracene
Bis A Bisphenol A
Cap Caprolactam
Coal Tar Acids
Coal Tar Crudes
CP Coal Tar Distillates
Pitch
Tar
CRE Creosote
Cresyl Cresylic Acid
CRL resols
DMT Dimethyl Terephthalate
D&P Dyes&OrganicPigments
EC Ethyl Cellulose
EDC Ethylene Dichioride
EG Ethylene Glycol
EO Ethyl Oxide
EtAcr Ethyl Acrylates
EtOH Ethanol
F & F Flavors & Fragrances
Isc Isocyanates
Isp Isopropanol
MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone
MMC Methyl Methacrylates
MeOH Methanol-Synthetic
Nap Naphthalene
Naphtha Naphtha Solvents
OXO Oxo Chemicals
P-CRL Para-Cresols
Pent Pentaerythritol
Pest Unformulated Pesticides
Ph Phenol
PG Propylene Glycol
Pt Plasticizers
B-2
-------
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS OF CHEMICAL PRODUCTS (Continued)
Abbreviations chemicals’
P0 Propylene Oxide
RP Rubber Processing Chemicals
TEL Tetraethyl Lead
VAM Vinyl Acetate Monomer
VCM Vinyl Chloride Monomer
1. From T.b e 2.
B-3
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION POR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICAL!
NEW ENOLANO STATES
Connecticut ________ ) 4gpgachusetts Ipland
Bridgeport New Maven New tendon Waterbury Non-SI _A Non-SMIA Boston a 1 River Springfield NenS1 A Provtden e
EISA EI SA EISA EISA Area Area SISA 5 E ISA Area EISA
American Hoechst Corporation 0 6 P
B.n..notd Orgsntcs, Inc.
Child. Pulp Color., Inc. 0 & P
Matnpdsn Color 6 Chemical Company 0 & P
The Humphrey Chemical Company Np
I C I America Inc. NP
06?
Non.anto Company Pest
Nyanza Inc. 0 6 P
Pfizer Inc. 1 6 7
Sobin Chemical., Inc. pest
Solvent Chemical Company, Inc. Pest
Stepan Chemical Company NP
Teknor Apex Company P1
Uniroyal, Inc. Peat
NP
Ani 1
United Merchants 6 Manufacturers, Inc. 0 6 P
N. T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. NP
Pest
We.tville Chemical Corporation U
Woonsocket Color & Chemical Company Pest
Capacities listed in parenthesis when available in millioni of pound. per year.
6-4
-------
( DO M PIM T cOCA TIOM OM OA*CCN MWA&S
MIDAtL*N T IC$TA?fI
..V J.r nS nn tort Pn lydnt 0
A1ncl.n n 1 JArs..p C i P. rk pnt.I .,n I 1 ,ht. A 1i %oi A b0n oit.I. Yoc 0 .c n’ —0 */ , I io ho” J I, tnn , PI, d olphl 1 Pit bcn 0 n Rn Iin Conk n- PEl
________ H A 4A 146 ktoo J . 4A 8k 646 Ar ,’ ,, 6 6n S 6A 46 p8 11 _______
/nt 0 Ch,,niroj Co. Inc V &
Ak, fl0 incorp. ntnd
in’ Wood Pool Co
Un, Ptnndind Co,or 1t, ’ ,, ‘ 6 V Pt
Attind CI micat Cnrporation 06 P C i ’ C V 11 0 0 1 (210)
06 P Pool IP) ,(r ’OO)
6£
Mn I
Amch .m ?roduci , Inc. Pon t
tm,*tc .n AnitLn. Prodncc ., Inn, 0 & P
Annticnn CyinanLd Coinp rnt’ PP
I Pont 1,01 (n))
On P
POOL
Anonicon VoLym .ri. Inc.
A .k ( nd Cintnioot Conpon ’ Pool
Atloolid CI ’.micat Io n 1 ort.,, 04 V
Inc
0oynho Corpralion
coin —0 0 0 0hk .op$i o 0 n
POL6 I.hon i Si . .) Cnrp0rt .I Ion C ,’ CL ’ Cl ’
iLopil lc
SIn. Spruco Conp.ny
Borden C c c. For,
Colonel. CorpOrotIoII
Choon Chno ,Ic t Cpnoi1o ,
CIuo,nPlnor cc.
Chonpor CI,omic i Co. inn
Cl ,cvroin ChenLc.iI Conp.ny I ,
c.Iho ’eotgv Cnrpornttlon
CincInnoci Yllocro,,, 100. P1
P 0 °
1. \ . CI,orp Corpdrnt1. ’ ’ 61’
) ia.,,.y I 0o1 ,c 0 bar’ a, I I lo.r n ,.’ a S I in LI s il undor P,n ,,.y soOt,, 1 i.c .1 as 5, a.’ undo N ,.,, inro,’
— ‘ Is halos) on’l,c Pnni ,syiv.rnhi 1,’h In., or. ,,‘dun Sn
1,) ,.‘., botow ’r,’ Or D .’i.,s, ’ ”o ‘‘ ‘v. . , ‘In S 6L4
-------
u*10N*t PLAIfl LOCATSOW PN ai OUDAINC CA SCAL$
*TtJ 11C NtAIUI 0S0W*
Nor io . e. Sn ,. 0,1. .
At I. ,1orn’ J on . 1 C L . , p..a,k P0Cm., PhttSd stphCiZI W I ketn Lon 1 N,n4JUA ALl.., i.1ftLO N..,y.rk i..k . .r $yraona• Weo.iIU#. Alt., WT Jol.stewn P1.d.PhI
Clor.y NJ Corp.
Co .UfltctOL Sotv .nts Corp. flit
Contin.fltSl OIL Co.p.ny it p. 0 1 ( 20)
Coon Closest C . .por. CIcc Pol l
Croepton I 100 .1.. Corp.
Dborond .orook CIos.Lc.t Co.
Dorn , .r-Ilsnna Coke Corpuretlo. CP
1. 1. do Pont do N..ocr. I Co., Put Dit(2 N0) ZIN( 120)
Inc. AniL(13 2) I NP
R I DIP
1. 51
Dy. Wp 1SttLnn. 100, 0 1 P
LoIter. 0.0 SOd Y O St A sS00tltss
No.tOSn Lodek Cosopsoy II
Pt
Lnk.y ChonLcol Co.p.ny
to . .. Ch.o.LIu. Inc. PA P
Ennon Corporetten A e. C( 120)
mC(2 10)
P.briootor N.oefon000tni Corp. 0 I P
?.Lr.ooont Ch.nLeoI Co., Inn. P I V
NP
P.1 10. lnl.rnoIton .1 Inc.
pjIo Color ond Clostcel Corp. Post
‘I
Yin. OflIOnICS. Inc. RI
P l C CorpOr .tloO p .c W cAn(6O)
Yo.t.r H..olon Co npSny 0 1 P
?rtt ,.ohn D od1. I 0to tt Inc. I Y ost
IPIP
CAP Corporotton 0 6 P 0 6 P 0 I P
P... YIP
I;,.,.. Ch.sIcol Work., Inc. P. 50
Cln.nton Corporetton Pb P
Pt Pt
Glyco Ch tcStS, Inc.
TA. Itoodynor tr. & Robb.r Co.
04 ,
-------
OIOIA , tANT LOCATIQ Oi MIJOP O AWIG c*I. CAL1
DATLANYIC iTMfl Cs.iW
i.e J.ru, i.e York penn.iinanio
AlimnIavedi Jeremy City N.a.rk Parmesan phiiadeiphis’ WtL .Le;tsm’I Non-SPRiA Albany iaifsio i.e York iocbestnr Syr.nosa Non-S A Atlsntown 1 Johnsto wn Pltiiodolphta 1 ) Pittsburgh k.ading York Nor-Sane
S A Sf5? . J II A i) A I) A At. . J A.... 34A NIbA NIbA Area PI A $e A INPA SMaA .JJ L... Are .
W. N. Grace 6 Co. P1
Guardian Chemical Corporation
Herrolea incorporated DRY(S )) Past
Vest GAP
P -C I I ,
Aol fmann ’La Roche Inn. P A
Hooker Chemical Corporation Pest
Np
Pest
C. F. Hou hton & Compsny F l
Ao ai Chemicel Company, Inc. F 6
lnmont Corporation 0 6 P
International PisnorI 6 F & F
Feaprances, Inn.
Jon.. 6 Lau hllo Steel C?
Corporation Naphcha
Key-Poise Ch.mlnole Inc.
K.nrich p.troch.micals, Inc.
Kayston. Color Work., Inn. 06 P
A. Kohn .tes . 5 A Co. Inc. 0 A P NA P
Koppera Company, Inc. CP
C. Lever Company, Inc. & p
Lord Corporation
Marhndreu. 6 Forbes Co. P 6 P
Mackenzie Chemical Work., Inc. Peat
Magruder Color Company, Inc. 0 6 p
Kaliinckrodt Chao,in.t Works Pest
P1.0 Mare Colar and Chominal Company 0 6 F
Otto 0. May, Inc. D 6 P
Merck 6 Co., Inc. roar peat
Millmo.inr Onyn Corporation NP N? Pt
PAP
pest
Fl
Mobti Iii Corporation P 1
Montanto Coepuny P1 p & p
13.7
-------
D4TIMl1 $TAtU
_________________________________ TSU
A11.oto ’ Jsrs. CtI Ps .o PStuion PbL1a .tphtg J WitLo o.. a -$lSA ALbIoy *ofhlo 1 3.0 hiatsr I . . . .. I .a.I 4 Atl.ot . 00’ M.dLns York l.n-$PIA
__________ ____________ _________ _____________ lISA _j _ _________ i a i l - 1 lISA ...t A.... . 1 IA
I4000Y CkuIO .I$, 100.
i orton0or0tch Produoti, lob.
Notoso, locorpont.d Pot
NI . . 0 Ch tC0l Coapoy, tnt.
p.vlLl. Chaltnl Co.p001
Pt
‘P.?
IA F
P I. lodootriso, Inc. I.
I Pt
Nobdo l tt. V A P
F’,
Otto CorpoOotiOo
OrbiN 1004000 1 Corporotioc a
p ,...io Color A Choattol Co. N k P
S. 3. F.ntck a Coupoo ‘ lAO 11
tp..t 111.1
p 10 0 00 lob 11
Phlpn Dodi . CorporNtton P.nt
Polok’. Prutni Work. V a i
Polychin10 1t LAbora000tlo, Inc.
Pr.ntt .S Drul 6 Cb.mtcol Co. Inc. Pot
Pob 10000 lndotrt.n Inc. I MAc45O
A t .t(33
Ace oM lo)
‘‘P
p ’ ,O lot.rta000nll. In ’. Pt
I, ’,
NoLc000td COnmicot., Inc. 1 ’l Pt
thodil InC. VA F
Th. 1tch rdI ,n ’ Con,ploy NP
Iich.rdnOnK000fl, Inc. F
Pt
p. m
Lobinoon-Wo poor Conpory • Inc.
-------
REGIONAL PlANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
MIDATLAHIT 1C STATEN (Coetleled)
Sew Jersey New York Pennsylvania
ASientownU Jersey City Newark Petersen Pisiiadelpbia 5 ) viI.eziugtee-fl Non-SEGA Albany Buffalo See York Retboetor Syracuse Non-SEGA Al lentow n ’ 1 Jonestown Piiiiadoiphie’ ) Pitteburgh Neadirsf York Non-SEGA
SEGA SEGA SEGA SEGA SEGA SEGA Area J _. SEGA SEGA SEGA Area SEGA SEGA SEGA SEGA Area
Robe and Neon Company PS
I NC (60)
Peer
Feet
Royce CAoutcel Coepany Feet
N.S.A. Corporation F &
Sondoe-6fOOder, Inc. Fret
Poet
Sober Srothora, Inc. Pt
F&F
Shenengo Inoorporeted CF
Sobto Chomicatu. Inc. PS
pa p
Peat
Seuthetn Caibiorota Chenitol poet
Ce., Inc.
Standard Chlorine Cbentcai Peat
Co., Inc. Say
Steof far Cbeotcai Company pee l
Stepoe Chemical Company F & P
Sterling Drug Sun. S & P Poet
Sun Chemical Corporetton y & P
Sybron Corporation Ph P P
Sap
Peat
tenneco Cheotcate. Sue. SF Feet Feet
Feet PhP PAP
Na p
Tone River Cheniout Corporation S & P
Trop Cbeeiroi Corporation poet
paol Seiioh & Company 5 & P
l Ingerer & Company, Sec. p & p
PuSan Carbide Corporation Acet(5t 1)
ph( 1551)
Poet
5.9
-------
PtANT LQCAtIOØ PO *O.Sm.C O$ ICM.$
MID.ATLMTC STAIR
Maw J.r.a, I. ICI P..nn vani.
A11.ntnwn’S J ar . .y Ci tY P• I*I k .StISS PSLL d.LpIIt.’) Wi1etnjtøa ) Non-MISA Mb a .,y M.tta o Maw lapin SALIf Syfasas. 10N$$SA A11ints.n 1 Jolm.tawn PhL1.d.1phi . ) Pitt.b,tgh R..Jing York Non-SSSA
IRA lISA _1 I* IRA USA Aras J _ IRA IRA lISA ArsA IRA IRA lISA lISA ± L AC. .
Untrod Stat.. itnal Corporation 21
C,
C I I
Nap
Cr. sy 20)
Ph
C,
CR
Naphtha
Uni vaC . . 1 Cii Prodonta Co awy in P
V.niron CorpOrAtion
P. .t
Viaat.nd Ch. .tc .1 Company past
W..t Ch.nic.1 Pr.dont. Inc. p..t
WIrs.iio&Pittsbarih Stool Corp. CP
whits Chawttai Corporation 21
Whiti.in.r Corporation
Wilson Ph .rs.tsotitoi in Clw.in.i Corp. p1
Wit., Ch. .nin.I Corporation Pt
B -IC
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR OMOANIC CHEMICALS
SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES - Peel A
It Inw are Maryland Virginia Weet Virginia
WlImin ,n t ) lIfmore Non-Sf A Norfolk Non-SIFA Charleaton Huntington 1 ) Steuhenvllle Wheoling fjon-$?4SA
SMSA SI A Area Si A Area SI A SP A S A SI A Area
Alco Standard Corporation Peat
Allied Chemical Corporation Vest Adip(20)
Cap(330)
Pest
American Cyanamid Company Anil(40)
D&P
Antox, incorporated pp
Bethlehem Steel Corporation CF
Nap it ha
Peat
Borg-Warner Corporation
Celanese Corporation ACAn AcAn
Chemical Formulators, Inc Peat
Chemetron Corporation D & P
E. I. du Pont de Nemours &
Company, Inc. F & F
Pest
Pike Chemicals, Inc. Pest
K?
F E Corporation Peat F L
Catty Oil Company OXO(40)
Hercules Incorporated EC(25)
I C I America Inc. EC(lO)
Koppers Company, Inc. I Nap
Cr e syl(&O)
Ph
Nobay Chemical Company RP
Isc(2 00)
Anil( 100)
Monsanto Company Peat
I R I ’
National Steel Corporation CF
Sharon Steel Corporation
Standard Chlorine Chemical Peat
Co., Inc. Nap
See New jersey for New Jersey share of Wilmington S) A
See Kentucky and Ohio for their shares of the Huntington-Ashland S 1 A
N-Il
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CI4tMICALS
$OUTH ATLANTIC STATEs — Fiat A (C,n nusd)
Delawars Maryland VLrajnta W.gt VLr inia
Wilmington 1 ) Baltimore Non-SNIA Norfolk Non SPMA Chatltaton Huntington ) Staubnvili.s Wheeling Non-SNIA
S I A J A Area SNIA Area S I A S) A S) A IPEA Area
Staufi r Chemical Coa any P1
Sun Olin Chemical C any 50(100)
renneco Ch.mtcale, Inc.
Union Carbide Corporation Aceth(4 00)
1.c( 55)
P0(80)
Ac.t (150)
Oxo
P 1
ap
F’?
Peat
Virginia Cheelcala Inc. Pe st
l4heeling-Pittaburgh Steel C?
Corporation
Witco Chemical Corporation Peat
The J. S. Young Company D & P
8-12
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES — Pun B
Comutrix Corporation
Cyclo Chemicala Corporation
Diamond Shamrock Chemical
Company
C. I. du Pont de Nemourn &
Company, Inc.
Florida Chemical Company, Inc.
Henkel Inc.
Hercules Incorporated
Kewanee Oil Company
Mallinckrodt Chemical Workn
Martin Matietta Corporation
McLaughlin Gornley King Company
Mobil Oil Corporation
Monsanto Company
National Starch sod Chemical
Corporation
Nipro, Inc.
PCR, lacorporated
Piizer Inc. Peat
P1
PAP
Plorida
Jacksonville Miami Orlando Pensacola Non-SMSA
S GA S? A SIGA S) A Area
Air Products and Chemicale, Inc. MeOH(5O)
Anerican Hoechst Corporation
Arizona Chemical Company p & p
Borden inc.
Carochgm Corporation
Celaneee Corporation
Chemical Products Corporation
Chemol, Incorporated
Chevron Chemical Company Pent
Cindet Chemicale, Inc.
Peat
Georaia North Carolina
Augusta Macon Non-StGA Charlotte Payettevilie Greensboro Raleigh Wilmington Non-S GA
SP A Area St A S A SI A S) A SP A Area
Peat
P& P
AcAn
pent
P1
P1
P1 P1
Pest
P1
IF&F Peat
pest DMI(600)
O&P
Peat
52
Ok P
P1
Cap( 1E,O)
Sonth Carolina
Charleston Non-SPtSA
SMSA Area
DPfl l4O)
Pest
ACAn
Pest
F&F
Peat
Adip(56l)
Pent
-------
RIOIOS4AL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJON ORGANIC CHEMICALS
SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES — P.m a (CoimMIusdI
FlorLdi G.o rgta NgT’th Corolini South c .rotiua
J .ck100yiil. Hunt Or’ando P.n..coi. Non-SIMA Au 5u.La 14.000 Søn-SMIA Ch .rlott. Faystrevill. Gr..ii.boro L il.i;h wt1iotn ton Non-SMIA Chatititon M0 SMIA
SIMA j SMIA SMIA Ar.. SMIA Ar,i SMIA EISA S A EISA ssA Aria EISA Aria
gatchhoid Ch tca1i, Inc. Plot
SCM Corporation
A c M
s000co Froducti Co .ny
Sun Chenicil Corporation Fiat
IF & F
Synilloy Corporation & P
TanniCO Chanicil . Inc. F 6 F
Triangle Chamical Co any Feat
Union Camp Corporation F 6 F
Uniroyal, Inc. PUt
wooltoth Chemical Wort s, 1. 14. P i at
gASP Wyandotte Corporation D & P
B- 14
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
EAST NORTH CENTRAL STATES — Pun A
Illinois Indiana Michigan Wieconsin
Chicago Peoria St. Louis 1 ’ Non-SbGA Gary Indienapolta Terre Haute Non-Sb A Detroit Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Muekagon Non-Sb A Milwaukee Non-St A
S 1 A S A S A Area B) A SbGA Area SI A SbGA S) A SMSA Area SI A Area
Abbott Laboratories F & F
Peat
Akzona Incorporated F 6 F
Aldrich Chemical Company, linc. pest
Pb F
Allied Chemical Coiporation Nap(200)
CF
American Bio-Synthetice &
Corporation
The Aceul Company & F
Pest
Ashland Chemical Company
Borden Inc. Peat
Chemetron Corporation 0 & p
Citizens Gas & Coke Utility CF
Clark Oil & Refining F & F
Corporation Acet( 5)
Ph( 75)
Consuercial Solventa Corporation F & F
P1
EtOH
Ace t
Cosdec Oil & Chemical Peat
Company
Crucible Steel Co. of America CF
Diamond Shamrock Corporation CF
Dow Chemical U.S.A. Fl
P&F
RP
Ph( 100)
Pest
C. I. du Pont de Nemouru & Pest
Company, Inc.
Farmers Chemical Company 6 F
Floraaynth Inc. F & F
Ford Motor Company cp
General Electric Company Biu A(6O)
I ) See Missouri for Missouri ehare of St. Loule Sb A
B- 5
-------
REGIONAL PLANT I.OCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC C*IEMICAIJ
EAIT NORTH CENTRAL STATE$ — Pact A (C iUWIJW )
II 1 .i ioi a Indiana Michigan WL.COn! 1I I
Chicago Peon. St. 1.001.1) Non-SN A Gary Indianapolia Tarn. Hauls Non-SNBA O.troit Grand Lipids E .ala zoo Muikagon Non-SI A Mi.lwaukaa NonSI A
S*A 8i A Ai es S) A 8)6*. Area 3 ) 6k S A S1 & 8)6* •r*
General Pbtor. Corp.
Glenn Chemical Company, Inc. Peat
The 8. F. Goodrich Company
Granite City Sc..l Corp. C?
cre.t Lake. Carbon CF
Corporal ion
Goardimiti Chemical Coatings,
Inc.
The C. P. 11*11 Cotopeny Pt
F& F
Indiana Ga. & Chemical CP
Corporation
Industrial Color Inc. D & P
inland itsel Company CP
intetlaks, Inc. Nat
CF
InternatiOnal l3anaster
Company
V,ttig .fOcd Chemical Company MAC
Happen Company, Inc. Nap
Laclnat Chemicals Inc. V 6 F
82
Looter Chemicals, Inc. Pest
Eli Lilly and Company Pest Pact
Lnnna Inc. Pest
Lowe’s, Inc. Past
Michigan Chemical Corporation Pelt
Mite. LaboretonieC, Incorporated
Monsanto Company pest
Pt
82
Morton-Norwich Product ., Inc. F 6 F
Netioflal Dietilleri and EtOH(4y0)
Chemical Corporation
8-16
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICAtS
EAST NORTH CENTRAL STATES — Pset A (Cestlesedl
Illinois Indiana
Chicago Peoria St. Loui si) Non-SI A Gary Indianapolis Terre HaUte Non-SMSA Detroit Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Muekegon Noto-SMSA Milsaukee Non-S A
S? A SSGA SP A Area SI A S0 SA SMSA Area S A S A SP A SI A Area SPISA Area
National Steel Corporation Nap( S) Nap
Nor-Am Agricoltorat Products, Pest
Inc.
Northern Natural Gas Company E0(240)
EG(300)
Olin Corporation Peel
Fennwalt Corporation RP
Peat
PPG Industries Inc. pest
Reilly T Sr & Chemicol Nap
Corporation
Republic Steel Corporatioo Sap
CP
Sap ht ha
Riverdale Chemical Company Peat
The Sherwin-Williams Co. P
P -CRL
Southern California Pest
Chemical Co., Inc.
Standard Oil Company DMr(100)
(Indiana)
Stange Cn. S & P
Sterling Drug Inc. & F
Story Cheeical Corporation Iec(neg)
So Crest Corporation P1
Union Carbide Corporatioo Lsp( ISO)
Acet( 110)
United States Steel Corpuratioo Nap
CF
Naphtha
Universal Oil Products Company NP
Velsicol Chemical Corporation pest
Wartter-Lambert Company 7 6 F
Uitco Chemical Corporation Feet
P1
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company F & F
BASF Wyandotte Corporation P0(160)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. CF
8-17
-------
REGIONAl. PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
EAST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Pin I
Ohio
Akron Canton Cincinnati Cleveland Hamilton Hunttngton’ Lime Loratn Toledo Toungetovo RonSIMA
. S)MA EI SA s a __________ EISA EISA EISA Aria
Allied Chemical Corporation cp
Pt
American Cyanamtd Company D A P
‘P
ArncO Si.al Corporation CP
Nap
Cp
Chevron Chemical Company Pest
Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. D a p
I past
Cities Service Company, Incorporated D a p
Detroit Steel Corp.
CRE
Diamond Shamrock Corporation C?
Dover Chemical Corporation Pe st
g. . du Pont di Nemoure Company, Inc. RI P.at
Emery Industries, Inc.
FerrO Corporation Past
The General Tire a Lubber Company RI I ec(40)
The Goodyear Tire A Rubber Company RI
The B. F. Goodrich Company RI
Interlaks. Inc.
C,
Rawanee Oil Company Nap Nap
Anth Anth
Peat past
Monsanto Company Pest
Nease Chemical Company, Inc. Pest
Pan American Chemical corporation p.nt(25)
PPG Induitrias, Inc. Peat
The Procter & Gardla Company p a p
Reilly Tar a Chemical Corporation Nap
Republic Steel Corporation C? Nap Nap
C? CP
Nap
C?
Naphthe
See Kentucky and West Virginia for their share of Huntington-Ashland SIOA
B- 8
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICAtS
EAST NORTH CENTRAL STATES — Part B Continued)
___________________________________________________________________________ Olii 0 _______________________________________________________________________
A kron Canton Cl ccl flush I C feve land HauL It on hunt I ngJ Li ’ Lore n ru i edo Yot,n s town Non—SMSA
SMSA SMSA S1 0l SMSA SPISA SMSA SPiA SP A SPISA 8 1 15 ,5 Arc
The Shepherd Chemical Company Pent
The Sherwin-Wilhiame Co. F P
Tb Standard Oil Company (Ohio) Ac ryl (350)
Pest
Stouffer Chemical Company Pest
SbrIIn 0mg Inc.
Sun Chemical Corporation I) & p
Itnion Csmp Corporation p
F&F
Union Carbide Corput-at iut Bin A(4O)
Uniroyal, Inc. VCM
United Slates Steel Corporation Amnt( 130)
Ph(2 15)
OXO( 70)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
I I I)
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
WEST NORTH CENTRAL STATES
Mionseots
Iowa ! afl 5as Duluth Niansapotis MisSOuri
Nort-S EA Kansas Cityu Wichita Non-SP A Superior St. Paul Kansas City’ It. .louph St. Z.out a NoflS SA
Area $ A $) A Area S ) A S A S) A l I SA lI lA Ares
A hats ProductS. Jnc, Pest Peat
ChotuagrO Corpotitiun P.st
(;hevron Chemical Company Peat pest
Gordon Corporation Pest.
Grain P o t ea lng Corp. EtO}l
cuit oil Corporation Pelt
it ieB 5ncorporate(l Peat
p.nt(40)
FL
l r trial jr o P Ol l
ppcra Coupany, Jar. cP
Maillntkrodt. Chemical i ,orka Pelt
Murrs.tr,to Company Peat P1
F l .?
McLaughlin Gormley king Co.
Notth Eastern PharmaceutIcal
& Chemical Company
The Proc let & Camble Company F & 7
Retchhold Chemicals, Inc. Peat
Rhodia Inc. p. t p.st pest
Sit ily Oil Company F & F
Acet(30)
Ph(50)
thompson Chemicals Corp. Pest
Thompson ,layward Clemicu I. Co. Peat
Unttrd Statea Steel Corporation CF
V,tlcan Materials Company Pest
Warner-Jerikinaun Company D Ii P
See Missouri for Missouri share of Kansas City S) A
Sue KAnsas for Kansas shar, of Kansas City Sb5A
: e Illinois (or tl irKla share of St. Louis S A
( , ,‘it tea lit .tcd jr parrrlhasiu when available in millions of poteids per year.
1 3 -2 1)
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES
Alabama y entuc ky Miss i.sippi Tennessee
Birmingham Gadaden Mobile Tuscaloosa Non-S A 0 fl jflg 0 flt L.ootaville Non-S GA Non-SWA Chattanooga Ensevill.. Memphis Nashville Non-SP A
SWA SWA SI fr. SWA Area SMSA $ A Are. Area S} A A SWA SWA Area
Alabama By-products CF
Corporation Naphthn
Alco Standard Corporation
Allied Chemical Corporation cP
Anmrican Can Company Pest
Borden Inc. Pest pest
Suclunan Laboratories, Inc.
Chee.etron Coeporacion
Ciba-Geigy Corporation Pest -
D&P
Cosmatcial Chemical Company Peat
Continental Oil Company Pt
K. I. du Pont de Nemours & Aceth(].0) Pest DMF(230)
Company, Inc.
Acryl(l80)
Eastman Kodak Company AcAc
DMF( 325)
AcAn( 600)
A nat(80)
Wit
P1
RP
Peat
D& P
Empire Coke Company CF
First Mississippi Corporation Pest
Anil(70)
Forest Products Chemical Company AcAn
OAF Corporation D & P
Pest
The B. P. Goodrich Company Pest
VCM( 1000)
EDC(900)
Gulf Oil Corporation Pest
Hercules Incorporated Pest
Kerr-McGee Corporation Peat
Kewanee Oil Company D & P
See West Virginia and Ohio for their snore of Huntington-Ashland SMIA
B-2 1
-------
RIaIONAL PLANT LOCATION PUN MA ONUAJ 5IC CIIEENCALA
EAST SOUTh CENTRAL STATES C.INMsId
Al.bp.e E..ntu clty sstssipmi T.nnasUa
Eirmin haa Oidsden Mobil. Tuac.loosa Non-B) A HuntinEtonc) LoutsvtIl. Eon-StaA Nom-5*A Cb.tt.noo . 5no vitIs Memphis Nsshvilla NonS?aA
SP A S1 A BI A Area S A 51A Area Are. SI A J A $ A Si A Area
Tb. timed Corporation Nap ( 2)
Mobil Oil Corporation
Monsanto Company Peat
Olin Corporation Past !O(11 i
1 0( 50)
P0(130)
PG(45)
Past
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. Pest
Pant (12)
Ph( 135)
kepubitc Steel Corporation Nap Nap
CP CP
liaphtho Nepitha
Rohs sod Maim Company )OC
Shell Chemitsi Company Pest
itandard Oil Company (indiana) DMr( 180)
Stauffer Chemical Company Past Pest
Thiokul Chemical Corporation P1
‘lull Chemical Company. Inc. Past
United States Pipe 6.
Foundry Company
UnIted Slates Steel lisp
Corporation Cl ’
CNN
S. T. Vanderbilt Company. Inc.
Velaicol Chemical Corporation ::tp pest
When Chemical Corporation Pest
Wood ard Iron Company Cl’
N phth . Nsphtha
W22
-------
REQIOWAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES
Arkanea, lou isiana Texas
Noo-$l A Baton Rouge Laks Charles Monroe New Orleans Non-Sl A Beaucont Brownsville Corpus Chrieti Dallas El Paso Galveston Houston Odessa Non-S DA
Area S)6A $f A Si A Area S I8A $E A SI A SMSA 5P A SI A SP A SI6A Area
Allied Chemical Corporation Pest
F& F
VCM( 300)
EDC(650)
A rican Cyanaiiid Company NPC(8O)
Acryl( 115)
Peat
The Anaul Company Pest
ArmcO Steel Corporation CF
AtlantiC Richfield Company I sp ( s 0 )
Borden Inc. VA(l SO) Peat
MsOH(i60)
AcAC( 1 1 5)
Bromet Company P S at
Calcasieu Chemical Corporation 00(165)
EG (180)
Celanass Corporation F A F VAM(350) F & P
MaOH(90) MoOH(200) VAM(300)
Pent(50) Aceth(500) Adip(125)
Aceth(240) ACAc(J00) Aceth(250)
AcAc(lO0) 00(300) EtACr
EC(5) 80(300) YAM
P0(10) Aceth(l0)
P0(10) AcAc(550)
Acet(35) ACAn
Pest l*0( 1 15)
Ciba-G.igy Corporation Past
Co rciai Solvents Corporation Pest
MeOH(50)
Continental Oil Company Pest
PAP
VCH( 600)
EDC(l000)
Crowley Tar Products I LL
Company, I Cresyl
DI.aomnd Sha ocIc Chemical Company E SC(260)
Peel
Dixie Chemical Company Acet(24)
B-23
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATiON FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES (OsrilnesdI
Arkinass Louisiana Tgzu
Nun-II A Eaton 1ou . Lska Charts. I(onroe New Orleans Non-SIMA Bsaonont IrovnsvLLla Corpus Christi Dal .as El Palo Galveston Houston Odessa Non-SIWA
Area I I A 5( A J &. SIeA Area I A ElBA ______ ElBA ElBA Arsa
DOW Sadtschs GOWUOY F & F
EtAcr
Cap (250)
OXO( 200)
DOW Chonical U.S.A. PS St VCN(390) St. A(100)
EDC(116o) P0(700)
50(400) vCH(2 00)
53(470) roc(l100)
P0(200) 50(200)
P0(100) 53(240)
Peel P 0 (1 50)
Pest -
VCM(700)
S OC ( 1000)
Ac. t(240)
Ph(400)
Pest
S. I. du Pont d. Nsmoura Past Pest Pest Adip(300)
I. Conpany, Inc. Acry l(200) VAH(300) Pest
He OH(200) ftp
Ani l(200)
Adtp(300)
HOH( 1.15)
Eastman Lodak Coupany Acsth(500)
EtOH( 165)
50(60)
EG( 75)
Isp
Ox0(275)
Pa?
Pt
51 Paso Natural Gas Coupany Adtp(80)
P6 F
P1
Ethyl Corporation Pest VCN(150)
VCM(325) EDC(260)
SDC(550) Peat
TEL TEL
Exxon Corporation P1
£tOH(40 0)
lap( 680 )
0xO(200>
TIC Corporation Pest
ACAt(40)
GA! Corporation Pest
B-24
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES Cemhsmdl
Arkansas l.ouiaiana Texas
Non-SI’ A Saton Rouge Lake Charla. Monroe New Orleans Non-5 A Beaumont Brownsville Corpus Christi Dallas El Paso Galveston Mou lton Odessa Non-SPGA
Ares 8 A SI A ... L $ A Ar.a SI A S) A SP A SI SiWA SI A Area
Georgia-Pacific Corporation MsOH( 100)
Ac.t( 120)
Ph(200)
The Goodyear Tire 6 Rubber
Company
Great Lakes Chemical Corp. Pest
Herculea Incorporated b 0H(30)
Peat
Jeiferson Chemical Peat
Company, Inc. EDC(70)
E0(500)
EG(360)
P0(160)
P 0(50)
Kennecott Copper Corporation Peat
itoch Industries, Inc. 50(50)
50(40)
Lone Star Steel Cumpany
Naphth a
Tim Merichsm Company Ph
Michigan Chemical Corp. Pest
Mobay Cimmical Co any Isc( 150)
Mobil Oil Corporation AcAc(30)
Monocham, Inc. VCM(300)
Monsanto Company Adip(ô0) AcAc(300) Acryl(370)
Peat MeOH(l00) Acet(240)
Aceth(5) Ph(375)
oxO(150) Peat
Pt
National Diatillers and VAM(300)
Chemical Corporation
National Starch and VAM(60)
Chemical Corporation
Olin Corporation RP Peat
P0(500)
P0(180)
Acet(60)
Pennwalt Corporation P S Pest
Phelps Dodge Corporation Pest
Phillipa Patrolaum Company I P6 P
B-2S
-------
REGIONAL PI.ANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES OerUuv )
Arkanesi Louj,jina Texas
Non-SHEA Baton Rouge Lake Charles Monroe New Orleans Non-SHEA Bsaiaeont Brownsville Corpse Christi Dells. El Peso Galveston Houston Odessa Non-SHEA
Ares JHEA SHEA J SHEA Area SHEA SHEA SHEA ._ L SHEA SHEA SHEA SHEA Ares
PPG Industries, Inc. VCM(4 00) E0(85)
EDC(l000) EG(lOO)
Peat TEL(l0O)
Pelt
Publicker Industries Inc. EtQH
B tON
Eoichhold Chemicals, Inc. pest
RohO and Heal Company Peat
EthAcr
MIC (400)
MeOH(22)
Rubicoft Chemicals Inc. Isc(llQ)
Ani I(52)
Pest
RP
Shell Chemical Company Acsth(5) VCM(84 0)
Ac.t(l0O) EDC(1200)
l€R(50) EtOH(265)
Pest Xsp( 6 lO)
E0(300) Acet(430)
EG(tOO) PEK(lOO)
OXO(lSO) His A( t i0)
OxO(2C0)
Pest
P 6?
The Signal Companies, Inc. Acet
ionS ord Chemical Company
Southern California Chemical Peat
Co. Inc.
Tenneco Chemical. Inc. VCM(225)
MeOli(80)
Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company Pelt
Union Carbide Corporation EtAcr ScAn VAM(245) 10(730)
BDC(150) IEK(75) EDC( 150) EG(53Q)
E0(450) AcAc(540) EtOH(66 0) OXO(200)
EG( 3O) Isp(570) r 6 F
ACAC(9O) Acet(ll0)
Pest OXO(200)
P1 Pelt
Ph P
Uniroyal, Inc. NP
Pelt
The Upjohn Company I sc(20 0)
B-2( ,
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES ( onsns.dI
Arkansas Louisiana Txas
Non-SIGA Baton Rouge Lake Charles Monroe New Orients Non-OlGA Itaucrinul Bcnwnuvil In Corpus ChrIsli Dallas £1 Ease Galveston Houston Ode;Mc N’ ri SPiSA
Area SPGA SIGA SP A SP A Area OlGA SPGA SHSA SPLSA SP A S tSA 000SA
Velaicol Chemical Corporation Pen
Vuican Matorials Company EDC(240)
PeS I
Vitro Chemical CorporatLon Pest
BASF Wyaodotte Corporation 50(175)
SC (150)
I c(40)
hlrighL Chemical Corporation Pest
B-27
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
MOUNTAIN STATES
Colorado Nevada Montana Utah
Denver Pueblo Non-SIEA Other as Vegas Great Pall. Non-PEA Provo-Orein Salt Lake City
PEA PEA Area j SEGA _________ Area PEA PEA
Alpha Laboratories Inc. Pest
American Smelting and Refining Co. Pest
The Anaconda Company Pest
Borden Inc. Peat
CF&I Steel Corporation Nap(L2)
Great Western Sugar Company F & F
Shell Chemical Company Peat
Stauffer Chemical Company Pest
92
Syntax Corporation Past
F& V
United States Steel Corporation cp
VWR United Corporation Past Pest
Capacities listed in parenthesis when available in millions of pound. per year.
B-28
-------
PEGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR OROANIC CHEMICALS
PACIFIC STATES
california Oregon Waahiogton
Anaheim to, Angel.. Sacramento San Bernardino San Francieco San Jo ,, lion-SEGA Eugene Portland Non-SISA Seettle Tacoma Non-SPRA
SI A SP A S A S 8A S A SP A Area S A S 6A Area SP A SI A Area
Aomh.m Product ., Inc. Peat
American Chemical Corporation VCM(175)
El C (325)
Peat
Borden Inc. Peat Peat Peat Peat
Chempar Chemical Co., Inc. Peat
Chevron Chemical Company Acet(3 0)
Ph(55)
Peat
Diamend Shamrock Chemical Company Pt
F&V
Dow Chemical U.S.A. Pest
5. I. du Pont de Namoura & TEL(34 0)
Company, Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
5. F. Houghton & Company Pt
Imperial Weat Chemical Company Peat
CaLler Steel Corporation Ph
C?
Kalama Chemical Inc. & F
Ph( 55)
Iterr-McGae Chemical Corp. Pelt
Liquid Chemical Corp. Pelt
to. Angeles Chemical Company Pest
Mobil Oil Corporation Peat
Monsanto Company Past F & F
Montrose Chemical Corporation Pelt
of California
Neville Chemical Company Pt
Niklor Chemical Company, Inc. Pest
Pennw.lt Corporation Pest
The Procter & Gamble Company F 6 F
Productol Chemical Company Ph
NP
Reichhold Chemical., Inc. Peat Pelt
Peat
Rhodia Inc. Peat
B-29
-------
RIGIONAI. FLAtlY LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CIIEMICAU
PACIFIC ITATU ICaiNimm Il
— Cal ifornia Or ego n Waahtngron
Aoa mie Los Angst. ’ Sacramento San Barnardino San Francisco Sam Jo .. Non-SINA lugans portiai d Son-NINA SeattLe Tacoma Non-SI A
— SI A SINA _____________ NINA SISA Ar. . .j S)NA Area S A .1 iL Area
F. gltL..r & Company F A F
Shell Chemical Company Iup( 250 ) F & F
Ace t ( [ 00)
IfS
ykeiJy Oil Company Past
Soothern California ChemicaL P . t
Co., Inc.
Specialty Organica, Inc. Pe at
Stguf ten Chemical Company Peat
StiamOn l,ue* er Company Ph
S ,nki t Gro, mrn, Inc. F & F
Tennoen Chemicaja, inc. 5 ? D & P
Peat
Thnmpeon-lIaywacd Chemical Poet
Company
Witilac Ijodenvood Company F &
VWR United Corpo e ion Pa ct
Witco Chemical Corpocation Peel.
-------
REGIONAL PLANT LOCATION FOR MAJOR ORGANIC CHEMICALS
Puerto Rico
Fibers International Corporation Adip (65)
Oxochem Enterprise F & F
OXO (245)
PPG Industries, Inc. Pest
VCM (500)
EDC (835)
EO (400)
EG (400)
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. VAM
Union Carbide Corporation EO (610)
EG (610)
Acet (120)
Ph (200)
Bis A(140)
OXO (140)
EtOH (960)
Vineland Chemical Company RP
Pest
B-3 1
-------
1 I(’IINI(AI. RI POR’f I Report No. 2.
EM IA l’AGI EPA—230/1—73—019
3. Recipient’s Accession No.
4. 1 ilk m d SmiI,ljlI&’
Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines —
Organic Chemical Industry
5. Report Date (Issue)
August 1973
6.
7. AlulImohls)
— . l ’ rhrmin Organiz.utiwu Name and Address
Arthur 0. Little, Inc.
Acorn Park
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
C-75906
io. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
Task Order No. 6
11. Contract/ .
—0i —i 1
12. Sponsoring Organiiatiori Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Office of Planning and Evaluation Final
Environmental Protection Agency 14.
Washington, D.C. 20460
I c - SuuppIenucnsar Notes
It ,. Abstracts
An initial analysis of the economic impact of proposed water effluent guidelines upon the organic chemical industry (SIC
2815/2865 and 2818/2869) was performed based on abatement cost data supplied by the EPA. In view of limited cost data
available, the impact was based on best practicable control technology currently available. On this basis, with 75% coverage of
the industry, the following specific chemicals appear to face significant water pollution control problems: ethylene glycol,
ethylene dichloride, caprolactam, methanol, acetic acid, acetone, phenol, aniline, coal tar products, ethyl cellulose, dyes &
pigments, and unformulated pesticides. Extrapolating to the entire industry, minimum total annual cost by 1977 would be an
estimated $210 million with the maximum cost $590 million. On the basis of maximum cost, a very severe fixed capital
requirement of $576 million per annum over the period 1973.1977 would be imposed on the industry. This is about $50
million per annum more than is currently spent on all capital investment by the industry. On the minimum impact basis,
prices would rise by 1.75% over the five-year period and profits after taxes in years of full compliance depressed by 9% below
that of the 1972 base year. On the basis of maximum impact, prices would rise by about 3.7% over the five years, and annual
piuIuI.a vvuuld be depreased by 37% of the 1972 base year.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. I la. Dcscnptors
Economic Analysis
Effluent Guidelines
Organic Chemicals
Organic Chemical Industry
1 7b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
I 7c (OSA Ft Fidd/e;roup
1K. Availability Statement
19.
Security Class (This
21.
No. of Paees
Limited availability through U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Information Center; Room W-327, Waterside Mall,
Washington, D.C. 20460
Report)
UNCl ASSII III)
85
20.
Security (‘lass (D Os
Pafle)
t ’i(’LASSII -‘I 1:1)
12.
Price
10KM NTIS-IS (REV. 3-72) USCOMM-IX’ 149S2-I’7!
------- |