-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF POLICY,
ECONOMICS, AND INNOVATION
Dear Reader,
This report provides information on the environmental performance of some of America's
leading manufacturing and nonmanufacturing sectors. Together, the 12 sectors profiled
represent more than 856,000 entities, employ more than 12.6 million people, and contribute
more than $2.5 trillion annually to the U.S. economy. This report is an important tool for
measuring the performance of these sectors and for determining how we can build on that
progress going forward.
Developed by EPA's Sector Strategies Division, in cooperation with sector trade associations
and many other stakeholders, this report provides a comprehensive look at the environmental
impacts and trends of each sector. The data, drawn primarily from government databases, show
many improvements in performance, such as emissions reductions for many pollutants, both in
terms of the total amounts emitted and per individual unit of production.
Thanks to the many trade associations who worked with us to make this valuable resource
possible. Their willingness to share additional data, experiences, and perspectives underscores
their commitment to the environment and to building a productive relationship with EPA.
Thanks also to the many other contributors in governmental and non-governmental
organizations who share our interest in these sectors.
As you read this report, you will learn more about these important sectors, the steps they are
taking, and the results they are bringing about to protect the environment, improve economic
competitiveness, and seek a sustainable future for America.
Charles Kent, Director
Office of Cross-Media Programs
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TABLE OF CONTENT
Preface
Executive Summary
Data Guide
26
36
40
46
54
62
70
78
90
96
104
Cement Manufacturing
Chemical Manufacturing
Colleges ft Universities
Construction
Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
Forest Products
Iron 8t Steel
Metal Casting
Oil 8t Gas
Paint ft Coatings
Shipbuilding 8t Ship Repair
112 Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations
119 Appendix: Endnotes
-------
-------
Welcome to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
2008 Sector Performance Report, the third in a series started
in 2004.1 The report provides a comprehensive picture of
the environmental performance of 12 sectors of the U.S.
economy, currently and over time. The sectors have a
significant collective impact environmentally and economi-
cally. They are:
• Cement Manufacturing
• Chemical Manufacturing
• Colleges & Universities
• Construction
• Food & Beverage Manufacturing
• Forest Products
• Iron & Steel
• Metal Casting
• Oil & Gas
• Paint & Coatings
• Ports
• Shipbuilding & Ship Repair
We provide context in the Executive Summary by, for
example, comparing the sectors to the economy as a whole.
In the following chapters, we provide for each sector an
economic and environmental overview, detailed data on
primary environmental indicators, and case studies on
selected issues of interest.
Launched in 2003, and succeeding the Sustainable
Industries Program launched in 1990, the Sector Strategies
Program promotes sector-wide environmental gains in the
12 sectors. We work with sector trade groups and many
other stakeholders to reduce pollution, conserve resources,
lessen unnecessary administrative burden, measure cor-
responding performance results, and identify additional
opportunities through quantitative metrics.
New in this Report
• Environmental data are presented in two ways-
absolute and normalized:
• Absolute emissions indicate the total amount emitted
by the sector nationwide, reflecting the actual environ-
mental impact at a given time.
• Normalized data are adjusted by amount or value of
product produced. Normalizing illuminates perfor-
mance trends without highlighting changes caused by
increases or decreases in production due to price or
other externalities.2
• Economic trends over the period covered: 1996-2005
• Maps showing sector facility locations or concentrations
• New or expanded sectors:
• Chemical Manufacturing
• Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
• Oil ft Gas
• Expanded information on indicators such as energy use
and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Major Sources of Data
Energy
Most of our energy use data come from the U.S.
Department of Energy's (DOE) statistical agency, the Energy
Information Administration (ELA). Every four years, ELA
sends many manufacturers the Manufacturing Energy
Consumption Survey (MECS) and extrapolates the respons-
es to represent the full universe of manufacturers.3
Criteria Air Pollutants
Data on criteria air pollutants (CAPs) come from EPA's National
Emissions Inventory (NEI). EPA prepares this national database
every three years, based on input from state, tribal, and local
air pollution control agencies; industry-submitted data; other
EPA databases; and EPA emission estimates.4
Air, Water, and Waste in the
Toxics Release Inventory
Data on other air emissions, on water discharges, and on
management of chemicals in waste are from EPA's annual
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), based on reports filed by
more than 23,500 facilities across the country.5
Toxicity of Air Emissions
EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model
generates the relative toxicity scores for air emissions.6
Hazardous Waste
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), information on hazardous waste generation is from
EPA's National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report
(BR), based on reports from large quantity generators and
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.7 Note that,
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Preface
-------
Key to our work is collaboration with numerous
stakeholders, including particular trade associations
that participate in our program. They are:
Cement Manufacturing Portland Cement Association
Chemical Manufacturing
Colleges a Universities
Construction
Food a Beverage
Manufacturing
Forest Products
Iron a Steel
Metal Casting
Oil a Gas
Paint a Coatings
American Chemistry Council
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturers Association
American Council on
Education
Association for the
Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher
Education
Association of Higher
Education Facilities
Officers
Campus Consortium for
Environmental Excellence
Campus Safety, Health
and Environmental
Management Association
National Association of
College and University
Business Officers
Associated General
Contractors of America
American Meat Institute
Grocery Manufacturers
Association
American Forest ft Paper
Association
American Iron and Steel
Institute
Steel Manufacturers
Association
American Foundry Society
North American Die Casting
Association
American Petroleum Institute
American Exploration and
Production Council
Independent Petroleum
Association of America
National Paint ft Coatings
Association
unlike TRI, BR tracks entire waste streams, rather than only
certain chemicals.
Key Data Considerations
Sector Definitions
Many data sources reflect only certain segments of a sector;
others define certain sectors more broadly than we do. Most
often, sectors are defined either by standard classification
codes, such as the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS), or by lists of facilities based on our sector
definitions. Endnotes for each chapter, and the Data Sources,
Methodologies, and Considerations chapter, clarify how each
sector is defined for our work and for the various databases
used to generate data.
Data Completeness
Reporting thresholds and other factors influence how many
facilities report to a given database and the extent to which
they report on their overall footprint. The number of facili-
ties within a sector that report to a particular database, or
that report different media impacts within a database (such
as air or water), can differ significantly, even within a sec-
tor. See the Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations
chapter and sector chapter endnotes for discussion of data
completeness.
Currency of Data
We use the most recent data available, but few databases
are updated at the same time. See individual endnotes and
the Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations chapter
for information about the currency of the underlying data.
Depending on data availability, the time period covered
may vary from the years this report generally covers, which
are 1996-2005.
Drivers and Barriers
The Sector Strategies Program analyzes many regulatory
and nonregulatory factors that affect environmental man-
agement decisions among facilities in a given sector. These
behavioral leverage points can influence the environmental
performance of a facility or sector on one or more metrics.
We consider these legal, technical, economic, behavioral,
and other factors to be better able to develop policy and
program actions that will provide strong drivers and reduce
major barriers to improved environmental performance.
However, the factors are beyond the scope of this report,
which focuses on available quantitative data trends.
Ports
American Association of Port
Authorities
Shipbuilding a Ship Repair
American Shipbuilding
Association
Shipbuilders Council of
America
Preface
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
This report presents the latest environmental performance
information for 12 sectors. Because every sector is unique,
sector chapters provide maps, economic information, and
detailed explanations, analysis, and discussions of the data
presented.
To provide context for the report, this Executive Summary
begins by presenting the impacts of all 12 sectors using
several national and global indicators.1
Comparing data across sectors can illuminate broader
trends and opportunities. This Executive Summary includes
sector-specific data gathered side-by-side for the 9 sectors
with the most environmental data.
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Economic Overview
Number of Facilities
Employment
Economic Productivity
Value of Shipments &
Construction Put in Place
Revenue
Colleges & Universities
Ports
856,836
12.6 million - more than
10°/o of U.S. workers
$2.5 trillion - more
than one third of Gross
Domestic Product
$341 billion
$5.5 billion
Latest Environmental Statistics
Energy Use
Emissions of
Criteria Air Pollutants
Air Emissions (TRI)
Water Discharges (TRI)
Land Disposals (TRI)
Recycling, Energy
Recovery, or Treatment (TRI)
Hazardous Waste Generated
14.5 quadrillion Btu
5.8 million tons
519.5 million pounds
178.2 million pounds
658.1 million pounds
14.8 billion pounds
30.6 million tons
Economic Trends 1996-2005
Global Standing: Examples
Cement
Manufacturing
Chemical
Manufacturing
Construction
Food & Beverage
Manufacturing
Forest Products
Iron & Steel
U.S. is third, behind China and India
U.S. is world's largest producer, generating
more than $635 billion a year
U.S. is first, with spending of $873.1 billion
in 2003 - out of $3.98 trillion spent by the
55 largest nations
U.S. is second, behind the European Union,
and followed by Japan and China
U.S. is world's largest producer and
consumer
U.S. is third behind China, which makes
nearly four times more, and Japan
General Comparisons
Mostly Small Businesses
Most Widespread
Most Concentrated
Include Government
Facilities
Construction, Metal Casting,
Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair
Construction, Colleges ft
Universities, Food ft Beverage
Manufacturing
Iron ft Steel, Ports, Shipbuilding
ft Ship Repair
Colleges ft Universities, Ports,
Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair
Facilities
Employees
Value of Shipments, Value of Construction
Put in Place, or Revenue
Three sectors ended the period having added facilities, led by Construction.
At least half of the sectors ended with fewer facilities.
The 12 sectors were split in terms of whether they added or lost employees.
At least 9 sectors showed increases that were, in many cases, significant.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Executive Summary 1
-------
Energy Use
The eight sectors for which we have calculations used
an estimated 14.5 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu)
in 2002, which was nearly 15% of total domestic energy
consumption of 97.9 quadrillion Btu.2 World energy
consumption in 2002 was 409.7 quadrillion Btu. The U.S.
consumed more energy than any other country, followed
by China, Russia, and Japan, although long-term trends
appear likely to change the rankings.3 From 1996 to 2005,
the U.S. industrial sector gradually consumed less energy,
while residential, commercial, and especially transportation
energy consumption rose.4 See individual sector chapters
for discussions of energy use, trends, and opportunities.5
Energy Use and
Air Emissions
Energy use causes impacts such as direct air emissions,
which are reflected in this report. Other impacts, such as
offsite (indirect) emissions, are generally beyond the scope
of this report, as are energy-related mobile source emis-
sions, such as from freight shipping.
Primary among on-site energy use-related air emissions are
criteria air pollutants (CAPs) from combustion. The largest
components of such CAP emissions are sulfur dioxide (S02),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and larger participates from coal com-
bustion. Most S02 results from combusting sulfur-containing
fuels, especially coal. Combustion also generates NOX, although
emissions vary less by fuel type than for S02. Participate
matter (PM) can be ash and dust from combustion of coal or
heavy oil, or very fine particulates (PM25) largely composed of
aerosols formed by NOX and S02 emissions.
Excepting emissions from off-road vehicles, volatile
organic compound (VOC) and carbon monoxide (CO)
combustion emissions are a much smaller fraction of total
energy-related emissions. CO is a product of incomplete
combustion, but the largest source is vehicles. VOCs can
also result from incomplete combustion, but the largest
energy-related sources are fugitive emissions from fuel
storage tanks and pipelines and combustion-related vehicle
emissions. Fossil fuel combustion also generates carbon
dioxide (C02), which is a greenhouse gas (GHG). Other
energy-related GHG emissions, such as methane (CH4), are
far less substantial.
Greenhouse Gases
A sector's GHG footprint includes direct and indirect
emission sources. Direct emission sources are those for
which there is direct control, such as fossil fuel combus-
tion and process emissions. Indirect emission sources are
mainly those attributed to the generation of purchased
electricity. Both EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) estimate economy-wide GHG emissions, but neither
provides sector-specific footprints that include direct and
Top World Energy Consumption
1996-2005
I World
I United States
I China
I Russia
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Energy Consumption
1996-2005
15000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
indirect emissions; data to generate such estimates are not
readily available.
In 2005, total U.S. GHG emissions were 7,260 million met-
ric tons of C02 equivalent, having risen 8.5% since 1996.6
Including emissions from generation of purchased electric-
ity, industry and transportation each accounted for 28%
of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2005. In all sectors except
agriculture, C02 accounted for more than 80% of GHG
emissions, primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels.7
Although some gases have a higher global warming poten-
tial (GWP) per unit than C02, C02 is by far the dominant
GHG emitted in terms of volume and total GWP emitted
each year. EPA reports on C02 emissions from fossil fuel
combustion for broad sectors of the U.S. economy. For C02
emissions other than fossil fuel use, EPA reports on par-
ticular sources, such as industrial processes in the Cement
Manufacturing and Iron ft Steel sectors.8
2 Executive Summary
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
U.S. C02 Sources in Million Metric Tons of C02 Equivalent 2005
Fossil Fuel Combustion
Non-Energy Use of Fuels
Cement Manufacturing
Iron & Steel Production
Natural Gas Systems
Municipal Solid Waste Combustion
Ammonia Manufacturing and Urea Application
Lime Manufacturing
Limestone & Dolomite Use
Aluminum Production
SodaAsh Manufacturing & Consumption
Petrochemical Production
Titanium Dioxide Production
Phosphoric Acid Production
Ferroalloy Production
Carbon Dioxide Consumption
Zinc Production
Lead Production
Silicon Carbide Production & Consumption
| 28.2
| 20.9
| 16.3
13.7
| 7.4
| 4.2
| 4.2
2.9
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.3
.5
.3
.2
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. GHG Emissions 1996-2005
with Electricity-Related Emissions Distributed
Criteria Air Pollutant
and VOC Emissions 2002
2500 I
U.S. Total
Chemical
Manufacturing
500
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Direct C02 and CH4 combined process emissions from the
Iron ft Steel sector fell 33% from 1996 to 2005, although
total steel produced was relatively unchanged.9 Direct C02
process emissions from Cement Manufacturing in the same
time period rose 24%, while the sector's cement production
also rose 24%.10 Trade associations for these two sectors, as
well as for the Forest Products sector, estimate their mem-
bers' total GHG footprint, including carbon "sinks" such as
forests and products. See the respective chapters.
Note: Sectors at 1% or less are not represented
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria Air Pollutants
and VOCs
Sectors in this report, which emit CAPs and VOCs from
energy use and from other processes and activities, emitted
25% of total U.S. point source CAP and VOC emissions in
2002." Sector-specific trend data are not available for CAP
and VOC emissions.12
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Executive Summary 3
-------
Sector Data
Side by Side
The following sections present sector data for several sec-
tors together. Because the sectors vary so substantially in
size, scope, makeup, data availability, relevant drivers and
barriers, and numerous other factors, a direct-one-on-one
comparison of their performance would be inappropriate.
To consider energy-related air emissions, for example, a
sound analysis should also include sector-specific informa-
tion on fuel flexibility, which is driven by percentages
of fuel used for energy or for raw materials and other
considerations.
TRI Air Emissions
In 2005, the 9 of our 12 sectors that report to EPA's Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) reported emitting 520 million Ibs.
of TRI chemicals, out of 1.5 billion Ibs. emitted by all TRI
reporters nationwide. Of the nine sectors, absolute total
air emissions fell from 1996-2005 for all but one, while
absolute emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) fell
for all nine. To understand the sector-specific data, includ-
ing apparent spikes, dips, and other trends, see individual
sector chapters.
TRI Air Emissions 2005
Cement
Manufacturing
U.S. Total
9^
C
I
k
Food & Beverage
Manufacturing
10%
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RSEI
To consider toxicity, EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental
Indicators (RSEI) model assigns TRI chemicals a relative
toxicity weight, then multiplies the pounds of media-
specific releases (e.g., Ibs. of mercury released to air) by it
to calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in detail in the Data Guide,
which explains the underlying assumptions and important
limitations of RSEI. Data are not reported to TRI in suffi-
cient detail to distinguish which forms of certain chemicals
within a chemical category are released. For chemical
categories such as chromium, RSEI conservatively assumes
that chemicals are emitted in the form with the highest
toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent chromium). Thus, Toxicity
Scores are overestimated for some chemical categories.
Summing the Toxicity Scores for all of a sector's air emis-
sions reveals a Normalized Toxicity Score Trend; these fell
from 1996-2005 for most sectors, but rose for several. To
better understand apparent spikes and trends, see individual
sector chapters. The figures below show TRI air emission
trends by corresponding bar and data points for each year
between 1996 and 2005.
TRI Air Emissions
Across Sectors 1996-2005
CEMENT MANUFACTURING
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
i 6.9 M
Illllll
8.6 M
4.2 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
4 Executive Summary
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
a. Absolute Ibs
„ 412.4 M
236.2 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
236.2 M
Him
1160.2 M
T61%
83.9 M
T64%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
FOOD & BEVERAGE
a. Absolute Ibs
| 74.8 M
'E
••= 52.9 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
52.9 M
HIM
46.4 M
T38%
30.6 M
T42%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
FOREST PRODUCTS
a. Absolute Ibs
270.1 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
Illlllllll
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
IRON & STEEL
a. Absolute Ibs
11.2M
3.7 M
i1.4M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
11.2M I
Illllllll
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
FOR SECTOR-SPECIFIC AIR CHARTS
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs BAH TRI HAPs
Note: Normalized by annual value of shipments or production.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Commerce, American Foundry Society, U.S. Department of Energy
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Executive Summary
-------
TRI Air Emissions Across Sectors 1996-2005 (continued)
METAL CASTING
PAINT & COATINGS
a. Absolute Ibs
9.3 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
Illllllll
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
3.8 M
T64%
2.5 M
T65%
Illllll
III
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
OIL & GAS (PETROLEUM REFINING) SHIPBUILDING & SHIP REPAIR
a. Absolute Ibs
61.1 M
a. Absolute Ibs
3.2 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1.8 M
b. Normalized Ibs
Illlllllll
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
3.2 M_
Illlllllll
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1.5M
T54%
.6M
T67%
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
6 Executive Summary
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Waste Management
This section includes information on hazardous wastes
and on TRI chemicals managed as waste.13 EPA emphasizes
reducing waste generation whenever possible and, if waste
is generated, minimizing the quantity that is released or
disposed by instead increasing recycling, energy recovery,
or treatment. TRI includes the volume of the toxic chemi-
cals within a waste stream, while Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) reporting on hazardous wastes
encompasses the volume of the entire waste or waste
stream that meets the definition of RCRA hazardous waste.
See individual sector chapters for explanations of apparent
spikes and trends.
Hazardous Waste Generated
and Managed 2005
Sectors in this Report
U.S. Total
Sectors in this Report as a
Percentage of the U.S. Total
Sector
Hazardous
Waste
Generated
(Tons)
30,557,598
38,350,145
8O%
Hazardous
Waste
Managed
(Tons)
32,993,131
42,825,913
77%
Cement Manufacturing
Chemical Manufacturing
Colleges a Universities
Construction
Food a Beverage
17,195
23,861,975
26,158
17,058
3,071
30,641
26,138,338
23,544
16,437
2,367
135,541
1,395,650
30,274
5,063,461
145,832
7,214
396,336
1,269,594
28,210
5,081,593
147,595
6,071
Manufacturing
Forest Products
Iron a Steel
Metal Casting
Oil a Gas (Petroleum Refining)
Paint a Coatings
Shipbuilding a
Ship Repair
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Filling in the Picture
For waste and other indicators, we use available data to un-
derstand and improve sectors' environmental performance.
Where data are incomplete, inadequate, or unavailable,
we try to fill the gaps to provide a more complete picture.
We determine what needs to be measured, what is already
measured, and how to fmd-or create appropriate surrogates
for-remaining needed information. See, for example, the
discussion of GHG emissions in the Construction chapter,
which draws upon DOE fuel sales data.
States also may provide useful information. See information
from several states about recycling construction and demoli-
tion debris, in the Construction chapter.
When government data are unavailable, information from
private organizations may be useful, such as the American
Association of Port Authorities' survey cited in the Ports
chapter.
When no data are available, we sometimes assist in prepar-
ing tools for generating future data. As discussed in the
Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair chapter, we are working with
the American Shipbuilding Association and the Shipbuilders
Council of America to develop a tool for individual facilities
to measure their GHG emissions, which could enable those
groups to provide better data on the sector's overall GHG
emissions in the future.
TRI Waste Management 2005
Cement
Oil & Gas Manufacturing
U.S. Total
Iron & Steel
7% 3%
Note: Sectois at 1% or less are not represented
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Food & Beverage
Manufacturing
TRI Waste Management
Across Sectors 1996-2005
CEMENT MANUFACTURING
110%
500,000,000
£ 400,000,000
300,000,000
200,000,000
100,000,000
1996total:447.7millionlbs B Treatment T83%
• Energy Recovery T24%
• Recycling A 1,924%
_ •_
_ •_
2005 tot
_ •_
al: 342.2
T24%
_ I-
million Ib
. •_
1996 1997
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Executive Summary 7
-------
TRI Waste Management Across Sectors 1996-2005 (continued)
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
8,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
1996 total: 10.3 billion Ibs
I Disposal or Other Releases T49%
I Treatment A 9%
I Energy Recovery T25%
I Recycling T15%
2005 total: 9.1 billion Ibs
T12%
I III III III ill ill I
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
FOOD & BEVERAGE
1,000,000,000
800,000,000
600,000,000
400,000,000
200,000,000
I Disposal or Other Releases A 20%
I Treatment A 32%
I Energy Recovery A18%
I Recycling A130%
1996 total: 422.4 million Ibs
2005 total: 651.2 million Ibs
A 54%
ill
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
FOREST PRODUCTS
1,500,000,000
1,200,000,000
900,000,000
600,000,000
300,000,000
I Disposal or Other Releases T 5%
I Treatment A 4%
I Energy Recovery A10%
I Recycling ¥48%
1996 total: 2 billion Ibs
2005 total: 1.9 billion Ibs
T3%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
IRON & STEEL
1996 total: 543.7 million Ibs
2005 total: 730.5 million Ibs
A 34%
400,000,000
350,000,000
300,000,000
250,000,000
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
I Disposal or Other Releases A 62%
(Treatment T75%
I Energy Recovery A 28,488%
I Recycling A 27%
I
III III III
J
J
J
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
8 Executive Summary
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
METAL CASTING
250,000,000
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
1996 total: 266.4 million Ibs
I Disposal or Other Releases T22%
I Treatment A 122%
I Energy Recovery T70%
I Recycling T43%
2005 total: 175.6 million Ibs
T34%
I
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
OIL & GAS (PETROLEUM REFINING)
1996 total: 1.3 billion Ibs
600,000,000
500,000,000
400,000,000
300,000,000
200,000,000
100,000,000
I Disposal or Other Releases T22%
I Treatment A 22%
I Energy Recovery T 56% 2005 total: 1 billion Ibs
I Recycling T30% T22%
I
III!
1996 1997 1998
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
PAINT & COATINGS
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
I Disposal or Other Releases T50%
I Treatment v 36%
I Energy Recovery T49%
I Recycling T7%
1996 total: 161.6 million Ibs
2005 total: 115.6 million Ibs
T28%
1996 1997 1998
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
SHIPBUILDING & REPAIR
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1996 total: 13.1 million Ibs
Disposal or Other Releases T52%
Treatment T81%
Energy Recovery T58%
Recycling T44%
2005 total: 5.9 million Ibs
T55%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
FOR SECTOR-SPECIFIC WASTE MANAGEMENT CHARTS
Notes:
1. Normalized by annual value of shipments or production. Oil 8t gas Ibs. normalized by annual crude oil input into refineries.
2. Disposal and Other Releases includes air emissions, water discharges, and land disposals.
3. The apparent spike in treatment for Chemical Manufacturing in 2000 was due to the report filed by a single facility.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Geological Survey, American Foundry Society, and U.S. Department of Energy
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Executive Summary 9
-------
This report relies upon a variety of public and private data
sources to provide a comprehensive account of the sectors'
environmental performance between 1996 and 2005. This
chapter presents an overview and basic discussion of these
data sources and explains figures used in the sector chap-
ters. The Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations
chapter at the end of this report provides a comprehensive
discussion of the sources, methodologies, and considerations
concerning the data.
Sector Profile
For generating most of the data used in this report,
each sector is defined by a North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code or group of codes.1
NAICS replaced the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) system in 1997. Because some of the data sources
used in this report use SIC codes, at least for historical data,
Table 1 below shows both the NAICS and SIC definitions for
each sector. Note that some sectors are defined by a specific
list of facilities, rather than by these classification codes,
because the codes encompass a broader range of operations.
DATA GUIDE
TABLE 1
Definition of Sectors
Sector
Cement
Chemical Manufacturing
Specialty-Batch Chemicals
Colleges ft Universities
Construction
Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
Forest Products
Wood Products
Paper Products
Iron ft Steel
Metal Casting
Oil ft Gas
Extraction
Petroleum Refining
Paint ft Coatings
Ports
Shipbuilding & Ship Repair
NAICS Code or Alternative
SIC Code
List of facilities from Portland Cement Association's Plant Information Summary directory
325 28
List of facilities from the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association
61131
236, 237, 238
311, 3121
8221
15, 16, 17
20, 5461
3211, 3212, 32191, 32192, 321999 242, 243, 244, 249
3221, 32221, 322221-322224, 322226, 32223, 32229 26
List of integrated and mini mills from EPA's Sector Strategies Division
33151,33152 332,336
211, 213111, 213112
32411
32551
48831, 48832
336611
Normalization of
Absolute Releases
Where the report presents data showing trends over time,
data are often adjusted to account for changes in sector
production or output over the same period, also referred to
in this report as "normalizing."
13
2911
2851
4491
3731
Normalizing means adjusting the absolute annual emis-
sions values to account for changes in sector production
or output over the same period. Normalizing removes
the impact of growing or shrinking economic trends in
industry, so that environmental changes occurring for other
reasons can be seen more clearly. For example, if absolute
emissions steadily decline over time, this could be caused
by declining production in the sector, rather than any real
improvement in day-to-day environmental performance.
10 Data Guide
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
TABLE 2
Economic Activity and Normalization Factors for TRI Data
Sector
Chemical Manufacturing
Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
Forest Products
Paint & Coatings
Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair
Normalizing and Sector Output Metric
Value of shipments
($, adjusted for inflation)
Inflation adjustment for value of shipments
Normalizing and Sector Output Data Source
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA): Industry Economic
Accounts, 2005, http://www.bea.gov/industry/xls/
GDPbyInd_SHIP_NAICS_1998-2005.xls
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA), National Economic
Accounts, Current-Dollar and "Real" Gross Domestic
Product, http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
Cement Manufacturing
Iron ft Steel
Metal Casting
Oil & Gas
(Petroleum Refining)
Production of Clinker
(millions of metric tons)
Steel Production, basic oxygen
and electric arc furnaces
(thousands of metric tons)
Ferrous ft Non-Ferrous Shipments
(millions of tons)
Crude Oil Inputs into Refineries
(thousand barrels/year)
The metrics used to normalize data vary across the sectors
but are identified for each graphic or chart. When available,
production data (e.g., tons of product produced annually by
the sector) was the preferred metric for normalizing. When
production data were not available for the full time frame
required, value of shipments was used instead.
Economic and
Geographic Information
Name: County Business Patterns
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Metrics: Number of employees and number of
establishments
Frequency: Annual
Period Analyzed: 2005
Next Data Release: 2006 data expected
mid-year 2008
Website: http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp
The employment and number of establishments data pre-
sented in the "At-a-Glance" section of each sector chapter
U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Cement Statistics
and Information: Mineral Commodity Summaries
1997-2007, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/
commodity/cement/index.hrml
U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Iron and Steel
Statistics and Information: Mineral Commodity
Summaries 1997-2007, http://minerals.usgs.gov/
minerals/pubs/commodity//iron_£t_steel/index.hrml
American Foundry Society (AFS)
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information
Administration (EIA), Petroleum Refining ft Processing,
Weekly Inputs, Utilization ft Production, hrtp://tonto.
eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.hrm
are from the U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns
(CBP). CBP is an annual series published by the U.S. Census
Bureau that provides economic data by industry and covers
most of the country's economic activity.
When production data are not available, this report shows
output using value of shipments (VOS). For some sectors,
we include information more suitable than VOS to convey
economic activity, as shown in Tables 2 and 3. Sector
"At-a-Glance" sections showing VOS trends present current
dollars for each of the years represented. In constant dollars
(with a 1996 baseline), the 2005 figures would be approxi-
mately 17% lower than they appear when using current
dollars.
A U.S. map is presented for each sector showing the
locations of facilities within that sector. The portrayals of
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not drawn to scale and
do not represent their respective locations relative to the
contiguous states.
Note that the facility counts for many sectors under
"At-a-Glance" rely upon CBP data. Ideally, both the maps
and facility counts would come from a single source, but
CBP does not include establishment-level data or location
information. Instead, facility location information is sepa-
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Data Guide 11
-------
TABLE 3
Economic Activity Data for Sectors Without TRI Data
Sector
Colleges ft Universities
Construction
Oil a Gas
(Exploration ft Production)
Sector Output Value
Revenue
(millions of $, adjusted for inflation)
Value of Construction Put in Place
(millions of $, adjusted for inflation)
Crude Oil Field and
Natural Gas Production
(billion Btu)
Ports
Revenue
(millions of $, adjusted for inflation)
Sector Output Data Source
National Center for Educational Statistics: Digest of
Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Construction Reports,
http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information
Administration (EIA), Production in Btu derived from
Crude Oil Field Production (Barrels) and Natural Gas
Gross Withdrawals and Production (MMcf),
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_
adc_mbbl_m.htm; http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/
ng_prod_sum_dcu_NUS_m.htm
U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census: Transportation
and Warehousing, Support Activities for
Transportation, http://www.census.gov/econ/
census02/
rately sourced for each sector in the individual chapters.
Therefore, the number of facilities mapped will not equal
the number of facilities cited as the sector universe.
Energy Use
The "Energy Use" sections in the sector chapters discuss
energy consumption. A key source of information is the
Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS).
The DOE's EIA collects data on the energy consumption of
U.S. manufacturers. Every four years, EIA mails a detailed
questionnaire to a statistically valid sample of firms. EIA
then extrapolates sample data to produce sector-level
energy consumption estimates.
Name: Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
Source: Energy Information Administration
Metric: energy consumption by manufacturers
Frequency: quadrennial
Period Analyzed: 2002
Next Data Release: 2006 MECS expected in
late 2008
Website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs
Sectors Covered: Cement Manufacturing,
Chemical Manufacturing, Food ft Beverage
Manufacturing, Forest Products, Iron ft Steel,
Metal Casting, and Oil ft Gas
Context Beyond
This Report
Where we can, we provide some perspective on the 12
sectors covered in this report by giving examples of their
impact, both individually and collectively, in the national
and global environment and economy. There are many
different sources of data (such as federal and state gov-
ernments, universities, businesses and business groups,
non-governmental organizations) and many ways to
analyze data. Each method can provide unique insight for
understanding and influencing environmental performance.
Data allowing consideration and action by sector are most
readily available for industrial sectors.
This focus on a "sector" report necessarily circumscribes the
types, amount, and comprehensiveness of data used. We
do not, for instance, discuss releases from motor vehicles,
from sources of pesticides or fertilizers, or from many other
non-industrial sources. Benzene, for example, is a known
human carcinogen that is reported by most of our industry
sectors, yet the combined releases from these sectors is far
outweighed by reported emissions from burning coal and
oil, motor vehicle exhaust, and evaporation from gasoline
service stations. Tobacco smoke contains benzene and ac-
counts for nearly half of the national exposure to benzene.2
Having said this, the value of the analysis compiled in this
report, from an industrial sector perspective, is significant.
It provides, for example, a multi-media look at current en-
vironmental data that both educates the sectors on specific
details and trends of their environmental "footprint," and it
opens the door for opportunities to reduce those footprints
through source reduction or chemical substitution.
12 Data Guide
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Ultimately, efforts to report, analyze, and control chemical
releases stem from the recognition that they pose some
degree of "risk" to human health and the environment.
Determining that potential risk depends on many factors,
including a determination of the toxicity of the chemical,
its fate after its release to the environment, the location of
the release, and the populations exposed to the chemical.
There are many ongoing and complex efforts to identify
this risk by this Agency and other institutions that include
reviewing inventories of toxic chemical releases and the
sources that emit them. That level of risk screening and
analysis, even just from an industrial sector perspective, is
beyond the scope of this report. What we have chosen to
do, through the "Toxicity Score" table presented in most
sector chapters, is not meant to be an oversimplification
of risk methodologies. The Toxicity Score tables are yet
another way for a sector to identify chemicals of concern
and potentially prioritize opportunities for source reduc-
tion or chemical substitution. We hope that this presenta-
tion will both highlight topics to consider for action and
encourage discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of
this approach.
Air Emissions
The sections on "Air Emissions" include information on
air emissions of chemicals reported to the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI), criteria air pollutants (CAPs), and for
some sectors, greenhouse gases (GHGs). The sections rely
primarily on TRI, the National Emissions Inventory (NEI),
and the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2005. An overview of these sources is given
below, as well as a discussion of the model EPA uses to
analyze the toxicity of air emissions, the Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model.
Toxic He/eases
This report presents aggregated air emissions of TRI chemi-
cals by the reporting facilities in each sector from 1996
through 2005 (the most current data available at the time
the analyses were conducted for this report). TRI is a publicly
available database containing information on the release
and management of more than 600 chemicals and chemical
categories by facilities that use, process, or manufacture
these chemicals at annual levels above reporting thresholds.
TRI is based on reports filed by the facilities. TRI contains in-
formation on toxic chemicals that facilities emit or otherwise
manage as waste, including hazardous air pollutants (HAPs),
which are also referred to as "air toxics." HAPs are air pollut-
ants that pose a direct threat to human health.
Name: Toxics Release Inventory
Source: EPA
Metrics: Estimated releases, transfers, and disposals
Frequency: Annual
Period Analyzed: 1996-2005
Latest Data Release: February 2008 for 2006
Public Data Release
Website: http://www.epa.gov/tri
Sectors covered: Cement Manufacturing,
Chemical Manufacturing, Food ft Beverage
Manufacturing, Forest Products, Iron ft Steel, Metal
Casting, Paint ft Coatings, Oil ft Gas (Petroleum
Refining), and Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair
Considering the Toxicity
of Air Emissions
This report includes discussions of the toxicity of air
releases. The toxicity of TRI chemicals—meaning how
harmful they can be to human health—varies greatly.
RSEI assigns each TRI chemical, to the extent data are
available, two chemical-specific relative toxicity weights:
one for inhalation of the chemical, and one for ingestion
of the chemical. These relative toxicity weights provide a
method to score the potential harm of chemicals relative
to each other. Toxicity weights for chemicals increase as
the toxicological potential to cause chronic human health
effects increases. For example, pound for pound mercury
has a higher relative toxicity weight than a pound of
methanol. Risk posed by a chemical to an individual is a
function of many variables such as the route and dura-
tion of exposure, the extent of the chemical's absorption
into the individual, and the chemical's intrinsic toxicity.
The RSEI model is not designed to address these variables.
Hence, the model expresses risk in terms of relative risk or
relative Toxicity Scores, not actual risk posed by releases of
a specific chemical or chemicals to individuals. The results
of RSEI analyses are only meaningful when compared to
other results produced by the model. To consider toxicity,
EPA's RSEI model multiplies the quantity of media-specific
TRI releases (e.g., pounds of mercury released to air) by
the chemical-specific relative toxicity weights to calculate
a relative Toxicity Score. Because of data limitations, this
report presents RSEI information only for air emissions
reported to TRI.
Refer to the Data Sources, Methodologies, and
Considerations chapter for additional information.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Data Guide 13
-------
Presentation of
TRI Air Emissions Data
As shown in the sample figure below, the TRI air emis-
sions data discussion presents three related trends that
provide a progressively focused look at the sector's toxic
chemical emissions.
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
a. Absolute Ibs
„ 412.4 M
236.2 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Section A of the figure presents the sector's TRI-reported
absolute pounds of toxic chemical and HAP air emis-
sions from 1996 to 2005. The sets of lines share the same
horizontal axis, representing years, with the bars. The
top, red line in the "Absolute Ibs" set presents the trend
for "All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs." The lower, blue
line presents the trend for TRI HAP emissions only; TRI
HAPs are a subset of "All TRI Chemicals." The sample
graph shows that this sector released 412 million Ibs.
of TRI chemicals to the air in 1996, 236 million Ibs. of
which were HAPs. By 2005, total TRI emissions declined
to 201 million Ibs.
Section B of the figure presents the sector's toxic chemi-
cal and HAP emissions normalized by the sector's VOS
over the same period. The overall percent changes of nor-
malized emissions of all TRI chemicals and of just HAPs
are presented beside an arrow (indicating an increase or
decrease) to the right of these bars. The sample graph
shows that the sector's air emissions of TRI chemicals,
normalized by VOS, decreased by 61% from 1996 to
2005. Over this same period, the sector's normalized HAP
emissions decreased by 64%.
Section C of the figure shows the relative Toxicity Score
of the TRI chemicals and HAPs emitted to the air by the
sector. The figure uses 1996 as a baseline for the rela-
tive Toxicity Score, assigned a ratio of one. Change in
toxicity is calculated relative to that 1996 total value;
a 60% decrease in relative Toxicity Score resulted in
a 2005 relative Toxicity Score of 0.4, as seen in the
example graph above. The normalized toxicity-weighted
results for HAP emissions accounted for approximately
80% of the relative Toxicity Score in 1996, as indicated
by the 0.8 value on the left side of the graph. The relative
Toxicity Score for HAPs showed a declining trend similar
to that for all TRI emissions, with a reduction from 0.8 to
0.3, a 62.5% decline
Chapters presenting TRI data include a table titled,
"Top TRI Air Emissions," which identifies the top five
TRI chemicals released to air in 2005 for each of three
categories: the absolute quantity (in pounds) emitted, the
chemicals' relative Toxicity Score, and the number of
facilities reporting each chemical. The five red numbers
in each category indicate the top five chemicals for that
indicator. The chemicals in italics are HAPs.
In the sample table below, for example:
• Ammonia, hydrochloric acid, methanol, n-hexane, and
nitrate compounds were the five chemicals reported
in the largest quantity in this sector, and are shown
in red in the "Absolute Pounds Reported" column. The
"Percentage of Sector Total" in the "Absolute Pounds
Reported" column shows that the chemicals included
in this table accounted for 95% of the sector's TRI air
emissions.
• Acetaldehyde, acrolein, hydrochloric acid, polycyclic aro-
matic compounds, and sulfuric acid were the five chemi-
cals with the highest relative Toxicity Score reported in
this sector, and are shown in red in the "Percentage of
Toxicity Score" column. The "Percentage of Sector Total"
in the "Percentage of Toxicity Score" column means that
the chemicals included in this table accounted for 86% of
the sector's relative Toxicity Score for TRI air emissions.
• Ammonia, n-hexane, lead, polycyclic aromatic com-
pounds, and zinc were the five chemicals reported by
the most facilities in this sector, and are shown in red
in the "Number of Facilities Reporting" column. The
"Percentage of Sector Total" in the "Number of Facilities
Reporting" column means 51% of TRI reporters in the
sector reported one or more of the chemicals in this table.
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Chemical
Absolute Percentage Number of
Pounds of Toxicity Facilities
Reported Score Reporting
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Ammonia
Hydrochloric Acid
Lead
Methanol
N-Hexane
Nitrate Compounds
Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds
Sulfuric Acid
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
50/0
250/a
2"/o
40/0
20/o
2,048,000
24,000
11,956,000
4,224,000
17,000
3,002,000
22,027,000
2,637,000
59,000
1,774,000 370/o
15,000
-------
Criteria Air Pollutants
Name: National Emissions Inventory
Source: EPA
Metrics: Emission estimates for SOX, NOX, PM (< 10
microns and <2.5 microns), CO, and VOCs
Frequency: Every 3 years
Period Analyzed: 2002
Next Data Release: 2005 NEI for point sources in
Spring 2008
Website: http ://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/
Sectors covered: Cement Manufacturing,
Chemical Manufacturing, Colleges £t Universities, Food
ft Beverage Manufacturing, Forest Products, Iron £t
Steel, Metal Casting, Paint ft Coatings, Oil ft Gas, and
Shipbuilding £t Ship Repair
NEI, a publicly available EPA database, contains information
on emissions of CAPs and HAPs. The Clean Air Act regulates
six CAPs, including particulate matter (both coarse, PM10, and
fine, PM2 5, which is included in PM10), ground-level ozone
(03), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and lead (Pb). Lead, also defined as a HAP, is
discussed in this report as a HAP. Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) are not CAPs, but in the presence of sunlight they react
with NOX to create 03.
The emissions data in NEI are compiled every three years. There
is no threshold amount for NEI reporting, so all point sources
should be captured in the database. This report describes CAP
and VOC emissions for 2002 (the most current year of data
available during the analyses for this report), as shown in the
sector chapters, including their latest environmental statistics.
Greenhouse Gases
Name: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2005
Source: EPA
Metrics: Emission estimates for C02, CH4, N20, and
fluorinated gases
Frequency: Annual
Period Analyzed: 2005
Most Recent Data Release: April 2008
Next Data Release: April 2009
Website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/usgginventory.html
GHG emissions are discussed for certain sectors, for which
data were available from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks and other sources. GHGs include, but
are not limited to, carbon dioxide (C02), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N20), and fluorinated gases.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Data Guide 15
-------
Presentation of
TRI Waste Management Data
As shown in the sample figure below, the TRI data
discussion in this section presents trends showing the
management of toxic chemicals from 1996-2005. In
this sample, the sector managed 10.3 billion Ibs. of TRI
chemicals in 1996. The percentages show the percent
change of quantities of waste managed by each method
over the 10-year period, normalized by VOS. For exam-
ple, TRI chemicals recycled and used for energy recovery
by the sector decreased by 15% and 25%, respectively.
The table titled "Top TRI Disposals" identifies the top TRI
chemicals disposed in 2005, based on absolute pounds
and the number of reporting facilities. The five red
numbers in each category indicate the top five chemicals
for that indicator.
TRI Waste Management 1995-2006
8,000,000,000
Disposal or Other Releases V49%
Treatment A 9%
Energy Recovery v 25%
Recycling Y15%
5,000,000,000
= 4,000,000,000
2005 total: 9.1 billion Ibs
T12%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Water Use and
Discharges
The "Water Use and Discharges" sections present information
on TRI chemicals discharged to water and additional data from
other sources for sectors where available. While TRI chemicals
are not generally the most significant factors influencing water
quality, data on water discharges of other pollutants are not
adequately refined to allow meaningful sector-based analyses.
In the sample table, for example:
• Nitrate compounds, barium, ammonia, zinc, and man-
ganese were the five chemicals reported as disposed
in the largest quantities, and are shown in red in the
"Absolute Pounds Reported" column. The "Percentage
of Sector Total" in the "Absolute Pounds Reported"
column shows that the chemicals included in this table
accounted for 93% of the sector's TRI disposals.
• Ammonia, lead, nitrate compounds, nitric acid, and
zinc were the five chemicals disposed by the larg-
est number of facilities reporting, and are shown in
red in the "Number of Facilities Reporting" column.
The "Percentage of Sector Total" in the "Number of
Facilities Reporting" column shows that 26% of TRI
reporters in the sector reported one or more of the
chemicals in this table.
Top TRI Disposals 2005
Chemical
Absolute Number of
Pounds Facilities
Reported Reporting
Ammonia
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Nitrate Compounds
Nitric Acid
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
1,350,000
1,697,000
92,000
519,000
13,869,000
369,000
690,000
930/0
136
16
37
19
154
29
36
260/0
Waste Generation
and Management
The "Waste Management" sections of this report include
information on hazardous wastes and on TRI chemicals
managed as waste. EPA emphasizes reducing waste genera-
tion whenever possible and, if waste is generated, minimiz-
ing the quantity that is released or disposed, by instead
increasing recycling, energy recovery, or treatment. This
report presents waste management information as catego-
rized by TRI, into recycling, energy recovery, treatment,
and disposal or other releases.
16 Data Guide
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Hazardous Waste
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), EPA biennially collects information on the genera-
tion, management, and final disposition of hazardous waste
from large quantity generators (LQGs) and treatment, stor-
age, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), and compiles a National
Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (BR). Any facility
that meets the criteria to be considered an LQG or TSDF is
required to report. Unlike TRI, there is no restriction based
on the industrial sector (e.g., no NAICS code criteria). Also,
unlike TRI, BR reflects the weight of entire waste streams,
rather than just the weight of particular toxic chemicals
within those streams.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Data Guide 17
-------
115
facilities
115
A 0%
13,800
employees
AT A GLANCE 1996-20051
13,800
• 87.4 million
. 24%
70.4 million
metric tons
of clinker
produced
18 Cement Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Energy Use: 410.8 trillion Btu
Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: 576,000 tons
Releases of Chemicals Reported
to TRI: 13.5 million Ibs.
Air Emissions: 10.6 million Ibs.
Water Discharges: 3,300 Ibs.
Waste Disposals: 2.9 million Ibs.
Recycling, Energy Recovery, or
Treatment: 412 million Ibs.
Hazardous Waste Generated:
17,000 tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
31,000 tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Profile
The Cement Manufacturing sector produces Portland
cement, a binding agent that when mixed with water,
sand, and gravel or crushed stone forms the rock-like mass
known as concrete. Concrete, in turn, serves highway,
commercial, and residential construction projects.
Limestone is the key ingredient to manufacture cement.
Limestone and other ingredients, including material that
is aluminous, ferrous, and siliceous, are placed into a kiln
where a thermochemical process occurs to make cement
clinker. The cement clinker is mixed with additives (e.g.,
gypsum) to make Portland cement.
The U.S. Cement Manufacturing sector is concentrated
among a relatively small number of companies; many U.S.
cement plants are owned by or are subsidiaries of foreign
companies. Together, 10 companies accounted for about
80% of total U.S. cement production in 2005.3
California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Alabama are
the five leading cement-producing states and accounted for
about 48% of recent U.S. production.4
Although production, imports, sales volumes, and prices
of cement all reached record high levels in 2005, cement
consumption is expected to decline in the near future.5
Energy Use
Cement Manufacturing is an energy-intensive industry.
The thermochemical production process requires very high
temperatures; grinding and crushing operations also use
energy. On average, producing one metric ton of cement
requires 4.7 million Btu.6 Between 2000 and 2006, the
sector's energy consumption, when normalized by clinker
production, decreased about 7%.7
To make cement, the manufacturer places limestone and
other ingredients into the upper end of a rotary kiln. At
the lower end of the inclined kiln, a burner pipe emits a
large flame, providing the intense heat required for the
thermochemical process. The limestone and other materials
go through several chemical processes that require
temperatures reaching almost 1,500 degrees Centigrade (C).
During the process, the raw materials, fuel molecules, and
the air inside the kiln break apart. The limestone becomes
calcium oxide and carbon dioxide (CO2). Calcium oxide
and silicates bond to form the principal compounds that
cool into solid pellets called clinker. The manufacturer
grinds clinker with gypsum and smaller amounts of other
ingredients to create Portland cement.
Kilns employ either a wet or dry process. The wet process
uses raw materials ground with water to create a slurry
material to be fed into the kiln, while the dry process
uses dry materials in a powder-like input to the kiln. The
wet process was initially used to improve the chemical
uniformity of raw materials being processed; however, it
FIGURE 1
Fuel Use for Energy 2006
Total: 410.8 trillion Btu
Coal and Coke
75%
Wastes
9%
Electricity
11%
Petroleum
Products
1%
Natural Gas
3%
Source: Portland Cement Association
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Cement Manufacturing 19
-------
requires 32% more energy per ton of clinker production
than the average for dry processes.8 Technological
improvements have allowed cement makers to utilize the
dry process without quality deficiencies, and no new wet
kilns have been built in the United States since 1975.9
Some existing plants are switching from the wet to the dry
process.10 About 85% of U.S. cement production capacity
now relies on the dry process technology.11
As shown in Figure 1, Cement makers are able to utilize a
variety of fuels to maintain high temperatures within kilns,
such as coal, petroleum coke, distillate and residual fuel
oils, natural gas, used tires, and solid and liquid wastes. The
significant quantity of fuel and raw materials needed to
manufacture cement provides an opportunity for the sector
to consume alternative fuels and raw materials generated
as byproducts from other industries.
Many plants meet 20-70% of their energy requirements
with alternative fuels.12 These fuels include scrap tires,
waste oil, refinery wastes, and other solid and liquid
wastes that have fuel value. Cement kilns burn hotter, have
longer gas residence times, and are much larger than most
commercial thermal treatment facilities (e.g., hazardous
waste incinerators), making them ideal for reclaiming such
materials when properly managed.
Air Emissions
Air emissions from the sector include criteria air pollutants
(CAPs), greenhouse gases (GHGs), and a number of
chemicals reported to EPAs Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
CAPs and GHGs also are generated as byproducts from
onsite combustion of fuels in cement kilns.
Air emissions from the kiln system are the primary
environmental concern in cement manufacturing. More
than 99% of the exit gases are composed of nitrogen, water
vapor, and C02, while less than 1% is nitrogen oxide (NOX),
sulfur dioxide (S02), and even smaller quantities of organic
compounds and heavy metals.13
The major processes in making Portland cement that cause
air emissions are fuel combustion, the thermochemical
process of making clinker, and crushing and grinding
operations. The intense heat of the combustion process
separates the fuel into organic and inorganic components.
The organic components are consumed as fuel, while the
various inorganic components become either part of the
cement product or are collected in a plant's air pollution
control device (e.g., electrostatic precipitator or baghouse).
Raw materials, particularly clay, may contain ammonia,
which is partially roasted off during material preheating.
Smaller amounts may come from loss of ammonia when
used in selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) NOX
control devices. Benzene and ethylene are found in
both conventional and alternative raw materials and are
partially roasted off during material preheating.
Chlorine may be present in raw materials as well as in
alternative fuels (e.g., spent solvents, plastics). Much of
the chlorine becomes bound in the clinker. Emissions can
result if inputs exceed the capacity of the clinker to absorb
inbound chlorine, in which case the chlorine combines with
hydrogen to produce hydrochloric acid.
Metals are found in all cement input materials, including
limestone, clay, coal, and cement kiln dust (CKD). Semi-
volatile and volatile metals evaporate and condense on
the fine dust fraction of material recovered in air pollution
control equipment. Reduction controls for most heavy
metals include efficient dedusting equipment (baghouses
and electrostatic precipitators) and limits to inputs in
feed materials (currently the primary control method for
mercury).
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 109 facilities in the sector reported 10.6 million
absolute Ibs. of air emissions to EPAs TRI.14 The TRI list
of toxic chemicals includes all but six of the hazardous
air pollutants (HAPs) regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The absolute pounds emitted annually increased nearly
19% from 1996 to 2005, as shown in Figure 2a, but when
normalized by annual clinker production, the sector's TRI
air emissions decreased by 4% over the same period, as
shown in Figure 2b.15
To consider toxicity of air emissions, EPAs Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model assigns every TRI
chemical a relative toxicity weight, then multiplies the
pounds of media-specific releases (e.g., pounds of mercury
released to air) by a chemical-specific toxicity weight to
calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in greater detail in the Data
Guide, which explains the underlying assumptions and
important limitations of RSEI.
Data are not reported to TRI in sufficient detail to
distinguish which forms of certain chemicals within
a chemical category are being emitted. For chemical
categories such as chromium, the toxicity model
conservatively assumes that chemicals are emitted in the
form with the highest toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent
chromium); thus, Toxicity Scores are overestimated for
some chemical categories.
20 Cement Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 2
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs
All TRI HAPs
a. Absolute Ibs
9 M
10.6 M
.£ 6.9 M
CO
n
5.2 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
9 M
m 6.9 M
8.6 M
T4%
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1.0
.84
4.2 M
T 39%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1.9
1.1
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note:
Normalized by annual clinker production.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Cement Manufacturing 21
-------
Summing the Toxicity Scores for all of the air emissions
reported to TRI by the sector produces the trend illustrated
in Figure 2c. The sector's Toxicity Scores fluctuated
from 1996 to 2005, with an overall increase of 98%,
when normalized by clinker production. Fluctuations
in emissions of sulfuric acid and chromium caused
reciprocal fluctuations in the sector's overall Toxicity
Score. Fluctuations in sulfuric acid, which is released as a
byproduct from burning coal during clinker manufacturing,
were driven by changes in pounds reported by only a few
cement plants. Changes in chromium results were due to
naturally occurring variations in the level of chromium in
limestone.16 The apparent spike in 1999 was due, among
other things, to changes in methodologies used to calculate
releases, and to changes in TRI reporting requirements. In
absolute pounds, HAPs accounted for 49% of the sector's
air emissions reported to TRI in 2005, and 54% of the
overall Toxicity Score.
Table 1 presents the sector's top TRI-reported air emissions
based on three indicators.
TABLE 1
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Chemical
Absolute Percenta<
Pounds of Toxicf
Reported1 Score
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
Ammonia
Benzene4
Chlorine
Chromium
Dioxin and Dioxin-
Like Compounds
Ethylene
Hydrochloric Acid
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Sulfuric Acid
Percentage of
Sector Total
1,469,0003
599,000
50,000
10,000
1,811,000
3,900,000
15,000
34,000
11,000
1,580,000
89%6
10/0
70/0
140/0=
60/o
20/o
190/o
10/0
450/o
950/07
15
14
1
63
74
1
35
107
34
104
11
1000/oB
Notes:
1. Total sector air releases: 10.6 million Ibs.
2. 109 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Italics indicate a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of Clean Air Act.
5. Calculation of Toxicity Score for chromium conservatively assumed
that all chromium emissions were hexavalent chromium, the most toxic
form, with significantly higher toxicity weights than trivalent chromium.
However, hexavalent chromium may not constitute a majority of the sector's
chromium releases. Thus, RSEI analyses may overestimate the relative
harmfulness of chromium emissions.
6. Chemicals in this list represent 89% of the sector's air emissions.
7. Chemicals in this list represent 95% of the sector's Toxicity Score.
8. 100% of facilities reported emitting one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1) Absolute Pounds Reported. Hydrochloric acid and
ethylene were the highest-ranking chemicals based
on the pounds of each chemical emitted to air in
2005, although ethylene was largely reported by a
single facility.
2) Percentage of Toxicity Score. Sulfuric acid and
metals—manganese and chromium—dominated top
chemicals based on Toxicity Score. Manganese and
other metals can occur naturally in limestone.
3) Number of Facilities Reporting. Lead and mercury
were the most frequently reported chemicals, with
almost all of the TRI filers in the sector reporting
these chemical emissions.
Criteria Air Pollutants
At 219,000 tons in 2002, NOX were the largest CAP
emissions from cement making, as shown in Table 2." NOX
formation is an inevitable consequence of high temperature
combustion. Called "Thermal NOX," it is produced in the
main flame of all cement kilns and is formed during
combustion of air. Some NOX may result from combustion
of fuels.18 Control strategies include low-NOx burners and
SNCR technologies.
TABLE 2
Criteria Air Pollutant and
VOC Emissions 2002
Tons
S02
NOX
PM1(
PM,
CO
VOCs
161,000
219,000
37,000
17,000
150,000
9,000
Notes:
1. PM10 includes PM25 emissions.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
S02 results from volatilization of sulfur from raw materials
roasted off during material preheating. The range of
emissions depends on the content of volatile sulfur
compounds in the raw materials. Control strategies include
the addition of hydrated lime to the kiln feed and the use
of wet sulfur scrubbers. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
result from volatilization of organics in raw materials
(limestone and shale) that are roasted off at material
preheating. The range of emissions depends upon the
content of the raw materials mined. Carbon monoxide (CO)
is formed either because of incomplete combustion or the
rapid cooling of combustion products below the ignition
temperature of 610°C.
22 Cement Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
At the end of the thermal treatment process, gases and
pulverized materials must be separated again. Incomplete
separation gives rise to dust emissions from the kiln/
raw mill main stack, the clinker cooler stack, cement mill
stacks, or material transfer point dedusting air outlets. Bag
filters and electrostatic precipitators are emission reduction
techniques typically used.
The fine dust generated from the kiln line, collectively labeled
cement kiln dust, includes particulates representing the raw
mix at various stages of burning, particles of clinker, and
even particles from the eroded refractory brick linings of the
kiln tube. Most U.S. plants have reduced CKD air emissions
to small amounts by using dust scrubbers-either electrostatic
precipitators or filtration baghouses.
In general, the introduction of newer kiln technology and
improved process controls by the sector has led to overall
reductions of CAP emissions. Process controls stabilize
kiln operations by improving energy efficiency, reducing
heat consumption, improving clinker quality, and reducing
emissions.
Greenhouse Gases
Cement manufacturers directly emit GHGs from their
consumption of raw materials and combustion of fuels.
The chemical reaction creating cement emits large amounts
of C02 as limestone breaks down into calcium oxide.
Noncombustion cement production processes emitted
45.9 million metric tons of C02 equivalent in 2005." The
combustion of fuels in cement kilns and generation of
electricity purchased by the sector also emit GHGs.
Figures published by major cement corporations provide some
insight into the C02 emissions that cement companies have
Reducing Greenhouse
Gas Footprint
The California Portland Cement company signed a 25-
year contract with a wind energy company that ensures
a large portion of the power consumed at the plant
located in Mojave, CA, will be renewable energy. This
helped reduce the company's indirect GHG emissions in
2006 by 31,247 metric tons over 2005.21
Reducing Direct GHG Emissions
Buzzi Unicem's Signal Mountain plant in Chattanooga,
TN, reduced its C02 emissions 51.3% after completing
a $140 million upgrade to convert to a dry manufacturing
process. The plant received a Green Industry Award
from the Greater Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce.22
identified. Three reports from 2005 and 2006 from cement
companies estimated C02 emissions in the range from 658 to
670 kilograms (kg) per metric ton of cement produced.20
The sector has various options for reducing GHG emissions,
including using alternative sources of calcium oxide,
such as steel slag, and upgrading to more efficient clinker
production technologies, such as dry—rather than wet-
process kilns. Under the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
voluntary Climate VISION program, the Portland Cement
Association (PCA) adopted a voluntary goal to reduce C02
emissions by 10% per ton of cement product produced or
sold by 2020, from a 1990 baseline.23
Water Use and
Discharges
Cement plants generate little wastewater. The water used
in wet process plants evaporates in the kiln. While 109
facilities reported air emissions to TRI in 2005, just 16
reported water discharges. These facilities reported 3,300
Ibs. of TRI chemicals discharged to water.24 There are
currently no aggregate data available on the quantity of
water used by the Cement Manufacturing sector.
Discharges to surface water also can result from stormwater
runoff. Plant operators generally channel stormwater
into holding ponds so the solid particles can be removed.
Cement makers can discharge the water in compliance
with permits or recycle the water to cool equipment.
Waste Generation
and Management
Of the solid wastes generated in a kiln, CKD is a major
issue. The tumbling and grinding of materials within a kiln
produce a great deal of dust. CKD consists of the ash and
other tiny particles remaining from the burnt limestone
and other products. It can contain metals and materials
remaining from the hazardous wastes sometimes used as
supplemental fuel within a kiln. CKD is removed from the
kiln exhaust gases by pollution-control devices such as
baghouses and electrostatic precipitators.
CKD is a valuable commodity to the industry. Recycling CKD
into the cement kiln offsets the use of limestone and other
raw virgin materials and reduces fuel usage. More than 75%
of CKD is now fed directly back into the kiln. When not
recycled to the kiln, because of contaminant build-up and
quality-control concerns (e.g., alkalis), CKD can sometimes
be used as a soil conditioner (liming agent), as a somewhat
cementitious material for roadfill, and occasionally as a filler
or cementitious extender for finished cement.
As illustrated by Figure 3, the cement industry has used
process improvements to reduce the amount of CKD
disposed. PCA adopted a voluntary target for its member
companies of a 60% reduction (from a 1990 baseline) of
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Cement Manufacturing 23
-------
FIGURE 3
Cement Kiln Dust Disposal Rates
With Reduction Goal
0> 1,750,000
o
£ 1,500,000
Q
Q 1,250,000
Goal: 24 kg CKD/metric ton of clinker
— 60% reduction from 1990 •
1,000,000
1990
Source: Portland Cement Association
CKD disposed per ton of clinker produced-a goal of 24 kg
CKD disposed of per metric ton of clinker produced. PCA
members achieved this goal in 2004.K
EPA has categorized CKD as a special waste temporarily
exempted from federal hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
EPA is developing standards for management of CKD and
has published a set of proposed Subtitle D (concerning
nonhazardous solid waste) regulations to govern CKD
management.
Alternative materials from other sectors can be used to make
cement. These materials include byproducts from other
industrial processes, such as used foundry sand from the
Metal Casting sector, mill scale from the Iron ft Steel sector,
or fly ash from electric utilities. These materials can replace
corresponding raw materials that would have to be mined.
Burning wastes as fuel can reduce the need for virgin fuels
to run the kiln, can treat hazardous waste, and can reduce
the quantity of wastes buried in landfills, incinerated, or
otherwise disposed. The practice can also reduce plant
operating costs, improving competitiveness.
Hazardous Waste
Management
In 2005, cement plants reported to EPA's National Biennial
RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (BR) generating 17,000
tons of hazardous waste. However, only 18 of 115 facilities
in the sector reported to BR, so the data may present an
incomplete picture of the sector's generation of hazardous
waste. For instance, 1 facility generated 32% of the
sector's reported RCRA hazardous wastes, while 4 of the
18 generated almost 86% of the reported wastes.26 Most of
the generated hazardous waste reported was from pollution
control and hazardous waste management activities.27
The sector tends to manage more wastes than it generates
because some facilities receive hazardous waste from offsite
for use as fuel. The sector reported managing 31,000 tons
of hazardous waste in 2005. A majority of the waste was
managed through reclamation and recovery activities,
almost all of which was through energy recovery.
Some cement companies have subsidiaries that operate
as fuel blenders that accept, store, and process (e.g.,
fuel blending) hazardous waste. Estimating the flow of
hazardous waste into and out of these subsidiaries and into
and out of individual cement facilities is difficult to do but
may be examined in future reports.
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
In 2005, the Cement Manufacturing sector reported
managing 425 million absolute Ibs. of TRI chemicals as
waste. As shown in Figure 4, when normalized by annual
clinker production, this quantity represented a 24%
reduction since 1996. The downward trend indicates that
less waste was generated per ton of clinker in the sector
in 2005. In 2005, 3% of TRI-reported waste was disposed
or released, while 95% was used for energy recovery. The
remaining 2% was recycled or treated.28
In 2005, the sector reported disposing 2.9 million Ibs. of
TRI chemicals to land or transferring the chemicals to
offsite locations for disposal. As shown in Table 3, metals
dominated the sector's TRI disposals. Major sources of
these disposals are metals in CKD collected in air pollution
p articulate control systems. Metals from raw materials or
fuels are usually bound to the clinker product, except for
metals that are partly or completely volatilized in the kiln
system (such as mercury, thallium, or cadmium).
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities
PCA set four performance measure goals regarding: C02,
CKD, environmental management systems (EMS), and
energy efficiency.
24 Cement Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 4
TRI Waste Management 1996-2005
600,000,000 1996 total: 447.7 million Ibs
500,000,000
I
•53 400,000,000
o
=
CO
£ 300,000,000
z
200,000,000
100,000,000
1996
1997
1998
1999
TABLE 3
Top TRI Disposals 2005
Chemical
Absolute
Pounds Number of
Reported1 Facilities Reporting2
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
173.5003
97,500
620,200
974,700
1,500
55,900
711,700
900/0*
14
32
49
18
39
15
11
480/0=
Notes:
1. 2.9 m llion Ibs. total sector disposals.
2. 109 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported
in the given category.
4. Chemicals in this list represent 90% of the sector's disposals.
5. 48% of facilities reported disposals of one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
I Disposal or Other Releases A 10%
| Treatment T 83%
I Energy Recovery T 24%
I Recycling A 1,924%
2005 total: 342.2 million Ibs
T 24%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Notes:
1. Normalized by annual clinker production.
2. Disposal or other releases include air releases, water discharges, and land disposals.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey
As noted above, PCA member companies achieved their
CKD disposal goal in 2004. Pursuant to the goal to reduce
C02 emissions, PCA introduced guidelines for greater
use of limestone as a raw material that could reduce C02
generation by more than 2.5 million tons per year. The
guidelines recommend upgrading facilities with efficient,
lower-emitting equipment, improving product formulation
to reduce energy and natural resource needs, and conducting
new research and development into cement and concrete
applications that are more energy efficient and durable.29
An EMS is a set of processes and practices that enable
an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and
increase its operating efficiency. PCA adopted a target to
have at least 75% of U.S. cement plants use an auditable
and verifiable EMS by the end of 2010 and 90% by the end
of 2020.
For the energy efficiency performance measure, PCA
adopted a year 2020 voluntary target of 20% improvement
(from 1990 baseline) in energy efficiency. This is measured
by total Btu-equivalent per unit of cementitious product.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Cement Manufacturing 25
-------
AT A GLANCE 1996-20051
5 " "• * '•••• ""* '**"*. f
•-':^
12,377'
facilities
13,220
.7%
i $555 billion
51%
833,230-
employees
'810,368
T3%
$368 billion
value of
shipments
26 Chemical Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Energy Use: 3.8 quadrillion Btu
Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: 1.5 million tons
Releases of Chemicals Reported
to TRI: 540.8 million Ibs.
Air Emissions: 201 million Ibs.
Water Discharges: 42.7 million Ibs.
Waste Disposals: 297 million Ibs.
Recycling, Energy Recovery, or
Treatment: 10.9 billion Ibs.
Hazardous Waste Generated:
23.8 million tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
26.1 million tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Profile
Chemical Manufacturing facilities transform raw materials
(e.g., oil, natural gas, water, minerals, metals) into tens of
thousands of different products, including bulk chemicals,
plastics, pharmaceuticals, and consumer goods, as well
as produce inputs to agriculture, manufacturing, and
construction industries. The sector is categorized into
"commodity" and "specialty-batch" production.3
• Commodity manufacturers create products in large
quantities under continuous processing conditions.
The small number of shutdowns affects the
potential to make adjustments such as equipment
retrofits and upgrades.
• Specialty-batch manufacturers develop products
for particular "niche" markets, making complex
products in small quantities. These manufacturers
change their process lines several times per year,
providing more opportunities for environmental
improvements but also making environmental
compliance more complicated. In this report,
the specialty-batch subsector is characterized
by a facility list based on membership with
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Association (SOCMA).4
Throughout this chapter, the distinction is made between
"all chemical manufacturing" and "specialty-batch
manufacturing," whenever separate data are available. "All
chemical manufacturing" includes both commodity and
specialty-batch processors.
The sector represents about 12% of all U.S. manufacturing
revenue based on value of shipments (VOS).
Energy Use
Chemical Manufacturing is an energy-intensive sector,
using a total of 3.8 quadrillion Btu in fuel for energy
purposes. Along with using fuels to supply the energy
needs of facility operations, the sector uses fossil
fuels—primarily natural gas and oil—as raw materials in the
production of many products. Organic chemicals require
the most fossil fuel. Feedstock use of fossil fuels is also
common in the bulk petrochemical and fertilizer industries.5
FIGURE 1
Fuel Use for Energy 2002
Total: 3.8 quadrillion Btu
Net Electricity 14%
Other 31%
Coal 8%
Residual
Fuel ON1%
Natural Gas
45%
Liquified Petroleum Gas
and Natural Gas Liquids 1%
Notes:
1. Other is net steam (the sum of purchases, generation from renewables,
and net transfers), and other energy that respondents indicated was used to
produce heat and power.
2. Net electricity is an estimation of purchased power and
power generation onsite.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Chemical Manufacturing 27
-------
Chemical facilities purchase electricity and produce energy
from a variety of fuels. Natural gas was the primary fuel
that the sector used in 2002, as shown in Figure 1. Net
electricity was the third largest source of power for the
sector in 2002.
Chemical manufacturers have opportunities for short- and
long-term fuel switching, whereby they can reduce one
energy source in favor of another with fewer emissions or
greater efficiency. With the already high prices of natural
gas, many facilities that can switch to alternative fuels
from natural gas are already doing so.6 Facilities could
switch from emissions-intensive fuels, such as coal, to
lower-emission fuels such as natural gas, but they have
little cost incentive to do so; natural gas is more expensive
than coal. Future energy consumption of all fuels is
expected to increase in chemical manufacturing, and long-
term fuel switching potential relies heavily on the price of
natural gas.7
Reducing Electricity Demand
Sometimes the best alternative energy source is not
a fuel. Hexion Specialty Chemical, Inc., of South
Glens Falls, NY, realized a 21% reduction in electrical
demand with no excess emissions when the facility
installed a backpressure induction turbine generator
powered by excess process steam. In addition to "free"
energy, reductions in water usage and boiler treatment
chemicals resulted as benefits of this pollution
prevention project.8
Cogeneration, or combined heat and power (CHP),
increases energy efficiency through onsite production
of thermal energy and electricity from a single fuel
source. Cogeneration and self-generation of electricity
are important in the chemical industry. The sector
uses Cogeneration to generate almost one third of the
electricity it consumes.9 Expanded application and further
development offer the potential for additional opportunities
in fuel switching and energy savings.
Energy Cogeneration and
Conservation
In 1994, Dow committed to reducing the company's
global energy intensity by 20% by 2005. In 2005,
Dow improved by 22% over 1994, reducing energy
use by more than 370 trillion Btu. In 2006, Dow's
Freeport, TX, site replaced an older gas turbine with a
more efficient steam generating plant and took other
steps, such as switching to byproduct fuels, to reduce
its energy intensity 2.6% relative to 2005, saving 3.6
trillion Btu and approximately $25 million. Overall, the
company saved an estimated 5.4 trillion Btu of energy
in 2006, with associated direct carbon dioxide (C02)
emission reductions of 382,821 tons.10
Plant Energy
Reduction Program
The DuPont Sabine River Works site, in Orange, TX,
achieved major reductions in power generation and
transmission using a data-driven approach to process
improvement. Operators, supervisors, and engineers
created an at-a-glance "dashboard" with data from
numerous sources that compares optimal to actual
performance, shows real-time cost impacts, and highlights
underperforming processes. If improvements are needed,
the dashboard lists recommended corrective actions,
operating procedures, and diagnostic tools. Operators
improved efficiency from 10% below expectations to
15% above, sometimes performing at the theoretical
limit. Annualized energy savings have been 25%, with
associated C02 emissions reductions of 10,962 tons."
Air Emissions
Air emissions from the sector include criteria air pollutants
(CAPs), greenhouse gases (GHGs), and a number of
chemicals reported to EPAs Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). In general, the "toxic chemicals" tracked by TRI
are found in the raw materials or fuels used in chemical
manufacturing processes, and as intermediates. They
can also be byproducts, products from side reactions, or
internal end products. CAPs and GHGs are also generated
as combustion byproducts from onsite combustion of fuels.
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 3,096 facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing
sector reported 201 million absolute Ibs. of air emissions.
Between 1996 and 2005, absolute TRI-reported air emissions
declined by 51%, as shown in Figure 2a. When normalized
by the sector's value of shipments over the period, air
emissions decreased 61%, as seen in Figure 2b.12 Facility-
level analysis of TRI data indicate that this reduction was
driven by a decline in the quantity of chemicals released
by facilities that reported across all years, rather than being
driven by a reduced number of reporters.
To consider toxicity of air emissions, EPAs Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model assigns every TRI
chemical a relative toxicity weight, then multiplies the
pounds of media-specific releases (e.g., pounds of mercury
released to air) by a chemical-specific toxicity weight to
calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in greater detail in the Data
Guide, which explains the underlying assumptions and
important limitations of RSEI.
Data are not reported to TRI in sufficient detail to
distinguish which forms of certain chemicals within
a chemical category are being emitted. For chemical
categories such as chromium, the toxicity model
28 Chemical Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 2
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs
HAPs
a. Absolute Ibs
412.4 M
CO
c
o
E
_c
CO
n
236.2 M
b. Normalized Ibs
412.4 M
CO
o
c 236.2 M
CO
n
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1.0
0.8
Note:
Normalized by annual value of shipments.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
201.5 M
105.5 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
160.2 M
T 61%
83.9 M
V 64%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
0.4
0.3
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Chemical Manufacturing 29
-------
conservatively assumes that chemicals are emitted in the
form with the highest toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent
chromium); thus, Toxicity Scores are overestimated for
some chemical categories. Summing the Toxicity Scores
for all of the air emissions reported to TRI by the sector
produces the trend illustrated in Figure 2c.
The TRI list of toxic chemicals includes all but 6 of the
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) regulated under the Clean
Air Act. In absolute pounds, HAPs accounted for 52% of
the sector's air emissions reported to TRI in 2005, and 74%
of the sector's total Toxicity Score.13 Trends in emissions of
HAPs, based on pounds and on the Toxicity Scores, showed
very similar declines to the trends in air emissions for all
TRI chemicals.14
Over the same period, air emissions from the specialty-
batch subsector declined by 49%.15 The subsector is
considerably smaller than the Chemical Manufacturing
sector as a whole, with 185 facilities reporting air emissions
to TRI in 2005. The specialty-batch chemical subsector's
Toxicity Scores declined 60% from 1996 to 2005. However,
because there are fewer facilities, changes at a few sites,
particularly those reporting chemicals with a high Toxicity
Score, can significantly impact overall subsector trends.16
Table 1 presents the top TRI-reported chemicals emitted to
air by the chemical manufacturing sector based on three
indicators. Each indicator provides data that environmental
managers, trade associations, or government agencies
might use in considering sector-based environmental
management strategies.
1) Absolute Pounds Reported. Ammonia and
methanol were the highest-ranking chemicals
based on the pounds of each chemical emitted to
air in 2005.
2) Percentage of Toxicity Score. The top chemicals
based on Toxicity Score included chlorine and
sulfuric acid. These chemicals have moderate
toxicity weights, but were released in large
quantities, resulting in high Toxicity Scores.
TABLE 1
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Chemical
Absolute Percenta
Pounds of Toxic!
Reported1 Score
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
Acrolein3
Ammonia
Carbon Disulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Certain Glycol
Ethers
Chlorine
Chromium
Ethylene
Manganese
Methanol
Sulfuric Acid
Toluene
Xylene (Mixed
homers)
Percentage of
Sector Total
49,000
50,421,000
10,111,000
12,852,000
600,000
1,048,000
32,000
16,601,000
138,000
19,279,000
3,586,000
6,961,000
2,793,000
62%6
40/0
10°/o
130/0
<10/0
<10/0
60%'
37
589
54
33
484
285
103
143
94
783
122
693
585
65%B
Notes:
1. 201 million pounds total sector air releases.
2. 3,096 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Italics indicate a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act.
4. Red indicates the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in the
given category.
5. Calculation of Toxicity Score for chromium conservatively assumed
that all chromium emissions were hexavalent chromium, the most toxic
form, with significantly higher toxicity weights than trivalent chromium.
However, hexavalent chromium may not constitute a majority of the sector's
chromium releases. Thus, RSEI analyses may overestimate the relative
harmfulness of chromium emissions.
6. Chemicals in this list represent 62% of the sector's air emissions.
7. Chemicals in this list represent 60% of the sector's Toxicity Score.
8. 65% of facilities reported emitting one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
30 Chemical Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Acrolein and chromium were released in smaller
quantities but have high Toxicity Scores.
3) Number of Facilities Reporting. Methanol was the
most frequently reported chemical, with one-quarter
of the TRI-filers in the sector reporting methanol air
emissions.
The top 10 chemicals based on Toxicity Scores accounted
for 71% of the total Toxicity Scores, with chlorine, sulfuric
acid, and manganese accounting for 40% of Toxicity
Scores. This list of top 10 has been fairly consistent for the
past five years. However, TRI-reported releases of acrolein
declined from 1990 until 2001, but then more than doubled
to 49,000 pounds in 2005. Facility-level analysis of acrolein
releases indicates that the increase may be a result of the
growing use of ethanol and biofuels. Both the number
of facilities reporting and the volume of releases have
increased under SIC 2869 (Industrial Organic Chemicals,
NEC) and NAICS 325193 (Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing). The
recent fluctuations in releases of acrolein have been driven
generally by 10 or fewer facilities, indicating the potential
for targeted reduction efforts.
For the specialty-batch subsector, as with the Chemical
Manufacturing sector as a whole, methanol was the most
frequently reported chemical released to air in 2005,
with 104 facilities reporting, and chlorine was the top-
ranked chemical based on Toxicity Scores. The top-ranked
chemicals based on pounds of air emissions from facilities
in the specialty-batch subsector were ethylene (1.6 million
Ibs.) and toluene (1 million Ibs.).17
Criteria Air Pollutants
CAP emissions are generated by onsite energy production
using fuels such as coal, oil, and gas, and also by some
chemical manufacturing processes.18 Table 2 shows CAP
and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the
sector for 2002.
TABLE 2
Criteria Air Pollutant and
VOC Emissions 2002
Tons
S02
NOX
PM,,
PM,
CO
VOCs
482,000
309,000
57,000
39,000
476,000
175,000
Note:
PM10 includes PM25 emissions.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reduced Energy Use
and CO2 Emissions
Albemarle Corporation initiated a program in 2006 to
reduce energy consumption by 12% over two years.
Projects involving preventive maintenance and steam
leaks were especially successful. The company used
weekly plant audits to evaluate progress, identify
opportunities, and establish corrective actions. Using
low capital-intensive efficiency improvements and
other means, the company achieved 66% of its goal in
the first year. Annualized energy savings were more
than 8%, representing 603,778 million Btu saved and
35,019 tons of C02 emissions avoided.19
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1
Greenhouse Gases
Chemical manufacturers directly emit GHGs from the
combustion of fossil fuels and from production processes.
Non-combustion emissions occur from the use of fossil
fuels as feedstocks and the use of other raw materials.
Such emissions include nitrous oxide (N20), fluoroform
(HFC-23), C02, and methane (CH4). The largest process-
related sources of GHG emissions include production of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), ammonia, and acids
such as nitric and adipic acid.20 The generation of electricity
purchased by chemical manufacturers also emits GHGs.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) participates in
Climate VISION, a U.S. Department of Energy voluntary
partnership effort responding to the President's goal of
reducing GHG intensity, that is, the ratio of greenhouse
gases to economic output.21 Through this program, ACC
members committed to reduce their GHG emissions
intensity 18% from 1990 levels by 2012. ACC reports that
members have already achieved this goal.22 The companies
reduced their GHG intensity by more than 30% since 1992;
GHG intensity fell 5% between 2003 and 2005.23
Water Use and
Discharges
Water use varies widely within the sector, depending on the
products manufactured and production processes used. The
primary uses of water are for non-contact cooling, steam
applications, and product processing.24 The production of
various chemicals requires different amounts of water. For
example, producing silicon-based chemicals requires large
quantities of water, yet the top manufactured chemicals by
volume (including nitrogen, ethylene, ammonia, phosphoric
acid, propylene, and polyethylene) require far less water
during production.25 Throughout the sector, more than 80%
of the water used for cooling and steam is recycled; process
water recycling varies widely.26 There are currently no aggregate
data available on the quantity of water used by the sector.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Chemical Manufacturing 31
-------
Balanced Water Use at BASF
Supply
Use
Discharge
Surface Water
Groundwater
Drinking Water
Cooling
28.3
(of which >25% is reused)
Cooling Water (non-contact)
17.3
Wastewater from Production
Sanitary Water
.02^
Total
47.1
46.4
Million Cubic Meters
33.5
Source: BASF
Balanced Water Use at BASF
BASF's U.S. operations used an estimated 46.4 million
cubic meters of water in 2006. Of that amount, 18.1
million cubic meters of water was used for production
and 28.3 million cubic meters for cooling purposes.
More than 25% of the cooling water is reused. BASF
focuses primarily on water recycling as part of its
water conservation measures, including regular
maintenance on closed loop systems that circulate
water, boiler blowdown and condensate recovery, and
water reuse for vessels and piping clean-outs.27
Every facility discharging process wastewater directly to
waterways must apply for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The permits typically
set numeric limits on specific pollutants and include
monitoring and reporting requirements. Approximately
1,700 facilities in the sector have NPDES permits.28
Regulated pollutant discharges can vary depending on the
characteristics of chemicals being manufactured. Major
factors include total suspended solids, presence of various
metals, biological or chemical oxygen demand, and pH
levels.29
Sector-wide, 801 chemical manufacturing facilities reported
water discharges of TRI chemicals in 2005, totaling 42.7
million Ibs., including direct discharges to waterways of any
TRI chemical and discharges of metals to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs). This represented a decline of 57%
between 1996 and 2005 for the chemical industry as a whole.
Specialty-batch manufacturers reported water discharges of
2.7 million Ibs., which represented a decline of 81%.30
32 Chemical Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Water Conservation
and Efficiency
Arizona Chemical's manufacturing facility in Port St.
Joe, FL, reduced well water usage from two onsite
water wells. The facility installed multiple heat
exchangers, thereby reducing cooling water usage.
The company also modified cooling towers to improve
efficiency, upgraded and cleaned equipment to improve
heat transfer, repaired and upgraded steam traps,
implemented a program to identify and repair stream
leaks, and changed operating procedures to minimize
water usage. The plant reduced its annual well
water usage while increasing its annual production.
The company reduced its well water use relative to
production by nearly 13% from 2002 to 2005.31
In addition to being regulated for direct and POTW
discharges, facilities with materials exposed to precipitation
are regulated for stormwater runoff, usually under a
general permit that provides sector-specific limits. While
some facilities have stormwater permits, it is not a
predominant issue of concern for the sector.
Water conservation and minimization practices for the
sector include water measurement and management, water
reuse, reducing the use of cooling water, eliminating system
leaks, educating employees on conservation techniques,
and development of processes that require less water.32
Waste Generation
and Management
Hazardous Waste
Management
In 2005, chemical manufacturers reported to EPA's
National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report
(BR) generating 23.8 million tons of hazardous waste,
accounting for 62% of the hazardous waste generated
nationally. At 37% and 32% of the total, respectively,
production-related waste and pollution control (e.g.,
wastes captured in air pollution control equipment and
wastewater treatment sludge) were the largest sources
of hazardous waste generation. The sector reported
managing 26.1 million tons of hazardous waste.
According to the reports to BR, most of the sector's
hazardous waste was managed through disposal.33
The specialty-batch chemicals subsector reported
generating 414,000 tons of hazardous waste. For the
subsector, 85% of the hazardous waste was generated from
product and byproduct processing and pollution control
processes (primarily from wastewater treatment operations).
Almost 80% of the waste was treated or recovered/
reclaimed, while 20% was disposed.34
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Chemical Manufacturing 33
-------
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
In 2005, chemical manufacturers reported managing
11.4 billion absolute Ibs. of TRI chemicals in waste.
When normalized by the sector's VOS, this was 12% less
than 1996. Figure 3 shows how the sector managed this
waste. In 2005, 5% of TRI-reported waste was released
or disposed. Most of the waste disposed in 2005 went
to underground injection wells, and the remainder was
landfilled or placed in surface impoundments. In the same
year, 15% was recovered for energy use, 39% was recycled,
and 41% was treated.35 When normalized by VOS between
1996 and 2005, the quantity of waste treated increased
while the use of other management activities decreased.
Specialty-batch producers reported 1.2 billion Ibs. of total
waste managed in 2005. Of this quantity, 1% was released
or disposed, 9% was used for energy recovery, 26% was
treated, and 65% was recycled.36
For the overall sector, nitrate compounds and manganese
were disposed in the greatest quantities and accounted
for about one-third of disposals, while zinc and ammonia
were the most frequently reported chemicals disposed, as
indicated in Table 3.
FIGURE 3
TRI Waste Management 1996-2005
8,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
= 4,000,000,000
co ' ' '
o
3,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
1996 total: 10.3 billion Ibs
ll
I
I
I
I Disposal or Other Releases v 49%
| Treatment A 9%
I Energy Recovery T 25%
I Recycling T-|5%
2005 total: 9.1 billion Ibs
T12%
,l
ll
I
I
I
,l
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Notes:
1. Normalized by annual value of shipments.
2. Disposal and Other Releases includes air emissions, water discharges, and land disposals.
3. The apparent spike in treatment in 2000 was due to the report filed by a single facility.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
2002 2003 2004 2005
34 Chemical Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
TABLE 3
Top TRI Disposals 2005
Chemical
Absolute Pounds
Reported1
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
Acetonitrile
Ammonia
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Methanol
Nitrate Compounds
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
16,700,0003
27,850,000
3,198,000
3,067,000
49,873,000
16,452,000
54,996,000
8,946,000
610/0*
22
164
139
363
91
146
103
344
270/0=
Notes:
1. 297 million pounds total sector disposals.
2. 3,096 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates the chemical is one of top five chemicals reported in the given
category.
4. Chemicals in this list represent 61% of the sector's disposals.
5. 27% of facilities reported disposals of one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waste Minimization and
Utility Conservation
The Lockport, NY, facility of Isochem Inc., a phosgene
and phosgene derivative manufacturer, implemented
utility conservation, CO reduction, phosgene recovery,
and distillation and reuse of process solvents. By
re-piping process equipment and installing nitrogen
flow meters, the facility pinpointed wasted resources,
saved energy, and reduced onsite C02 emissions.
Nitrogen reductions brought significant supplier
energy savings and C02 reductions. By adding mass
flow meters, automatic control valves, and some
additional instrumentation, the facility reduced its
need for excess CO used in high-quality phosgene
production by nearly 15%. The changes also reduced
onsite city water, caustic water, and sewer discharges,
and reduced company and fuel supplier C02 emissions.
The company initiated a novel approach of evaporating
excess phosgene and recovering it for reuse. The
installation of a solvent recovery distillation column
permits purification of used organic solvents for reuse
as a new raw material stream. This new process has
reduced both raw material purchases of solvents and
organic waste generation.37 In 2006 the distillation
equipment realized an annual total waste reduction c
609 tons.38
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities
An environmental management system is a set of processes
and practices that enable an organization to reduce
its environmental impacts and increase its operating
efficiency. SOCMA's ChemStewards program is an initiative
to manage compliance with federal requirements and
improve processes and efficiencies.39 The three-tiered
program allows SOCMA member companies to develop
individual environment, health, safety, and security
management systems. ChemStewards implementation
guidance includes manuals, online assistance, regional
meetings, and peer information exchange.
ACC's Responsible Care program offers a system for
managing performance in environmental impact, health,
safety, and security. All ACC member companies are
required to have CEO-level commitments to Responsible
Care. Program elements include publicly reporting
performance, implementing the security code, applying
a management system, and obtaining independent
certification for the management system.40
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Chemical Manufacturing 35
-------
COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES
3,663
facilities
3,634
AT A GLANCE 1996-20051
Count of Colleges & Universities
by State
<20
21 to 50
51 to 100
>100
1,258,979,
employees
1,508,355
20%
$270 billion
revenue
$341 billion
A 26%
36 Colleges 8t Universities
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: 73,000 tons
Hazardous Waste Generated:
26,000 tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
24,000 tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Profile
The Colleges £t Universities sector includes schools granting
degrees at baccalaureate or graduate levels such as major
universities, military academies, business colleges, medical
and law schools, music conservatories, and seminaries.
Facilities of the sector have a variety of environmental
impacts across all environmental media. Campuses
may, for example, operate power plants and wastewater
treatment facilities, undertake construction projects, and
maintain large areas of landscaping. Many consume large
quantities of energy, generate tons of municipal waste and
small quantities of hazardous wastes (primarily through
laboratories), and manage stormwater runoff.
Energy Use
There are no aggregate national data on energy use at
campuses in the United States. Campuses use energy in
many types of facilities, including classroom buildings,
residences, laboratories, performing arts venues, and
sports facilities. Campus parking lots and walkways use
electricity to provide lighting. Heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning units consume energy from natural gas,
liquid propane, and electricity. Activities related to grounds
keeping, transportation, and security also consume fossil
fuels and electricity.
Many schools are taking action to improve their energy
efficiency. For example, more than 75 colleges and
universities have pledged to purchase power from
renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal,
biomass, and hydroelectric as part of EPA's Green Power
Partnership. Schools in the Partnership annually purchase
more than 1 billion kilowatt hours of green power, which is
enough to power nearly 100,000 average U.S. houses for a year.3
Air Emissions
Air emissions from the sector include criteria air
pollutants (CAPs), greenhouse gases (GHGs), and others.
The sector's air emissions originate primarily from
fossil fuel combustion, but also from various sources
such as construction, laboratory chemical reactions,
and refrigeration systems. Indirect air emissions include
emissions related to vehicle use and maintenance, campus
transit systems, commuting, deliveries, and generation of
purchased electricity. Sector-wide air emission information
is not available, although some facilities are conducting
emission inventories.
Saving Energy and Reducing
Emissions with CHP
Kent State University in Ohio took energy efficiency a
step further by generating its own power with a new
combined heat and power (CHP) plant that also is a
working lab. CHP, also called cogeneration, increases
energy efficiency through onsite production of thermal
energy and electricity from a single fuel source. The
system's 13-megawatt, natural gas-fired turbines
produce almost 90% of the university's electricity
during the winter and 60% during the summer. The
system also uses waste heat from the turbines to
produce half of the university's steam. The overall
system reduces direct carbon dioxide (C02) emissions
by an estimated 13,000 tons per year, equivalent to the
emissions from 2,100 cars. Kent State received a 2006
EPA ENERGY STAR CHP award for this effort.4
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Colleges ft Universities 37
-------
Criteria Air Pollutants
Most CAP emissions in the sector result from burning
of fossil fuels. In 2002, sulfur dioxide (S02) accounted
for the largest volume of CAP emissions, and was emitted
by 95% of the facilities included in EPA's National
Emissions Inventory.5 Table 1 shows CAP and volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from 442 facilities in
the sector for 2002.
TABLE 1
Criteria Air Pollutant and
VOC Emissions 2002
Tons
S02
NOX
PM10
PM,
CO
VOCs
39,000
20,000
2,000
1,000
11,000
1,000
Note:
PM10 includes PM2S emissions.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Greenhouse Gases
Despite the lack of aggregate trend data on GHG
emissions, there is a rapidly growing campus awareness
of GHG impacts. A growing number of school officials
are committing to take action. More than 480 presidents
of higher education institutions have committed to the
American College and University Presidents Climate
Commitment (ACUPCC). ACUPCC's goal is for participating
schools to develop plans to achieve climate neutrality,
starting with campus-wide GHG emission inventories and
institutional action plans. Tangible actions may include
Energy Conservation
and Sustainability
Arizona State University (ASU) began a program to
reduce electricity, natural gas, and water use in 2000.
Lighting and system upgrades reduced consumption
by 53 million kilowatt-hours per year. From 2002 to
2006, ASU reduced its energy bill by 10%, saving $3.3
million annually. ASU received a 2007 ENERGY STAR
CHP Award in recognition of a new natural gas CHP
system that reduced fuel use by about 21% and C02
emissions by an estimated 16,000 tons per year. In
March 2007 the ASU President pledged under ACUPCC,
among other things, to develop an action plan within
two years to become carbon neutral and to include
sustainability in the curriculum. ASU recently set a
goal of reducing its energy bill another 10%.6
green building, use of ENERGY STAR-certified products,
the purchase of power from renewable resources, and
increased use of public transportation.
Water Use and
Discharges
Sector facilities use water in many ways, including
academic and residential buildings, student centers,
cafeterias, laboratory and sporting facilities, hospitals and
clinics, and landscaping and agricultural operations. For
most campuses, clean water comes from publicly owned
facilities, and water discharges are sent to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works. A mix of modern, efficient water systems
and older, inefficient systems exists on campuses.
EPA effluent limitation guidelines vary according to
campus makeup. For example, on-campus power plants
may be regulated if power is distributed and sold, while
effluents from educational research laboratories currently
are not regulated.7 Stormwater discharges may include
fertilizers and pesticides from landscaping. Currently, the
sector's stormwater discharges are not regulated, although
there may be facility-specific requirements for certain
industrial operations.8
An Educational Green Building
At Oberlin College in Ohio, the Adam Joseph Lewis
Center for Environmental Studies is an acclaimed
integrated building and landscape system for study
and proactive energy and environmental management.
The center uses water-saving sinks and toilets. Its
"Living Machine" system combines conventional water
treatment and the center's wetland ecosystem to remove
organic wastes, nutrients, and pathogens, allowing 60%
to 80% of the water used to be treated and re-used in
toilets and on the center's landscape. Stormwater from
the center's roof, sidewalk, and parking lot drains into
a wetland (which cleanses it) and into a 9,700-gallon
cistern. During drier periods, rainwater stored in the
cistern is used to maintain the wetland.9
Waste Generation
and Management
Although sector-wide information on the management
of nonhazardous waste is not available, colleges and
universities do generate, and can reduce or recycle,
significant amounts of waste.10
In 2007, more than 200 colleges and universities
participated in RecycleMania, sponsored by the National
Recycling Coalition in partnership with EPA's WasteWise
program, to increase campus recycling.11 The number
38 Colleges ft Universities
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
of schools participating and the amount of recyclables
collected over the 10-week competition has doubled each
year since starting in 2001, as shown in Figure 1. The 2007
competition reported a total of 41.3 million pounds of
materials recycled. The materials collected prevented the
discharge of 15,583 million metric tons of C02 equivalent-
equating to GHG emissions from approximately 12,367
passenger cars in one year.12
Expanding Recycling
Rutgers University in New Jersey was EPA's WasteWise
2007 College/University Partner of the Year.13 Rutgers
recycled 14,356 tons of materials in 2006, an 11%
increase over the previous year. As one of many
activities, the University installed new pulping and
dewatering machines that remove up to 80% of the
moisture from food waste; the resulting pulp is donated
as livestock feed. In 2006 the machines helped Rutgers
recover 3,422 tons of food waste and avoid $758,929
in landfill costs.14
FIGURE 1
RecycleMania Participation
and Results
250
200
8
I 150
100
50
45
40
35
30 £
25
20
15
10
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
• Number of Schools
—•— Pounds Recycled
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste
Management
Colleges and universities generate hazardous waste from
a variety of activities, such as laboratories, operation
of pollution control devices, or remediation of past
contamination.
Some 335 facilities reported to EPA's National Biennial
RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (BR) generating 26,000
tons of hazardous waste in 2005. Of this total, 64% was
material from state-mandated or voluntary cleanups, and
21% was laboratory wastes. More than 66% of the reported
hazardous waste for the sector was lead, and more than 6%
was ignitable waste, laboratory packs, and mercury.15
In the same year, the sector reported managing 24,000
tons of hazardous waste.
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities
Although the sector lacks metrics for many parts of its
environmental and energy footprint, a growing number
of schools are developing sustainability programs
and actively tracking their individual progress. The
nonprofit Sustainable Endowments Institute is evaluating
these efforts on the national level in its 2008 College
Sustainability Report Card. The report evaluates campus
and endowment sustainability activities at the 200 colleges
and universities with the largest endowments in the United
States and Canada. The Report Card provides information
on best operational practices of leading schools in such
categories as climate change and energy, food and
recycling, green building, and transportation.
The 2008 Report Card shows a growing commitment to
sustainability within the sector, with 68% of the evaluated
schools showing an improved "grade" from a year ago.
Fifty percent of the schools have adopted carbon reduction
commitments, and 69% now have green building policies.
Some 42% of the schools now have hybrid or electric
vehicles in their fleets, and 37% now have full-time staff
dedicated to sustainability.16
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Colleges ft Universities 39
-------
•787,672
. 20%
657,718'
facilities
5,206,9251
employees
AT A GLANCE 1996-20051
Construction
Establishments by State
• < 5,000
• 5,001 to 10,000
• 10,001 to 25,000
• > 25,000
'6,781,327
. 30%
$1 trillion
. 62%
$623 billion
value of
construction
40 Construction
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Energy Use: 1.6 quadrillion Btu
Construction & Demolition
Debris Generated: 331 million tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Profile
The Construction sector consists of establishments engaged
in constructing, renovating, and demolishing buildings
and other engineering structures.3 The sector includes
contractors in commercial, residential, highway, heavy
industrial, and municipal utility construction. Specialized
trades within the sector include work that is commonly
subcontracted, such as plumbing, heating, masonry, and painting.
Although residential construction has slowed in recent
years, spending on overall construction nearly doubled over
the past decade. In 2006, the value of construction put in
place totaled $1.1 trillion, or 9% of the U.S. gross domestic
product. Spending on residential construction totaled $647
billion; nonresidential spending totaled $545 billion.4
More than 90% of construction companies have fewer than
20 employees.5 Tracking the environmental performance of
the Construction sector presents challenges because of the
large number of construction companies and construction
sites, the prevalence of small businesses, and the lack of
data. Data that are commonly available for manufacturing
sectors, such as chemical releases from EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI), are either not applicable to or not available
for the Construction sector.
To address the measurement challenge, in September 2007
EPA recommended measures of performance for the sector
covering energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
diesel air emissions, stormwater compliance, construction
and demolition (CftD) debris management, and green building
practices.6
These measures indicate several trends:
• Construction-related energy use is increasing faster
than the growth in construction activity.
• Many construction companies have begun retrofitting
older diesel equipment, reducing air pollution.
• More construction sites are complying with the
requirement to obtain stormwater permits, although the
percentage of construction sites in compliance is still
unknown.
• The percentage of CftD materials recycled varies widely
from state to state; materials are recycled more in
highway construction than building construction.
• In addition to constructing more green buildings,
many contractors are "greening" their own operating
practices.
Energy Use
The Construction sector uses energy to operate equipment,
to transport materials to and from construction sites, and
to power facilities. Nonroad (also called "off-road") diesel
engines used by construction companies, for example,
include a wide variety of loaders, bulldozers, backhoes,
excavators, graders, pavers, scrapers, and other specialized
equipment.7 Construction consumed an estimated 1.6
quadrillion Btu in 2002, which was a 28% increase from
about 1.25 quadrillion Btu in 1997.8 During the same
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Construction 41
-------
FIGURE 1
Fuel Use for Energy 2002
Total: 1.6 quadrillion Btu
Electricity
10%
Gasoline
18%
Natural Gas
14%
Diesel
58%
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reduced Idling Cuts Fuel
Use, Costs, and Pollution
Grace Pacific Corporation, a highway contractor in
Hawaii, has started a program to reduce unnecessary
idling. The company first compiled an inventory of its
fuel use, idling time, and air emissions. The inventory
provides a baseline for tracking performance. Company
officials believe they can cut overall fuel consumption
by 10% on Oahu, saving approximately $80,000 in fuel
costs and reducing emissions substantially.9
period, the value of construction, measured in constant
dollars, grew 22°/o.10
The Construction sector could save energy under related
efforts to reduce diesel emissions, increase recycling,
and otherwise promote green construction. Specific
opportunities include reducing idling, maintaining
equipment optimally, using biodiesel, buying materials
locally (reducing transportation fuel use), improving energy
efficiency in company facilities, recycling CftD materials,
using industrial byproducts in construction, and using
coal fly ash and other supplementary cementious materials
(SCM) in the manufacture of concrete. The Construction
sector uses more than 100 million tons of cement annually.
For every ton of coal fly ash and other SCMs used as an
additive to Portland cement, there is an estimated energy
savings of 5 million Btu.11
Air Emissions
Air emissions from the sector include criteria air pollutants
(CAPs) and GHGs. CAPs and GHGs are generated as
combustion byproducts from onsite energy production.
The primary air pollutants associated with the sector
are particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOX),
which are emitted during operation of diesel equipment.
Diesel engines also emit sulfur oxides (SOX), hazardous air
pollutants, and GHGs. Some construction sites generate
PM as fugitive dust. The Construction sector emits GHGs
directly from combustion of fossil fuels.
Criteria Air Pollutants
EPA has set standards for PM and NOX emissions from
new nonroad diesel engines. However, the standards will
not apply to the approximately two million pieces of
construction equipment already in use.
EPAs National Clean Diesel Campaign and various state
programs are encouraging voluntary measures to reduce
PM and NOX emissions from existing diesel equipment.
Measures include retrofitting with emissions control
technologies and replacing or upgrading engines, as well
as reducing idling and switching to cleaner fuels such as
ultra-low sulfur diesel or biodiesel.
FIGURE 2
Diesel Emissions Reduction Strategies Used by Construction Firms - Industry Survey
Other
Engine replacement or repower
Emissions control
Ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) or biodiesel
Reduced idling
Never used emissions reduction strategy
Note:
Percentage is of survey respondents.
Source: Associated General Contractors of America
5%
19%
20%
27%
53%
42 Construction
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Baseline data indicate that 40 construction equipment
retrofit projects eliminated 39,747 tons of NOX emissions
and 7,793 tons of PM25 emissions from 2003 through
2006.12
In 2007, the Associated General Contractors of America
(AGC) surveyed its members about clean diesel strategies.13
As shown in Figure 2, almost half of the 234 companies
that responded have employed techniques to reduce
emissions. Of those, nearly half undertook those measures
voluntarily rather than in response to regulatory or
contractual requirements.
Greenhouse Gases
GHG emissions from the Construction sector result
from fuel consumed by on- and off-road construction
equipment. A preliminary estimate of C02 emissions in
2002 from the sector's energy consumption is 114.1 million
metric tons of C02 equivalent.14 The generation of electricity
purchased to provide power for construction equipment
and offices also emits GHGs.
Stormwater
Discharges
Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant
environmental issues for the sector.15 Runoff from
construction sites may contain sediments, oil and grease,
other pollutants, and trash. Paved or compacted ground
increases the amount and rate of runoff because of reduced
rainwater infiltration.
There are currently no EPA effluent limits for construction
Stormwater. Since the early 1990s, however, EPA has
required permits for construction activities that disturb five
or more acres and discharge Stormwater to surface waters.16
In 2003, EPA reduced the threshold for permit coverage to
one acre. Covered contractors must develop a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan, submit an application for permit
coverage—or "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form—and install
"Best Management Practices" before disturbing the land.
Compliance with the requirement to obtain Stormwater
permits is improving. As shown in Figure 3, a nationally
representative sample of state data reveals that the
percentage of construction projects submitting an NOI
increased by 63% from 2003 to 2006. The percentage
of total construction projects in compliance, however, is
unknown, because EPA has no national data on the number
of projects that actually require an NOI.17
Waste Generation
and Management
Constructing, renovating, and demolishing buildings, roads,
bridges, and other structures generates large amounts of
debris. Most of it is recoverable and some of it can be
reused or recycled. Nevertheless, CM) materials such as
FIGURE 3
Trend in NOI Submissions
Based on a Sample of States
10%
9%
o
D)
c
J2
3
W
O
o
'o1
ol
o
0)
I
o
c
o
Q_
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Unknown
> 5 Acres
< 5 Acres
2003 2004
2005
2006
Note:
Not all construction projects require an NOI, therefore, the percent of projects
does not indicate percent in noncompliance.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Colorado Stormwater
Excellence Program
An experiment in construction Stormwater "self-
policing" is generating impressive results in Colorado.
Participating companies commit to certain standards
for managing Stormwater. State-approved inspectors
hired by the companies train construction crews and
inspect every site monthly. They report findings to
the companies, offer guidance on fixing problems,
and return to confirm correction. Companies gain
confidence that they are achieving compliance. Nearly
800 inspections were conducted during a 2006 pilot
project; average improvements for all sites ranged from
60% to 90°/o.18
concrete, asphalt, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles are
a large component of the waste in the nation's landfills.
EPA made a preliminary estimate that 164 million
tons of building-related CftD debris were generated in
2003, up from an estimated 136 million tons in 1996.19
Approximately 40% of this material was recycled, and
the remainder disposed.20 A preliminary estimate of road
surface-related C£tD debris generation was 167 million tons
in 2003, of which 88% was recycled.21 EPA is in the process
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Construction 43
-------
FIGURE 4
Trends in Construction and
Demolition Material Recycling
in Five States
100%
2000 2001
2002 2003 2004
• Maryland
• Virginia
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Florida
5 States Combined
Massachusetts
Washington
Diverting Materials Through
Reuse and Recycling
Turner Construction, one of the largest construction
companies in the United States, joined EPA's Climate
Leaders program in 2007. Turner has a policy to divert
construction waste on all projects through reuse and
recycling. Substituting reused and recycled materials
for virgin materials reduces energy consumption and
related GHG emissions. Turner set a goal to divert
50%, or 75,000 tons, of CM) materials in 2007. Over
the previous two years, Turner's Construction Waste
Management Program diverted more than 83,000 tons.22
of revising its methodology for counting CM) debris
generation and recycling.
Recycling rates vary from state to state. A number of
states periodically track CM) debris disposed and recycled,
but few states regularly publish the data. Differences in
the ways states count disposal and recycling limit the
usefulness of comparisons among states. CM) debris
recycling data for five states are shown in Figure 4 above.23
Asphalt pavement is heavily recycled. Construction
contractors commonly crush and recycle old asphalt back
TABLE 1
Uses of Recycled Construction
and Demolition Materials
Recycled Construction and
Demolition Materials
Recycling Markets
Concrete is crushed, reinforcement
bar is removed, and material is
screened for size.
Asphalt pavement is crushed and
recycled into asphalt, either
in-place or at a hot-mix asphalt
plant.
After removal of nails, asphalt
shingles are ground and recycled
into hot-mix asphalt.
Clean, untreated wood can be
re-milled, chipped, or ground.
Drywall is typically ground or
broken up, and the paper removed.
Metal is melted down
and reformed.
Cardboard is ground and
used in new pulp stock.
Road base
General fill
Drainage media
Pavement aggregate
Aggregate for new
asphalt hot mixes
Sub-base for paved road
Asphalt binder and fine
aggregate for hot mix
asphalt
Feedstock for engineered
particle board
Boiler fuel
Recovered lumber
re-milled into flooring
Mulch and compost
Animal bedding
Gypsum wallboard
Cement manufacture
Agriculture (land
application)
Metal products
Paper products
into pavement. This produces large energy savings because
of the energy-intensive process of creating new asphalt
binder from oil. Estimates suggest that if all used concrete
and asphalt pavement generated annually in the United
States were recycled, it would save the energy equivalent of
one billion gallons of gasoline, the equivalent of removing
more than one million cars from the road.24 When recycling
markets and facilities are nearby, recycling can also reduce
material hauling and disposal costs.25 Table I illustrates
various uses of recycled CM) materials.26
Hazardous Waste
Management
Two hundred and twenty facilities reported 17,000 tons of
hazardous waste generated to EPAs National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report (BR) in 2005.27 About half of the
hazardous waste reported was managed through treatment or
destruction, while the other half was disposed. Lead was the
predominant hazardous waste type reported (83%), likely due
to the removal of old lead paint. With fewer than 0.1% of all
construction establishments reporting, these results may not
be representative of the sector.28
44 Construction
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
29
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities
Green Building Practices
Several types of certification systems now are available
to rate green buildings. Of them, the U.S. Green Building
Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ has the most
data available.30
Construction contractors have influence on whether
and how a building earns LEED credits; 22 out of the 69
possible credits have some relationship to construction
activities.31 For example, one prerequisite is a site plan
to reduce air, water, and soil pollution from construction
activities; projects receive points for practices such as
material salvaging and recycling. Between 2000 and
2006, the LEED New Construction (NC) credits for which
construction contractors often have responsibility grew
rapidly, closely tracking the increase in all LEED-certified
projects (new construction, existing buildings, and other
categories), which went from 5 in 2002, to 960 in the first
8 months of 2007.32
Individuals can earn LEED Professional Accreditation
through the USGBC. Of the 25,700 professionals who were
LEED accredited by 2006, 610 identified themselves as
general contractors.34
Energy-Saving Green Building
Oscar J. Boldt Construction's regional office in Stevens
Point, WI, the company's first LEED project, was a
notable success both in design and construction. For
example, 79% of the CftD materials generated from
construction were recycled, and materials used for
construction were high in recycled content and in
materials assembled, manufactured, and harvested
locally. The building also incorporated numerous
environmental improvements, such as energy-saving
configurations and equipment that reduced energy use
by 58%, resulting in energy costs amounting to only
4% of the building's total operating costs and annual
savings of more than $31,000.33
Environmental
Management Systems
An environmental management system (EMS) is a set of
processes and practices that enable an organization to
reduce its environmental impacts and increase its operating
efficiency. Few construction companies operate with
an EMS, but more are considering them. In 2004, AGC
prepared EMS guidelines and offered training seminars
for construction contractors. Since then, the use of EMS
appears to be increasing. An AGC survey in 2005 revealed
that 13 member companies were developing or operating
with an EMS. In 2006, AGC reported the number had
grown to 30.35
FIGURE 5
Total LEED-New Construction Credits Received by Construction Contractors
2800
2450
•§. 2100
O
O
ffl
£t
3
z.
1750
1050
700
350
I Construction-Related
I Possibly Construction-Related
I Total (Construction-and
Possibly Construction-Related)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source: U.S. Green Buildings Council
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Construction 45
-------
MANUFACTURIN
AT A GLANCE 1996-20051
«
Food & Beverage
Manufacturing Facilities
Primary Commodity Processing
Animal Production
Other Agribusiness
40,661 •-.
facilities \
1,684,806
• 29 161 employees
T 28%
,1,602,588
T 5%
$467 billion
value of
shipments
$609 billion
. 30%
46 Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Energy Use: 1.2 quadrillion Btu
Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: 454,000 tons
Releases of Chemicals
Reported to TRI: 164.7 million Ibs.
Air Emissions: 50.4 million Ibs.
Water Discharges: 94.3 million Ibs.
Waste Disposals: 20 million Ibs.
Recycling, Energy Recovery, or
Treatment: 543 million Ibs.
Hazardous Waste Generated:
3,100 tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
2,400 tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Profile
Food ft Beverage Manufacturing facilities use agricultural
commodities as inputs for producing feedstuffs, food
ingredients, or byproducts for industry or pharmaceutical
applications. The sector contains three subsectors: primary
commodity processing facilities, which perform the first
stage of processing for all grains and oilseeds; animal
production facilities, which process livestock for food,
excluding the raising of livestock on farms; and other food
production facilities.
In terms of value of shipments (VOS), the sector represents
13% of all U.S. manufacturing shipments.3
Energy Use
Figure 1 shows the fuels used for energy in the sector in
2002, totaling 1.2 quadrillion Btu. The percentage of energy
derived from coal increased during the period covered by
this report, coinciding with rising prices for natural gas.4
Air Emissions
Air emissions from the sector include criteria air pollutants
(CAPs), greenhouse gases (GHGs), and a number of
FIGURE 1
Fuel Use for Energy 2002
Total: 1.2 quadrillion Btu
Distillate
Fuel Oil
2%
Residual
Fuel Oil
1%
Natural Gas
51%
Net Electricity
21%
Other
8%
Notes:
1. Net electricity is an estimation of purchased power and power generation
onsite.
2. Other is net steam (the sum of purchases, generation from renewables, and
net transfers) and other energy that respondents indicated was used to
produce heat and power.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
Innovative Animal Processing
Alternative Energy Source
Most new beef and pork slaughter plants have covered
anaerobic lagoons, particularly if they treat and
discharge their own wastewater. As of 2006, 10 of these
25 beef and pork first processing plants that directly
discharge wastewater are capturing methane (CH4) from
covered lagoons to use as fuel, which typically reduces
a packing plant's need for natural gas by about 15°/o.5
chemicals reported to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
In general, the "toxic chemicals" tracked by TRI are found
in raw materials and fuels, and can also be generated in
byproducts or end products.
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 1,195 facilities in the sector reported 50.4
million absolute Ibs. of air emissions to TRI. The TRI list
of toxic chemicals includes all but six of the hazardous
air pollutants (HAPs) regulated under the Clean Air Act.
HAPs accounted for 66% of these emissions. Between 1996
and 2005, absolute TRI-reported air emissions declined
33%, as shown in Figure 2a. As shown in Figure 2b,
when normalized by the value of shipments, air emissions
decreased 38%, largely due to sector-wide reductions
of two chemicals, n-hexane and ammonia. Primary
commodity processing facilities accounted for 65% of these
emissions, and animal production facilities accounted for
14% of the emissions.6
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Food ft Beverage Manufacturing 47
-------
FIGURE 2
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs
All TRI HAPs
a. Absolute Ibs
co 74 8 M
c
o
- 52.9 M
b. Normalized Ibs
74.8 M
CO
c
o
I
_c
CO
n
52.9 M
1.O
.4
50.4 M
33.2 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
46.4 M
T 38%
30.6 M
T 42%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1.7
1.O
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note:
Normalized by annual value of shipments.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
48 Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Improving Corn Refining
Energy Efficiency
Corn refining is an energy-intensive industry that
processes corn into sweeteners, starches, oils, feed, and
ethanol. The variety of products obtained from corn is
illustrated below. Since 2003, EPA's ENERGY STAR®
program has worked with member companies of the
Corn Refiners Association to implement best energy
management practices and develop a sophisticated energy
performance benchmarking tool. Using this comparative
metric, companies can set goals for improved energy
efficiency. EPA recognizes plants in the top quartile of
energy performance with the ENERGY STAR label. Three
plants earned ENERGY STAR awards in 2006, saving an
estimated 2.3 trillion Btu of energy and avoiding carbon
dioxide (C02) emissions of 0.15 million metric tons
annually.7
Separation
(centrifugation)
!
Saccharification
or Starch
Conversion
Starch
t
Starch Drying
Syrup Refining
Fermentation
and Distillation
— •
» = Final Product
= Intermediate Product
certain grades or steep
water may afeo rje a tinal
product
irch
teners
* Ethanol
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
N-hexane and ammonia are used as solvents to extract
specific properties of grains and oilseeds for use in food
processing and industrial applications, such as in the
production of corn oil and soybean oil. The industry
increased its efficiency in using these two chemicals and
has increased the percentage of chemicals that are recycled.
To consider toxicity of air emissions, EPAs Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model assigns every TRI
chemical a relative toxicity weight, then multiplies the
pounds of media-specific releases (e.g., pounds of mercury
released to air) by a chemical-specific toxicity weight to
calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in greater detail in the Data
Guide, which explains the underlying assumptions and
important limitations of RSEI.
Data are not reported to TRI in sufficient detail to
distinguish which forms of certain chemicals within
a chemical category are being emitted. For chemical
categories such as chromium, the toxicity model
conservatively assumes that chemicals are emitted in the
form with the highest toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent
chromium); thus, Toxicity Scores are overestimated for
some chemical categories.
Summing the Toxicity Scores for all of the air emissions
reported to TRI by the sector produces the trend illustrated
in Figure 2c. The sector's Toxicity Score increased by 70%
from 1996 to 2005 when normalized by the sector's annual
VOS. The increased Toxicity Score from 1999 to 2002 was
due to air emissions of three chemicals: acrolein, polycyclic
aromatic compounds (PAC), and chlorine.8
Acrolein is produced when fats and oils are heated to a
high temperature either during oilseed processing or during
food cooking in oil. PAC includes a variety of compounds
formed during the preservation and processing of food.
Chlorine is used in various applications involving food
safety and sanitation.
Several factors caused the three-year bubble apparent in
Figure 2c. A facility in the Primary Commodity Processing
subsector started reporting large releases of acrolein in
2000, and two other subsectors started reporting releases
in 2001. Also in 2000, EPA lowered the reporting threshold
for PAC to 100 pounds, resulting in an additional 61
facilities reporting releases of these chemicals. Finally, a
facility reported a large release of chlorine in 1999. The
combination of these factors contributed to the four-year
"bubble" in the sector's Toxicity Score shown in Figure 2c.
Table 1 presents the top TRI-reported chemicals emitted
to air by the sector based on three indicators. Each
indicator provides data that environmental managers, trade
TABLE 1
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Absolute Percentage Number of
Pounds of Toxicity Facilities
Chemical Reported1 Score Reporting2
Acetaldehyde3
Acrolein
Ammonia
Hydrochloric Acid
Lead
Methanol
N-Hexane
Nitrate Compounds
2,048,000
24,000
11,956,000
4,224,000
17,000
3,002,000
22,027,000
2,637,000
50/0*
250/a
20/o
40/0
20/o
-------
associations, or government agencies might use in considering
sector-based environmental management strategies.
1) Absolute Pounds Reported. N-hexane and
ammonia were the highest-ranking chemicals
based on the pounds of each chemical emitted to
air in 2005.
2) Percentage of Toxicity Score. The top chemicals
based on Toxicity Score included sulfuric acid and
acrolein.
3) Number of Facilities Reporting. Ammonia was
the chemical reported by the greatest number
of facilities, with one-third of the almost 1,200
TRI filers in the sector reporting ammonia air
emissions.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Table 2 shows CAP and volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions in 2002, representing emissions from almost
2,500 facilities.9
Sixty-three percent of the reported CAP emissions are the
result of onsite energy production at Food £t Beverage
Manufacturing facilities. Process heating and cooling
systems account for more than 75% of the sector's energy
use and are necessary to meet food safety regulations.
About 12% of energy used in this sector supports general
facility functions, such as heat, ventilation, and lighting.
Energy-intensive processes are required for sugar, malt
beverage, corn milling, and meat and poultry processing.10
TABLE 2
Criteria Air Pollutant and
VOC Emissions 2002
Tons
S02
NOX
PM10
PM,
CO
VOCs
116,000
76,000
50,000
30,000
112,000
100,000
Note:
PM10 includes PM25 emissions.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Greenhouse Gases
Food ft Beverage Manufacturing facilities emit GHGs
directly from fossil fuel combustion and from non-
combustion processes. Non-combustion activities include
CH4 emissions from onsite wastewater treatment at meat,
poultry, fruit, and vegetable processing facilities. The
generation of electricity purchased by food and beverage
manufacturers also emits GHGs.
Reducing Emissions
From Food Manufacturing
Frito-Lay, a Climate Leaders member, reported the
company's GHG emissions for 2002 and subsequent
years. The company set a goal-it reports being on
track to achieve that goal-to reduce emissions by
14% per pound of production from 2002 to 2010. The
company has focused on improving energy efficiency
through, for example, implementing heat recovery
projects for boiler stack gases, ovens, and fryers.11
Ten Food ft Beverage Manufacturing facilities are members
of EPAs Climate Leaders program, an industry-government
partnership that works with companies to develop long-
term, comprehensive climate change strategies.12 These
facilities set GHG reduction goals to be achieved over
5-10 years in either absolute pounds or GHG intensity per
production unit.
Water Use and
Discharges
Water is integral to food and beverage production
processes as an ingredient in products, such as beverages;
as a mixing and seeping medium in food processing;
and as a medium for cleaning and sanitizing operations.
Water conservation is an option for food and beverage
production; however, special consideration often is needed
to ensure product safety. Water sources include onsite
wells, surface water with pre-treatment, and municipal
drinking water systems. Table 3 provides water intensity
estimates for selected products.
TABLE 3
Estimated Water Intensity
of Selected Products
Product
Gallons per Ton of Product
Beer
Bread
Meat Packing
Milk Products
Whiskey
2,400 to 3,840
480 to 960
3,600 to 4,800
2,400 to 4,800
14,000 to 19,200
Source: Metcalf and Eddy
Every facility discharging process wastewater directly to
waterways must apply for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The permits typically
set numeric limits on specific pollutants and include
monitoring and reporting requirements. Regulated
50 Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Water Stewardship
• The Farmland Foods subsidiary of Smithfield
Foods won the 2006 Illinois Governor's Pollution
Prevention Award for water conservation at its
facility in Monmouth, IL. The plant retrofitted its
water cooling system with closed-loop technology
using ethylene glycol, saving an estimated 22
million gallons of water annually.13
• Coca-Cola's water stewardship program includes
water efficiency targets, a goal to return process
water to the environment at a level that supports
aquatic life by 2010, and support of watershed
protection and community water programs. Coca-
Cola reported a 3% improvement in water efficiency
in 2006 compared to 2005, and a 19% improvement
in efficiency and 6% decrease in total water used
since 2002.u
• Nestle Purina's wet pet food facility in Jefferson,
WI, improved its water management and processes,
lowering water use for cooling and steam
production. The changes save more than 20 million
gallons of water annually, reducing water use per
ton of product by 7%. The facility also reduced its
annual use of natural gas by 20 trillion Btu, with
corresponding emissions reductions.15
pollutants and the associated limits vary depending on the
type of manufacturing process (such as grain mill, fats and
oils, or meat products manufacturing), but most frequently
include total suspended solids, pH, biological oxygen
demand, ammonia, and total nitrogen.16
Two-hundred thirty Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
facilities reported water discharges of TRI chemicals in 2005,
totaling 94.3 million Ibs.17 Nitrate compounds dominated
water discharges, accounting for more than 99% of the
Ibs. discharged. Although reported total nitrate compound
discharges increased more than 100% from 1996 through
2005, the number of reporting facilities also more than
doubled (43 to 91), indicating that more facilities met the TRI
reporting thresholds. Seventy-two percent of these discharges
were from animal production facilities, while primary
commodity processing facilities accounted for 14%.1S
EPA promulgated effluent guidelines for meat and poultry
producers in 2004, setting technology-based limits on a
number of pollutants, including ammonia and nitrogen.
As states and EPA regions incorporate these regulations
into NPDES permits, operators will be required to upgrade
onsite water treatment to comply with the more stringent
effluent limits.
In addition to being regulated for direct discharges and for
discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works, facilities
with materials exposed to precipitation are regulated
for stormwater runoff, usually under a general permit
providing sector-specific limits. Depending on the type
of facility, stormwater requirements for Food 8t Beverage
Manufacturing facilities may include effluent limits on
total suspended solids, biochemical or chemical oxygen
demand, and nitrate/nitrite nitrogen.19
Waste Generation
and Management
Wastes generated by the sector vary greatly by facility and
process. Production of commodities such as grains, dairy,
fruits and vegetables, and food processing have different
material and waste management issues, such as pesticide
residue, vegetable trim, and used packaging.
Hazardous Waste
Management
In 2005, 82 Food ft Beverage Manufacturing facilities
reported to EPA's National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste
Report (BR) generating 3,100 tons of hazardous waste.
At 44% and 42% of the total, respectively, intermittent
events (such as discarding off-spec products) and primary
production processes were the largest sources of hazardous
waste. Facilities reported managing 2,400 tons of hazardous
waste, with 50% managed through destruction or treatment
and 41% managed through reclamation and recovery.20
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 1,195 Food ft Beverage Manufacturing facilities
reported managing 707.8 million absolute Ibs. of TRI
chemicals in waste. When normalized by value of
shipments, this quantity represented 54% more than 1996
quantities, indicating that more waste was generated per
dollar of product sold.
Figure 3 shows how the sector managed this TRI waste.
In 2005, 39% was recycled, 37% was treated, 23% was
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
-------
disposed or released to air or water, and less than 1% was
recovered for energy use. The pounds managed under
each management activity increased over the time period
presented. The greatest increase was in recycling, although
the annual quantities reported as recycled fluctuated
dramatically between 110,000 Ibs. and 850,000 Ibs.21
Of the TRI waste managed in 2005, 52% was reported by
primary commodity processing facilities, while animal
FIGURE 3
TRI Waste Management 1996-2005
production facilities accounted for 28%. Over the decade,
waste managed by these subsectors increased by 84% and
87%, respectively.22
The quantity of waste that Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
facilities disposed to land, as reported to TRI, increased
from 9.1 million Ibs. in 1996 to 20 million Ibs. in 2005.
When normalized by the value of annual shipments, this
represented a 102% increase. As shown in Table 4, nitrate
compounds remained the chemicals disposed in the greatest
quantity over the 10-year period, accounting for about
two-thirds of disposals, and were one of the chemicals most
frequently reported as disposed for this sector. Ammonia
was also one of the chemicals disposed in the greatest
quantity and was the second most frequently reported
chemical disposed for this sector.23
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities
Supply Chain Sustainability
Sector manufacturers are increasingly working with their
suppliers to improve the environmental sustainability of
agricultural production. Traditionally, their efforts have
focused on reducing pesticide use through Integrated Pest
Management. Projects now include improving water quality
as well and reducing soil erosion.
1,000,000,000
800,000,000
600,000,000
400,000,000
200,000,000
1996 total: 422.4 million Ibs
I Disposal or Other Releases
| Treatment A 32%
I Energy Recovery A 18%
I Recycling A 130%
i 20%
2005 total: 651.2 million Ibs
A 54%
ii i\ i
t\ il I il
i
i
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Notes:
1. Normalized by annual value of shipments.
2. Disposal or other releases include air emissions, water discharges, and laud disposals.
3. The fluctuation in recycling was due to the reports filed by a single facility.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
2002 2003 2004 2005
52 Food ft Beverage Manufacturing
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
TABLE 4
Top TRI Disposals 2005
Chemical
Absolute Number of
Pounds Facilities
Reported1 Reporting2
Ammonia
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Nitrate Compounds
Nitric acid
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
1,350,0003
1,697,000
92,000
519,000
13,869,000
369,000
690,000
930/0*
136
16
37
19
154
29
36
260/0=
Notes:
1. Total sector disposals: 20 million Ibs.
2. 1,195 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Chemicals in this list represent 93% of the sector's disposals.
5. 26% of facilities reported disposals of one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Conservation
In 1998, Unilever developed its good agricultural
practice guidelines for palm oil, tea, tomatoes, peas,
and spinach, and promoted them to food growers
to track progress with 11 sustainable agriculture
indicators, such as water, energy, pesticides, and
biodiversity. In 2007, the company established
guidelines for tea growers and committed to purchase
all of its tea from sources meeting those standards.24
Crop Chemicals Reductions
Since 2004, SYSCO has worked with fruit and vegetable
suppliers to reduce the use of farm chemicals and
fertilizers through pest management techniques and
best management practices for fertilizer application.
Suppliers report using 100,000 fewer pounds of
pesticides and 2.2 million fewer pounds of fertilizers,
while improving produce quality and better protecting
water quality.25
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Food ft Beverage Manufacturing 53
-------
28,597
facilities
RODUCTS
AT A GLANCE 1996-20051
1,187,521
employees
,931,777
T 22%
20,792
V 27%
$240 billion
value of
shipments
$251 billion
A 5%
54 Forest Products
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Profile
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Energy Use: 2.7 quadrillion Btu
Emissions of Criteria
Air Pollutants: 1.5 million tons
Releases of Chemicals Reported
to TRI: 255.7 million Ibs.
Air Emissions: 206 million Ibs.
Water Discharges: 20.5 million Ibs.
Waste Disposals: 29 million Ibs.
Recycling, Energy Recovery, or
Treatment: 1.4 billion Ibs.
Hazardous Waste Generated:
136,000 tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
396,000 tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
The Forest Products sector includes firms that manufacture
wood pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products such as
lumber.3
• Some facilities of the pulp and paper industry process
raw wood fiber or recycled fiber to make pulp and/or
paper. Other facilities use these primary materials to
manufacture specialized products such as paperboard
boxes, writing paper, and sanitary paper.
• Companies in the lumber and wood products industry
cut timber and pulpwood, mill raw materials into
lumber and building materials, and manufacture
finished articles such as wood panels.
Forest Products is the third-largest manufacturing sector
in consumption of fossil fuel energy and is a major user of
water.4
Although the sector is energy intensive, it has a high level
of cogeneration and use of biomass to produce energy.
The sector accounts for nearly 6% of the total value of
shipments (VOS) in U.S. manufacturing.5
Energy Use
Making paper is energy and water intensive. A significant
amount of energy is needed, for example, to remove water
from the dilute fiber slurry that is the beginning stage
of making paper from pulp. The recovery furnaces that
regenerate the chemicals that cook wood chips to produce
pulp also require large quantities of energy. The pulp and
paper portion of the sector is especially energy intensive. In
FIGURE 1
Fuel Use for Energy 2002
Total: 2.7 quadrillion Btu
Residual
Fuel Oil
4%
Natural Gas
21%
A
v '
Other
55%
Notes:
1. Other is primarily generation from renewables and net steam
(the sum of purchases, generation from renewables, and net transfers).
2. Net electricity is an estimation of purchased power and
power generation onsite.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Forest Products
-------
2002 the manufacture of wood products counted for 375
trillion Btu, or about 14% of the sector's energy use; 2,361
trillion Btu, or 86%, was attributable to pulp and paper mills.6
Renewable fuels account for the majority of energy use
at Forest Products facilities, which represent 93% of all
U.S. manufacturing in use of wood byproduct fuels, such
as bark, wood waste, and spent pulping liquor.7 Bark
and wood waste are burned in power boilers to produce
electricity and steam for a facility. Pulp manufacturing
facilities burn spent pulping liquor, a solution of wood
lignin (an organic polymer) from process chemicals, in
recovery boilers to produce steam and regenerate the
process chemicals. Figure 1 shows fuel used for energy in
2002 in the sector.
The American Forest £t Paper Association (AFftPA) and
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) formed the Agenda
2020 Technology Alliance in 1994 to cut energy use
and emissions through innovations in technology,
manufacturing processes, and market development.
The Alliance, now independent of DOE, partners with
governments and local and international organizations;
shares information on new advances such as biorefineries
that produce fuels from wood; and partners on efforts
including research and development into renewable, bio-
based products such as fibers, fuels, and chemicals.8
Many facilities have achieved long-term reductions
in energy intensity through process efficiencies and
regeneration.9 Cogeneration, or combined heat and
power (CHP), increases energy efficiency through onsite
production of thermal energy and electricity from a single
fuel source. Pulp and paper facilities are leaders in using
cogenerated energy. About 89% of the electricity generated
at paper mills was cogenerated in 2002. Typically, 99%
of the electricity generated at wood products facilities
is cogenerated.10 The sector overall produced 37% of all
cogenerated energy in manufacturing in 2002, second only
to the Chemical Manufacturing sector. Forest Products
facilities have opportunities for short-term fuel switching,
although fuels with fewer emissions or greater efficiency
can be more costly."
Air Emissions
Air emissions from the sector include criteria air pollutants
(CAPs), greenhouse gases (GHGs), and a number of
chemicals reported to EPAs Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). Fuel combustion and manufacturing contribute
to air emissions from this sector. In general, the "toxic
chemicals" tracked by TRI are found in the raw materials
and fuels used in the manufacturing process, and can be
generated in byproducts or end products. Toxic chemicals
from this sector may be generated and emitted to the
environment during wood processing, chemical recovery,
and papermaking operations in pulp and paper mills and
during drying and pressing operations in wood products
plants. CAPs and GHGs also are generated as combustion
byproducts from onsite energy production and from some
production processes and other activities.
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 1,144 facilities in the sector reported to TRI 206
million absolute Ibs. of air emissions. Between 1996 and
2005, absolute TRI-reported air emissions declined by 24%,
as shown in Figure 2a. When normalized by the sector's
VOS over the period, air emissions decreased 12%, as seen
in Figure 2b.12 While these 1,144 facilities only accounted
for about 5% of Forest Products facilities, this number
includes virtually all pulp and paper mills, as well as
the larger and more chemically intensive wood products
manufacturing facilities.
To consider toxicity of air emissions, EPAs Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model assigns every TRI
chemical a relative toxicity weight, then multiplies the
pounds of media-specific releases (e.g., pounds of mercury
released to air) by a chemical-specific toxicity weight to
calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in greater detail in the Data
Guide, which explains the underlying assumptions and
important limitations of RSEI.
Data are not reported to TRI in sufficient detail to
distinguish which forms of certain chemicals within
a chemical category are being emitted. For chemical
categories such as chromium, the toxicity model
conservatively assumes that chemicals are emitted in the
form with the highest toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent
chromium); thus, Toxicity Scores are overestimated for
some chemical categories. Summing the Toxicity Scores
for all of the air emissions reported to TRI by the sector
produces the trend illustrated in Figure 2c.
The TRI list of toxic chemicals includes all but six of the
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) regulated under the Clean
Air Act. Regulations regarding combustion byproducts,
issued in 1997, required pulp and paper mills to add
56 Forest Products
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 2
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs
All TRI HAPs
a. Absolute Ibs
270.1 M
206.2 M
178.3 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
I
11%
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1.0
.33
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note:
Normalized by annual value of shipments.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Forest Products 57
-------
emission controls to the pulping, pulp washing, and pulp
bleaching processes. Eighty-six percent of pulp and paper
TRI air emissions are also HAPs, so air emission trend lines
for all TRI chemicals and for HAPs declined similarly over
the past decade.13
Absolute TRI air emissions decreased 24% since 1996.
When normalized by VOS, absolute emissions fell 12°/o.14
Toxicity Scores, when normalized by VOS, decreased 35%
over this period, indicating that the falling Toxicity Scores
reflect an environmental performance improvement, rather
than simply a decline in production levels.15
Table 1 presents the top TRI-reported chemicals
emitted to air by the sector based on three indicators.
Each indicator provides data that environmental
managers, trade associations, or government agencies
might use in considering sector-based environmental
management strategies.
1) Absolute Pounds Reported. Methanol (formed in
the pulping of wood chips) and ammonia (formed
in the chemical recovery process) were the top-
ranking chemicals based on pounds emitted to air
in 2005.
TABLE 1
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Chemical
Absolute
Pounds
Reported1
Percentage
of Toxicity
Score
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
Acetaldehyde
Acrokin
Ammonia
Chlorine Dioxide
Dioxin and Dioxin-
Like Compounds
Formaldehyde
Hydrochloric Acid
Lead
Manganese
Methanol
Polycydic Aromatic
Compounds
Sulfuric Acid
Toluene
Percentage of
Sector Total
8,518,000*
53,000
16,769,000
546,000
6,390,000
15,979,000
43,000
184,000
126,057,000
96,000
7,886,000
10,120,000
930/0=
40/0
lio/o
10/0
110/0
90/0
30/0
10/0
150/0
30/0
320/o
9QO/06
156
6
170
78
272
217
136
535
148
362
205
99
175
76%'
Notes:
1. Total sector air releases: 206 million Ibs.
2. 1,144 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Italics indicate a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of Clean Air Act.
4. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
5. Chemicals in this list represent 93% of the sector's air emissions.
6. Chemicals in this list represent 90% of the sector's Toxicity Score.
7. 76% of facilities reported emitting one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2) Percentage of Toxicity Score. Top-ranked chemicals
based on Toxicity Scores include sulfuric acid
from coal and oil burning in boilers, manganese
from burning wood and coal, and chlorine dioxide
from pulp bleaching. Together these chemicals
accounted for more than half of the sector's overall
Toxicity Score in 2005.
3) Number of Facilities Reporting. Lead from
fossil fuel boilers, and methanol, were the most
frequently reported chemicals. Two-thirds of
facilities reporting TRI air emissions reported
emissions of at least one of these two chemicals.
When wood and coal are burned, manganese is either
emitted or partitioned to ash and subsequently landfilled.
In 1997, EPA clarified TRI reporting requirements
regarding combustion byproducts. Subsequently, metal
byproducts from combustion of coal and oil are considered
"manufactured" and therefore included in the reporting
threshold calculation. This clarification resulted in new
manganese reporting for many facilities and, thus, an
increase in the amount reported to TRI.16
Criteria Air Pollutants
Table 2 shows CAP and volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from facilities in the Forest Products sector for 2002.
TABLE 2
Criteria Air Pollutant and
VOC Emissions 2002
Tons
S02
NOX
PM1(
PM,
CO
VOCs
366,000
277,000
118,000
76,000
460,000
245,000
Note:
PM10 includes PM25 emissions.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The major CAP emissions from Forest Products
manufacturing-carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and sulfur dioxide (S02)-primarily are generated in
combustion sources such as power boilers. NOX and S02
can be transported over long distances and contribute to
ozone and particulate emissions in urban areas that are
downwind of facilities.
More recent data collected by AFftPA indicate a 12%
decrease in S02 emissions per ton of production from 2002
to 2004, and a 9% decrease of NOX emissions per ton of
production. These reductions were gained through more
sophisticated process controls, additional pollution control
equipment, and use of low-sulfur fuels.17
58 Forest Products
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Greenhouse Gases
The sector's GHG profile is diverse. It includes direct
and indirect carbon dioxide (C02) emissions from
manufacturing operations. Forests also serve as carbon
sinks, absorbing C02 from the atmosphere through growth.
When harvested, carbon in the trees is transferred to forest
products, which can lead to long-term storage of the
carbon as in structures such as houses or in disposal sites.18
AFftPA participates in Climate VISION, a DOE-industry
voluntary partnership to reduce GHG intensity, which is
the ratio of GHGs to economic output. AFftPA member
companies manufacture more than 80% of the paper and
approximately half the wood products produced in the
United States. Under Climate VISION, AFftPA members
have committed to reduce GHG intensity by 12% by 2012
relative to a 2000 baseline.19
AFftPA reported that its members' direct GHG emissions
from fossil fuel use and process emissions were 51.4 million
metric tons of C02 equivalent (MMTC02E) in 2004, down
from 61.2 MMTC02E in 2000, and that GHG emissions from
the generation of electricity purchased were 26.2 MMTC02E
in 2004, down from 26.8 MMTC02E in 2000.20 Table 3
presents the estimated GHG emissions for the sector; the
estimates did not factor in carbon sequestration or GHG
emissions from wastewater treatment.21
TABLE 3
Estimated GHG Emissions 2004
Million Metric Tons of
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Fossil Fuel Combustion and
Process Emissions
Electricity1
Total
51.4
26.2
77.6
Note:
1. Indirect emissions from generation of purchased electricity.
Sources: American Forest & Paper Association, National Council for Air and
Stream Improvement
Water Use and
Discharges
As noted above, pulp and paper making is water-intensive.
In pulp bleaching, for example, bleaching occurs in stages
and the pulp must be washed between the stages. Many
facilities are recycling water where possible and attempting
to reduce the need for water.
Wastewater discharges are a major focus for this sector.
In 2005, 370 Forest Products facilities reported water
discharges of TRI chemicals totaling 20.5 million Ibs., an
18% increase since 1996, when normalized by VOS over
this period.22 The predominant TRI chemicals discharged in
2005 included nitrate compounds, methanol, manganese,
and ammonia. Combined, these chemicals accounted for
91% of the total TRI chemicals discharged to water that
year. Pulp and paper mills accounted for almost all of the
sector's water discharges.23
Forest Products manufacturing facilities discharge
wastewater either to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) or directly into waterways. Every facility
discharging process wastewater directly to waterways
must apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit. The permits typically set numeric limits on
specific pollutants and include monitoring and reporting
requirements. For facilities in this sector, regulated
pollutants and the associated limits vary depending on
the product being manufactured. For example, permits for
wood-preserving facilities limit their discharges to POTWs
of oil and grease, copper, chromium, and arsenic, and
limit their discharges to waterways of oil and grease and
phenols. Permits for pulp and paper mills limit zinc, among
other pollutants, in their POTW and direct discharges.24
The state of the best and most current discharge control
technology, pollutant control technology, and economic
feasibility also help determine the quantity or quality of
discharge limits.
Pulp and paper mills also discharge effluent that lowers
oxygen levels in receiving waters. In 1995, pulp and paper
mills discharged approximately four Ibs. of biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) per ton produced. In 2002-2004, the
BOD of their effluent was 2.6 and 2.8 Ibs. per ton produced,
respectively.25 The long-term trend toward reduced BOD
is due to improved production processes and wastewater
treatment, in response to state and federal regulations.
The sector also has reported a significant long-term
decrease in total suspended solids (TSS) in its discharges
due to improved wastewater treatment, also in response to
regulatory requirements.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Forest Products 59
-------
Water discharges became a major focus in the 1980s
when dioxins were found in waters that received pulp mill
effluent. Since then, elemental chlorine bleaching of pulp
has been replaced by bleaching processes based on chlorine
dioxide, and dioxin pollution has dropped below detectable
levels.26 Current water toxics concerns are discharges of
lead and nitrate compounds; lead accounts for the highest
toxicity weighting among the water discharges, and
nitrates account for more pounds of discharge than other
listed toxins. Conventional discharges of concern are TSS
and BOD.
In addition to being regulated for direct and POTW
discharges, those facilities with materials exposed to
precipitation are regulated for stormwater runoff, usually
under a general permit that provides sector-specific limits.
Stormwater effluent limits are set for TSS, chemical oxygen
demand, arsenic, phenols, and metals—zinc, copper, and
chromium.27
Reducing Water Use
Stora Enso Duluth Paper Mill and Recycled Pulp Mill, in
Duluth, MN, reduced water use relative to production by
nearly 25% from 2002 to 2006. The facility focused on
water reuse and use of previously sewered water. Instead
of using fresh water, for example, the facility's retention
aid injection system now uses water that had been going
to the sewer. With these and other measures, the mill has
saved $398,000 over three years.28
Waste Generation
and Management
Hazardous Waste
Management
In 2005, 403 Forest Products facilities reported to EPA's
National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (BR)
generating 136,000 tons of hazardous waste. The number
of facilities reporting hazardous waste generation and the
quantities reported in this sector were evenly distributed
between the wood and paper products subsectors. The
predominant source of hazardous waste generation in
the sector was ongoing production and service-related
processes. The predominant types of hazardous waste
reported by the sector in 2005 were F034 (defined as
wastewaters, process residuals, preservative drippage, and
spent formulations from wood-preserving processes generated
at plants that use creosote formulations) and corrosive waste,
together representing three-quarters of the total generated
wastes.29 The sector reported managing 396,000 tons of
hazardous waste. The difference between wastes generated
and waste managed was due to groundwater remediation
efforts at two wood products facilities.
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
In 2005, the Forest Products sector reported managing 1.7
billion absolute Ibs. of TRI chemicals in waste. As shown
in Figure 3, when normalized by VOS, the quantity of
waste managed by the sector remained relatively steady
between 1996 and 2005. In 2005, 15% of the TRI-reported
waste was disposed or released, 66% was treated, 12% was
recovered for energy, and 6% was recycled. Pulp and paper
mills accounted for almost all (95%) of the sector's waste
managed.30 There has been little change in the management
methods used by this sector over the last decade.
In 2005, the sector reported disposing 29 million Ibs.
of TRI chemicals to land, or transferring the chemicals
offsite for disposal. As shown in Table 4, manganese
accounted for almost half of the total pounds disposed by
the sector in waste. Zinc and barium were also disposed
in large quantities. Lead was the chemical most frequently
reported as disposed, followed by dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds.
TABLE 4
Top TRI Disposals 2005
Chemical
Absolute Number of
Pounds Facilities
Reported1 Reporting2
Barium
Dioxin and Dioxin-Like
Compounds
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methanol
Vanadium
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
3,638,3003
2
587,000
13,623,400
1,500
1,010,700
1,397,500
7,458,600
960/0*
98
204
423
140
113
119
39
108
430/0=
Notes:
1. Total sector disposals: 29 million Ibs.
2. 1,144 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Chemicals in this list represent 96% of the sector's disposals.
5. 43% of facilities reported disposals of one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The sector continues to find ways to recycle waste and
process byproducts—for energy production, reuse in new
products, agricultural applications, and soil enrichment.31
Kraft pulping mills burn spent pulping mixtures to generate
energy and to recover pulping chemicals. Other wastes,
such as wastewater treatment residuals and boiler ash, are
increasingly being used as soil amendments. From 2002
60 Forest Products
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 3
TRI Waste Management 1996-2005
1,500,000,000 1996 total: 2 billion Ibs
1,200,000,000
0)
.Q
13
O
= 900,000,000
600,000,000
300,000,000
I Disposal or Other Releases
| Treatment A 4%
I Energy Recovery A 10%
I Recycling T 48%
'5%
2005 total: 1.9 billion Ibs
T3%
I
i
III
1996
1997
1998
1999
III
LI
LI
LI
Ll
I,
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Notes:
1. Normalized by annual value of shipments.
2. Disposal or other releases include air releases, water discharges, and land disposals.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
to 2004, the proportion of wastewater treatment residuals
used for land application increased from 12% to 16%.32
The sector's involvement in resource recovery goes beyond
its own industrial processes. About 52% of the paper
consumed by all users in the United States is recovered for
recycling; AFftPA has a goal to raise that percentage to
55% by 2012.33
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities
Many of the technology goals and research of the
Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance would also improve
environmental performance by reducing water use,
finding beneficial uses for process wastes, and improving
recycling.34 Breakthrough technologies that would allow
for more concentrated slurries at the beginning of the
papermaking process, for example, would save both
energy and water. Enhancements in chemical recovery that
would either improve or eliminate lime kilns could save
substantial amounts of fuel.
Forest biorefineries (described in the "Energy Use" section)
could turn what are currently low-value byproducts and
fuels into higher value chemicals and fuels. Wood contains
three main chemical components: cellulose, hemicellulose,
and lignin. Current pulping technology extracts the
cellulose, which is used to make paper pulp; the lignin,
which is burned for fuel; and the hemicellulose, which
converts to certain sugars. The biorefinery would add three
new processes. First, hemicellulose would be extracted
from chips before pulping and would be converted either
to ethanol fuel or other industrial chemicals. Second,
boilers that currently burn waste biomass (e.g., bark, waste
chips) would instead convert the biomass to syngas, an
intermediate product that could then either be burned
as a fuel or further converted to a mixture of fuels and
chemicals similar to crude oil. Third, the spent pulping
liquor containing lignin and pulping chemicals could itself
be gasified for fuel, while continuing to recover pulping
chemicals for reuse.35
These new technologies are at various stages of research
and development. New mandates and market opportunities
for renewable fuels are prompting accelerated efforts to
commercialize forest-based biofuels, and production plants
may start up in the next few years.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Forest Products 61
-------
AT A GLANCE 1996-2005'
Iron & Steel Mills
A Integrated Mills
• Mini Mills
119,
facilities
153,711
employees'
• 122
A 2%
107,474
T 30%
95.5 million
metric tons'
of iron &
steel produced
94.9 million
'less than 1%
62 Iron 8t Steel
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Energy Use: 1.5 quadrillion Btu
Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: 755,000 tons
Releases of Chemicals Reported
to TRI: 263.9 million Ibs.
Air Emissions: 3.7 million Ibs.
Water Discharges: 2.9 million Ibs.
Waste Disposals: 257.0 million Ibs.
Recycling, Energy Recovery, or
Treatment: 462 million Ibs.
Hazardous Waste Generated:
1.4 million tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
1.3 million tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Profile
The Iron ft Steel sector manufactures steel used in products
such as vehicles, appliances, machinery, and equipment,
and in other sectors. The Construction sector uses more
than 22% of steel shipments.3
The sector includes facilities that produce carbon steel.
As noted in the chapter, some data sets define the sector
more broadly, to include facilities producing stainless
and specialty steels, facilities producing coke for steel
production and other uses, and facilities using steel to
make new products. NAICS code 331111, for example,
also includes facilities making primary metal products, in
addition to steel.4 Data from the U.S. Geological Survey,
used to portray the trend in total number of facilities, also
include facilities making stainless and specialty steels.
Integrated mills produce steel from iron ore using a blast
furnace, which consumes carbon, primarily in the form of
coke, to convert iron ore to molten iron, known as "pig
iron." A basic oxygen furnace (EOF) then converts the pig
iron, along with up to 30% steel scrap, into refined steel.
Steelmakers also rely on coal, natural gas, and other fuels and
raw materials, in combination with iron, to produce steel.
Electric arc furnaces (EAFs) melt steel scrap, along with
limited amounts of other iron-bearing materials, to produce
new steel. Because scrap can contain a wider range and
higher percentage of contaminants, EAF steel requires
additional refining to produce some grades of steel that
are still made almost exclusively by integrated mills.
Steelmakers continue to build new mills using EAFs (also
known as mini-mills) and to modernize existing mills,
increasing capacity and efficiency while reducing man-
hours and energy needed per ton of steel produced.
Energy Use
Significant amounts of energy are required to convert iron
ore and scrap to steel. Still, the sector's energy use per
FIGURE 1
Fuel Use for Energy 2002
Total: 1.5 quadrillion Btu
Natural
27%
Coke and
Breeze
36%
Net Electricity
13%
Other
22%
Note:
1. Other is net steam (the sum of purchases, generation from renewables, and
net transfers), and other energy that respondents indicated was used to
produce heat and power.
2. Net electricity is an estimation of purchased power and
power generation onsite.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Iron 8t Steel 63
-------
ton of steel shipped improved over the last decade, with
corresponding reductions in actual energy used. In 1998,
for example, total energy consumption was approximately
1.7 quadrillion Btus,5 while in 2002 the sector consumed
1.5 quadrillion Btu.6
Though both integrated and EAF processes are energy-
intensive, integrated steelmaking requires more energy
per ton of shipped product.7 The rising percentage of
steel made by EAFs has contributed to the sector's energy
efficiency improvements. EAFs consume mostly recycled
steel, although integrated mills also rely on steel scrap for a
percentage of their raw materials.
Altogether, when recycling steel, rather than making it all
from virgin raw materials, the steel industry saves enough
energy each year to electrically power 18 million homes.8
However, further EAF growth may face constraints in the
limited supply of scrap or the inability of EAFs to produce
many grades of steel that are in high demand.9
Integrated steelmaking accounts for roughly 75% of the
sector's fuel consumption, relying heavily on coal and coke
(which is made from coal), while EAFs account for 64%
of the sector's electricity consumption.10 The sector uses
natural gas for about one-quarter of its energy, primarily
in heating and annealing furnaces, but also in blast
furnaces, boilers, and for EAF injection and cogeneration.
Cogeneration, or combined heat and power (CHP), increases
energy efficiency through onsite production of thermal
energy and electricity from a single fuel source.
Steelmakers can continue to improve energy efficiency
with existing options. The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) estimates that integrated mills could increase use
of cogeneration and process improvements—such as using
technologies that save energy by improving furnace
operations-to achieve savings of up to one million Btu per
ton of steel produced, and that EAFs implementing best
practices and using commercially available technology
could save nearly 2 million Btu per ton." The industry as a
whole reported using 12.6 million BTUs (MMBtu) per ton
of steel shipped in 2003: 19.55 MMBtu/ton for integrated
mills, and 5.25 MMbtu/ton for EAFs.12
Research and development, often in partnership with
DOE, has led to widespread innovation and process
improvements in the sector-such as increasing use of
thin slab casting, in which molten steel from steelmaking
is cast directly into semi-finished shapes, saving time,
labor, energy, and capital by eliminating numerous
interim steps.13 Although opportunities remain, energy
efficiency improvements will be incremental without new,
transformational technologies and processes for steel
production, which the sector is pursuing.14
Air Emissions
Air emissions from the sector include criteria air pollutants
(CAPs), greenhouse gases (GHGs), and a number of
chemicals reported to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
In general, the "toxic chemicals" tracked by TRI are found
in the raw materials and fuels used in the steelmaking
Using Coke Oven
Gas as a Resource
U.S. Steel and Primary Energy installed a 161-million-
watt steam turbine that uses as a fuel 95% of the blast
furnace gas generated at Gary Works in Gary, IN. The
gas had been flared, but now produces process steam
and 40% of the electricity needed for the mill, reducing
emissions and fuel use and saving U.S. Steel more than
$6 million each year.15
process, and can be generated in byproducts or end
products. CAPs and GHGs are also generated as combustion
byproducts from onsite combustion of fuels and the
integrated steelmaking process.
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 85 facilities16 in the sector reported 3.7 million
absolute pounds of air emissions to TRI. Between 1996 and
2005, TRI-reported absolute and normalized air emissions
declined by 67%, as shown in Figures 2 a and 2b, even
though production levels for the sector remained relatively
steady.17
To consider toxicity of air emissions, EPA's Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model assigns every TRI
chemical a relative toxicity weight, then multiplies the
pounds of media-specific releases (e.g., pounds of mercury
released to air) by a chemical-specific toxicity weight to
calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in greater detail in the Data
Guide, which explains the underlying assumptions and
important limitations of RSEI.
Data are not reported to TRI in sufficient detail to
distinguish which forms of certain chemicals within
a chemical category are being emitted. For chemical
categories such as chromium, the toxicity model
conservatively assumes that chemicals are emitted in the
form with the highest toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent
chromium); thus, Toxicity Scores are overestimated for
some chemical categories.
Summing the Toxicity Scores for all of the air emissions
reported to TRI by the sector produces the trend illustrated
in Figure 2c. The sector's total Toxicity Score declined
by nearly half from 1996 to 2005.18 The TRI list of toxic
chemicals includes all but six of the hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) regulated under the Clean Air Act. HAPs accounted
for 38% of the sector's absolute air emissions reported to TRI
in 2005, and almost all the sector's toxicity-weighted results.
The sector's trend for HAP emissions is similar to the trend
for all TRI air emissions, as shown in Figure 2a.
The primary sources of HAP emissions are blast furnaces,
co-located coke ovens, and EAFs.19 Manganese, a HAP,
accounted for three-quarters of the sector's 2005 Toxicity
Score, but also declined by nearly half over the decade.
Sector stakeholders have asked EPA to reassess the
64 Iron 8t Steel
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 2
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs
All TRI HAPs
11.2 M
a. Absolute Ibs
0)
I
1
.c
in
4M
b. Normalized Ibs
11.2 M
c. Normalized Toxicity Scoring Trend
1.0
.97
3.7 M
1.4 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
hum
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
3.7 M
T 67%
1.4 M
T 65%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note:
Normalized by annual production of iron and steel.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Iron 8t Steel 65
-------
existing, high-toxicity weighting factor for inhalation
for manganese. Chromium, nickel, and manganese are
alloying elements used in steelmaking, and are therefore
also present in steel scrap. Nickel and manganese increase
steel's tensile strength; chromium increases hardness and
melting temperature. Manganese and other metals are
also found in iron ore. They can be emitted when they are
added as alloying agents, during "tapping" of molten steel
from the furnace, from casting operations, and elsewhere.
Integrated mills and mini-mills each contribute roughly
half the sector's TRI-reported absolute air emissions (and
the associated relative toxicity).
Table 1 presents the top TRI-reported chemicals emitted
to air by the sector based on three indicators. Each
indicator provides data that environmental managers, trade
associations, or government agencies might use in considering
sector-based environmental management strategies.
TABLE 1
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Chemical
Absolute
Pounds
Reported1
Percentage
of Toxicity
Score
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
Ammonia
Chromium
Cobalt
Ethylene
Hydrochloric Acid
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
355.4003
20,300
1,300
199,100
352,500
100,500
329,100
23,900
1,615,500
81%6
110/0*
10/0
60/o
740/o
50/0
lo/o
98%'
10
75
4
8
19
83
83
69
80
1000/oB
Notes:
1. Total sector air releases: 3.7 m llion Ibs.
2. 85 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Calculation of Toxicity Score for chromium conservatively assumed
that all chromium emissions were hexavalent chromium, the most toxic
form, with significantly higher toxicity weights than trivalent chromium.
However, hexavalent chromium may not constitute a majority of the sector's
chromium releases. Thus, RSEI analyses may overestimate the relative
harmfulness of chromium emissions.
5. Italics indicate a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of Clean Air Act.
6. Chemicals in this list represent 81% of the sector's air emissions.
7. Chemicals in this list represent 98% of the sector's Toxicity Score.
8. 100% of facilities reported emitting one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1) Absolute Pounds Reported. Zinc, ammonia,
manganese, and hydrochloric acid were the
highest-ranking chemicals based on the pounds
of each chemical emitted to air in 2005. Zinc
emissions result from coating operations and from
the recycling of galvanized steel. Ammonia is
emitted primarily from coke-making operations,
although it and other organics are also found
in iron ore. Hydrochloric acid is emitted from
"pickling" operations, where it used to remove
oxides and scale from the surface of strip steel,
steel wire, and some other forms of steel.20
2) Percentage of Toxicity Score. Manganese is
the top chemical based on Toxicity Scores, as
described above. Manganese is essential to iron
and steel production by virtue of its sulfur-fixing,
deoxidizing, and alloying properties.21
3) Number of Facilities Reporting. Lead, manganese,
chromium, nickel, and zinc are the most frequently
reported chemicals, with almost all the TRI filers
in the sector reporting these chemical emissions to
air. Lead emissions result from lead in scrap and
other raw materials.
Another TRI-reported chemical of interest is mercury.
Because methodologies to estimate mercury emissions
from individual EAFs have not been formally established,
however, the sector's total TRI mercury emissions estimate
is conservative. In 2005, 67 iron and steel facilities
reported air emissions of mercury totaling 7,200 pounds.
Each year, the steel industry uses more than 14 million
tons of steel from scrap vehicles, America's most recycled
consumer product. Until model year 2003, several
automakers installed mercury-containing switches in
vehicles, predominantly for convenience lighting in the
hood and trunk, and in some anti-lock braking systems.
If the switches are not removed from end-of-life vehicles
(ELVs), their mercury can be emitted into the environment,
especially when steel from shredded vehicles is melted
to make new steel. Mercury switches from vehicles are a
predominant source of mercury air emissions from EAFs,
which EPA estimated may emit 10 tons of mercury per
year.22
In 2006, steelmakers, EPA, states, automakers, automobile
recyclers, scrap recyclers, and environmental groups
established the National Vehicle Mercury Switch
Recovery Program (NVMSRP) to promote recovery of
mercury switches from ELVs. The program partners have
implemented the program nationwide.
As part of the NVMSRP, vehicle manufacturers established
the nonprofit End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation
(ELVS), which handles most program logistics. ELVS uses
a nationwide environmental services firm to manage the
transport and tracking of switches, and the recycling,
retorting, or disposal of the recovered mercury. The
program, which is still ramping up, has collected more
than 1.3 million mercury switches, representing more than
1.4 tons of mercury, from 6,654 participating automobile
recyclers who recover and submit the switches.23
Criteria Air Pollutants
Table 2 shows CAP and volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from the Iron ft Steel sector for 2002. In 2002,
the sector emitted 755,000 tons of CAPs and VOCs. This
included nearly 584,000 tons of carbon monoxide (CO),
driven by emissions from 10 integrated mills.
66 Iron 8t Steel
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
TABLE 2
Criteria Air Pollutant and
VOC Emissions 2002
Tons
S02
NOX
PM10
PM,
CO
VOCs
69,000
63,000
26,000
22,000
584,000
13,000
Note:
PM10 includes PM25 emissions.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Greenhouse Gases
The Iron £t Steel sector directly emits GHGs mainly from
integrated mills from non-combustion processes as well
as consumption of fossil fuels. Non-combustion processes
produce carbon dioxide (C02) and methane (CH4) through
metallurgical coke production, pig iron production, and raw
steel production. Non-combustion processes emitted 46.2
million metric tons of C02 equivalent (MMTC02E) in 2005.24
Between 1996 and 2005, the sector's process emissions of
C02 and CH4, combined, fell 33%. These process emissions
can be broadly categorized as follows (GHGs emitted by
each process are in parentheses):
• Metallurgical Coke Production (C02, CH4): Whether
onsite at integrated steel mills or offsite at merchant
coke plants, coking coal is heated in a low-oxygen,
high-temperature environment within a coke oven.25
Some carbon contained in the coking coal is emitted
during this process as C02 and CH4. Coke-oven gas, a
byproduct, can be used for energy purposes.
• Pig Iron Production (C02, CH4): At integrated steel
mills, metallurgical coke is used as a reducing agent in
the blast furnace to reduce iron ore to pig iron, which
is used as a raw material in producing steel. At an
integrated steel mill, the coke produced is used in the
blast furnace charge for iron production. The carbon
contained in the coke also provides heat to the blast
furnace, and produces C02 through both the heating
and reduction process. Iron-bearing blast furnace feed
is also produced through sintering, which agglomerates
iron-rich small particles, such as iron ore fines and
pollution control dusts and sludges, into a porous mass
that can be used as blast furnace feed. This process also
results in C02 and CH4 emissions.26
• Steelmaking (C02): At an integrated steel mill, molten
iron produced by a blast furnace enters a EOF where
the iron and some scrap are combined with high-purity
oxygen to produce steel. Carbon contained in both
the scrap steel and molten iron is emitted as C02. In
EAFs, some C02 emissions occur from use of carbon
electrodes or other carbon-bearing raw materials
during the melting of scrap steel.27
Release of C02 is inherent to the chemical reactions
through which iron ore is chemically reduced to make
iron, and from the carbon content of iron when reduced
to make steel. These emissions cannot be reduced except
by changing the process by which iron and steel are made
or by capturing and storing the C02 after it is created.28
Research into new methods of steelmaking, discussed
above, is also targeting low-carbon processes.
The generation of electricity purchased by steel mills also
emits GHGs. The majority of electricity purchased by the
sector is for EAFs.
The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) participates in
DOE's Climate VISION program, and has committed to the
goal of achieving by 2012 a 10% reduction in sector-wide
average energy consumption per ton of steel produced
using a 1998 baseline of 18.1 million Btu.29 AISI developed
emission measurement and reporting protocols, is pursuing
identifying and implementing opportunities to reduce GHG
emission intensity, and is accelerating investment in research
and commercialization of advanced technology.30 As of 2006,
sector-wide average energy efficiency had improved by 15%,
compared to the 10% goal.31 AISI estimates that steelmakers
emit 1.24 tons of C02 per ton of steel produced, including
both direct emissions from processes and fuel use and
indirect emissions from generation of purchased electricity.32
Having produced 108.2 million tons of steel in 2006, the
industry's C02 emissions for that year would have been
134.2 million tons.33
Water Use and
Discharges
Steelmakers use water for various processes and purposes,
for example, as a coolant for equipment, furnaces, and
intermediate steel shapes; a cleansing agent to remove
scale from steel products; a source of steam; a medium for
lubricating oils and cleaning solutions; and a wet scrubber
fluid for air pollution control.34 Indeed, AISI notes that,
"[n]ext to iron and energy, water is the industry's most
important commodity."35
The largest uses of water are to transfer heat, particularly
for cooling (or "quenching") coke after it has been
carbonized in coke ovens (8,000-8,500 gallons per ton of
coke), in boilers for converting coke oven gas, tars, and
light oils (40,000-120,000 gallons per ton of coke), and
in boilers for converting blast furnace gas (20,000-60,000
gallons per ton of iron). In production and finishing
processes, hot strip mills, which compress reheated steel
slabs into hot-rolled sheets and coils through a series of
rollers, use the most water (1,000-2,000 gallons per ton of
hot rolled strip).36
While steelmakers require approximately 75,000 gallons of
water to produce one ton of steel,37 that number includes
water that has been recycled, and process and cooling
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Iron 8t Steel 67
-------
water that has been reused. Typically, more than 95% of
the water used in steelmaking is recycled. Due mainly to
evaporation losses, steelmakers require 13,000-23,000
gallons of additional water per ton of product through
all stages of production.38 Steelmakers obtain water from
municipal sources and adjacent water bodies.
Integrated mills use more water per ton of steel than
EAFs. With EAFs rising to represent more than half of
steel production, intake water withdrawals by the sector
have declined by more than 50% since peaking in 1973.
Water quality discharge regulations and the cost of effluent
treatment have contributed to the sector's increased
reliance on recycled water.39
Iron and steelmakers discharge wastewater either to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works or directly into waterways.
Every facility discharging process wastewater directly to
waterways must apply for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit. The permits set numeric limits
on specific pollutants based on federal effluent limitations
guidelines for each iron and steelmaking process, and
include monitoring and reporting requirements. For
example, mills involved in certain activities, such as acid
pickling and hot coating, are limited in their discharges
of metals such as chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc.
Cokemaking operations have limits on their ammonia
discharges. Sintering operations and blast furnace
operations have limits on their discharges of phenols.
In 2005, 72 steel mills reported water discharges of TRI
chemicals totaling 2.9 million pounds,40 a 168% increase
from 1996. The sector's reported discharges began to climb
in 2000, when one mill began reporting nitrate compounds.41
Coke-making quench water becomes contaminated with
coke fines and other compounds and contains carcinogenic
particulates and VOCs.42 However, most quench water is
reused after removal of the coke fines and other solids.
Water discharges are also associated with the treatment of
scrubber water used for air pollution control equipment.43
Depending on the type of mill, stormwater requirements
for iron and steelmakers may include effluent limits on
aluminum, zinc, and total suspended solids.
Waste Generation
and Management
Wastes in the Iron ft Steel sector can be generated from
process-related functions or other activities, such as
operation of pollution control devices or remediation of
contamination. Because of the sector's use of scrap steel,
it is a global leader in recycling. The percentage of steel
recycled in the U.S. rose to an all-time high of more than
75% in 2005, with 76 million tons consumed.44 The rate of
recycling has continued to rise, along with the production
rate of mini-mills. This also raises the quantity of EAF dust
from air pollution control equipment that must be disposed
or recycled.
Hazardous Waste
Management
EAF dust is regulated as a hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) because
of its heavy metal components. This dust, listed as K061,
can be recycled to recover zinc and other valuable
metals. In the recycling process, the dust is separated
into a nonhazardous iron-rich material and a small waste
stream with a concentration of the heavy metals. The
nonhazardous component can then be used in products,
such as bricks. Of the EAF dust generated annually in the
United States, however, much is shipped long distances
and even exported for recycling.45 Spent pickle liquor (SPL)
from steel finishing operators is another listed hazardous
waste (K062), but can also be reclaimed or recycled. In
RCRA hazardous waste reporting, individually reported
EAF dust and SPL accounted for 55% and 2%, respectively,
of the sector's hazardous waste generation in 2005.46
Additional quantities of these wastes were also reported as
part of commingled wastes.
In 2005, 82 iron and steel mills reported to EPAs National
Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (BR) generating
1.4 million tons of hazardous waste, with more than 60%
generated by mini-mills. The sector reported managing
1.3 million tons of hazardous waste. Most of the sector's
reported hazardous waste was managed through disposal
(55%) and reclamation/recovery (36%).47
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
Wastes generated from this sector largely include EAF dust
and SPL. The chemical components of EAF dust include
zinc (averaging 20%), lead (averaging 5%), chromium (up
to 15%), nickel (up to 4%), and cadmium (up to 3%).4S These
same chemicals accounted for nearly half the air emissions
and nearly one-quarter of the total Toxicity Score in 2005.
Between 1996 and 2005, normalized air emissions of these
chemicals decreased by 44%.49
In 2005, the Iron ft Steel sector reported managing
726 million absolute pounds of TRI chemicals. When
normalized by production, this represented a 34% increase
since 1996. Figure 3 shows how the sector managed these
chemicals. In 2005, mini-mills accounted for a majority
(86%) of the sector's recycling of waste (principally EAF
dust) and 63% of the overall waste disposals or releases,
while integrated mills accounted for all the sector's energy
recovery and more than three-quarters of the overall
treatment (principally SPL).50
In 2005, the sector reported disposing 257 million absolute
pounds of TRI chemicals to land or transferring the chemicals
to off-site locations for disposal. As shown in Table 3, zinc
accounted for about three-quarters of the total pounds
disposed by the sector. Lead, manganese, chromium, and zinc
were the chemicals most frequently reported as disposed.
68 Iron 8t Steel
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 3
TRI Waste Management 1996-2005
1996 total: 543.7 million Ibs
I Disposal or Other Releases A 62%
| Treatment T 75%
I Energy Recovery A 28,488%
2005 total: 730.5 million Ibs
400,000,000
350,000,000
300,000,000
IS 250,000,000
.N
"a
§ 200,000,000
Z
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
• Recycling A 27% A 34°
1
1
1.
J
J
J
,1
,1
/o
J
1996 1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003 2004
2005
Notes:
1. Normalized by annual production of iron and steel.
2. Disposal or other releases include air releases, water discharges, and land disposals.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey
TABLE 3
Top TRI Disposals 2005
Chemical
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
Absolute
Pounds
Reported1
4,327,0003
2,328,000
10,139,000
40,885,000
489,000
195,146,000
980/0*
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
64
52
69
65
55
62
840/0=
Notes:
1. Total sector disposals: 257 million Ibs.
2. 85 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Chemicals in this list represent 98% of the sector's disposals.
5. 84% of facilities reported disposals of one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities
An environmental management system (EMS) is a set of
processes and practices that enable an organization to
reduce its environmental impacts and increase its operating
efficiency. All integrated steel mills in the United States have
adopted formal EMSs based on the ISO 14001 standard (the
international standard for EMSs). Approximately one-third
of U.S. mini-mills have formal EMSs.51
The Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) has adopted
a goal that 25 or more additional EAFs (reaching a total
of two-thirds of U.S. mini-mills) will implement EMSs
by Earth Day 2009. SMA also has a goal of doubling the
number of its members participating in EPAs Performance
Track (FT) program in 2008 and 2009, so that at least
eight facilities would be in FT by the end of 2009.52 FT
encourages environmental improvement through EMSs,
community outreach, and measurable results. Applicants to
the program must have an EMS in place.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Iron 8t Steel 69
-------
A
m
r^+
2,822,
facilities
A
222,513
employees
,2,266
' 20%
&v
rx
^
AT A GLANCE 1996-20051
.* •
•-
166,591
T 25%
$14 million
tons ferrous
and nonferrous
shipments
$14.2 million
A 1%
70 Metal Casting
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Energy Use: 157 trillion Btu
Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: 75,000 tons
Releases of Chemicals Reported
to TRI: 49.6 million Ibs.
Air Emissions: 3.8 million Ibs.
Water Discharges: 68,500 Ibs.
Waste Disposals: 45.7 million Ibs.
Recycling, Energy Recovery, or
Treatment: 127.5 million Ibs.
Hazardous Waste Generated:
30,000 tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
28,000 tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Profile
The Metal Casting sector includes establishments that pour
molten ferrous metals (iron and steel) or nonferrous metals
under high pressure into molds to manufacture castings.3
Ferrous metal casting includes those castings made with
grey iron, ductile iron, malleable iron, and steel. Each
type of iron contains different elements that affect its
characteristics. Nonferrous castings are predominantly
aluminum but might also be brass, bronze, zinc,
magnesium, and titanium.
More than 90% of all manufactured goods in the United States
contain cast metal components.4 These includes engine blocks,
transmission housings, and suspension parts for cars and
trucks; undercarriages of farm and construction equipment;
and pipes and valves for plumbing fixtures and boilers.
U.S. casting operations are now mostly small businesses,
with 80% of facilities employing 100 people or fewer.
Energy Use
In 2002, the Metal Casting sector consumed 157 trillion
Btu.5 The major furnaces that casting operations use are
cupola (used primarily for ferrous metal casting), electric,
reverberatory, and crucible furnaces.
Heating and melting these various metals consumes large
amounts of energy, accounting for 72% of the sector's total
energy use, according to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
estimates. Mold and core making account for 7% of the
sector's energy use, and finishing accounts for 6%.6 During
molding, foundries use energy for transporting materials,
mechanical mixing, and making molds and cores.
As shown in Figure 1, the sector is heavily dependent on
natural gas and purchased electricity, making up 48% and
34%, respectively, of the sector's fuel inputs for energy in
2002. Coke, the primary fuel for cupola furnaces, was the
third largest energy source, at 15%.7
A DOE report on the sector identified several energy-saving
opportunities. Casting operations using iron induction can
automate furnace temperature and power controls to prevent
overshooting temperature settings, and can minimize the time
that the lid is open while melting or holding iron. Operations
FIGURE 1
Fuel Use for Energy 2002
Total: 157 trillion Btu
Coke and Breeze
15%
Liquified
Petroleum
Gas and
Natural
Gas Liquids
1%
Net Electricity
34%
Natural Gas
48%
Distillate
Fuel Oil
1%
Note:
Net electricity is an estimation of purchased power and power generation onsite.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Metal Casting 71
-------
using a cupola furnace can dehumidify blast air to reduce
coke consumption and can cover coke storage areas to prevent
water from being introduced into the charge.8
Air Emissions
Air emissions are a primary environmental concern in
the sector, and include criteria air pollutants (CAPs),
greenhouse gases (GHGs), and a number of chemicals
reported to EPAs Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In
general, the "toxic chemicals" tracked by TRI are found
in raw materials and fuels used. CAPs and GHGs also are
generated from onsite combustion of fuels. The TRI list of
toxic chemicals includes all but six of the hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Air pollution is a major environmental impact particularly
from ferrous metal casting. Because aluminum, used in
nonferrous operations, melts at a lower temperature than
ferrous metals, nonferrous casting usually results in lower
air emissions.
The sector's air emissions result from the various operations
in a facility, including metal melting, mold making,
handling foundry sand, and die-casting. The majority of
metal emissions come from the metal melting operations,
while most organic emissions are from handling the binder
that holds sand together to produce the cores and molds.
Once the binder is combined with the sand, there may be
additional organic, particulate, and carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions from pouring the molten metal into the casting
and from breaking apart the cast. Handling foundry sand
results primarily in particulate emissions.
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 662 facilities reported to TRI air emissions of
3.8 million absolute Ibs. Between 1996 and 2005, TRI-
reported air emissions, in absolute pounds, declined 63%,
as shown in Figure 2a. Because production levels for
the sector remained relatively steady over the 10 years,
the emissions trend, when normalized by ferrous and
nonferrous shipments, was very similar to the trend for
absolute emissions, as shown in Figure 2b. Some 75% of
the sector's air emissions in 2005 were reported by ferrous
metal casting facilities, while nonferrous facilities reported
the remaining 25%. In the same year, ferrous metal casting
facilities contributed to 62% of the sector's total shipments,
while nonferrous contributed to 38%.
To consider toxicity of air emissions, EPAs Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model assigns every TRI
chemical a relative toxicity weight, then multiplies the
pounds of media-specific releases (e.g., pounds of mercury
released to air) by a chemical-specific toxicity weight to
calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in greater detail in the Data
Guide, which explains the underlying assumptions and
important limitations of RSEI.
Data are not reported to TRI in sufficient detail to
distinguish which forms of certain chemicals within
a chemical category are being emitted. For chemical
categories such as chromium, the toxicity model
conservatively assumes that chemicals are emitted in the
form with the highest toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent
chromium); thus, Toxicity Scores are overestimated for
some chemical categories.
Summing the Toxicity Scores for all of the air emissions
reported to TRI by the sector produces the trend illustrated
in Figure 2c. The sector's Toxicity Score declined 82% from
1996 to 2005.9 Three chemicals-manganese, chromium,
and diisocyanates—accounted for 81% of the sector's total
Toxicity Score. Manganese and chromium emissions result
from melting; furnaces melting metal emit dust, metallic
particles, and metal oxide fumes, along with the products
of combusted fuel. Diisocyanates, associated with binding
materials, are emitted as a result of exposure to air. The
apparent spike in 1996 was exacerbated by diisocyanates
emissions reported by one facility, which, in subsequent
years, reported no diisocyanates emissions. The sector's
reported emissions of all three chemicals have declined
since 1996.
During this same period, regulations led to increased use of
pollution control equipment, and to equipment upgrades.
Technology related to the binding process has also
improved; changes in binder ingredients and processing,
for example, have promoted reductions in volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions.
In 2005, 514 facilities reported 2.5 million Ibs. of HAP
emissions. These HAPs accounted for 66% of the sector's
air emissions in 2005 and 83% of the sector's overall
Toxicity Score. Over the 10-year period presented, absolute
and normalized pounds of HAPs emitted declined by 65%.10
72 Metal Casting
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 2
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs
All TRI HAPs
a. Absolute Ibs
10.4 M
en
O
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
b. Normalized Ibs
10.4 M
7.1 M
3.8 M
3.8 M
v 64%
2.5 M
T 65%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1.O
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note:
Normalized by ferrous and nonferrous shipments.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Foundry Society
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Metal Casting 73
-------
Table 1 presents the top TRI-reported chemicals emitted
to air by the sector based on three indicators. Each
indicator provides data that environmental managers, trade
associations, or government agencies might use in considering
sector-based environmental management strategies.
1) Absolute Pounds Reported. Xylene and aluminum
were the highest-ranking chemicals based on the
pounds of each chemical emitted to air in 2005.
2) Percentage of Toxicity Score. The top chemical
based on Toxicity Scores was manganese, which
has a high toxicity weight and was emitted in
large quantities. Chromium and diisocyanates were
emitted in smaller quantities but are among the
chemicals with the highest toxicity weights.
3) Number of Facilities Reporting. Lead was the most
frequently reported chemical, with more than half
the facilities in the sector filing TRI reports for air
emissions of lead.
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Chemical
Absolute Percentage Number of
Pounds of Toxicity Facilities
Reported1 Score Reporting2
Aluminum
Benzene1
Chromium
Copper
Diisocyanates
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenol
Xylene
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
356.0003
243,000
53,000
153,000
16,000
96,000
193,000
47,000
328,000
438,000
268,000
58%'
lo/o
160/o6
50/0
390/o
90/0
96%B
49
9
168
322
41
372
206
211
60
10
91
86%9
Notes:
1. Total sector air releases: 3.8 m llion Ibs.
2. 662 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Italics indicate a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of Clean Air Act.
5. Calculation of Toxicity Score for chromium conservatively assumed
that all chromium emissions were hexavalent chromium, the most toxic
form, with significantly higher toxicity weights than trivalent chromium.
However, hexavalent chromium may not constitute a majority of the sector's
chromium releases. Thus, RSEI analyses may overestimate the relative
harmfulness of chromium emissions.
6. Calculation of Toxicity Score for diisocyanates conservatively assumed
that all diisocyanates emissions were hexamethylene diisocyanates. Other
diisocyanates chemicals with lower toxicity scores may constitute the
majority of reported diisocyanates emissions from the sector. Thus, RSEI
analyses may overestimate the relative harmfulness of diisocyanates
emissions.
7. Chemicals in this list represent 58% of the sector's air emissions.
8. Chemicals in this list represent 96% of the sector's Toxicity Score.
9. 86% of facilities reported emitting one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria Air Pollutants
Table 2 shows CAP and VOC emissions from the Metal
Casting sector for 2002.
TABLE 2
Criteria Air Pollutant and
VOC Emissions 2002
Tons
S02
NOX
PM1(
PM,
CO
VOCs
3,000
5,000
18,000
13,000
32,000
17,000
Note:
PM10 includes PM25 emissions.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Conversion to Low-
Emission Technology
Binders and Process
Gregg Industries, in El Monte, CA, received
neighborhood odor complaints when using a no-bake
casting line using phenolic urethane resin for prototype
castings and customer casting qualification. The
company replaced the phenolic resin with an inorganic,
highly modified sodium silicate resin. The resin
dramatically reduced smoke and odor from the no-bake
operation. The foundry also replaced an odor-causing
organic core resin with a similar modified silicate core
resin. After the change to the low-emission technology
resins, the foundry saw lower binder costs, fewer labor
hours to produce the cores, and lower cleaning room
costs. Also, the new low-emission core technology
contributes to the continuing decline in casting scrap."
Water Use and
Discharges
Metal Casting facilities use water in their production
processes and discharge wastewater to either Publicly Owned
Treatment Works or directly into waterways. Wastewater
from the sector mainly consists of noncontact cooling
water and wet scrubber wastewater. Foundries using cupola
furnaces also may generate wastewater containing metals
from cooling slag with water. Certain finishing operations,
such as quenching and deburring, may generate wastewater
containing oil and suspended solids.
74 Metal Casting
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Every facility discharging process wastewater directly
to waterways must apply for a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit. The permits
typically set numeric limits on specific pollutants and
include monitoring and reporting requirements. For metal
casters, regulated pollutants and the associated limits vary
depending on the type of casting operation (aluminum,
copper, zinc, or ferrous casting), but most facilities are
regulated in their discharges of copper, lead, zinc, and total
suspended solids (TSS).12
In 2005, 236 facilities reported water discharges of TRI
chemicals totaling 68,500 Ibs.13 This represented a decline
of 52% since 1996.u
Facilities with materials exposed to precipitation also are
regulated for stormwater runoff, usually under a general
permit providing sector-specific limits. Depending on the
type of foundry, stormwater requirements for metal casting
facilities may include effluent limits on copper, zinc, iron,
aluminum, and TSS.
Waste Generation
and Management
Waste management is another key environmental issue for
Metal Casting facilities. Metal casting wastes fall into four
main categories: sand, slag, dust, and other. The sand used
to create molds and cores accounts for a large portion of
the waste generated at foundries.15 The high-quality sand
required for casting is expensive, so foundries reuse sand to
the extent possible. Sand that no longer can be used by iron
or steel foundries is often landfilled or beneficially reused.
Slag, which can make up about 25% of a foundry's solid
waste stream, is a glassy mass with a complex chemical
structure. Slag is composed of metal oxides from the
melting process, melted refractories, sand, coke ash (if coke
is used), and other materials. Large quantities of slag are
generated from iron foundries using cupola furnaces.
During casting, some metal is converted to dust or fumes and
collected by pollution control equipment such as baghouses,
electrostatic precipitators, or wet scrubbers.
Some processes for making cores require strongly acidic or
basic substances for scrubbing the off gases and can generate
sludges or liquors. These sludges or liquors are typically pH-
controlled prior to discharge to the sewer system.
Hazardous Waste
Management
Both ferrous and nonferrous facilities generate hazardous
waste, including hazardous waste from finishing
operations. Ferrous facilities generate hazardous wastes
mostly from pollution control equipment, especially from
melting furnaces. Nonferrous facilities tend to produce
hazardous wastes as foundry sand contaminated with
heavy metals. About 2% of all spent foundry sand is
hazardous. Casting sands used in the production of brass or
bronze castings may also exhibit toxicity characteristics for
lead or cadmium, making them a hazardous waste.
In 2005, 170 facilities reported to EPA's National Biennial
RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (BR) generating 30,000
tons of hazardous waste. Wastes captured by air pollution
control equipment were the largest source of hazardous
waste. Facilities reported managing 28,000 tons of
hazardous waste in 2005, most of which was managed
through destruction or treatment.16
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Metal Casting 75
-------
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
In 2005, the sector reported managing 177 million absolute
Ibs. of TRI chemicals as waste. Of the TRI waste managed
(which included disposal and recycling), 56% was reported
by nonferrous facilities; ferrous metal casting accounted
for 44%. Both nonferrous and ferrous facilities recycle
extensively, though nonferrous facilities recycle a higher
percentage. About two-thirds of the materials the sector
reported to TRI as waste in 2005 were recycled.17 The
FIGURE 3
TRI Waste Management 1996-2005
250,000,000
high recycling rate derives partly from the nature of the
industry; if a problem occurs in the casting, the defective
product can be melted down and cast again, on or offsite.
The quantity of waste managed in 2005 was 34% less
than in 1996, with little change in the sector's quantity of
product shipped. In 2005, 28% of TRI-reported waste was
disposed or released, while 8% was treated and 64% was
recycled. Foundry sand was recycled onsite and offsite.18
In 2005, 45.7 million Ibs. of TRI chemicals were disposed
to land or transferred to offsite locations for disposal.
200,000,000
= 150,000,000
o
z
100,000,000
50,000,000
1996 total: 266.4 million Ibs
I Disposal or Other Releases T 22%
| Treatment A 122%
I Energy Recovery T 70%
I Recycling T 43%
I
L
I
2005 total: 175.6 million Ibs
T 34%
I.
L
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Notes:
1. Normalized by ferrous and nonferrous shipments.
2. Disposal or other releases include air releases, water discharges, and land disposals.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Foundry Society
76 Metal Casting
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Manganese accounted for about one-third of the total
pounds disposed. As shown in Table 3, lead and copper
were the chemicals most frequently reported as disposed.
The sector's disposals and other releases were driven by
ferrous metal casting facilities, which accounted for 75% of
disposals and releases.
TABLE 3
Top TRI Disposals 2005
Chemical
Absolute Number of
Pounds Facilities
Reported1 Reporting2
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
7,709,0003
7,112,000
1,775,000
1,983,000
14,938,000
556,000
9,636,000
960/0*
31
149
210
270
187
162
63
Notes:
1. Total sector disposals: 45.7 million Ibs.
2. 662 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Chemicals in this list represent 96% of the sector's disposals.
5. 60% of facilities reported disposals of one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Promoting the beneficial reuse of foundry sand is a priority
for EPA and for the American Foundry Society (AFS).
Recent efforts to increase beneficial reuse rates appear to
be paying off, as more sand is reused now than ever before.
With input from the National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences and EPA, AFS developed a survey to help quantify
the amount of sand available for reuse, characterize current
reuse practices, and identify barriers to reuse. Based on
the 244 responses and a broader telephone survey, AFS
Spent Foundry Sand
Used in Rain Gardens
In June 2007, the city of Seven Hills, OH, partnered
with a commercial landscaping supply company, Kurtz
Bros., Inc., to install a rain garden on community
property near City Hall. A rain garden is a landscape
that filters stormwater to remove impurities before
the water enters storm drains or surface water. Spent
foundry sand was key to the rain garden soil mix. By
purchasing bioretention soil made with spent foundry
sand, the city paid about half as much as it would to
purchase soil made with unused sand. Foundries paid
less for Kurtz to remove the spent sand than they
would to landfill the sand.19
determined that the industry beneficially reuses 2.6 million
tons of sand per year, representing 28% of the total tons of
sand available for reuse. The most common barrier to reuse
that respondents noted was lack of a local market for used
foundry sand.20
Other Environmental
Management Activity
The North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
promotes environmental management systems for die
casting operations, and recently published a book titled
Environmental Management for Die Casting. The book has
been given away to NADCA corporate members and has
been sold to more than 75 other die casting operations
around the United States.
NADCA has further developed a series of questions for
owners so they will understand where their operations
stand in terms of environmental compliance for air, water,
and solid waste. More than 30 companies have used this
system to evaluate themselves.21
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Metal Casting 77
-------
OIL & GAS
AT'A GLANCE 1996-200512
Oil & Gas Facilities (Census Data)
Exploration Wells
Petroleum Refining Facilities
Exploration and Production
876,230
wells
Refining
164.
refineries
• 148
T10%
247,800
employees
92,000 i
employees
38,600,000
billion Btu
, 270,200 produced
9%
' 68,000
v 26%
5.2 billion
barrels crude
oil input into
refineries
35,700,000
billion Btu
'8%
15.5 billion
A 6%
78 Oil 8t Gas
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Profile
The Oil ft Gas sector includes the following
operations, which are subject to a number of federal
and state regulations:
• Exploration and Drilling: Onshore and offshore
geophysical operations, including seismic studies,
engineering, well testing, drilling operations, and
transportation of personnel or equipment to and
from sites.
• Oil and Gas Production: Operation, maintenance,
and servicing of production properties on- and
offshore, including transportation to and from
sites.
• Petroleum Refining: Distillation, hydrotreating,
alkylation, reforming, and other distinct processes
for converting crude oil into petroleum products.3
In 2005 the Oil ft Gas sector included 498,454 oil wells and
398,161 gas wells in operation. The sector employed 1,381
rotary rigs for drilling new wells.4 The United States is the
world's third-largest petroleum producer and second-largest
natural gas producer.5
Petroleum products derived from crude oil through the
refining process include gasoline (motor fuel), distillate
(diesel fuel, home heating oil), kerosene (jet fuel), petroleum
coke, residual fuel oil (industrial and marine use),
petroleum gases (liquified petroleum gas, ethane, butane),
elemental sulfur, asphalt and road oils, petrochemical plant
feedstocks, and lubricating oils.
The environmental impacts of the sector's activities vary
significantly. This chapter is divided into two sections,
discussing the environmental implications of exploration
and production (EftP), followed by a discussion of
petroleum refining.
Exploration
and Production6
EftP operations locate and extract crude oil and natural gas
from geologic formations. Geologic and regional differences,
as well as basin-specific approaches to extract the resources
available, influence the environmental footprint associated
with EftP operations. This section overviews the major
processes and factors affecting that footprint.
Exploration and Drilling
Exploration for oil and gas involves geologic testing of
prospective formations. These activities often involve
construction of new roads in remote areas and air
emissions caused by vehicular traffic to, from, and within
potential drilling locations. Drilling is done with truck-
mounted rigs powered by diesel engines, which also affect
air quality. Operators prepare a pad for drilling equipment
including creation of pits and ponds to contain various
fluids and mud used in drilling and to manage the drill
cuttings (rock displaced while drilling the well). Operators
also install tanks or pipes to gather the resources produced.
Oil Production
The classifications of light, medium, heavy, or extra-
heavy refer to the crude oil's gravity as measured on the
American Petroleum Institute (API) scale, and reflect the
energy required and environmental impacts inherent in
producing and refining the oil. Light crude oil, for example,
flows naturally or can be pumped relatively easily to the
wellhead. Conversely, heavy crude oil does not flow easily
and has higher viscosity than light or medium crudes,
requiring enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes such as
heating or diluting.
When crude oil, associated natural gas, and formation
water arrive at the wellhead, operators must separate
them before further processing and transport. The water
is generally high in saline content and may contain
hydrocarbons. Separator units near the wellhead separate
the oil from the associated natural gas. The natural gas is
processed to recover natural gas liquids (mostly propane
and butane). Impurities such as carbon dioxide (C02) and
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) also are removed from the gas
before it is transported. If pipeline access is not available,
the gas may be used on location to power production
equipment or may be re-injected into the oil reservoir to
maintain reservoir pressure.
Water produced with oil must be removed because it is
corrosive and an impediment to transportation and storage.
Water is separated at gathering stations and oil storage
tanks in the field.
Measurable quantities of oil remain in the reservoir
once primary production processes have concluded,
and additional resources can be recovered through EOR
processes. Such processes supplement natural reservoir
forces to improve flow rate and recovery. Representative
EOR techniques include water flooding, gas injection, and
chemical and thermal processes-all of which can have
environmental impacts.
Natural Gas Production
Production of gas generally begins as natural flow from
the wellhead into the gathering system. As a field matures,
reservoir pressure begins to decline and gas compression
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Oil 8t Gas 79
-------
equipment helps recover the gas. In cases where "pipeline-
quality" natural gas is produced at the wellhead, producers
move the product directly to the pipeline grid. In most
cases, raw gas streams must be treated prior to introduction
into the pipeline system.
Water and heavier hydrocarbons are removed at the wellhead,
and may result in water discharges and waste disposal issues.
Light hydrocarbons are removed at a natural gas processing
plant and sold for other uses. In addition, some natural gas
production yields "dry gas" with no associated crude oil,
condensate, or liquid hydrocarbons. Gas also may contain
non-hydrocarbons such as C02, H2S, and nitrogen. If present
in sufficient concentrations, these constituents also are
removed at natural gas processing plants.
As natural gas supplies from the nation's historic production
regions are depleted, the industry's focus has shifted. For
example, the Rocky Mountain region contains prospective
production areas that are expected to make major
contributions to U.S. natural gas reserves. In addition,
shale gas production is becoming a key component of U.S.
supplies; the Barnett Shale in northern Texas is one of the
largest onshore natural gas fields in the country.
Unconventional Oil and Gas
Resources and Emerging
Technologies
Unconventional oil and gas resources are defined loosely
as resources that are deeper or more difficult to recover
than those that have been recovered historically. Given
the mature state of the domestic petroleum industry and
current access limitations (e.g., prohibitions or restrictions
on developing offshore and onshore sites within sensitive
ecosystems), oil and gas resources from conventional
formations within the United States have been largely
depleted. Unconventional resources require advanced
recovery techniques and may require that extracted
material be upgraded to meet relevant fuel specifications.
For example, oil shale must be heated to release petroleum-
like liquids that can be turned into fuel. Unconventional
gas resources usually require more wells (closer well
spacing) to recover the gas resource than in recovery of
gas from conventional gas resources. Common practice for
unconventional gas production can require 8 to 16 times as
many wells per area of land as for historical conventional
gas recovery. The impact of this greater well density is
mitigated by the use of advanced drilling techniques,
which allow multiple wells to be drilled from one well pad.
To be viable, unconventional resource recovery methods
must also address a wide range of socioeconomic and
environmental issues. The following are representative of
unconventional resources and emerging technologies.
Tight Gas and Coal Bed Methane (CBM)
Tight gas refers to natural gas found in less permeable and
porous formations, such as limestone or sandstone. For
recovery, the gas-bearing formation must be broken up, or
"fractured," to allow gas to flow to the well. This requires
many more wells than conventional recovery. CBM refers
to natural gas trapped in underground coal seams, which
can be extracted before mining the coal. CBM production
often requires removing large amounts of water from
underground coal seams before the methane (CH4) in the
seams can be released and recovered as an energy source.
Directional and Horizontal Drilling
New methods to reduce the cost and environmental impacts
of recovering unconventional resources include directional
and horizontal drilling techniques. Directional drilling
includes all forms of drilling where the hole is slanted or
curved from the drilling site to reach the target reservoir.
Directional drilling commonly is used offshore as evolving
techniques enable producers to reach oil reserves in
extremely sensitive ecosystems while most of the drilling
equipment is miles away. In onshore operations, directional
drilling greatly reduces the amount of surface disturbance
by enabling producers to use a small surface well pad and to
drill outward to access larger portions of the target reservoir.
Horizontal drilling enables the wellbore to be shifted from
a vertical to a horizontal orientation. By using horizontal
drilling techniques, operators can drill many wellbores
from a single location, thus reducing the above-ground
footprint. Horizontal drilling is used extensively in
accessing unconventional natural gas resources; however,
due to the lower porosity of the underlying formations,
more wells must be drilled (e.g., tighter well spacing) to
extract the gas.
Advanced drilling rigs may also be designed to slide on rails
to the next destination within a production area, reducing
environmental disturbances and improving efficiency.
Energy Use
E8tP operations need energy to power oil and gas recovery.
Requirements range from prospecting for new wells, to
moving trucks and equipment onsite and off, to drilling
and pumping the wells. Development drilling can involve
numerous wells, and the power used to operate and
transport drilling rigs increases the energy intensity of
EftP operations. To increase pressure and enhance recovery
rates from largely depleted reservoirs, most onshore oil
production operations use pumps powered by electricity or
natural gas.
The energy required for EftP increases as the resource
recovered becomes more difficult to access and produce.
For example, approximately two-thirds of U.S. gas
wells are now drilled into unconventional formations.
While sometimes shallower than conventional wells,
unconventional gas wells typically require more energy
than conventional wells for well stimulation operations.
In the case of CBM and some shale gas operations, energy
use for producing, managing, and treating large volumes of
produced water is significant.7
80 Oil ft Gas
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Air Emissions
Air emissions from EftP operations include criteria air
pollutants (CAPs), hazardous air pollutants (HAPs),
and greenhouse gases (GHGs). EftP air emissions are
generated by combustion in stationary and mobile internal
combustion engines, gas processing equipment, and
other activities. In addition, EftP operations produce air
emissions through venting and flaring. Fugitive emissions
of methane are also significant.
Oil and natural gas production is included as an area
source category for regulation under EPAs Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, is subject to New Source Performance
Standards for new or modified stationary sources, and is
subject to state and federal operating permit requirements
to limit air pollution. EftP operations are not included
within the scope of industries that report to EPAs Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI), and too few facilities are currently
included in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) to be
representative of the sector.
Criteria Air Pollutants
EPA has, however, analyzed the sector's air emissions in
Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming) using state emissions inventory data
developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP).8
A draft study prepared by EPAs Sector Strategies Program
characterized regional air emissions and non-air pollution
from produced water and drilling wastes. Region 8, which
includes the Rocky Mountains (Rockies), has experienced
tremendous growth in natural gas production activities in
the last decade and the trend is likely to increase. Table 1
shows 2002 CAP emissions from oil and gas exploration and
production reported by WRAP in Region 8.
TABLE 1
CAP and VOC Emissions
in Region 8 2002
Pollutant
Estimated
Emissions in Tons
VOCs 262,953
NOX 87,130
CO 37,880
S02 18,385
PM 834
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Greenhouse Gases
Major GHG emissions from EftP operations include C02 and
CH4. Acid-gas removal units that remove C02 from natural gas
are the primary source of GHGs from natural gas processing
plants. Indirect sources of CH4 are venting and fugitive
emissions. A substantial portion of field production CH4
emissions come from pneumatic devices such as liquid level
controllers, pressure regulators, and valve controllers. Other
sources of CH4 emissions are dehydrators and gas engines.
Table 2 shows estimated GHG emissions from Region 8 for
2002. When CH4 emissions are weighted by their global
warming potential (21 times that of C02), C02-equivalent
methane emissions represent the sector's largest non-CAP
emissions, at more than 10 million tons. Although those
emissions are not regulated, anticipated GHG regulations
affect current and planned EftP activities.
TABLE 2
GHG Emissions in Region 8 2002
Pollutant
Estimated
Emissions in Tons
10,366,442
(C02- equivalent)
5,191,897
CH4
C02
Note:
Estimated emissions of CH4 were 493,640 tons.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Use and
Discharges
EftP operations entail various water uses and discharges,
with related environmental implications. EPA data systems
contain limited information on discharges to waterways, as
most operations are regulated under general permits and
report to state, rather than federal, agencies.9
Producers use water to assist in resource extraction, from
enhanced oil recovery to hydraulic fracturing. Oil and gas
operations must also manage "produced water"—water
that either occurs naturally in the formation and must
be disposed of or reused after extraction, or water that is
injected to stimulate production.
Reducing Emissions
and Saving Money
In 2005 the Devon Energy Corporation, WY, prevented
the release of nearly 6.0 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of
CH4, equivalent in terms of GHG emissions to 2.6
million tons of C02. By implementing emissions
reduction techniques in concert with various process
improvements, Devon retained significant volumes of
product (e.g., methane gas in the pipeline) and realized
an economic benefit of more than $43 million. Devon
received EPAs 2005 Natural Gas STAR Production
Partner of the Year award.10
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Oil 8t Gas 81
-------
The most widely used EOR technique involves injecting
water into the reservoir (e.g., "water flooding"). Water,
injected under pressure, pushes the oil toward the recovery
or producing well. The recovered fluids (water and oil) are
separated; oil is sent on to distribution, and water is either
treated and reused or disposed in permitted underground
injection control wells. Injection wells are permitted through
state oil and gas regulatory agencies that place limits on
injection volume and pressure. Water flooding represents a
major source of produced water managed by producers.
Hydraulic fracturing is the most commonly used method
of gas well stimulation. It involves pumping a water-
based solution into the formation at pressures up to
10,000 pounds per square inch, which induces fractures
in the formation. A material such as silica sand also is
pumped in to prop the fractures open, enabling the gas to
flow more freely to the wellbore. Fracturing generally is
accomplished with large truck-mounted pumps powered by
diesel engines. Today, tight sand fracturing in the Rockies
typically involves stimulation of many zones in a well
with spacing intervals of up to thousands of feet. In shale
formations such as the Barnett Shale, several separate
fractures are carried out within the horizontal portion of
the well.
In 2004, EPA completed its assessment of the potential for
contamination of underground sources of drinking water
by reviewing existing literature on water quality incidents
that potentially were linked to hydraulic fracturing. EPA
concluded there were no confirmed cases of drinking
water contamination from fracturing fluid injection into
CBM wells or from subsequent underground movement of
fracturing fluids.
Chemical compositions, and environmental impacts,
of produced water vary significantly depending on the
geologic characteristics of the reservoir producing the water
and the separation and treatment technologies used."
Table 3 shows the amount of produced water from oil and
gas extraction activities in Region 8 by state for 2002."
Almost 3 billion barrels of produced water were discharged in
Region 8, almost 75% of which was in Wyoming.
TABLE 3
Produced Water by State 2002
State
Barrels
Colorado 348,255,005
Montana 123,397,156
North Dakota 98,537,154
South Dakota 8,108,174
Utah 136,296,362
Wyoming 2,091,105,179
Total 2,805,699,030
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil wells generally discharge more produced water than gas
wells. The category "oil with gas wells" (where "associated
gas" is also produced) constituted the largest contributor of
produced water in Region 8, as shown in Table 4. Oil-only
wells released the second largest amount of produced
water. Combined, these two well types account for 69% of
total produced water in the region. Wyoming is the primary
source of produced water in the region for both well types.
In managing produced water, EftP operators use a variety
of technologies and techniques. A common approach
involves using gravity to separate water from the recovered
oil in storage tanks at a production site. The produced
water then is stored in separate tanks prior to disposal
or beneficial reuse. In some instances, produced water is
injected back into formations to be used in enhanced oil
and gas recovery.13 The potential for reusing the water,
and relevant environmental impacts, largely depends on
the salinity and chlorine content of the water, as well
as contaminant concentrations. For example, produced
water can contain a mixture of inorganic and organic
compounds, and, in many cases, residual chemical additives
that are added into the hydrocarbon production process.14
TABLE 4
Produced Water by Well Type 2002 (Barrels)
State
Oil-Only Wells
Gas-Only Wells
Oil with
Gas Wells
Gas with
Oil Wells
Total
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Total
81,962,976
50,775,321
20,953,673
915,122
21,684,832
601,234,810
777,526,734
158,856,545
16,847,685
3,521
614
31,145,993
569,061,152
775,915,510
102,323,995
55,708,537
74,617,442
5,121,998
79,283,960
853,631,461
1,170,687,393
5,111,489
65,613
2,962,518
2,070,440
4,181,577
67,177,756
81,569,393
348,255,005
123,397,156
98,537,154
8,108,174
136,296,362
2,091,105,179
2,805,699,030
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
82 Oil 8t Gas
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
These water quality characteristics determine whether the
water can be discharged into local rivers and streams or
used for irrigation, or must be treated or specially disposed
of. Treatment can include evaporation ponds or processing
the water to reduce its salinity. This complex issue includes
the volume of water being produced, the rate of flow
of the streams (e.g., ephemeral or perennial), and the
compositional characteristics of the water.
EPA regulates discharges associated with offshore oil
and gas activities on the outer continental shelf under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Issued permits include Clean Water Act
requirements, as well as EPAs guidelines for determining
the degradation of marine waters. In addition, new source
discharges are subject to provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Waste Generation
and Management
After produced water, nonhazardous solid wastes are the
second-largest category of wastes resulting from EftP
operations. These wastes contain mud, rock fragments, and
cuttings from the wellbore, as well as chemicals added to
Devon Increasing Its Water
Conservation Efforts
Devon Energy Corporation, WY, is deploying mobile
recycling technology to reclaim wastewater produced
from gas well completions in the Barnett Shale field.
Recycling units treat up to three-quarters of a million
gallons of water per day, removing hydrocarbons,
dissolved salts, and other impurities, and allowing reuse
of 85% of the water. Devon uses freshwater produced
from coal bed natural gas wells to create lakes and
ponds suitable for wildlife and livestock. Devon received
the Wyoming Game and Fish Department's Coal Bed
Methane Natural Resource Stewardship Award in 2002
and the Department's Industry Reclamation and Wildlife
Stewardship Award in 2004.15
improve drilling-fluid properties. Drilling fluids are used to
control downhole pressure, lubricate the drill bit, condition
the drilled formations, provide hydraulic pressure to aid
drilling, and remove cuttings from the wellbore. Drilling
fluid is pumped down the drill pipe and circulated back to
the surface where the rock cuttings are removed and the
drilling fluid is recirculated.
Table 5 shows estimated amounts of drilling wastes in
Region 8 in 2002.16 Oil and gas companies can minimize
drilling wastes and their environmental impacts through
recycling and reuse of certain drilling byproducts, the
use of nontoxic drilling fluids, and the employment of a
closed-loop drilling fluid system to manage fluid wastes.
Potential groundwater contamination from drilling fluids
and the amount of area used for disposal of such wastes are
also important impacts.
The industry uses water-based and oil-based drilling
fluids. Drilling fluids typically are stored at the well site in
lined reserve pits or closed-loop systems, depending upon
geologic and hydrologic conditions and state requirements.
Used drilling fluids typically are disposed of in injection
wells or are reformulated and reused. Cuttings typically
TABLE 5
Estimated Drilling Wastes 2002
State
Barrels
Colorado 6,138,174
Montana 2,741,195
North Dakota 1,484,341
South Dakota 37,451
Utah 4,533,724
Wyoming 10,834,600
Total 25,769,484
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
are collected and stored in lined pits and may be buried
onsite (after dewatering), landfilled, or used in agricultural
applications depending upon geologic and hydrologic
conditions and individual state requirements. Treated
drill cuttings have been used beneficially as fill material;
daily cover material at landfills; and aggregate or filler
in concrete, brick, or block manufacturing. Construction
applications for drill cuttings include use in road
pavements, asphalt, and in manufacturing cement.
Other EftP wastes include:
• Oily soil: Soil contaminated with oil, usually resulting
from equipment leaks and spills.
• Tank bottoms: Heavy hydrocarbons, sand, clay, and
mineral scale that deposit in the bottom of oil and gas
separators, treating vessels, and crude oil stock tanks.
• Workover fluids: Produced from well control, drilling,
or milling operations, and stimulation or cleanup of an
oil and gas-bearing formation.
• Produced sand: Sand and other formation solids built
up in the wellbore in both producing and injection wells.
• Pit and sump waste: Heavy materials settled on the
bottom of pits or sumps used to store production fluids.
These materials must be removed.
• Pigging waste: Produced when pipelines are cleaned
or "pigged." The waste consists of produced water,
condensed water, trace amounts of crude oil, and
natural gas liquids. It may contain small amounts of
solids such as paraffin, mineral scale, sand, and clay.
• Normally occurring radioactive material: Occurs
where extraction causes a concentration of naturally
occurring radiation beyond normal background levels.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Oil 8t Gas 83
-------
Petroleum
Refining
Latest
Environmental
Statistics for
Refining17
Energy Use: 3.1 quadrillion Btu
Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: 832,000 tons
Releases of Chemicals Reported
to TRI: 66.1 million Ibs.
Air Emissions: 42.2 million Ibs.
Water Discharges: 17.7 million Ibs.
Waste Disposals: 6.3 million Ibs.
Recycling, Energy Recovery, or
Treatment: 1 billion Ibs.
Hazardous Waste Generated:
5.1 million tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
5.1 million tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Energy Use
Petroleum refining operations consumed 3.1 quadrillion
Btu in 2002.1S The most energy-intensive processes include
distillation, hydrotreating, alkylation, and reforming.19
After removing salt content from the crude oil feedstock,
refiners use atmospheric or vacuum distillation to separate
components with varying boiling points. They then
restructure the hydrocarbon molecules. Processes such as
hydrotreating remove various constituents (e.g., sulfur,
nitrogen, and heavy metals) to produce cleaner burning
products. Finally, refiners blend the previously distilled
fractions of oil into finished products.
Various factors influence the energy required to refine
petroleum, including individual product specifications.
For example, certain markets require particular blends,
or "boutique" fuels. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), State
Implementation Plans may specify using cleaner burning
fuels in select locations. Producing those custom fuels
generally requires significant energy inputs into the
refining process. In addition, national requirements such
as those in ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel standards require
significant amounts of energy to reduce the sulfur content
within the crude feedstock.
Higher sulfur crude oil is increasingly a primary feedstock
for refiners, and that trend is likely to increase in the coming
decade and beyond, given the relative availability and
affordability of these inputs. In response, U.S. refiners have
invested in technology to remove sulfur more efficiently.
These investments will also enable refiners to meet tightening
fuel specification standards to improve air quality.20
FIGURE 1
Fuel Use for Energy 2002
Total: 3.1 quadrillion Btu
Natural Gas
27%
Net Electricity
4%
Liquified
Petroleum
Gas and
Natural
Gas Liquids
1%
Other
68%
Notes:
1. Other is primar ly from refinery gases, generation from renewables and net steam
(the sum of purchases, generation from renewables, and net transfers).
2. Net electricity is an estimation of purchased power and power generation onsite.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
84 Oil 8t Gas
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Refinery fuel gas (also called still gas), catalyst coke, and
natural gas are the primary fossil fuels consumed by refiners,
as shown in Figure I.21 Refinery fuel gases, represented by
"other" in the figure, result from various petroleum refinery
processes such as crude oil distillation, cracking, reforming,
and treating. These gases are collected and processed to
recover propane or other light hydrocarbons. Refiners then
remove sulfur and nitrogen compounds. This cleaner gas is a
mixture of CH4, ethane, and lesser amounts of hydrogen and
light hydrocarbons with trace amounts of ammonia and H2S.
For steam production, petroleum coke, resulting from the
coking process, is a free fuel of choice. Petroleum coke,
primarily from the fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU), is
burned continuously to regenerate the FCCU catalyst, with
the heat of combustion captured in a steam boiler. The
main supplemental fuel for steam generation is natural gas.
Some refineries are major cogenerators of steam and
electricity. Cogeneration, or combined heat and power
(CHP), increases energy efficiency through onsite
production of thermal energy and electricity from a
single fuel source. As a result of cogeneration, purchased
electricity (primarily used to power machines) is not
as significant a source of indirect emissions attributed
to petroleum refining as it is in other energy-intensive
industries that do not produce their own electricity.
Other factors have influenced efficiency gains in refining
plants. Consolidation has resulted in an industry dominated
by a relatively small number of large, vertically integrated
companies operating multiple facilities.22 A result of this
consolidation was the closing of smaller, less efficient
plants over some time. Refineries have maintained a
utilization of capacity between 90% and 95% between
1996 and 2005, compared to a rate of about 65% in the
early 1980s.23
ExxonMobil Decision Tools for
Increased Efficiency
In 2000, ExxonMobil developed its Global Energy
Management System for energy conservation. Since
then, the company's Baton Rouge Refinery has
implemented a program for steam trap and steam leak
repair, heat exchanger monitoring, and furnace air
pre-heater upgrades, improving the refinery's energy
efficiency by 12%. In addition, Exxon has achieved
reductions in C02 and NOX emissions, improved flare
system reliability, increased capacity, and enhanced
plant-wide reliability. The refinery received EPA's
ENERGY STAR Award for these improvements.24
be generated in byproducts or end products. CAPs and
GHGs are generated as combustion byproducts from onsite
combustion of fuels.
Air Emissions
Air emissions from petroleum refining include CAPs,
GHGs, and chemicals reported to TRI. In general, the
"toxic chemicals" tracked by TRI are found in the raw
materials and fuels used in the refining process, and can
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 163 facilities25 in the petroleum refining industry
reported 42.2 million Ibs. of absolute air emissions to
TRI. Between 1996 and 2005, TRI-reported air emissions
declined by 31%, as shown in Figure 2a. When normalized
by crude oil inputs into refineries, air emissions decreased
by 36% over the 10 years, as shown in Figure 2b.26
To consider toxicity of air emissions, EPA's Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model assigns every TRI
chemical a relative toxicity weight, then multiplies the
pounds of media-specific releases (e.g., pounds of mercury
released to air) by a chemical-specific toxicity weight to
calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in greater detail in the Data
Guide, which explains the underlying assumptions and
important limitations of RSEI.
Data are not reported to TRI in sufficient detail to
distinguish which forms of certain chemicals within
a chemical category are being emitted. For chemical
categories such as chromium, the toxicity model
conservatively assumes that chemicals are emitted in the
form with the highest toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent
chromium); thus, Toxicity Scores are overestimated for
some chemical categories.
Summing the Toxicity Scores for all of the air emissions
reported to TRI by the sector produces the trend illustrated
in Figure 2c. As shown in Figures 2b and 2c, while the
normalized reported Ibs. of TRI emissions to air decreased
36% since 1996, the normalized Toxicity Score increased
overall by 50%. Sulfuric acid, which has a relatively high
toxicity weight, drove the Toxicity Score over the 10-year
period and accounted for approximately three-quarters
of the 2005 Toxicity Score. Sulfuric acid resulting from
petroleum refinery operations is related to sulfur dioxide
(S02) emissions. The presence of sulfur compounds in
many refinery processes, together with high temperatures,
can result in the formation and release of sulfuric acid.
Decreases in refinery S02 emissions, then, result in
corresponding decreases in the generation of sulfuric acid.
The TRI list of toxic chemicals includes all but six of the
HAPs regulated under the CAA. Refinery processes emit
a variety of organic, inorganic, and metal HAPs. Process
vents, storage vessels, and wastewater streams emit organic
HAPs, accounting for most of the total mass of HAP
emissions from petroleum refineries. Other sources of HAP
emissions are loading racks, marine tank vessel loading
operations, and equipment leaks. In absolute pounds,
HAPs accounted for 46% of the TRI chemicals emitted to
air and 28% of the Toxicity Score in 2005. Between 1996
and 2005, the trend for HAP emissions follows the same
declining trend as for all TRI air emissions.27
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Oil 8t Gas 85
-------
FIGURE 2
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs
All TRI HAPs
a. Absolute Ibs
61.1 M
E
c
CO
n
36 M
b. Normalized Ibs
61.1 M
36 M
II
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1.0
Note:
Normalized by annual crude oil inputs into refineries.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Prote tion Agency, U S Department of Energy
42.2 M
19.4 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
39.4 M
T 36%
18.1 M
T 50%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1.5
.42
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
86 Oil ft Gas
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Table 6 presents the top TRI-reported chemicals emitted to air
by petroleum refineries in 2005, based on three indicators. Each
indicator provides data that environmental managers, trade
associations, or government agencies might use in considering
sector-based environmental management strategies.
1) Absolute Pounds Reported. Ammonia and sulfuric
acid were the top-ranked chemicals based on the
pounds of each chemical emitted to air in 2005.
2) Percentage of Toxicity Score. Sulfuric acid was the
top-ranked chemical based on Toxicity Score.
3) Number of Facilities Reporting. Benzene and
toluene were the most frequently reported
chemicals, with almost all the TRI filers in the
sector reporting emissions of these chemicals.
The CAA requires refineries to implement a Leak Detection
and Repair (LDAR) program to monitor and fix equipment
leaking fugitive emissions. In 1997, API commissioned
a study of 11.5 million refinery components. The study
showed more than 90% of controllable fugitive emissions
are from about 0.1% of all components. Analyses also
TABLE 6
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Chemical
Absolute Percentage Number of
Pounds Toxfcity Facilities
Reported1 Score Reporting2
Ammonia
Benzene4
Chlorine
Chromium
Ethyl Benzene
N-Hexane
Nickel
Polycydic Aromatic
Compounds
Propylene
Sulfuric Acid
Toluene
Xylene
Percentage of
Sector Total
8,574,0003
2,099,000
146,000
4,000
624,000
4,146,000
45,000
67,000
3,121,000
8,015,000
3,785,000
2,652,000
790/0=
10/0
50/0
20/o5
80/o
50/0
700/o
930/07
107
152
36
20
145
147
65
129
113
67
150
147
98%B
Notes:
1. Total sector air releases: 42 million Ibs.
2. 163 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Italics indicate a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of Clean Air Act.
5. Calculation of Toxicity Score for chromium conservatively assumed
that all chromium emissions were hexavalent chromium, the most toxic
form, with significantly higher toxicity weights than trivalent chromium.
However, hexavalent chromium may not constitute a majority of the sector's
chromium releases. Thus, RSEI analyses may overestimate the relative
harmfulness of chromium emissions.
6. Chemicals in this list represent 79% of the sector's air emissions.
7. Chemicals in this list represent 93% of the sector's Toxicity Score.
8. 98% of facilities reported emitting one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
indicated that "Smart LDAR" programs focused on finding
and repairing these few high-leak areas could result in
significant improvements in environmental performance.
Some Smart LDAR techniques use emerging optical
imaging technologies to target significant leakers, with
remote sensing and real-time detection capabilities to
scan process areas containing potential leaks. Significant
leaks are then detected on the spot using infrared light,
facilitating rapid repairs and minimizing potential
environmental, safety, and health impacts.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Table 7 shows CAP and VOC emissions from petroleum
refineries for 2002.
TABLE 7
Criteria Air Pollutant and
VOC Emissions 2002
Tons
S02
NOX
PM1(
PM,
CO
VOCs
339,000
195,000
28,000
23,000
145,000
125,000
Note:
PM10 includes PM25 emissions.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Greenhouse Gases
The combustion of fossil fuels generates direct GHG
emissions from petroleum refineries, and steam production
and process heating are the two processes requiring the
greatest combustion. In CH4 emissions, petroleum refiners
released an estimated 28.4 million metric tons of C02
equivalent in 2005, an increase of 7% since 1996.2S Within
refineries, vented emissions account for about 87% of the
GHG emissions, while fugitive and combustion emissions
account for 6% and 7% respectively. Most fugitive CH4
emissions are leaks from the fuel gas system.29
In response to the U.S. Department of Energy's Climate
VISION program, API began a Climate Challenge in which
member refineries have committed to improve in energy
efficiency 10% by 2012. Representative activities include
developing GHG emissions management plans, setting
numerical targets for improving energy efficiency, and
reducing emissions. Specific strategies include expanding
cogeneration, gasifying refinery residuals for use as fuel,
reducing venting and flaring as well as fugitive methane
emissions, conducting research and development into
carbon sequestration and storage, deploying renewable
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Oil 8t Gas 87
-------
energy technologies, and improving methods for tracking
GHG emissions.
Water Use and
Discharges
Petroleum refiners use 1-2 billion gallons of water daily,
principally for process cooling systems.30 Because they
use relatively large volumes of water, refineries are often
located near water sources (e.g., beside riverbanks and
other shoreline locations).
Refinery operations generate process wastewater as
well as surface water runoff. Wastewater characteristics
and quantities differ among facilities and are driven by
individual petroleum refining configurations. Processes to
refine heavy crude, for example, tend to generate significant
amounts of ammonia and suspended solids. In 2005, 121
refineries reported water discharges of TRI chemicals
totaling 17.7 million pounds. This was a 52% increase in
reported absolute pounds since 1996, and a 42% increase
overall, when normalized by crude oil inputs to refineries.
Nitrate compounds, reported by 62 facilities, and ammonia
accounted for almost all (97%) of the reported discharges.31
Wastewater from petroleum refining typically requires
multiple steps to remove contaminants, recover product,
and recycle process fluids prior to discharge. Refiners
often lessen discharge quantities, treatment burdens, and
associated costs by separating the various waste streams
of cooling and process water, sanitation and sewage,
stormwater, and other streams. In addition to being
regulated for direct discharges and discharges to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works, refineries with materials exposed
to precipitation are regulated for stormwater runoff,
sometimes under a general permit that provides sector-
specific limits on pollutants such as zinc, nickel, lead,
ammonia, nitrates, and total suspended solids.
Waste Generation
and Management
Wastes from petroleum refining operations can be generated
from process-related functions or other activities, such as
pollution prevention (e.g., control devices) or remediation
of contamination. Refineries also generate wastes from
handling petroleum products and treating wastewater.
Typical refinery wastes are sludges, spent caustics, spent
process catalysts, filter clay, and incinerator ash.
Hazardous Waste
Management
In 2005, the sector reported generating 5.1 million tons
of hazardous waste. The hazardous waste management
method most utilized in refining was disposal, which
accounted for 84% of wastes managed in 2005.
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
In 2005, refineries reported a total of 1 billion absolute
pounds of chemicals released, disposed, or managed
through treatment, energy recovery, or recycling. This was
a 22% decrease in the reported amount of waste managed
since 1996, when normalized by crude oil inputs to
refineries.
Figure 3 shows how this waste was managed. In 2005, 54%
was treated, 23% was recovered for energy use, and 17%
was recycled, while 6% of TRI-reported waste was disposed
or released. Energy recovery appeared to be the principal
waste management method early in the decade; treatment
was the predominant management method in recent years,
accounting for 54% of the total pounds of TRI chemicals
managed in 2005. Flaring is presently a major means of
onsite treatment at many petroleum refineries; the industry
is addressing associated GHG emissions under API's
Climate Challenge.
In 2005, refineries reported that 6.3 million Ibs. of TRI
chemicals were disposed to land or transferred to offsite
locations for disposal. Ammonia, zinc, and nickel disposals
accounted for almost half of the total pounds disposed, as
shown in Table 8. Most petroleum refinery TRI hazardous
waste disposals utilized underground injection, although
43% relied upon landfill disposal.32
TABLE 8
Top TRI Disposals 2005
Chemical
Absolute
Pounds
Reported1
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
Ammonia
Asbestos (Friable)
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Lead
Molybdenum Trioxide
Nickel
Toluene
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
Zinc
Percentage^
Sector Total
1,337,0003
730,000
107,000
22,000
187,000
440,000
817,000
127,000
105,000
826,000
29
2
98
100
111
32
64
101
104
32
Notes:
1. Total sector disposals: 6.3 million Ibs.
2. 163 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Chemicals in this list represent 74% of the sector's disposals.
5. 81% of facilities reported disposals of one or more chemicals in this
list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
88 Oil 8t Gas
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 3
TRI Waste Management 1996-2005
1996 total: 1.3 billion Ibs
600,000,000
500,000,000
m 400,000,000
13
O
= 300,000,000
o
200,000,000
100,000,000
I Disposal or Other Releases ^ 22%
| Treatment A 22%
I Energy Recovery T 56%
I Recycling T 30%
2005 total: 1 billion Ibs
T 22%
l
I
I ll I
II
11
ll 11
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Notes:
1. Normalized by annual crude oil inputs into refineries.
2. Disposal or other releases include air releases, water discharges, and land disposals.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities for E&P
and Refining
Several Oil ft Gas sector environmental initiatives include
both EftP and refining operations. For instance, EPA's
Natural Gas STAR program engages all segments of the
natural gas industry-production, gathering, processing,
transmission, and distribution—to identify and implement
technologies and practices to reduce emissions of CH4. Natural
Gas STAR identifies best management practices (BMPs)
selected through a collaborative process involving EPA and
natural gas industry advisers. The BMPs identify areas of
operation where emissions can be reduced cost effectively.
In 1999, Natural Gas STAR producer partners reported saving
17.4 Bcf of CH4, representing emissions that were prevented
and natural gas that was retained in the system to be sold.
EPA expanded the program in 2000 to include companies
that gather and process natural gas. In 2005, partners
reported more than 33.2 Bcf of CH4 emissions reductions.33
The American Exploration ft Production Council
(AXPC) is an official endorser of the Natural Gas STAR
program, in which 16 AXPC member companies actively
participate. Implementing Natural Gas STAR-recommended
technologies and management practices, these AXPC
member companies collectively reduced CH4 emissions by
103 Bcf, representing savings of $720 million.
Marathon's Multi-
Media Environmental
Management Approach
Marathon Petroleum Company-Louisiana Refinery
Division in Garyville, LA, is the last petroleum refinery
built in the United States (1976) and the only refinery
in EPA's Performance Track program.34 In 2005,
Marathon-Garyville announced plans for a major
expansion to add 185,000 barrels per stream day of
crude oil capacity. During the permitting process,
Marathon agreed to reduce NOX emissions beyond
Best Achievable Control Technology requirements
and to impose CO limits below burner manufacturer
specifications. Marathon also installed four real-
time ambient air monitoring stations and plans to
upgrade the wastewater treatment system to ensure no
additional NPDES permit allocations will be necessary.
Marathon already has an onsite wastewater treatment
plant that uses water from the adjacent Mississippi
River and returns it to the river cleaner than it was
when withdrawn.35
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Oil 8t Gas 89
-------
PAINT & COATINGS
AT A GLANCE 1996-20051
fc^ §>
BMI" ^r
""i «*.:•:.->
1,479,
facilities
52,183
employees
• 1,365
T8%
43,243
T 17%
$18 billion
value of'
shipments
i $23 billion
26%
90 Paint 8t Coatings
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: 10,300 tons
Releases of Chemicals Reported
to TRI: 5.3 million Ibs.
Air Emissions: 4 million Ibs.
Water Discharges: 9,900 Ibs.
Waste Disposals: 1.3 million Ibs.
Recycling, Energy Recovery, or
Treatment: 116.3 million Ibs.
Hazardous Waste Generated:
146,000 tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
148,000 tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Profile
The Paint £t Coatings sector3 manufactures a variety of
products that preserve, protect, and beautify the objects to
which they are applied. The main types of Paint ft Coatings
products include:
• Architectural coatings-interior and exterior
paints, primers, sealers, and varnishes.
• Industrial coatings-factory-applied to
manufactured goods during production.
• Special-purpose coatings-aerosol paints, marine
paints, high-performance coatings, and automotive
refinish paints.
• Allied paint products—putties, paint and varnish
removers, paint thinners, pigment dispersions, paint
brush cleaners, and frit (ground glass or glaze).
Energy Use
In 2002, the Paint ft Coatings sector purchased about 1.6
billion kilowatt hours of electricity for heat and power,
which represented well under 1% of the total quantity
of electricity purchased for heat and power by U.S.
manufacturers.4 Data on fossil fuel consumption are not
currently available.
Air Emissions
Air emissions from the sector include criteria air pollutants
(CAPs), greenhouse gases (GHGs), and a number of
chemicals reported to EPAs Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
In general, the "toxic chemicals" tracked by TRI are found
in the raw materials used as formulation ingredients in the
manufacturing process.
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 441 facilities in this sector reported 4 million
Ibs. of absolute air emissions to TRI. Between 1996 and
2005, absolute TRI-reported air emissions declined by
about 57%, as shown in Figure la. When normalized by
the value of shipments VOS over this period, air emissions
declined by about the same amount, as seen in Figure
Ib. The normalized and absolute data are similar because
production remained relatively steady over the period.
To consider toxicity of air emissions, EPAs Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model assigns every TRI
chemical a relative toxicity weight, then multiplies the
pounds of media-specific releases (e.g., pounds of mercury
released to air) by a chemical-specific toxicity weight to
calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in greater detail in the Data
Guide, which explains the underlying assumptions and
important limitations of RSEI.
Data are not reported to TRI in sufficient detail to
distinguish which forms of certain chemicals within
a chemical category are being emitted. For chemical
categories such as chromium, the toxicity model
conservatively assumes that chemicals are emitted in the
form with the highest toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent
chromium); thus, Toxicity Scores are overestimated for
some chemical categories.
Summing the Toxicity Scores for all of the air emissions
reported to TRI by the sector produces the trend illustrated
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Paint 8t Coatings 91
-------
FIGURE 1
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs
HAPs
a. Absolute Ibs
9.3 M
6.9 M
c. Normalized Toxicity Score Trend
1.O
4M
3.6 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Illllll
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
3.8 M
3.4 M
T51%
.2
.1
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note:
Normalized by annual value of shipments.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
92 Paint 8t Coatings
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
in Figure Ic. The sector's total Toxicity Score, normalized
by value of shipments, declined by more than 80% from
1996 to 2005.5
The TRI list of toxic chemicals includes all but six of the
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) regulated under the Clean
Air Act. In absolute pounds, HAPs accounted for most
(90%) of the sector's pounds of air emissions reported to
TRI in 2005; therefore, trends in HAP emissions showed
very similar declines to the trends in air emissions for all
TRI chemicals when based on either pounds reported or the
Toxicity Scores.6
Table 1 presents the top TRI-reported chemicals emitted
to air by the sector based on three indicators. Each
indicator provides data that environmental managers, trade
associations, or government agencies might use in considering
sector-based environmental management strategies.
1) Absolute Pounds Reported. Xylene and toluene,
organic solvents used as carriers in paints, were
the highest-ranking chemicals based on the pounds
of each chemical emitted to air in 2005.
TABLE 1
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Chemical
Absolute
Pounds
Reported1
Percentage
Toxicity
Score
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 142,000 14°/o3 113
Certain GlycolEthers 232,000 7°/o 193
Chromium 860 24°/o* 29
Diisocyanates 140 8°/o! 10
Ethyl Benzene6 215,000
-------
Owned Treatment Works, but may also be discharged
directly to waterways, necessitating a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit.
TRI tracks TRI chemicals discharged to water from those
facilities in the sector subject to TRI reporting requirements.
In 2005, 39 facilities in this sector reported water discharges
of TRI chemicals totaling 9,900 Ibs.9 This quantity represents a
decline of almost 50% between 1996 and 2005.10 In 2000, EPA
randomly surveyed 292 Paint ft Coatings facilities to collect
data for its Paint Production Waste Listing Determination.11
EPA extrapolated from this survey to estimate that the
quantity of wastewaters (both nonhazardous and hazardous)
generated in 1998 from all facilities in the targeted paint
manufacturing industry was approximately 15.6 million
gallons.12
Waste Generation
and Management
Wastes in the Paint ft Coatings sector can be generated
from process-related functions or from other activities, such
as operation of pollution control devices or remediation of
past contamination.
Hazardous Waste
Management
In 2005, 396 Paint ft Coatings manufacturers reported to
EPAs National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report
FIGURE 2
TRI Waste Management 1996-2005
(BR) generating 146,000 tons of hazardous waste.13
Cleaning out equipment (e.g., cleaning out mixing tanks
between batches), solvent distillation, and discarding
off-spec chemicals (e.g., off-spec or out-of-date products)
accounted for approximately half of the industry's
hazardous waste generation. A large portion of the
remaining hazardous waste generation appears to be
attributable to a small number of resin or other chemical
manufacturing operations that are co-located within the
sector's facilities.14 The sector reported managing 148,000
tons of hazardous waste. Most of the sector's hazardous
waste, regulated by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), was managed through reclamation
and recovery activities (predominantly fuel blending and
solvents recovery), and treatment.15
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
In 2005, facilities in the Paint ft Coatings sector reported
managing 121.5 million absolute Ibs. of TRI chemicals in
waste. As shown in Figure 2, when normalized by annual
VOS, total waste managed declined 28% between 1996 and
2005. Figure 2 also shows how the sector has managed
this waste over time.16 In 2005, 4% of the absolute pounds
of TRI-reported waste was released (to air or water) or
disposed, while 8% was treated, 28% was recovered
for energy use, and 60% was recycled, demonstrating
the importance of recycling and fuel blending (a form
of energy recovery) in the sector's waste management
practices.
13
0
N
O
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
1996 total: 161.6 million Ibs
I Disposal or Other Releases
| Treatment T 36%
I Energy Recovery T 49%
I Recycling T 7%
' 50%
ll
J
I
ll
2005 total: 115.6 million Ibs
T 28%
J
1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002 2003 2004 2005
Notes:
1. Normalized by annual value of shipments.
2. Disposal or other releases include air releases, water discharges, and land disposals.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
94 Paint 8t Coatings
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
TABLE 3
Top TRI Disposals
2005
Chemical
Absolute
Pounds
Reported1
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
Barium
Certain Glycol Ethers
Chromium
Copper
DI(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Ethylene Glycol
Lead
Zinc
Percentageof
Sector Total
163.0003
31,000
79,000
79,000
93,000
86,000
47,000
464,000
20
32
32
22
4
31
75
99
Notes:
1. Total sector disposals: 1.3 million Ibs.
2. 441 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Chemicals in this list represent 83% of the sector's disposals.
5. 35% of facilities reported disposals of one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
For the 1.3 million Ibs. of waste that was disposed (not
including releases to air or water), zinc accounted for about
one-third of the pounds disposed, as shown in Table 3. Zinc
and lead were the chemicals most frequently reported as
disposed by the sector.17
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities
Coatings Care® is a comprehensive stewardship
program developed by the National Paint ft Coatings
Association (NPCA) to assist its members with integrating
environmental, health, and safety (EHftS) activities
into corporate planning and operations. Organizations
make a commitment to Coatings Care as a required
part of their membership in NPCA. Coatings Care
organizes EHftS activities into five codes of management
practice—Manufacturing Management, Transportation
and Distribution, Product Stewardship, Community
Responsibility, and Security—and NPCA provides extensive
support to its members in these areas. Coatings Care
integrates EHftS practices that are consistent with other
industry standards, such as those found in the ISO 14000
series.18
In addition, since December 2003, NPCA and its members
have been actively participating in the Paint Product
Stewardship Initiative (PPSI), a collaborative multi-
stakeholder effort to promote leftover paint management
solutions that are both financially and environmentally
sustainable. Unused or leftover paint is a major focus of
product stewardship efforts because of its high volume
in the household hazardous waste stream, its high cost
to manage, and the potential for increased reduction,
recovery, reuse, and recycling.19 EPA estimates that
between 6% and 16% of the household paint sold each
year becomes leftover paint, with a best estimate of 10%.20
The stakeholders have completed a $1 million joint research
program and are now working to develop a new nationally
coordinated system for managing leftover paint with the
goal of reducing paint waste; establishing mechanisms for
efficient collection, reuse, recycling, or disposal of leftover
paint; and for putting in place a sustainable financing
system to cover the costs of such a system.21
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Paint 8t Coatings 95
-------
AT A GLANCE
•
2005:360 public and
private ports; map shows
large, deep water, public
port authorities
1999:422,578 2006:507,448
employees employees
A 20%
1997: $5.3 billion
in revenue
2002: $6.2 billion
A 16%
96 Ports
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics
Because of the relative lack of sector-level data on the
environmental performance of ports, this chapter relies in
part on survey information that the American Association
of Port Authorities (AAPA) collected in 2005 and 2007 from
its U.S. members, the country's 86 largest port authorities.
Thirty-eight ports completed the 2007 survey, representing
a 44% response rate.2 They represented 19 of the top 30
U.S. container ports in 2006, and 20 of the top 30 U.S.
ports for total trade tonnage in 2005.3 Although these
large public ports are only one component of the U.S. port
industry, they handle the majority of U.S. overseas freight.
Understanding their performance is key to understanding
the environmental performance of the entire sector. The
chapter also highlights commitments ports are making,
individually and collectively, to better understand and
improve their environmental performance.
Profile
More than 360 commercial ports serve the United States
with approximately 3,200 cargo and passenger handling
facilities employing more than 507,000 people, contributing
an estimated $1.3 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product,
and generating an estimated $21.4 billion in U.S. Customs
revenue.4
The Ports sector includes public and private marine
facilities along sea coasts, on estuaries and rivers, and
around the Great Lakes. Ports develop and maintain
shoreside facilities for intermodal transfer of cargo between
ships and other modes of transportation, such as barges,
trucks, railroads, and pipelines. They may also operate
other facilities, such as airports, world trade centers, and
recreational facilities.
U.S. ports and waterways handle more than 2 billion tons
of domestic and import/export cargo annually.5 Ports
handle 78% of all U.S. foreign trade by weight and 44%
by value.6 Forty-nine U.S. ports also have passenger cruise
terminals, from which more than 9 million passengers
embarked in 2006.7
U.S. ports are expected to experience unprecedented growth
in overseas trade and continuing growth in the cruise
industry. Forecasts call for a doubling in the volume of
containerized cargo and in the number of cruise passengers
between 2005 and 2020.8
Energy Use
Energy use at ports consists mainly of electricity for
facility operations and fuel for vehicles and cargo-handling
equipment. The most common fuel used is petroleum-based
diesel, although ports are beginning to use other fuels. To
reduce air emissions, some ports have switched to electric-
powered cargo handling equipment, while others are using
propane, liquefied natural gas (LNG), or biodiesel blends
in vehicles and equipment. A few ports, including Juneau,
AK, Long Beach and Los Angeles, CA, and Seattle, WA,
have installed shoreside power (or "cold ironing") at some
of their terminals so that oceangoing vessels can connect
to the landside electric grid while at the dock rather than
running their auxiliary diesel engines. The Port of Seattle
has cold ironing infrastructures in place for the two berths.
The Port of Oakland, CA, has successfully tested a mobile
power unit that produces electricity onsite for ships at
dock using LNG.9 A 2004 study for the Port of Long Beach
estimated that shoreside power would reduce nitrogen
oxide (NOX) emissions by 99% and particulate matter
(PM) emissions by up to 97% per vessel, while a vessel is
hotelling.10
Ports have some potential for fuel switching, especially if
they have direct control over the diesel-powered vehicles
and equipment onsite. However, even "landlord" ports,
whose tenants own and operate the majority of vehicles
and equipment, can influence fuel use through voluntary
programs or means such as lease specifications or
preferential fees when new leases are being negotiated or
old leases are being renegotiated."
Air Emissions
Ports have a diversity of activities and a multitude of
emissions sources; there are currently no sector-level
estimates of port air emissions. However, EPA is working
with AAPA to encourage individual ports to prepare
emissions inventories, develop and implement emission
reduction strategies, and measure progress against the
baseline.12 EPA also is working with ports and other
stakeholders to develop modeling tools for port-related
Increasing Use of Biodiesel
Compared to burning standard diesel, the use of
biodiesel results in reductions in direct emissions of
carbon monoxide (CO), PM, sulfates, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs).
In 2006, the Port of Seattle, WA, and SSA Marine,
the port's largest maritime customer, switched
their maintenance vehicles and container-handling
equipment from standard diesel fuel to biodiesel.
Another terminal operator, APL, also switched to
biodiesel. Both terminal operators use B20, a blend of
20% biodiesel and 80% ultra-low-sulfur (ULSF) diesel.
The port uses B99 (99% biodiesel) in its maintenance
equipment. During cold periods, the port and SSA
switch to lower blends of biodiesel (B50 and ULSF,
respectively) to cope with gelling problems.13 Together,
the port and SSA use about 1 million gallons of fuel
per year in the vehicles now powered by biodiesel.14
Annual emissions reductions from this switch are
estimated to be 2.1 tons of CO, 1.5 tons of VOCs, 0.3
ton of PM, and nearly 1,300 tons of GHGs.15
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Ports 97
-------
Increasing Use of Solar Power
The Port of New York and New Jersey East Coast
Warehouse Facility at Elizabeth Port Authority Marine
Terminal has been equipped with more than 5,000
flexible solar panels, covering about 37% of its roof
and designed to produce more than 810,000 kilowatts
(kW) of electricity. The Ports of Oakland and Los
Angeles, CA, both recently committed to deploying
solar power systems onsite to supply electricity for
their operations. In December 2007, the Port of Los
Angeles agreed to construct a 10-megawatt solar
photovoltaic system as part of the mitigation package
for a major expansion of one of the port's container
terminals. The port expects the system to offset nearly
17,000 metric tons of GHG emissions annually.16 In
November 2007, the Port of Oakland arranged for
deployment of a new 756-kW solar photovoltaic power
system on its property, which it expects to generate
more than 1 million kW hours of electricity annually.
The port expects the system to reduce its GHG
emissions by 850 metric tons per year.17
air emissions. Many of the nation's ports are located in
areas that do not meet EPA National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone (eight-hour standard) and PM2 5.1S
Diesel Emissions
The primary sources of air emissions from the Ports
sector are diesel engines, which are used in ships, trucks,
trains, cargo-handling equipment, and harbor craft. Diesel
emissions include PM, NOX, sulfur oxides (SOX), hazardous
air pollutants, and GHGs. As shown in Table 1, more ports
are taking steps to quantify and reduce air emissions.
TABLE 1
Emission Reduction Strategies
Reported by Ports
2005
2007
29o/o
NA
NA
42o/o
37o/o
47o/o
34o/o
260/o
Have an emissions inventory
Have an emissions control or
reduction strategy
Are using low-emission fuels
Have implemented program for
diesel retrofits or replacements
Are using alternative energy sources
Source: American Association of Port Authorities
As shown in the table, some ports are reducing emissions
from existing diesel engines through engine replacements
or retrofits. To assist with this effort, EPA worked with
AAPA and other stakeholders to create Clean Ports USA.
Launched in 2004 as part of EPA's National Clean Diesel
Ports With Emissions
Inventories19
Anacortes (WA)
Baltimore (MD)
Coos Bay (OR)
Corpus Christi (TX)
Everett (WA)
Houston (TX)*
Lake Michigan Ports
Long Beach (CA)*
Los Angeles (CA)*
Lower Mississippi River Ports (LA)
New York/New Jersey (NY/NJ)*
Oakland (CA)*
Olympia (WA)
Philadelphia and Delaware River Ports (PA, DE)
Port Angeles (WA)
Portland (OR)
San Diego (CA)
Savannah (GA)*
Seattle (WA)*
South Carolina State Port Authority (SC)*
South Louisiana (LA)
Tacoma (WA)*
Tampa (EL)
Virginia Port Authority (VA)*
Note: " = top 10 U.S. container ports in 2006
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Campaign, this incentive-based program is designed
to reduce diesel emissions from existing vehicles and
equipment at ports. Clean Ports USA has funded 11 port-
related projects with $1.9 million in federal dollars and
$2.5 million in matching funds provided by partners.20
Ports, EPA, and other stakeholders also are collaborating
through five regional partnerships that are encouraging
voluntary diesel emissions reductions.
Ports are reducing diesel emissions from trucks by
implementing operational changes that reduce waiting
times and the number of truck trips. One such change is
the establishment of common pools for the chassis that
are used to haul intermodal containers. Most chassis are
owned and maintained by individual terminal operators
or shipping lines, which typically do not allow them
to be used with another carrier's containers. Requiring
drivers to switch chassis can add up to one hour per trip,
increasing fuel use and air pollution. Chassis pools reduce
the number of truck movements and the amount of idling,
resulting in lower emissions and greater productivity. In
2004, the Virginia Port Authority established a chassis
pool at the Port of Virginia, which became the first U.S.
port to achieve 100% participation from the port's shipping
lines.21 In the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Maher
Container Terminal at the Elizabeth Port Authority Marine
Terminal utilizes a 31-acre chassis pool yard. Ports also are
98 Ports
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
San Pedro Bay Ports
Clean Air Action Plan
In November 2006, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, CA, adopted a comprehensive strategy to reduce
air emissions from freight transportation in a region
that has some of the worst air quality in the nation.
Their goal is to reduce emissions of PM, SOX, and NOX
(a precursor to smog) from port-related operations by
45% or more within five years.22 By the fifth year, the
ports plan to achieve annual emission reductions of
1,200 tons of PM, 12,000 tons of NOX, and 8,900 tons
of SOX.23 Under the plan, the ports will:
• Phase out the oldest (and therefore dirtiest) trucks
servicing the ports,
• Equip all major terminals with shoreside electricity
for vessels at berth,
• Require ships to use low-sulfur fuels and reduce
speeds when entering or leaving the harbor region,
and
• Replace or retrofit all switching locomotives and
cargo-handling equipment to meet EPAs toughest
emissions standards for new equipment.
The ports are actively implementing the plan. For
example, all diesel-powered Class 1 switcher and
helper locomotives entering the Port of Los Angeles
have been using ULSF diesel fuel since the beginning
of 2007.24 The plan built upon previous efforts by the
ports. For example, between 2001 and 2005, the Port of
Los Angeles reduced emissions of PM, SOX, and NOX by
17% to 27% on a per-container basis.25
South Carolina State Ports
Authority (SCSPA)
Even though the southeastern coast of the United
States is currently in attainment with federal air quality
standards, SCSPA developed a voluntary air quality
program to minimize air emissions from existing
terminals and a new container terminal it is building.
The port committed to activities such as conducting an
emissions inventory of existing facilities, funding a PM
monitoring station, and including clean air guidelines
in construction bid documents.26 SCSPA also switched
to ULSF diesel in September 2007, three years ahead of
federal requirements.27 Emissions reductions over those
three years will be an estimated 1,100 pounds of NOX
and 30 pounds of SOX.28
Northwest Ports
Clean Air Strategy
The Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy is a joint effort
of the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, WA, and Vancouver
Fraser Port Authority (British Columbia) to reduce
maritime and port-related emissions that affect air quality
and contribute to climate change. A key goal is to stay in
attainment of ambient air quality standards. The strategy
establishes measurable short- and long-term performance
measures for trucks, rail, water vessels, oceangoing
vessels, and cargo-handling equipment.29
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Ports 99
-------
developing retrofit and replacement programs for drayage
trucks to reduce emissions.
Oceangoing vessels, which burn bunker fuel while at sea
and run auxiliary diesel engines in port, are a major source
of emissions at ports. The International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (also known as
MARPOL) governs vessels' environmental performance.
In October 2007, AAPA's members agreed to support the
U.S. government proposal to the International Maritime
Organization (MO) to amend MARPOL Annex VI and
establish more stringent air emission standards for
oceangoing vessels.30
Greenhouse Gases
There are no sector-level estimates of GHG emissions
from ports, but many ports are estimating GHGs when
conducting emissions inventories. For example, the Ports
of Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett, WA, jointly estimated
GHG emissions of 397,033 tons of carbon dioxide (C02)
equivalent in 2005, with overall Puget Sound maritime
emissions of 1.9 million tons of C02 equivalent.31 The Port
of San Diego, CA, a relatively small port, estimated GHG
emissions of 128,000 tons of C02 equivalent in 2006.32
Increasingly, shippers are expecting organizations in
the transportation supply chain to measure, report, and
improve their environmental performance. For example,
through EPAs SmartWay Transport Partnership, companies
commit to shipping higher percentages of freight with
truck and rail carriers that are SmartWay partners. In turn,
participating carriers agree to estimate their emissions and
reduce them over time. EPA is working with the freight
industry to expand the program and develop tools that will
help companies measure and reduce GHG and criteria air
pollutant emissions from their entire transportation supply
chain (including ports).
SmartWay already includes some drayage carriers, which
are truck companies that deliver freight to and from port
facilities. Seeking more ways to improve the environmental
performance of drayage fleets, which typically consist of
older trucks, SmartWay is working with ports such as the
Virginia Port Authority to offer low-cost loans to drayage
carriers for cleaner and more fuel-efficient trucks.33
Water Use and
Discharges
Located on coasts and inland waterways, ports are
caretakers for coastal resources. Public ports regularly
develop wetland sites; create, restore, and enhance habitat;
and monitor water quality. The transport of invasive species
in ships' ballast water and oil spills from ships or landside
facilities can significantly affect local water quality and
wildlife. Dredging of channels and harbors can affect water
quality, although dredging permits require mitigation plans.
Stormwater
Stormwater can pick up pollutants from paved surfaces
before entering waterways. Most port facilities for cargo
handling include large expanses of paved surface, which,
100 Ports
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Reducing Discharges With
Permeable Asphalt
In 2006, the Port of Portland, OR, installed 35 acres
of porous asphalt at one of its auto-import facilities.
Unlike traditional asphalt, porous asphalt allows
stormwater to soak into the underlying soil. The porous
asphalt, along with a system of swales and natural
vegetation to handle runoff from heavy rain, treats all
stormwater onsite. The port saved $250,000 and nearly
a year of time for obtaining an NPDES permit. The port
also receives a discount on the city's storm sewer fee
and will have lower maintenance costs over time.34
along with the possibility of spills of bulk or liquid
freight, makes stormwater management very important.
Most stormwater discharges from ports are considered
point sources and require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Many NPDES
permits require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan. In the 2007 AAPA survey, 68% of the
ports responding indicated that they have such a plan;
61% indicated that they advise tenants periodically on
stormwater compliance responsibilities.
Restoration of
Aquatic Habitat
Ports often restore coastal habitat as mitigation for
development activities and in broader stewardship efforts.
Restoring Fish Habitat
Most of the east side of Puget Sound is hardened with
riprap and bulkheads. Restoration of more natural
shoreline habitats is critical to the recovery of Puget
Sound salmon. In part to mitigate the impacts of a new
pier, the Port of Everett, WA, used a new method for
pebble/sand beach construction to restore 1,100 feet of
shoreline habitat in front of a rock bulkhead supporting
a BNSF railroad line. Biological monitoring has already
shown a high level of activity by juvenile salmon and
forage fish along the restored shore.35
Invasive Species
Ships take on or discharge ballast water to accommodate
changes to their displacement and trim as they load or
unload cargo or take on or consume fuel.36 As vessels
transit the globe, they collect and discharge water
many miles apart, and in the process can introduce
nonindigenous species. These species are considered
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Ports 101
-------
"invasive" if they are capable of exploiting their new
environment and causing economic or environmental
harm. Ships discharge an estimated 80 million tons of
ballast water into U.S. waters each year.37
To combat the spread of invasive species, ships are required
to take steps such as exchanging ballast water while at sea.
However, management methods still need to be improved.
EPA and AAPA are working with the U.S. Coast Guard, MO,
and others to promote effective policies and technologies
for ballast water management and treatment. For example,
the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, MN, hosts the world's
first freshwater test facility for ballast water treatment
technology. The facility, completed in June 2007, is part of
the Great Ships Initiative, a cooperative research effort to
which nine U.S. and Canadian ports have provided monetary
or in-kind support.38
Waste Generation
and Management
Dredged Material
Because of the natural process of sedimentation, periodic
dredging of channels and shipping berths is necessary to
ensure that vessels can continue to reach ports. Existing
channels and berths must also be deepened and widened
for U.S. ports to accommodate the largest container ships
coming into use. Few U.S. ports have the channel depth of
up to 55 feet that these vessels require.39
Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible
for dredging navigation channels, ports and their tenants
dredge 100 million cubic yards annually from vessel berths
and private terminals.40 Ports must dispose properly of
both clean and contaminated dredge material, and are
increasingly seeking beneficial reuses of this material.41
Beneficially Using
Dredged Material
The Port of Fourchon, LA, is using dredged material
to rebuild a natural forest ridge reduced by coastal
erosion. Such forest ridges serve as buffers between the
Gulf of Mexico and the coastal marsh habitats for fish,
shellfish, and other wildlife. Working with volunteers
and several private and governmental entities, the port
has created 60 acres of forest habitat and 60 acres of
salt marsh.42
Brownfields
Although ports will be able to accommodate some of
the expected increase in trade volume by improving the
efficiency of current operations, they sometimes need to
build new facilities. Many ports seeking to expand existing
facilities have revitalized nearby "brownfields," which are
unused or underused industrial sites. In doing so, the ports
must first address any environmental contamination. For
example, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is
remediating and developing a contaminated site on Staten
Island, NY, in connection with the intermodal rail facility
supporting the New York Container Terminal. Fifteen of
the 38 ports that responded to AAPAs 2007 survey had
participated in brownfields redevelopment in the past 5
years, contributing to redevelopment of more than 3,200
acres of brownfields.43
Disposal and Recycling
Ports handle a variety of materials and wastes, both
generated onsite and from vessels. Since inception in
2005, the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, TX, recycling
program has recycled 327,055 Ibs. of materials, including
96,470 Ibs. in 2007. The program includes recycling paper,
plastic, cardboard, metal, batteries, tires, oil, oil and fuel
filters, antifreeze, and capacitors. Cruise ships return to
port with recyclable materials such as metal cans, glass,
and batteries. They also offload hazardous wastes while at
dock, such as waste generated during photo processing, dry
cleaning, and ship maintenance. There are no estimates of
the total volumes of solid and hazardous wastes brought
into U.S. ports by cruise ships, although EPA is developing
a "Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report" to address
solid and hazardous waste.44
102 Ports
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Hazardous Waste
Management
Port facilities generate various hazardous wastes. Vessel
refurbishing and maintenance operations generate spent
solvents and caustics, and paints and paint sludge. Examples
of other marine facility wastes that may be hazardous
include vehicle maintenance fluids, near-empty paint cans,
and paint-stripping residue.45 In AAPA's 2007 survey, 17 of
38 ports (45% of respondents) indicated that they generate
enough hazardous waste to require tracking and reporting.46
Additional
Environmental
Management
Activities
Environmental
Management Systems
An environmental management system (EMS) is a set of
processes and practices that enable an organization to
reduce its environmental impacts and increase its operating
efficiency. The Ports EMS Assistance Project, which EPA
helped AAPA launch, has guided 13 ports in developing
EMSs over 4 years.47 The Ports of Boston, MA, Corpus
Christi and Houston, TX, and Los Angeles, CA, have each
received third-party ISO 14001 certification, and other ports
are working toward this recognition.48 In AAPA's survey,
the percentage of ports with an EMS in place or under
development increased from 29% in 2005 to 47% in 2007.
The number of ports publishing an annual environmental
review or report also increased from 4% in 2005 to 29% in
2007.49 AAPA also assisted EPA in development of An EMS
Primer for Ports: Advancing Port Sustainability.s°
Voluntary Sustainability
Partnership
Green Marine is a new, voluntary sustainability
initiative designed to help the marine transportation
industry between the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the
Great Lakes minimize its environmental footprint
without compromising economic viability. The initiative,
officially announced in October 2007, includes U.S. and
Canadian carriers and ports. Priority issue areas include
air emissions, discharges to water, and invasive species.
The partnership has published an action plan and
will enlist a third party to evaluate and report on the
conformance of the program's corporate members.51
Sustainability
Some ports are building on the systems-based management
approach of EMSs to address broader aspects of
sustainability. AAPA is working to develop a sustainability
framework. AAPA members approved a sustainability
resolution and principles in October 2007. The resolution
states, "Sustainability involves the simultaneous pursuit
of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social
responsibility," and AAPA "embraces the concept of
sustainability as a standard business practice for ports and
the Association."52
Community Involvement
Because of their size, location, and high profile, ports
increasingly recognize the importance of effectively
communicating with surrounding communities about the
environmental aspects of port operations.
Environmental Outreach
The Port of Portland, OR, has created a position within
its Community Affairs Department specifically for
environmental outreach and communication. The port
also provided its staff with "Community Integration
Guidelines," an extensive menu of outreach approaches
and tools to use when engaging the public. Several
of these tools have been used effectively during the
decisionmaking process for cleanup of contaminated
sediment at the port's Terminal 4. For example, the port
has hosted five open houses corresponding to different
phases of the project, and it arranged for stakeholders
to visit two confined disposal facilities in the Puget
Sound area. The port's outreach efforts have reached
more than 300 stakeholders and identified specific
areas of citizen concern that the port might otherwise
have overlooked.53
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Ports 103
-------
SHIPBU
2005:346 facilities
AT A GLANCE 1996-20051
, r •
"
98,063-
employees
• 86,134
T 12%
*.
$10 billion,
value of
shipments
$14 billion
. 47%
104 Shipbuilding 8t Ship Repair
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Latest
Environmental
Statistics2
Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: 5,900 tons
Releases of Chemicals Reported
to TRI: 2 million Ibs.
Air Emissions: 1.8 million Ibs.
Water Discharges: 19,000 Ibs.
Waste Disposals: 226,000 Ibs.
Recycling, Energy Recovery, or
Treatment: 5.1 million Ibs.
Hazardous Waste Generated:
7,000 tons
Hazardous Waste Managed:
6,000 tons
The data discussed in this report are drawn from multiple public and
private sources. See the Data Guide and the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter for important information and qualifications
about how data are generated, synthesized, and presented.
Profile
Facilities in the Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair sector build,
repair, or alter ships, barges, and other large vessels for
military and commercial clients. Most facilities that build
ships can also repair them, but some smaller shipyards only
perform ship repair work.
Shipyards typically include drydocks, shipbuilding positions,
berthing positions, piers, workshops, and warehouses.
Most domestic shipbuilders make and repair ships for
the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, and other government
agencies. The sector has less than a 1% share of the world's
market for commercial vessels of more than 100 gross tons.3
Energy Use
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), energy
use for the transportation equipment manufacturing sector,
which includes shipbuilding activities as well as motor
vehicle manufacturing, totaled 424 trillion Btu in 2002.
There are not sufficient data to determine the proportion of
energy used by the Shipbuilding £t Ship Repair sector alone.4
Shipbuilding and ship repair processes that use the most
energy are welding (most often electric arc welding),
forging, abrasive blasting, and application of marine
coatings. Electricity purchases represented 75% to 80% of
the sector's expenditures for energy in 2004.5 The sector's
remaining energy expenditures were for fossil fuels such as
natural gas, coal, and petroleum. Between 1998 and 2004,
shipbuilders use of electricity per dollar value of shipments
(VOS) fell 10%.6
There are opportunities for shipbuilders to reduce one
energy source in favor of another with fewer emissions
or greater efficiency. One option is for facilities to replace
equipment that consumes fossil fuels with electric-powered
equipment. For example, in the forging process, facilities
can replace gas-fired heating with electric induction
heating, which has lower operational costs and requires less
energy. The environmental benefits of switching equipment
to electric power will depend in part on the fuels used by
the electricity provider.
Air Emissions
Air emissions in the sector include criteria air pollutants
(CAPs), greenhouse gases (GHGs), and a number of
chemicals reported to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). In general, the "toxic chemicals" tracked by TRI are
found in the raw materials and fuels used, and can also be
generated by their use. Major sources of air emissions for
this sector are welding, abrasive blasting, and application
Biodiesel Use
In 2006, Atlantic Marine Alabama, LLC, a shipbuilder
headquartered in Mobile, AL, measured the
performance of two forklifts powered by a biodiesel
blend (B20) against the performance of two forklifts
fueled with regular diesel. During the four-month trial,
the biodiesel-powered forklifts used nearly 9% less
fuel per hour with no difference in performance or the
visibility of emissions between the two sets of forklifts.
In addition, over the course of the trial, the B20 cost
an average of 50 cents less per gallon than standard
diesel. Based on these results, Atlantic Marine plans to
convert all of its diesel-powered yard equipment to B20
within the next five years.7
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Shipbuilding 8t Ship Repair 105
-------
of marine coatings. CAPs and GHGs are also generated as
combustion byproducts from onsite combustion of fuels.
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
In 2005, 54 facilities reported 1.8 million absolute Ibs. of
air emissions of TRI chemicals, as shown in Figure la.
TRI-reported air emissions decreased by 44% in absolute
pounds from 1996 to 2005. When normalized by the
sector's increasing VOS, air emissions decreased 54% from
1996 to 2005.8
To consider toxicity of air emissions, EPA's Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model assigns every TRI
chemical a relative toxicity weight, then multiplies the
pounds of media-specific releases (e.g., pounds of mercury
released to air) by a chemical-specific toxicity weight to
calculate a relative Toxicity Score. RSEI methodological
considerations are discussed in greater detail in the Data
Guide, which explains the underlying assumptions and
important limitations of RSEI.
Data are not reported to TRI in sufficient detail to
distinguish which forms of certain chemicals within
a chemical category are being emitted. For chemical
categories such as chromium, the toxicity model
conservatively assumes that chemicals are emitted in the
form with the highest toxicity weight (e.g., hexavalent
chromium); thus, Toxicity Scores are overestimated for
some chemical categories.
Summing the Toxicity Scores for all of the air emissions
reported to TRI by the sector produces the trend illustrated
in Figure Ic. When normalized by the sector's VOS, the
sector's Toxicity Scores fluctuated between 1996 and
2005, declining overall by 34%. Fluctuations in the
Toxicity Scores were driven by changes in the quantities of
manganese and chromium emitted to air over the years, as
discussed below.
The TRI list of toxic chemicals includes all but six of the
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) regulated under the Clean
Air Act. In 2005, 47 Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair facilities
reported about 800,000 Ibs. of HAPs emitted to air,
representing 43% of the total pounds of air emissions that
the sector reported to TRI for 2005, and 76% of the Toxicity
Score.
As with overall TRI air emissions, manganese and
chromium, both classified as HAPs, drove the sector's
Toxicity Scores for HAPs.9 Welding activities and the use
of certain abrasives such as coal and smelter slags can
result in air emissions of these metals. In addition, in 1999
and 2000, a major source of chromium air emissions from
repair shipyards was related to a primer called Ameron
385. The U.S. Navy required the use of this primer on
Military Sealift Command ships. In 2001, the primer
was reformulated to remove chromium, resulting in a
significant drop in the quantity of chromium emitted by
the sector.10
Table 1 presents the top TRI-reported chemicals emitted to
air by the Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair sector based on three
indicators. Each indicator provides data that environmental
106 Shipbuilding 8t Ship Repair
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
FIGURE 1
Air Emissions Reported to TRI 1996-2005
All TRI Chemicals, including HAPs
All TRI HAPs
a. Absolute Ibs
3.2 M
CO
c
o
1
_c
CO
n
1.9 M
b. Normalized Ibs
3.2 M
o 1.9 M
.74
1.8 M
.8 M
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
....
1.5 M
T 54%
.6M
T 67%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
c. Normalized Toxicity Scoring Trend
1.O
.66
.50
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note:
Normalized by annual value of shipments.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Shipbuilding 8t Ship Repair 107
-------
TABLE 1
Top TRI Air Emissions 2005
Chemical
Absolute Percentage Number of
Pounds of Toxicity Facilities
Reported1 Score Reporting2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 185.1003 9°/o 8
Chromium 1,397 19°/o4 17
Ethyl Benzene5 91,900
-------
shrink-wrap vessels or use shrouds to reduce wind speed
in the blasting area. In addition, some shipyards use
alternative technology such as ultra-high pressure water
blasting to reduce PM emissions.
TABLE 2
Criteria Air Pollutant and
VOC Emissions 2002
Tons
S02
NOX
PM,,
PM,
CO
VOCs
1,000
900
800
400
200
3,000
Note:
PM10 includes PM25 emissions.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The coatings applied to a vessel's surface typically
contain VOCs that are emitted to the environment during
application. To reduce VOC emissions, shipyards have
been working with coatings manufacturers to reformulate
coatings to reduce the content of VOCs and other air
toxics. In addition, shipyards are using new application
technologies that reduce overspray and waste, resulting in
less paint used overall.
Greenhouse Gases
Shipbuilding £t Ship Repair GHG emissions are primarily
attributable to fossil fuel combustion for non-road
equipment. Other likely GHG sources include refrigerants,
welding gases, thermal oxidizers to destroy VOCs, and
C02-based fire extinguishers. However, there are currently
no data available on the quantity of such emissions. The
generation of electricity purchased by sector facilities also
emits GHGs.
To reduce their GHG footprint, facilities in the sector could
improve on-site energy efficiency and could purchase
electricity produced without combustion of fossil fuels. The
American Shipbuilding Association and the Shipbuilders
Council of America are working with EPA to develop a tool
to measure GHG emissions, which should provide better
data on the sector's GHG emissions in the future.
Water Use and
Discharges
Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair firms typically obtain water
from public water systems, and sometimes pull water
directly out of the rivers for non-contact cooling. There are
currently no aggregate data available on the quantity of
the sector's water use.
In 2005, 16 facilities reported water discharges of about
19,000 Ibs. of TRI chemicals. When normalized by VOS,
water discharges declined by 30% from 1996 to 2005.14 The
sector discharges water to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
and, in some cases, directly to water bodies. Stormwater
run-off is also an important issue for the sector.
Proper management of stormwater is a concern for the
sector because shipyards are adjacent to major water
bodies and include outdoor operations where materials
and equipment can be exposed to precipitation. Chemicals
discharged in stormwater primarily consist of blasting and
painting materials. Of particular interest are discharges of
copper, zinc, and lead from anti-foulant coatings, which
retard the growth of aquatic organisms.
Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for Cleaning Drydocks
Drydocks, which are typical features of shipyards, are
work areas that can be flooded to allow a vessel to
enter or leave. The industrial activities that take place
on drydocks (e.g., abrasive blasting, painting) can
generate significant concentrations of pollutants such
as heavy metals, oil and paint residues, spent abrasive,
and other debris. Thorough cleaning of the drydock
prior to its submergence ensures that these pollutants
are not discharged to receiving waters.
BAE Systems San Diego, CA, has implemented BMPs
to ensure that its dry docks are clean before they
are submerged, thus preventing particles generated
during ship construction and maintenance from being
discharged into nearby waters.
Before clean-up activities begin, the company inspects
the drydock and determines clean-up details, such
as number and size of hoses for washing, number of
pumps to collect washwater, and number and capacity
of tanks to hold washwater. Some notable practices
utilized by BAE Systems during drydock cleaning
include:
• Ensuring proper trim of the drydock,
• Installing splash boards to prevent washwater from
spilling into the bay when washing near the edge
of the dock,
• Monitoring the trough and sump to prevent
overflows,
• Ensuring sufficient holding capacity for washwater
(including planning for rain),
• Thoroughly inspecting the drydock after cleaning
and before submergence, and
• Documenting all of the above actions."
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Shipbuilding 8t Ship Repair 109
-------
Shipyards' stormwater runoff is typically regulated under
a multi-sector general industrial stormwater permit.
However, some states require facilities to have individual
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits
for stormwater and to meet discharge limits. Permit
requirements vary from state to state and can range from
requiring a stormwater management plan, to using BMPs,
to requiring zero discharges.
Waste Generation
and Management
Wastes in the sector can be generated from process-related
functions or from other activities such as operation
of pollution control devices or remediation of past
contamination. Spent abrasives and oil or oily water are
typically the largest volumes of waste generated in shipyards.
Hazardous Waste
Management
In 2005, 96 facilities in the sector reported to EPA's
National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (BR)
generating about 7,000 tons of hazardous waste. Waste
paint and spent solvents, although produced less than spent
abrasive and oily waste, generally constitute the sector's
FIGURE 2
TRI Waste Management 1996-2005
largest hazardous waste stream. In 2005, painting and
coating processes accounted for 42% of the total hazardous
waste generated (about 3,000 tons).16
Improvements in process management of coating
application and equipment cleaning have resulted in
reductions in the amount of painting and coating waste.
For instance, in-line plural component mixers prepare
coatings as they are required. This prevents the generation
of paint waste from mixing more paint than is required
to complete a job. Additionally, paint waste is now used
in fuel blending, whereas previously it would have been
solidified for land disposal. Shipyards are also reclaiming
and reusing solvents used to clean spray paint equipment.
The sector managed its hazardous waste in 2005 through
disposal, treatment, and reclamation and recovery, in roughly
equal proportions. The sector reported managing 6,000 tons
of hazardous waste. The primary method of reclamation and
recovery used by the sector was fuel blending.
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
In 2005, the sector managed 7.2 million absolute Ibs. of
TRI-reported chemicals. When normalized by VOS, this
was 55% less than in 1996. Figure 2 shows the trends in
waste management by the sector. In 2005, 29% of the
TRI-reported waste was disposed to land or released, 9%
13
0
=
"a
o
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1996 total: 13.1 million Ibs
I Disposal or Other Releases
| Treatment T81%
I Energy Recovery T 58%
I Recycling v 44%
' 52%
2005 total: 5.9 million Ibs
T 55%
ll
ll
1996 1997 1998 1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2005
Notes:
1. Normalized by annual value of shipments.
2. Disposal or other releases include air releases, water discharges, and land disposals.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce
110 Shipbuilding 8t Ship Repair
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
was treated, 8% was used for energy recovery, and 55%
was recycled. Of the waste disposed or released, 11% was
disposed. As shown in Table 3, copper and zinc accounted
more than half of the total disposals in 2005; copper and
nickel were the most frequently reported chemicals for this
sector during the same year.17
The quantity of waste that shipyards disposed, as reported
to TRI, decreased from about 251,000 Ibs. in 1996 to about
226,000 Ibs. in 2005. The chemicals were disposed to land
or transferred to offsite locations for disposal.
TABLE 3
Top TRI Disposals 2005
Chemical
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenol
Xylene
Zinc
Percentage of
Sector Total
Absolute
Pounds
Reported1
12.9003
69,100
8,900
7,300
10,400
21,000
13,600
46,100
840/0*
Number of
Facilities
Reporting2
13
14
9
9
14
1
3
7
540/0=
Notes:
1. Total sector disposals.: 226,000 Ibs.
2. 54 total TRI reporters in the sector.
3. Red indicates that the chemical is one of the top five chemicals reported in
the given category.
4. Chemicals in this list represent 84% of the sector's disposals.
5. 54% of facilities reported disposals of one or more chemicals in this list.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Shipbuilding 8t Ship Repair 111
-------
DATA SOURCES, METHODOLOGIES,
AND CONSIDERATIONS
Important public sources of data used in this report-discussed
in the Data Guide-include the U.S. Department of Energy's
(DOE) Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS),
EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and relative Toxicity
Scores from EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI) model, EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI),
EPA's National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (BR),
production data from the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS)
Mineral Commodity Summaries, and economic data from U.S.
Department of Commerce (U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of
Economic Analysis).
Private sources of data are sector-specific; for example,
cement kiln dust surveys for Cement Manufacturing,
and information from the American Forest ft Paper
Association's Environmental, Health, and Safety
Verification Program for Forest Products. These data
sources are referenced in the sector chapter endnotes.
Normalization
The best available data for each sector are used to normal-
ize the sectors' pollutant releases and management over
time as described in the Data Guide.
As an example, the sector air emissions figures show air
emissions from 1996 through 2005. In sections (b) and (c)
of the figure showing trends in air emissions, data were
normalized, often using the annual value of shipments
(VOS), adjusted for inflation using 1996 dollars as the base
year, or productivity data adjusted against the 1996 start-
ing quantity. The formula for this adjustment is:
Measures for Year'A' x
1996 Normalized Data ($ or production value)
Year 'A' Normalizing Data ($ or production value)
Dollars, when used for normalizing, are adjusted for infla-
tion using U.S. Department of Commerce's Gross Domestic
Product data, available at: http://bea.gov/national/xls/
gdplev.xls.
For most sectors, value of shipment data are compiled
based on the primary Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) (pre-1998) and North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes (1998 forward). For all other sectors,
data are compiled directly from the source listed in the
table in the Data Guide.
Production Data
The "At-a-Glance" section of each sector chapter presents
a measure of the sector's output. As with normalizing,
production data (e.g., tons of product produced annu-
ally by the sector) were the preferred metric for depicting
the output of the sector. When production data were not
available, alternate metrics were identified, as noted in the
sector chapter endnotes.
Employment and
Facility Counts
Data Processing
The County Business Patterns (CBP) data have been tabu-
lated on a NAICS basis since 1998. Data for each sector are
compiled for each metric based on the NAICS codes defin-
ing the sector. Data are available at: http://www.census.
gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html.
Mapping
For most NAICS/SIC-defmed sectors, the maps pres-
ent facilities in the sector that are in one of EPA's data
systems. EPA's data systems provide location information
that can be used for mapping, although smaller facilities
without federal permits or IDs are under-represented. For
list-defined sectors (Cement Manufacturing and Iron ft
Steel), the maps present those facilities comprising the
sector. For several sectors that are not well represented in
EPA data systems, alternative data sources were used for
developing the sector maps. These sectors are Construction,
Colleges ft Universities, and Ports. For Construction, U.S.
Census Bureau information on the number of construc-
tion establishments per state was mapped. For Colleges ft
Universities, the map represents the institutions listed on
www.collegeboard.com, maintained by the not-for-profit
College Board association. For Ports, the map shows the
U.S. ports listed on the American Association of Port
Authorities website, available at: http://www.aapa-ports.org.
Energy Use
This report uses energy consumption data from the 2002
MECS published in 2005. DOE's Energy Information
Administration (ELA) conducts the survey and defines the
manufacturing sector as all manufacturing establishments
(NAICS codes 31-33) in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia.
Considerations
Detail of data
The Sector Strategies Program defines sectors based on
3-, 4-, 5-, and/or 6-digit NAICS code combinations. MECS
energy consumption estimates for most manufacturing in-
dustries are only available at the 3-digit NAICS code level,
although data for some select manufacturing sectors are
available at the 6-digit NAICS code level. For the sectors in
112 Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
this report, 2002 data at the 6-digit level are available for
the Cement Manufacturing, Forest Products, Iron £t Steel,
and Metal Casting sectors.
Historical and current energy
consumption data
The 2002 MECS sample size was approximately 15,500
establishments drawn from a sample frame representing
97-98% of the manufacturing payroll, which is approxi-
mately 60% of the establishments of the manufacturing
sector. MECS data provide energy consumption by fuel
type, including electricity, natural gas, residual fuel oil,
distillate fuel oil, liquid petroleum gas, coal, coke, and
other. The composition of the "other" fuels category varies
from sector to sector. More detail is provided in individual
sector chapters.
Although the 2002 MECS provides the most recent publicly
available data on sector energy consumption, energy prices
have undergone major changes in the last 6 years; the
effects of such changes on sector energy consumption since
2002 are not reflected in the 2002 MECS data used in this
analysis.
Energy consumption projections
For an overview of expected future trends for industrial
energy consumption and associated carbon dioxide (C02)
emissions, as well as energy projections for specific sectors,
we referenced EIA's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO),
EIA's most recent annual forecast of energy demand, sup-
ply, and prices through 2030.1
Energy efficiency and clean energy
opportunities for manufacturing industries
We consulted industry-specific research conducted by
DOE and research institutions such as the Ernest Orlando
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as well as a num-
ber of online and hard-copy materials produced by industry
trade associations that describe technological and process
opportunities for increasing energy efficiency.
Industry commitments to environmental
improvement with respect to energy use
We reviewed public-private partnership programs such as
Climate VISION, which is supported by DOE, EPA, and the
U.S. Departments of Transportation and Agriculture, and
DOE's Industrial Technologies Program, for information on
emerging industrial energy-efficient and clean energy op-
portunities for energy-intensive sectors, including develop-
ing technologies. Note that individual companies/facilities
within each sector may also participate in other voluntary
programs (e.g., ENERGY STAR, Performance Track, Climate
Leaders, etc.).
Small businesses not included
MECS does not include small establishments, including
those with fewer than 5 employees or those with 5 to 20
employees with annual payrolls and shipments below
certain minimums.
Data Processing
This report uses MECS data on energy consumed for
fuel-related purposes only (presented in MECS Table 3.2).
MECS data are also available in terms of energy consumed
for all purposes (or "first use," which includes fuels used as
feedstocks); in terms of energy consumed for nonfuel pur-
poses (primarily feedstocks); and in terms of consumption
of fuels. While some industries use fuels as feedstocks—raw
material inputs in the manufacturing process—feedstock-
related fuel use may or may not contribute to criteria air
pollutant (CAP) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As
feedstock fuel use does not represent an opportunity for
reducing the environmental impacts associated with energy
consumption, the energy use sections of this report focuses
on energy inputs for fuel use only. Units of measure are
maintained in British thermal units (Btu). Data and docu-
mentation of EIA's data processing methodology used to
develop sector energy consumption estimates are available
online at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs.
Air Emissions
Reported to TRI
TRI was established under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and
expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Section
313 of EPCRA provides three criteria defining the scope of
facility owners/operators that report to EPA's TRI program:
1. The facility has 10 or more full-time employees, or the
equivalent of 20,000 employee hours per year.
2. The facility is included in a list of applicable NAICS
codes. The NAICS codes correspond to the following SIC
codes: SIC 10 (except 1011, 1081, and 1094); 12 (except
1241); 20-39; 4911 (limited to facilities that combust coal
and/or oil for the purpose of generating electricity for
distribution in commerce); 4931 (limited to facilities that
combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating
electricity for distribution in commerce); 4939 (limited
to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose
of generating electricity for distribution in commerce);
4953 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C,
42 U.S.C. section 6921 et seq.); 5169; 5171; and 7389
(limited to facilities primarily engaged insolvent recovery
services on a contract or fee basis). Executive Order
13423 extended these reporting requirements to federal
facilities, regardless of their SIC or NAICS code.
3. The facility manufactures (defined to include importing),
processes, or otherwise uses any of the toxic chemicals
listed on the EPCRA section 313 in amounts greater than
the threshold quantities established in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 372.25 and 372.28 in the course of a
calendar year.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations 113
-------
Facilities described above must report their releases and
waste management quantities for a chemical included
on the TRI list of toxic chemicals if they manufacture or
process that chemical in quantities exceeding 25,000 Ibs.
within a calendar year, or otherwise use that chemical in
quantities that exceed 10,000 Ibs. per year in a calendar
year. Reporting thresholds for TRI-listed chemicals des-
ignated by EPA as persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT)
chemicals, such as lead and mercury, are lower.
In 2005, more than 23,000 facilities reported to EPA's TRI
program. These facilities reported 4.4 billion Ibs. of onsite
and offsite disposal or other releases, which included 1.5 bil-
lion Ibs. of air emissions, 242 million Ibs. of water discharg-
es, and 2.7 billion pounds of disposals. They also reported
25.1 billion Ibs. of production-related waste managed.
Considerations
Comprises a list of reportable chemicals
Facilities in the TRI-reporting industry sectors must file if they
exceed the reporting thresholds for any of the 600+ chemicals.
Only captures facilities above threshold
Note that only those facilities that exceed the TRI reporting
thresholds are required to report to TRI; thus, TRI-reported
trends may not be representative of the sector as a whole.
Small businesses not included
TRI excludes smaller facilities, that is, those with fewer
than 10 employees.
Multimedia coverage
TRI reporting covers releases and other disposal to all
environmental media (air, water, and land).
Changes in TRI requirements
Reporting thresholds for PBTs were lowered in reporting
year 2000 (in 2001 for lead and lead compounds) to 10 Ibs.
or 100 Ibs., depending on the chemical. These lower thresh-
olds resulted in more facilities reporting, and caused sig-
nificant increases in the quantities of some of the specific
PBTs reported as released (including disposed) or managed
as waste, such as lead and polycyclic aromatic compounds.
However, given that the thresholds are so much lower than
thresholds for non-PBTs, the increased quantities for this
small group of chemicals usually did not influence overall
sector trends for air emissions or waste management. The
lower reporting threshold could also influence trends in
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as many of the PBTs are
also HAPs. The PBTs that are also HAPs are: chlordane,
heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lead and lead compounds,
mercury and mercury compounds, methoxychlor, polychlo-
rinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic compounds, toxa-
phene, and trifluralin. Other changes to the TRI program,
such as the addition of non-manufacturing industries in
1998, are not expected to influence trends for the sectors
presented in this report.
Data accuracy
Facility owners/operators are responsible for TRI reporting
using their best available information. The data facilities
submit on releases and waste management quantities are
calculated using one of the following methods: monitor-
ing or measurement; mass balance calculations; emission
factors; or engineering estimates. There is no independent
verification of the accuracy of the submissions. The
increasing use of direct electronic filing of TRI reports may
reduce the potential for data processing errors. In 2005,
95% of the facilities submitting reports to TRI used elec-
tronic reporting.
Changes in best available information
Facilities are required to complete their TRI forms using
their best available information. Industry representatives
have pointed out that estimates of releases might change
over time as more information becomes available. For
example, while conducting measurements required by
another regulation, such as emissions testing required by a
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
a facility may find a TRI-reportable chemical in its releases
that it was not aware of previously. As facilities learn of
the existence of various chemicals, they are then required
to report those releases to TRI. This situation would result
in an increased level of reported releases that is not neces-
sarily accompanied by an increase in actual emissions.
Some sectors do not report
Facilities involved in oil and gas exploration and transpor-
tation, for example, are exempt from both TRI and BR. The
publicly and privately owned marine facilities discussed in
the Ports chapter also do not report to TRI, although their
tenants may.
Data Processing
TRI data for reporting years 1996-2005 are sourced from the
2005 Public Data Release (PDR) for all but two sectors; data
for Paint ft Coatings and Shipbuilding ft Ship Repair are
drawn from the 2006 PDR. "Frozen" data are used to ensure
reproducibility and to support later revisions of the analysis.
Trend data are normalized by changes in VOS or produc-
tion, with 1996 as the baseline year.
For most sectors, data are compiled based on the most
current primary SIC code reported on the TRI Form R. For
example, if a facility reported differing primary SIC codes
in reporting year 2004 and 2005, the primary SIC code
from the most current available year (in this case 2005) was
used. Similarly, if a facility did not report to TRI in 2005,
data from the most recent year of available primary SIC
code data were used. For the Cement Manufacturing and
Iron ft Steel sectors, and for the specialty-batch chemicals
subsector, the sector TRI data are extracted based on
predetermined facility lists. The count of the number of
facilities reporting to TRI is a total of the number of unique
114 Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
TRI identification numbers (IDs) in the sector. Each facility,
as defined by the TRI program, should have one TRI ID.
For air emissions, TRI data elements for this report include:
• Air Releases—stack and fugitive emissions as reported in
sections 5.1 and 5.2 of TRI Form R, respectively.
• HAPs-TRI includes all but six of the chemicals designat-
ed as HAPs, also known as "air toxics," by the Clean Air
Act (CAA) Section 112b. HAPs are air pollutants that pose
a direct threat to human health. TRI, rather than NEI, was
used as the source for sector-level HAPs data; see discus-
sion of "Criteria Air Pollutants" below. TRI was chosen
as the data source primarily because TRI allows for an
analysis of annual trends over a 10-year period, whereas
NEI HAP data are available for 1999 and 2002 only.
HAPs emissions include stack and fugitive emissions of
the subset of TRI chemicals that are designated as HAPs,
as reported in sections 5.1 and 5.2 of TRI Form R. The
TRI HAP analysis in this report excludes three additional
HAPs (4,4'-methylenediphenyl diisocyanate, hexamethyl-
ene-l,6-diisocyanate, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin), because these chemicals are reported to TRI only
as part of larger chemical categories, and quantities of
the individual chemicals released are not included in TRI.
For releases and management, data are presented in pounds
(Ibs). For toxicity-weighted results, data are presented as a
ratio using 1996 as the baseline year.
Beginning with the 2006 reporting year, facilities reporting
to TRI are required to use NAICS codes in place of the SIC
codes previously used on TRI reporting forms. Facilities
that report to TRI are required to use 2002 NAICS codes on
reporting Form R and the Form A Certification Statement.2
Toxicity of Air Emissions
Aspects of RSEI influence the use of these modeled TRI data
for EPAs Sector Strategies Program. Extensive documenta-
tion is available on the development of RSEI. Some of this
information is summarized below. For more details, refer
to EPAs Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI)
Methodology, Version 2.1.5, October 2007, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/method_oct2007.pdf.
Considerations
Uses highest relative toxicity weight for
chemical categories
Because information on the chemical form released is not
reported to TRI, chemicals within a chemical category
(e.g., metal compounds, diisocyanates) are assumed to be
released in the chemical form associated with the highest
relative toxicity weight. The form of a chemical compound
can affect its toxicity. For example, hexavalent chromium
has an oral relative toxicity weight of 170 and an inhala-
tion relative toxicity weight of 86,000; whereas trivalent
chromium has an oral and inhalation relative toxicity
weight of 0.33. TRI reports filed for "chromium" do not
specify the valence, so all reported pounds of chromium are
more conservatively assigned the relative toxicity weight of
hexavalent chromium. In cases where a facility is releas-
ing the chemical in the lower toxicity form, RSEI would
overestimate toxicity-weighted results.
Comparing RSEI results
The numeric RSEI output depicts the relative toxicity of TRI
releases for comparative purposes and is meaningful only
when compared to other values produced by RSEI.
Excludes certain chemicals
There are 611 chemicals and chemical categories on the
2005 TRI Chemical List. Toxicity weights are available for
429 of these chemicals and chemical categories. Chemicals
with relative toxicity weights account for more than 99%
of the reported pounds for all on-site releases in 2005. If
there is no relative toxicity weight available for a chemical,
then the default Toxicity Score is zero. Examples of chemi-
cals that do not have an assigned relative toxicity weight
in RSEI include: dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, phenol,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and tetrabromobisphenol-A.
Currently excludes toxicity weights
for chemicals disposed
An inhalation relative toxicity weight is used for fugitive
and stack air releases. An oral relative toxicity weight can
be used for direct water releases, but is not included in this
report. Releases to land and other disposal are not mod-
eled because necessary data on site-specific conditions are
lacking.
Acute human or environmental toxicity
not addressed
RSEI addresses chronic human toxicity (cancer and non-
cancer effects, e.g., developmental toxicity, reproductive
toxicity, neurotoxicity, etc.) associated with long-term
exposure but does not address concerns for either acute
human toxicity or environmental toxicity.
Results presented do not include
a risk perspective
Toxicity weighting of a chemical is not the same as identi-
fying the risk potentially posed by a release of the chemical
to the environment. "Risk" in that context would rely on
additional information, such as the fate and transport
of the chemical in the environment after it is released,
the pathway of human exposure, the amount of chemi-
cal to which human subjects are exposed, the duration
of exposure, and the amount of the chemical that enters
the human body following exposure. Although the RSEI
model can provide a relative risk-related perspective for air
releases, only the toxicity portion of the model was used
in the analysis for this report. Risk-related factors were not
considered. Readers interested in the risk perspective for a
facility or sector can use the publicly available RSEI model
to conduct this screening-level risk analysis.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations 115
-------
Data Processing
RSEI calculates toxicity-weighted results for each chemical
by multiplying the quantity of chemical released to air by a
chemical-specific toxicity weight. Results are then summed
across chemicals to present overall sector-wide results. The
toxicity weight is a relative value and is presented in this
report relative to the sector's total 1996 toxicity-weighted
results for all air emissions. Focusing on toxicity pro-
vides an alternative perspective to typical quantity-based
environmental loadings and moves the discussion forward
towards an impact-based assessment.
TRI documentation is available at: http://www.epa.gov/tri.
RSEI model documentation is available at: http://www.epa.
gov/opptintr/rsei.
Criteria Air Pollutants
EPA prepares the NEI based on input from numerous state,
tribal, and local air pollution control agencies; industry-
submitted data; data from other EPA databases; as well as
emission estimates. State and local emissions inventories
are submitted to EPA once every three years for most point
sources contained in NEI. Through the 1999 NEI, EPA
estimated emissions for any jurisdiction that did not submit
an emissions inventory and where data were not available
through industry submissions or other EPA databases. As
a result of the Consolidated Emissions Reporting rule, NEI
updates for 2002 and beyond are expected to include data
uploads from all jurisdictions. The CAP and volatile organic
compound (VOC) data presented in the sector chapters
include emissions from point sources, and not emissions
from area and mobile sources.
Considerations
Frequency of NEI
NEI data are released triennially, which limits the number
of data points for a time-series analyses. The report in-
cludes data only from 2002, because data from prior years
are not comparable or present other data challenges.
NEI HAP data
In addition to CAP data, NEI also includes data on the CAA
designated HAPs. This report presents HAP data from TRI
rather than NEI, primarily because TRI allows for annual
trend analyses. NEI, in contrast, is generated every three
years. Currently, the 1990 and 1996 NEI databases are
not recommended for use due to unusable format or data
quality concerns.
Data Processing
Final v3 2002 NEI Point Source CAP data were obtained
from EPAs Clearinghouse for Inventories £t Emissions
Factors (CHIEF). Data and documentation are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html.
For most sectors, data are compiled based on the facili-
ties' SIC or NAICS codes as included in the NEI. For the
Cement Manufacturing and Iron £t Steel sectors and for the
specialty-batch chemicals subsector, NEI data are extracted
based on a predetermined list of facilities.
For particulate matter (PM) emissions, this report presents
PM-Primary, which includes both the filterable and con-
densable portions of PM emissions.
Greenhouse Gases
For information regarding GHGs, this report relies on the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2005 (Inventory), and other public and private
data sources. EPA prepares the Inventory to comply with
existing commitments under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).3
The edition of the Inventory used in this report summa-
rizes the latest information on U.S. anthropogenic GHG
emission trends from 1990 through 2005. To ensure that
it is comparable to those of other UNFCCC Parties, the
estimates presented in the Inventory were calculated using
methodologies consistent with those recommended by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories (IPCC/UNEP/OECD/IEA 1997), the IPCC
Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2000), and
the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use
Change, and Forestry (IPCC 2003).
Water Use and
Discharges
There is no national database for water withdrawals. Such
information, which DOE is starting to collect, is usually
kept at the state level.4
Facilities discharging directly into the waters of the United
States (e.g., "direct dischargers") are required to obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. Data on discharges from NPDES-permitted facilities
are entered into an EPA data system. EPA also develops
the Effluent Data Statistics (EDS), which is a static file of
annual loadings derived from the concentration and flow
data submitted by NPDES facilities. The EDS file contains
annual pollutant loadings (including for conventional pol-
lutants) and flow at the permit level.
The Permit Compliance System (PCS) is the national
database used to track compliance with NPDES, but it is
being gradually phased out and replaced by a modern-
ized system called the Integrated Compliance Information
System (ICIS)-NPDES. Twenty-six states, territories, and
tribes started using ICIS-NPDES in June 2006, and thus are
not entering data into PCS.
116 Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
Data on pollutant discharges to sewage treatment plants are
collected by local pretreatment programs, but these data are
not systematically electronically transmitted to the states
or EPA. There is no national database for these indirect
discharges of wastewater pollutants.
TRI Water Discharges
Considerations
While TRI chemicals discharged to water are a key issue
for some sectors (e.g., Food £t Beverage Manufacturing,
Forest Products), for most sectors, toxic chemicals emitted
to air and/or disposed are a larger concern. Depending on
the sector, this report describes TRI water discharges from
1996 through 2005 (the most current data available at the
time of the analyses presented in this report), with a focus
on current (2005) discharges. We do not present toxicity-
weighted discharge values, because the RSEI methodol-
ogy does not account for ecological toxicity, which is an
important impact of water discharges.
Data Processing
Water discharges includes discharges to water (from section
5.3 of TRI Form R) and to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
for metals only (from section 6.1 of TRI Form R).
Hazardous Waste
Management
Several aspects of the BR influence the use of these data for
EPA's Sector Strategies Program.
Considerations
Large quantity generators (LQGs) and RCRA hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are
covered. Small quantity generators (SQGs) are not included.
LQGs and TSDFs are required to submit a biennial hazardous
waste report. LQGs have one or more of the following char-
acteristics: the site generated, in any single calendar month,
1,000 kg (2,200 Ibs.) or more of RCRA hazardous waste; the
site accumulated, during any calendar month, more than
1 kg (2.2 Ibs.) of RCRA acute hazardous waste; or the site
generated, in any single calendar month, or accumulated at
any time, more than 100 kg (220 Ibs.) of spill cleanup mate-
rial contaminated with RCRA acute hazardous waste.
Note that many facilities in the sectors discussed in this
report may not be required to report to BR; thus, the BR data
presented may not cover all the activities of the entire sector.
Data Processing
This report describes hazardous waste generation in 2005
(the most current data available at the time of the analyses
presented in this report), with a focus on the largest sources
of hazardous waste generation. Data and documentation
can be found at: ftp.epa.gov/rcrainfodata/.
For this report, data are compiled based on the primary
3-, 4-, 5-, and/or 6-digit NAICS codes reported to BR. For
the Cement Manufacturing and Iron ft Steel sectors, and
specialty-batch chemicals subsector, data are compiled
based on predetermined facility lists. The count of the
number of facilities reporting hazardous waste data is a
total of the number of unique RCRA IDs in the sector.
Only data flagged for inclusion in the National Biennial
Report are included. States may submit information on fa-
cilities with other status designations, such as SQGs, as well
as data on other state-regulated wastes that are exempt
from federal regulation. These data, while submitted to BR,
are not always included in the National Biennial Report. To
mimic the National Biennial Report methodology, only data
flagged for inclusion are included in the analysis conducted
for this report.
Waste associated with source code G61 and management
code HI41 are excluded from this analysis to avoid double
counting of stored wastes. This is consistent with the
National Biennial Report methodology.
Waste Management
Reported to TRI
Considerations
TRI reporting typically presents air and water releases in
the broader category "Disposal or Other Releases." This
report distinguishes waste management and disposal from
releases to air and water, above, and presents the data in
the categories discussed below.
Data Processing
"Recycling" means the quantity of the toxic chemicals that
is either recovered at the facility and made available for
further use or sent offsite for recycling and subsequently
made available for use in commerce, as reported in sections
8.4 and 8.5 of TRI Form R.
"Energy Recovery" means the quantity of the toxic chemi-
cals combusted in an onsite or offsite energy recovery
device, such as a boiler or industrial furnace, as reported in
sections 8.2 and 8.3 of TRI Form R.
"Treatment" means the quantity of chemicals destroyed in
onsite or offsite operations such as biological treatment,
neutralization, incineration, and physical separation, as
reported in sections 8.6 and 8.7 of TRI Form R.
"Disposal" includes data from the following sections
of TRI Form R:
• Section 5.4: Underground Injection onsite to Class I,
II-V Wells
• Section 5.5: Disposal to land onsite
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations 117
-------
• Section 6.2: Transfers to other offsite locations, for
disposal codes only. The disposal codes are as follows:
• M10 Storage only
• M40 Solidification/Stabilization—Metals and Metal
Compounds only
• M41 Solidification/Stabilization-Metals and Metal
Compounds only
• M61 Wastewater Treatment (excluding POTW)—
Metals and Metal Compounds only
• M62 Wastewater Treatment (excluding POTW)-
Metals and Metal Compounds only
• M63 Surface Impoundment Recycling
• M64 Other Landfills
• M65 RCRA Subtitle C Landfills
• M66 Subtitle C Surface Impoundment
• M67 Other Surface Impoundment
• M71 Underground Injection
• M72 Offsite Disposal in Landfills
• M73 Land Treatment
• M79 Other Land Disposal
• M81 Underground Injection to Class I Wells
• M82 Underground Injection to Class II-V Wells
• M90 Other Offsite Management
• M91 Transfers to Waste Broker—Disposal
• M94 Transfers to Waste Broker-Disposal
• M99 Unknown
Comparing TRI and BR
Both TRI and BR contain information on waste. TRI
includes information on toxic chemicals managed as waste.
BR includes information on hazardous waste generated and
managed. The quantities of hazardous waste reported to
BR differ from those reported to TRI, because of numerous
differences between the two systems, several of which are
discussed below.
Differences in what is reported
TRI reporting is required for any toxic chemical (from a
list of more than 600 chemicals) for which manufacturing,
processing, or other use exceeds a reporting threshold. BR
reporting is required for RCRA listed and characteristic
hazardous wastes.
Differences in how quantities are reported
TRI includes the weight of the toxic chemicals within a
waste stream, while RCRA reporting on hazardous wastes
encompasses the weight of the entire waste or waste
stream that meets the definition of RCRA hazardous waste.
Therefore, hazardous wastes included in BR could be
aqueous, solids, or sludges, weighing more than the toxic
components portion alone. In addition, the waste streams
reported to BR are considered hazardous, but may not con-
tain constituents that are considered toxic as defined in TRI
(e.g., waste streams may be hazardous to humans based on
their ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity, or hazard-
ous constituents listed in 40 CFR 261 Appendix VIII).
Differences in reporting universes
There is overlap with some facilities reporting to both
systems.
Differences in reporting frequency
TRI is annual; BR is every other year.
118 Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
APPENDIX: ENDNOTES
Preface
1. The 2004 and 2006 Performance Reports are available on the EPA
website, http://www.epa.gov/sectors/performance.
2. See the Data Sources, Methodologies, and Considerations chapter for
a discussion of normalization and for sources of normalizing data for
each sector.
3. For more information on MECS, see the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter and http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/.
4. For more information on NEI, see the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/.
5. For more information on TRI, see the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter and http://www.epa.gov/tri.
6. For more information on RSEI, see the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter and http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/.
7. For more information on BR, see the Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations chapter and http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/data/biennialreport/.
Executive Summary
Number of Facilities: Census Bureau, County Business Patterns
(CBP), 2004, http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html,
except as noted for sectors such as Cement Manufacturing and Iron
a Steel (see Data Guide for more information); Employment: Census
Bureau, CBP, 2004, except as noted for particular sectors (see Data
Guide); Value of Construction put in place: Census Bureau, Value
of Construction Put in Place, http://www.census.gov/const/C30/
totsa.pdf; Revenue for Colleges & Universities: National Center
for Education Statistics, "Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2005;
Graduation Rates, 1999 ft 2002 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics,
Fiscal Year 2005," http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007154.pdf;
Revenue for Ports: Census Bureau, 1997 and 2002 Economic Census,
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02, North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes 48831 and 48832; Energy Use:
Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration
(EIA), Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS), 2002;
Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: EPA, National Emission
Inventory (NEI) for Point Sources: Final v3 2002; Air emissions;
water discharges; land disposals; recycling, energy recovery, and
treatment: EPA, Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), 2005 Public Data
Release (PDR), freeze date: December 19, 2006; Hazardous Waste
Generated: EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report,
2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport;
Global Standing-Food & Beverage Manufacturing Ranking:
Confederation of the food and drink industries of the EU, "Data and
Trends of the European Food and Drink Industry," 2006, (citing ABIA;
Japanese Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, Department of
Commerce, INEGI, National Bureau of Statistics of China, Canada's
business and consumer site, New Zealand's Economic Development
Agency, AFFA), page 18, http://www.ciaa.be/documents/brochures/
Data_a_Trends_2006_FINAL.pdf; additional information on
European Union value of output: E-mail correspondence from E.
Dollet, Manager Economic Affairs, Confederation of the Food and
Drink Industries of the EU, to D. Kaiser, EPA, May 19, 2008; Global
Standing—Steel: International Iron and Steel Institute, "World crude
steel output increases by 7.5% in 2007," January 23, 2008, http://
www.worldsteel.org/?action=newsdetailaid=228; Global Standing-
Cement: Portland Cement Association, "About the Cement Industry,"
http://www.cement.org/manufacture/; Global Standing—Forest
Products sector: AFftPA submission to USTR, December 2005, http://
www.afandpa.org/Template. cfm?Section=international2B:templat
e=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfmaContentID=12382;
Global Standing-Construction: "Construction Services Sector,
2007; U.S. Market Overview", International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, http://trade.gov/investamerica/
construction.asp; Global Standing—Chemical Manufacturing:
Amercan Chemistry Council, "essential2economy", http ://www.
americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_topic.asp?CID=5a:DID=8; General
Comparisons and Examples of Economic Trends: see individual sector
chapters for examples referenced and data citations.
2. DOE, EIA, Annual Energy Review 2006, Report No. DOE/EIA-
0384(2006), http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/perspectives.pdf.
3. DOE, EIA, World Primary Energy Consumption by Region, 1995-2004,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stbll03.xls.
4. DOE, EIA, Annual Energy Review 2006, Report No. DOE/EIA-
0384(2006).
5. See also EPA, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors:
Opportunities and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable Energy
Outcomes, March 2007, http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/energy/
report.pdf.
6. 2005 total from: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2005, April 2007, p. ES-5, http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/downloads06/07CR.pdf; 1996 total
from: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2002, p. ES-4, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
downloads06/04ES.pdf.
7. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2005, p. ES-15.
8. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2005, EPA 430-R-07-002 April 2007, p. 5, http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/downloads06/07ES.pdf.
9. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2005; Production data: 2006 Annual Statistical Report, American
Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, p. 3; 1996 data from:
EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990
- 2002.
10. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2005; Production data: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Mineral
Commodity Summaries.
11. EPA, NEI, Final v3 2002.
12. Total tonnages for CAPs and VOCs (PM without condensibles); EPA,
NEI Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data, 1970-2006 Average annual
emissions, all criteria pollutants (July 2007), Excel file, http://www.
epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/trends06/nationaltierlupto2006basedon2
002fmalv2.1.xls.
13. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR; EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste
Report, 2005.
Data Guide
1. Information available on the Census webpage, http://www.census.
gov/naics/.
2. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health, Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Toxicological
Profile for Benzene (Draft), Atlanta, GA, 1997.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Appendix: Endnotes 119
-------
Cement Manufacturing
1. Facilities: Portland Cement Association (PCA), U.S. and Canadian
Portland Cement Industry: Plant Information Summary, December 31,
2006, Executive Summary, p. 1; Employment: PCA, U.S. Labor-Energy
Input Survey 2006; Clinker Production'. USGS Mineral Commodity
Summaries, 2007, p. 40-41, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/
commodity/cement/index.html.
2. Energy Use: PCA, U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey
2006. TRI releases; Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: EPA, NEI
for Point Sources: Final v3 2002; Releases of Chemicals reported to
TRI: EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, freeze date: December 19, 2006; Hazardous
Waste Generated and Managed: EPA, National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/data/biennialreport. This sector is defined by a pre-
determined list of cement manufacturing facilities.
3. USGS, 2005 Minerals Yearbook, February 2007, p. 16.2, http://
minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/cemenmyb05.
pdf. The 10 largest companies in 2005 were Holcim (US) Inc.;
Lafarge North America, Inc.; CEMEX, Inc.; Buzzi Unicem USA, Inc.;
Lehigh Cement Co.; Ash Grove Cement Co.; Essroc Cement Corp.;
Texas Industries Inc.; California Portland Cement Co.; and St. Marys
Cement, Inc.
4. USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries—Cement, January 2008,
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/mcs-
2008-cemen.pdf.
5. PCA, "Additional Cement Consumption Declines Forecasted" (press
release), October 29, 2007, http://www.cement.org/newsroom/
fallforecastWeb 102507.asp. Recent PCA economic projections
anticipate reduced cement consumption from a weakened economy
(a combination of the subprime mortgage crisis coupled with
increased energy costs, leading to a decline in overall nonresidential
construction). As a result, PCA predicts that 2007 cement
consumption will decline 6.9%, followed by a 2.5% decline in 2008.
6. PCA, U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2006, December
2006, p. i.
7. PCA, U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2006, p. 5.
8. PCA, U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2006, p. i.
9. DOE, Energy and Emission Reduction Opportunities for the Cement
Industry, December 2003, http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/industry/
imf/pdfs/eeroci_dec03a.pdf.
10. USGS, 2005 Mineral Yearbook-Cement, p. 16.3.
11. PCA, U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry: Plant Information
Summary, 2006, p. 3.
12. PCA, 2007 Report on Sustainable Manufacturing, undated,
http://www.cement.org/smreport07/index.htm.
13. CEMBUREAU website, Key Facts, http://www.cembureau.be.
14. Facility count is by TRI ID. Note that a facility can have more than
one TRI ID.
15. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
16. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through EPA's Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI).
17. EPA, NEI for Point Sources, Final v3 2002. Data compiled from EPA's
facility summary datasets. Includes facilities from a predetermined
list of cement manufacturing facilities.
18. Hendrik G. van Oss, USGS, Background Facts and Issues
Concerning Cement and Cement Data, p. 34, http://pubs.usgs.gov/
of/2005/1152/2005-1152.pdf.
19. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2005, April 2007, p. 4-5, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/usinventoryreporthtml.
20. Holcim Ltd., Corporate Sustainable Development Report 2005, p. 24,
http://www.holcim.com/gc/CORP/uploads/CSDR_2005_rev.pdf; Lafarge,
Sustainability Report 2006, p. 56, http://www.lafarge.com/05032007-
publication_sustainable_development-report2006-uk.pdf; and St.
Lawrence Cement Group, Building Value Responsibly: Sustainable
Development Report, February 2006, p. 9, http://www.holcim.com/gc/
CA/uploads/SLC SD Report February 2006 FINAL.pdf. Amounts are
in metric tons. Holcim reported 658 kg/ton; Lafarge reported 670 kg/
ton; and St. Lawrence Cement reported 668 kg/ton.
21. PCA, "Cement Industry Honors California Portland Cement Plant for
Energy Efficient Operations" (press release), March 19, 2007, http://
www.cement.org/newsroom/CalPortland_MojaveCA.asp.
22. Buzzi Unicem, "Chattanooga Plant Honoured for Reducing
Emissions" (press release), June 26, 2007, http://www.buzziunicem.
it/o nline/BuzziUnicem/en/Home/articolo817.html.
23. PCA, "Cement Formulation Change Promises Improved Emission
Performance" (press release), November 13, 2003, http://www.
cement.org/newsroom/greenbuildrelease20031113.asp.
24. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
25. PCA, 2008 Report on Sustainable Manufacturing, http://www.
cement.org/smreport08/sec_p age3_2.htm.
26. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005.
27. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005.
28. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
29. PCA, 2007 Report on Sustainable Manufacturing, Chapter 1: Cement,
Concrete, a Voluntary Goals; Environmental Performance Measures,
http://www.cementorg/smreport08/sec_pagel_3_C.htm.
Chemical Manufacturing
1. Facilities: Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (CBP), 2005,
http ://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html; Employment:
Census Bureau, CBP, 2005, http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/
view/cbpview.html; Value of shipments: Department of Commerce
(DOC), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA): Industry Economic
Accounts, 2005, http://www.bea.gov/industry/xls/GDPbyInd_SHIP_
NAICS_1998-2005.xls. Sector defined by NAICS code 325 or SIC
code 28 (Specialty-batch facilities defined by NAICS code 271.
2. Energy Use: DOE, FLA, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
(MFCS), 2002 Data Tables, Table 3.1, Energy Consumption as a Fuel,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/shelltables.
html; Criteria Air Pollutants: EPA, NEI for Point Sources: Final
v3 2002. Data compiled from EPA's facility-summary datasets.
Specialty-batch CAPs reported were 118,800 tons; Releases of
Chemicals Reported to TRI: EPA TRI, 2005 PDR, http://www.epa.
gov/tri/tridata/tri05/index.htm; Hazardous Waste Generated and
Managed: EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report,
2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/;
Specialty-batch releases of chemicals reported to TRI: air emissions,
9.1 million Ibs.; water discharges, 2.7 million Ibs; waste disposals, 2.8
million Ibs.; recycling, energy recovery, or treatment, 1.2 billion Ibs.
3. This sector is defined by SIC 28, and the corresponding NAICS
325. The specialty-batch subsector is characterized by a facility list
based on the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association
(SOCMA) membership as of February 2007. This list includes 271
facilities.
4. Membership includes 271 facilities as of February 2007. The SOCMA
membership list is available at the SOCMA website, http ://www.
socma.com/MemberList/.
5. American Chemical Council (ACC), Guide to the Business of
Chemistry 2006, p. 103-105.
6. EPA, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors, 2007,
footnote 21 on p. 2-12, http://www.epa.gov/sectors/energy/
index.html. The implementation of these opportunities depends on
120 Appendix: Endnotes
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
market factors, such as the price of natural gas, and there are many
technical, regulatory, and supply constraints on fuel switching.
7. EPA, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors, 2007. The
report cites Interlaboratory Working Group, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Scenarios for
a Clean Energy Future, 2000, http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/cef/.
8. SOCMA, "2006 Performance Improvement Awards Best
Practices," http://www.socma.com/chemStewards/index.
cfm?subSec=23aarticleID=142.
9. DOE, EIA; MECS, 2002 Data Tables, Table 3.1, Energy Consumption
as a Fuel (physical units) and Table 11.3, Components of Onsite
Generation of Electricity, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/
mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html.
10. ACC, Responsible Care 2006 Energy Efficiency Awards Program,
April 19, 2007.
11. ACC, Responsible Care 2006 Energy Efficiency Awards Program,
April 19, 2007.
12. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
13. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through EPA's Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI).
14. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through EPA's RSEI.
15. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through EPA's RSEI. Specialty-batch
chemicals sector trends are presented in absolute values (rather than
values that are normalized for subsector growth) due to the lack of
data on the subsector growth or production over the time period
presented.
16. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through EPA's RSEI.
17. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
18. EPA, NEI for Point Sources, Final v3 2002.
19. ACC, Responsible Care 2006 Energy Efficiency Awards Program,
April 19, 2007.
20. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2005, April 2007, p. 4-1, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/usinventoryreport.html.
21. Climate VISION mission statement, http://www.climatevision.gov/
mission.html.
22. ACC, Guide to the Business of Chemistry 2006, p. 110.
23. ACC, Performance Through Responsible Care, http://
www.americanchemistry.co m/s_responsiblecare/doc.
asp?CID=1298aDID=5084.
24. CH2M FULL, "Water Use in Industries of the Future," prepared for
DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Industrial
Technologies Program, July 2003, p. 26.
25. Byers, W, G. Lindgren, C. Noling, D. Peters. Industrial Water
Management: A Systems Approach. CH2M Hill, Inc., New York, 2003.
26. Byers, W, G. Lindgren, C. Noling, D. Peters. Industrial Water
Management: A Systems Approach. CH2M Hill, Inc., New York, 2003.
27. Personal correspondence, Sarah Mazur, EPA, with David DiMarcello,
BASF, October 19, 2007.
28. EPA, Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system
extracts of both the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and ICIS-
NPDES (October 2007).
29. 40 CFR §§ 414, 415, 417, 418, 422, 428, 439, 446, 447, 454, 455, 457,
458, and 463[0].
30. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
31. Personal correspondence, Richard Lee, Environmental Specialist,
Arizona Chemical, Port St. Joe Plant, with Warren Hixenbaugh,
ICF International, August 27, 2007.
32. CH2M HILL, "Water Use in Industries of the Future," prepared for
DOE, p. 26-33.
33. EPA, RCRA Hazardous Waste Report.
34. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
35. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
36. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
37. ACC, Responsible Care 2006 Energy Efficiency Awards Program,
April 19, 2007.
38. SOCMA, "2006 Performance Improvement Awards Best
Practices," http://www.socma.com/chemStewards/index.
cfm?subSec=23aarticleID=142.
39. SOCMA, ChemStewards® program, http://www.socma.com/
chemstewards/index.cfm?subSec+16.
40. American Chemistry Council, Responsible Care, http://
www.americanchemistiy.co m/s_responsiblecare/sec.
asp?CID= 129 8BDID=4841.
Colleges & Universities
1. Facilities: Census Bureau, CBP, 2004; http://www.census.gov/epcd/
cbp/view/cbpview.html; Employees: Census Bureau, CBP, 2004;
http ://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html; Revenue:
National Center for Education Statistics, "Postsecondary Institutions,
Fall 2005; Graduation Rates, 1999 ft 2002 Cohorts; and Financial
Statistics, Fiscal Year 2005," http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007154.
pdf. County Business Patterns shifted from the use of SIC to NAICS
codes in 1998, potentially causing the apparent dip shown in
facilities at that time.
2. Criteria Air Pollutants: EPA, NEI for Point Sources: Final V2 2002.
Data compiled from EPA's facility-summary datasets. Includes
facilities with NAICS code 61131 or SIC code 8221. (The sector
definition differs from the 2006 Performance Report in that it
excludes junior colleges.) Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed:
EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/.
3. Elaine Collison, EPA Green Power Partnership, personal
communication with Sector Strategies Division staff, Sept. 20, 2007.
4. For further information, visit http://www.epa.gov/chp/public-
recognition/current_winners.html.
5. EPA NEI for Point Sources: Final v3 2002. Data were compiled from
EPA's facility-summary datasets. Includes facilities with NAICS code
61131 or SIC code 8221. (The sector definition differs from the 2006
Performance Report in that it excludes junior colleges.)
6. Tom Frankiewicz, Program Manager, EPA Combined Heat and Power
Partnership, personal communication with Sector Strategies Division
staff, October 4, 2007.
7. EPA, Office of Water, Industrial Water Pollution Controls, "Effluent
Guidelines," May 8, 2007, http://www.epa.gov/guide/; and EPA,
"Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan," Dec 2006, p. 19-14, http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
guide/304m/2006-TSD-whole.pdf.
8. EPA, Office of Water, Wastewater Management, "Sectors of Industrial
Activity that Require Permit Coverage," http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
stormwater/swcats.cfm; and EPA, Office of Water, Wastewater
Management, "Factsheet: Proposed MSGP 2006," p. 6, http://www.
epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp2006_factsheet-proposed.pdf.
9. "Adam Joseph Center for Environmental Studies" website, http://
www.oberlin.edu/ajlc/ajlcHome.html.
10. Currently, colleges and universities do not report data to TRI.
11. Recyclemania "General Overview" webpage, http ://www.
recyclemaniacs.org/overview.htm; see also National Recycling
Coalition RecycleMania 2007 news release, April 19, 2007.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Appendix: Endnotes 121
-------
12. Charles Heizenroth, EPA, personal communication with Sector
Strategies Division staff, Sept. 5, 2007.
13. WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program through which
organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste and select
industrial wastes, benefiting their budget and the environment.
Partners design their own waste reduction programs tailored to their
needs. Colleges and universities can save money through reduced
purchasing and waste disposal costs. WasteWise provides free
technical assistance to help develop, implement, and measure waste
reduction activities. In addition to standard WasteWise Benefits,
there are many college and university-specific resources to help
reduce the amount of waste produced and disposed of. Some of these
benefits include assistance with waste reduction efforts, eligibility for
the WasteWise College and University Award, access to standardized
goals and objectives for colleges and universities, and coordinated
enrollment process with RecycleMania. For more information, visit
EPA's website for WasteWise, http://www.epa.gov/wastewise/
targeted/co lieges/benefits .htm.
14. Charles Heizenroth, EPA, personal communication with Sector
Strategies Division staff, Sept. 5, 2007.
15. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005.
16. Sustainable Endowments Institute, College Sustainability Report Card
2008, http://www.endowmentinstitute.org/.
Construction
1. Facilities: Census Bureau, 2005, http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/
cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl; Employment: Census Bureau; verified for 2005,
http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsel.pl; Value of
Construction: Census Bureau, Construction spending, http://www.
census.gov/const/www/c30index.html, and Value of Construction
put in place, http://www.census.gov/const/C30/totsa.pdf.
2. Energy Use: EPA, Sector Strategies Division estimate of energy
consumption was estimated based on reported dollars spent on
distillate fuel, natural gas, and gasoline for construction activities,
provided by the Census Bureau's Industry Series Report for
Construction; and Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census Industry
Series Reports Construction, Jan. 2000, http://www.census.gov/
prod/ec97/97c23-is.pdf; Construction & Demolition Debris:
Franklin Associates, for EPA, Characterization of Building-Related
Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States and
Characterization of Road and Bridge Related Construction and
Demolition Debris in the United States, 2005, representing disposals
in 2003 (preliminary estimate).
3. McGraw-Hill Construction data (value of construction, number of
projects) were used to normalize several performance measures in
this chapter (in addition to Census data). The McGraw-Hill data
are more comprehensive than Census Bureau data, and they are
updated quarterly, available through 2006, and available by state. A
construction "establishment" is generally the fixed place of business
where construction activities are managed. Establishments are not
construction projects, http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/naics/
sector23/23.htm.
4. Census Bureau, Construction Spending (Value Put in Place), http://
www.census.gov/const/www/totpage.html.
5. Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), Construction
Economics, http://www.agc.org/cs/industry_topics/construction_
economics, (see also Recommendations for Reducing Emissions from
the Legacy Diesel Fleet, p. E-vii October 7, 2005, http://www.epa.
gov/cleandiesel/documents/caaac-apr06.pdf) (showing figure of
92%).
6. EPA, Measuring Construction Industry Environmental Performance,
September 2007, p. 35, http://www.epa.gov/ispd/construction/
perfmeasures.pdf.
7. ICF Consulting, Emission Reduction Incentives for Off-Road
Diesel Equipment Used in the Port and Construction Sectors,
2005, available at http://www.epa.gov/sustainableindustry/pdf/
emission_20050519.pdf, p. 1.
8. EPA, Sector Strategies Division estimate of energy consumption was
estimated based on reported dollars spent on distillate fuel, natural
gas, and gasoline for construction activities, provided by the Census
Bureau's Industry Series Report for Construction; and Census Bureau,
1997 Economic Census Industry Series Reports Construction, Jan.
2000, http://www.census.gov/prod/ec97/97c23-is.pdf.
9. EPA, Cleaner Diesels: Low Cost Ways to Reduce Emissions from
Construction Equipment, March 2007.
10. Census Bureau, Annual Value of Construction Put in Place, http://
www.census.gov/const/C30/total.pdf.
11. Truitt Degeare, EPA, Office of Solid Waste, communication with Peter
Trait, EPA.
12. The NCDC compiles information on emissions reductions associated
with voluntary diesel retrofits. Went, J., EPA Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, communication Peter Trait, EPA, August 2007.
Fewer retrofit technologies are available for NOX than for PM2 5, but
the tonnage reduced is greater because NOX emissions are heavier
than PM2 5 emissions. The NCDC database includes 85 projects, but
emissions data are available for only 40 of them.
13. Associated General Contractors Survey, as reported in 2008
Associated Equipment Manufacturers Outlook, p. 11, November 2007,
http://www.aem.org/Trends/Reports/IndustriesOutlook/PDF/2008-
Industries_0utlook.pdf. In sum, 17,596 AGC general contractor and
specialty contractor member companies were surveyed by email.
14. EPA, Measuring Construction Industry Environmental Performance,
September 2007, p. 35, http://www.epa.gov/ispd/construction/
perfmeasures.pdf.
15. Science Applications International Corporation, prepared for EPA,
Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule, October
1999, p. 2-2: "When land is disturbed by construction activities,
surface erosion increases 10-fold on sites formerly used for crop
agriculture, 200 times on sites formerly under pasture, and 2,000
times on sites formerly forested."
16. EPA and authorized states establish general National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that codify specific
site management practices and reporting requirements. Further
information is available at the EPA website http://cfpub.epa.gov/
npdes. Additional information on construction stormwater is
available at the Construction Industry Compliance Assistance Center
website, http ://www.cicacenter.org.
17. Data in the figure were adjusted to account for multiple NOI
submissions for the same construction project and for projects not
requiring an NOI because of acreage thresholds or waivers. However,
the denominator (number of projects) overestimates the number of
projects requiring an NOI because (1) a single construction site may
be counted multiple times if it happens to include multiple project
types, and (2) the number of projects includes renovations and
additions, which may not require an NOI.
18. Colorado Department of Public Health, Colorado Stormwater
Excellence Program-Pilot Stage I-Final Report, http://www.cdphe.
state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/stormwater/CSEPstagel.pdf.
19. Currently, there is no centralized source of data on quantities of
CftD materials generated or recycled. Source of estimates: EPA's
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste.
Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition
Debris Materials in the United States (DRAFT), July 2006.
Considerable uncertainties are associated with these estimates; EPA is
seeking to develop a methodology for more accurate measurement.
20. Kim Cochran, EPA Office of Solid Waste, communication with Peter
Trait, EPA.
122 Appendix: Endnotes
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
21. EPA's Office of Solid Waste. Characterization of Road and Bridge
Related Construction and Demolition Debris Materials in the United
States (DRAFT), October 2005.
22. Turner Construction Company, Green Buildings website, http://www.
turnerconstruction.com/greenbuildings/content.asp?d=2199.
23. These examples are state-specific, and further research must address the
variation among the states and the reasons for short-term anomalies,
such as the sudden drop in recycling in Maryland in 2003. Additional
information on CftD recycling is available on EPA's website, http://www.
epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/debris-new/index.htm.
24. Recycling Construction Materials—An Important Part of the
Construction Process, by Kimberly Cochran and Nicole Villamizar,
in Construction Business Owner magazine, July 2007, http://
www.constructionbusinessowner.com/topics/environment-and-
compliance/recycling-construction-materials-an-important-part-
of-the-construction-process.html.
25. Recycling Construction Materials-An Important Part of the
Construction Process, by Kimberly Cochran and Nicole Villamizar,
in Construction Business Owner magazine, July 2007, http://
www.constructionbusinessowner.com/topics/environment-and-
compliance/recycling-construction-materials-an-important-part-
of-the-construction-process.html.
26. Excerpted from "Recycling Construction Materials-An Important
Part of the Construction Process," by Kimberly Cochran and Nicole
Villamizar, in Construction Business Owner magazine, July 2007,
http://www.constructionbusinessowner.com/topics/environment-
and-compliance/recycling-construction-materials-an-important-
part-of-the-construction-process.html.
27. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/.
28. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005.
29. "Green building" in this chapter focuses on measuring performance
only during the construction phase of the built environment. It does
not address activities prior to construction such as siting and design,
or post-construction activities such as the operation of structures.
30. Green Building Council, LEED Rating Systems, http ://www.
usgbc.org/LEED. See also, https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.
aspx?DocumentID=1095. Other programs include the Green Building
Initiative's Green Globes system and the National Association of
Homebuilders' Model Green Home Building Guidelines.
31. EPA, Sector Strategies Program, Measuring Construction Industry
Environmental Performance, September 2007, http://www.epa.gov/
sustainableindustiy/construction/perfmeasures.pdf.
32. EPA Sector Strategies, Measuring Construction Industry
Environmental Performance, September 2007, p. 10, http://www.epa.
gov/sectors/construction/.
33. Adapted from paper submitted by Oscar J. Boldt Construction
Company to Melinda Tomaino, AGC of America, for a future
publication on green construction.
34. The LEED Professional Accreditation program is now managed by the
Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), http://www.gbci.org/.
35. Melinda Tomaino, AGC of America, personal communication with
Peter Truitt, EPA.
Food & Beverage Manufacturing
1. Facilities: Census Bureau, CBP, 2005 (Facilities: Primary commodity
processing (PCP)=800, Animal production (AP)=5,000, Other agribusiness
(OT)=24,000); Employment: PCP=45,000, AP=545,000, OT=1 million.);
Value of shipments: DOC, BEA: Industry Economic Accounts, http://
www.bea.gov/indusuy/ (Value of shipments: PCP=$43.4 billion,
AP=$171.9 billion, OT=$394 billion).
2. Energy Use: DOE, EIA, MECS, 2002, Table 3.1, http://www.eia.
doe.gov/emeu/mecs/contents.html; Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: EPA's NEI for Point Sources: Final v3 2002; Releases
of Chemicals reported to TRI: EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, freeze date:
December 19, 2006; Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed:
EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005,
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport.
3. DOC, BEA, Industry Economic Accounts, http://www.bea.gov/
Industry/Index.htm. This sector is defined by SIC codes 20 and 5461;
NAICS codes 311 and 3121.
4. DOE, EIA, MECS, 2002 Data Tables, as discussed in EPA Sector
Strategies Program, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing
Sectors: Opportunities and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable
Energy Outcomes, March 2007, p. 3-31, 3-32.
5. Willis Sneed, Project Manager, HDR Engineering, Inc., personal
communication with Daniel Kaiser, EPA, January 4, 2008.
6. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
7. Walt Tunnessen, EPA, Climate Protection Partnership Division,
personal communication with Daniel Kaiser, EPA, October 4, 2007.
8. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through EPA's RSEI. Includes facilities
that report primary SIC codes 20 and 5461 on their Form R.
9. EPA's NEI for Point Sources: Final v3 2002. Data compiled from
EPA's facility summary datasets. Includes facilities with NAICS codes
311 and 3121 or SIC codes 20 and 5461.
10. EPA Sector Strategies Program, Energy Trends in Selected
Manufacturing Sectors: Opportunities and Challenges for
Environmentally Preferable Energy Outcomes, March 2007, p. 3-32.
11. Bella Tonkonogy, EPA Climate Leaders program manager, personal
communication with Daniel Kaiser, EPA, October 10, 2007.
12. EPA, Climate Leaders program, http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders.
13. Smithfield, Smithfield Corporate Social Responsibility Report
2006/2007, http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/responsibility/reports.
aspx.
14. Coca-Cola, 2006 Corporate Responsibility Review, "Water
Stewardship," http ://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/
pdf/corporate_responsib ility_review2006.pdf.
15. Nestle Purina Corporation, personal communication with Daniel
Kaiser, EPA, October 2, 2007.
16. 40 CFR §414.
17. TRI water discharges include direct discharges to waterways of any
TRI chemical and discharges of metals to publicly owned treatment
works.
18. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
19. EPA, Office of Water, Wastewater Management, "Factsheet: Proposed
MSGP 2006," p. 6, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp2006_
factsheet-proposed.pdf.
20. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport.
21. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
22. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
23. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
24. Unilever Corporation, personal communication with Daniel Kaiser,
EPA, October 2, 2007.
25. SYSCO Sustainable/Integrated Pest Management Initiative,
Environmental Indicator Report Summary for the 2006 Processing
Season. For more information, visit the SYSCO website, http ://www.
sysco.com/aboutus/aboutus_pestm.html.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Appendix: Endnotes 123
-------
Forest Products
1. Facilities: Census Bureau, CBP, 2005, http://www.census.gov/epcd/
cbp/view/cbpview.html; Employment: Census Bureau, CBP, 2005;
Value of shipments: DOC, BEA: Industry Economic Accounts, 2005,
http://www.bea.gov/industry/xls/GDPbyInd_SHIP_NAICS_1998-
2005.xls. Forest (Wood) Products defined by NAICS codes 3211,
3212, 32191, 32192, 321999 or SIC codes 242, 243, 244, 249; and
Forest (Paper) Products defined by NAICS codes 3221, 32221,
322221-322224, 322226, 32223, 32229 or SIC code 26.
2. Energy use: DOE, EIA, MFCS, 2002 Data Tables, Table 3.2, Energy
Consumption as a Fuel, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/
mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html; Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants: EPA's NEI for Point Sources: Final v3 2002. Re/eases of
Chemicals reported to TRl: Air Emissions, EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, freeze
date: December 19, 2006; Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed:
EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport.
3. Sector defined by SIC code 26 (pulp, paper, and packaging) and SIC
codes 242, 243, 244, 249 (wood products).
4. EPA, Sector Strategies Program, Forest Products, http://www.epa.
gov/sectors/forest/index.html.
5. EPA, Sector Strategies Program, Forest Products, http://www.epa.
gov/sectors/forest/index.html.
6. DOE, EIA, MFCS, 2002 Data Tables, Table 3.2, Energy Consumption
as a Fuel, and Table 6.1, Ratios of Manufacturing Fuel Consumption
to Economic Characteristics, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/
mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html.
7. DOE, Forest Products Industry of the Future: Fiscal Year 2004
Annual Report, February 2005, p. 2, http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/
industry/forest/tools.html.
8. AFftPA, Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance, http://www.
agenda2020.org.
9. DOE, Forest Products Industry of the Future: Fiscal Year 2004
Annual Report, February 2005, http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/
industry/forest/tools.html.
10. AFaPA, Environmental, Health, a Safety (EHS) Verification
Program, p. 23, http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/
Environment_and_Recycling/Environment,_Health_and_Safety/
EHS2004Final.pdf.
11. DOE, EIA, MECS, 2002 Data Tables, Table 10.2, Capability to Switch
From Natural Gas to Alternative Energy, http://www.eia.doe.gov/
emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html. Summarized in EPA
Sector Strategies Program, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing
Sectors: Opportunities and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable
Energy Outcomes, March 2000, p. 3-41.
12. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
13. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
14. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through EPA's RSEI.
15. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through EPA's RSEI.
16. Prior to the 1997 clarification, most mills would not have reported
these metals to TRI based on the "de minimis" exemption. For
additional information, please see the final Federal Register notice,
published May 1, 1997, 62 FR 23834.
17. AFaPA, Environmental, Health, a Safety Verification Program,
Biennial Report, 2006, p. 2, http://www.afandpa.org.
18. Loren Blosse, AFaPA, 'AFaPA Members Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions," press release, October 29, 2007.
19. AFaPA member companies manufacture more than 84°/o of the paper
and 62% of the wood products made in the United States. These
numbers were developed under the protocol developed by AFaPA
and the forest industry's environmental research organization, the
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) for DOE's
Climate VISION program.
20. Loren Blosse, AFaPA, "AFaPA Members Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions," press release, October 29, 2007.
21. These numbers were developed under the protocol developed by
AFaPA and NCASI for the Climate VISION program.
22. Includes direct discharges to waterways of any TRI chemical and
discharges of metals to POTWs.
23. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
24. 40 CFR 401.12(i) and 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(ii).
25. AFaPA, EHS Verification Program, BR, 2006.
26. EPA, Final Report: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Detailed Study
(EPA-821-R-06-016), November 2006, p. 5-4, http://www.epa.gov/
guide/3 04m/pulp-fmal.pdf.
27. EPA, Office of Water, Industrial Water Pollution Controls, Effluent
Limitation Guidelines, http://www.epa.gov/guide.
28. Diane Gobin, Stora Enso Duluth Paper Mill and Recycled Pulp Mill,
personal communication with Paula VanLare, EPA, September 19,
2007.
29. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport. This sector
is defined by NAICS codes: 3211, 3212, 32191, 32192, 321999, 3221,
32221, 322221-322224, 322226, 32223, and 32229.
30. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
31. AFaPA, AFftPA Environmental, Health, a Safety Verification
Program, Biennial Report, 2006, http://www.afandpa.org.
32. AFaPA, AFftPA Environmental, Health, a Safety Verification
Program, Biennial Report, 2006, http://www.afandpa.org.
33. AFaPA, Environment a Recycling, http://www.afandpa.org/
Content/NavigationMenu/Environment_and_Recy cling/Recycling/
Recycling.htm.
34. AFaPA, Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance.
35. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Hemicellulose Bioconversion, http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/
publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_ll 5=142 871.
Iron & Steel
1. Facilities: Facility trend information is from U.S. Geological Survey,
Mineral Commodity Summaries, Iron and Steel, 1996-2005, http://
minerals, usgs.gov/miner als/pubs/commodity/iron_B:_steel/.
Some apparent shifts in facility totals over time are attributable to
changes in data sources and in methodology used for estimation. The
reported facility total for 2004, which was apparently anomalous, is
not included in the trend line presented in this report. Employment:
Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (CBP), 2005, defined by
NAICS code 331111, http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.
html; Production: USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries, http://
minerals.usgs.gov/miner als/pubs/commodity//iron_B:_steel/index.html.
2. Energy Use: DOE, EIA, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
(MECS), 2002, Table 3.1, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/
contents.html; Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: EPA, National
Emission Inventory (NEI) for Point Sources: Final v3 2002. Chemicals
Reported to TRI: EPA, TRI, 2005 Public Data Release (PDR), freeze
date: December 19, 2006; Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed:
EPA, 2005 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport.
3. USGS, Iron and Steel, January 2007, http://minerals.usgs.gov/
124 Appendix: Endnotes
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_a_steel/festemcs07.pdf; see 2006
report for comparable narrative and sources.
4. All facilities in the sector fall within the scope of NAICS 331111,
but the sector does not include all businesses within that code. For
instance, the sector does not include facilities that make products
from steel without making new steel from either iron ore or steel
scrap. For more information, visit the Census website, http ://www.
census.gov/epcd/ec97/def/331111.htm.
5. DOE, EIA, MFCS, 1998 Energy Consumption by Manufacturers,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs98/datatables/contents.
htmlffuel.
6. DOE, EIA, MECS, 2002 Data Tables, Table 3.2, Energy Consumption
as a Fuel, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/
shelltables.html.
7. EPA, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors: Opportunities
and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable Energy Outcomes, March
2007, p. 3-53, http://www.epa.gov/opispdwb/energy/index.html.
8. EPA, Environmental Benefits of Recycle on the Go, http://www.epa.
gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/onthego/benefits/index.htm#steel.
9. AISI, personal communication with Tom Tyler, EPA, February 4,
2008.
10. EPA, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors: Opportunities
and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable Energy Outcomes, p.
3-55. Fractions based on 1998 MECS data.
11. DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Industrial
Technologies Program; Steel Industry Marginal Opportunity Study,
September 2005, p. 8, http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/industiy/steel/
pdfs/steelmarginalopportunity.pdf.
12. AISI, Saving One Barrel of Oil per Ton, A New Roadmap for
Transformation of Steelmaking Process, October 2005, http://www.
steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Articles7aTEMPLATE=/CM/
ContentDisplay.cfmaCONTENTID=12358.
13. J. Stubbles, Energy Use in the U.S. Steel Industry: An Historical
Perspective and Future Opportunities, September 2000. AISI,
Saving One Barrel of Oil per Ton (SOBOT): A New Roadmap for
Transformation of the Steelmaking Process, October 2005. Both
cited in EPA, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors:
Opportunities and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable Energy
Outcomes, March 2007. Additional process description for continuous
casting from Metals Processing Advisor, Southern California Gas
Company, http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/heattreat/
metalsadvisor/iron_and_steel/process_descriptions/raw_metals_
preparation/steelmaking/primary_finishing/continuous casting/
continuous_casting_process_description.htm.
14. DOE, Interlaboratory Working Group, Scenarios for a Clean
Energy Future (Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
and Berkeley, CA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), ORNL/
CON-476 and LBNL-44029, November 2000. CEF projects' energy
intensity will decline by 1.4°/o per year through 2020, though gains
will be incremental without some new, more energy efficient steel
production technique. Concerning research into transformational
methods of Steelmaking, see "North American Steel Industry
Searches for Steelmaking Breakthrough," Lou Schorsch, AISI, April
2008, http://www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Metal_
ForumaTEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfmaCONTENTID=23373.
15. EPA Combined Heat and Power Partnership, past winners of CHP
Award, http ://www.epa.gov/CHP/public-recognition/current_
winners.html.
16. Facility count is by TRI ID. A facility can have more than one TRI ID.
17. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
18. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled thrugh EPA's RSEI.
19. EPA, "Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry," September 1995, http://
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/
sectors/notebooks/ironastl.pdf. See also AISI, The Steel Industry
Technology Roadmap for Automotive, http://www.steel.org/AM/
Template.cfm?Section=PDFsaCONTENTFILEID=937aTEMPLATE=/
CM/ContentDisplay.cfm.
20. EPA, Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry, September 1995, http://
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/
sectors/notebooks/iron.html.
21. USGS, Manganese; Statistics and Information, http://minerals.usgs.
gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/manganese.
22. Federal Register, September 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 182) p.
53814.
23. Information current as of June 26, 2008; see End of Life Vehicle
Solutions Corporation, http://www.elvsolutions.org.
24. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2005, p. 4-7.
25. According to the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2005, GHG emissions from all coking coal used
to produce metallurgical coke are attributed to the Iron a Steel
sector. However, this includes emissions from coke ovens that
are not located at iron and steel facilities, the coke from which is
predominantly used by steel mills.
26. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2005, p. 4-7.
27. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2005, p. 4-6.
28. For more information, see EPA, Energy Trends in Selected
Manufacturing Sectors: Opportunities and Challenges for
Environmentally Preferable Energy Outcomes, March 2007, p. 3-53.
29. AISI letter to Honorable Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy,
http ://www.climatevision.gov/sectors/steel/pdfs/aisi_l etter.pdf.
30. AISI, Climate VISION Work Plan, http://www.climatevision.gov/
sectors/steel/work_plans.html.
31. AISI, communication with Tom Tyler, EPA, February 4, 2008.
32. Testimony of Jim Slattery, Climate Change: Competitiveness
Concerns for Engaging Developing Countries, before the Energy and
Air Quality Subcommittee, Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S.
House of Representatives, March 5, 2008.
33. 2006 Annual Statistical Report, American Iron and Steel Institute,
Washington, DC, p. 3.
34. DOE, Industrial Water Use and Its Energy Implications, http://wwwl.
eere.energy.gov/industry/steel/printable_versions/news_detail.
html?news_id=7885, citing AISI, Public Policy Statements-1999-
2000, 106th Congress, Washington, DC: AISI, 1999, p. 21.
35. AISI, Public Policy Statements-1999-2000, 106th Congress, p. 21.
36. DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Industrial
Technologies Program, Water Use in Industries of the Future, 2003,
http://www.ana.gov.br/Destaque/dl79-docs/PublicacoesEspecificas/
Metalurgia/Steel_water_use.pdf.
37. AISI, Public Policy Statements-1999-2000, 106th Congress, p. 21.
38. DOE, Industrial Technologies Program, Steel Industry of the Future
Report on Water Use in the Industries of the Future: Steel Industry,
July 2003 (citing: Wakelin, David H. ed. 1999. The Making, Shaping
and Treating of Steel: Ironmaking Volume, llth ed. Pittsburgh, PA,
p. 386-93; and Yamada, Louise. 1998. Market Magic: Riding the
Greatest Bull Market of the Century. New York: John Wiley a Sons,
Inc., at 160); AISI, communication with Tom Tyler, EPA, February 4,
2008.
39. Great Lakes Commission's Transportation and Economic
Development Program, Liquid Asset: Great Lakes Water Quality and
Industry Needs, October 1992, http://www.glc.org/docs/liqasset/
liqasset.html.
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Appendix: Endnotes 125
-------
40. Includes direct discharges to waterways of any TRI chemical and
discharges of metals to POTWs.
41. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
42. EPA, "Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry," September 1995, p. 17.
43. EPA, "Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry," September 1995. Wet
scrubbers/venturi scrubbers use about 1,000 gallons of water per ton
of steel processed. Water treatment plant sludge from the scrubbers
is processed by sintering to be fed back into the blast furnace or is
disposed of as waste.
44. Steel Recycling Institute, "Steel Recycling in the U.S. Continues Its
Record Pace In 2005" (press release), April 26, 2006, http://www.
recycle-steel.org/PDFs/2005Release.pdf.
45. Jennifer R. Kaduck, Georgia Environmental Protection Division,
Innovative Solutions Towards the Elimination of Land Disposal of
Electric Arc Furnace Emission Control Dust (Hazardous Waste K061),
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/21/20282.pdf.
46. EPA, 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Report.
47. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport. This sector is
defined by a pre-determined list of iron and steel mills.
48. Mini Steel Mills, Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook,
WORLD BANK GROUP, July 1998, p. 341, http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/
sustainability.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/gui_ministeel_WB/$FILE/
ministeel_PPAH.pdf.
49. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through RSEI.
50. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
51. Tom Tyler, EPA Sector Strategies Division.
52. Eric Stuart, SMA, personal communication to Tom Tyler, EPA,
May 9, 2007.
Metal Casting
1. Facilities: Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (CBP), 2004,
http ://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html; Employment:
Census Bureau, CBP, 2004, http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/
view/cbpview.html; Ferrous and Nonferrous Shipments: American
Foundry Society (AFS), Metal Casting Forecast a Trends; Stratecasts,
Inc., Demand a Supply Forecast.
2. Energy Use: DOE, EIA, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
(MFCS), 2002; Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: EPA, National
Emission Inventory (NEI) for Point Sources: Final v3 2002. Chemicals
Reported to TRI: EPA, TRI, 2005 Public Data Release (PDR), freeze
date: December 19, 2006; Hazardous Waste Generated and Managed:
EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport.
3. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for
this sector are 33151 and 33152.
4. DOE, Metal Casting Industry of the Future: Fiscal Year 2004
Annual Report, http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/industry/about/pdfs/
metalcasting_fy2004.pdf.
5. DOE, EIA, MECS, 2002 Data Tables, Table 1.2, Consumption of
Energy for All Purposes (First Use), http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
mecs/mecs2002/data02/shell tables.html.
6. DOE, Theoretical/Best Practice Energy Use In Metalcasting
Operations, Analysis prepared by KERAMTDA Environmental, Inc.,
Schifo, J.F., and Radia, J.T., May 2004, p. 13.
7. DOE, EIA, MECS, 2002 Data Tables, Table 1.2, Consumption of
Energy for All Purposes (First Use), http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
mecs/mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html.
8. DOE, Theoretical/Best Practice Energy Use In Metalcasting
Operations, Analysis prepared by KERAMTDA Environmental, Inc.,
Schifo, J.F., and Radia, J.T., May 2004, p. 31.
9. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, modeled through EPA's Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI).
10. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
11. Steve Lewallen, Gregg Industries, a subsidiary of Neenah Enterprises
Inc., personal communication with Jeffrey Kohn, EPA, January 31,
2008.
12. 40CFR§421.
13. Includes direct discharges to waterways of any TRI chemical and
discharges of metals to POTWs.
14. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
15. EPA Sector Notebook, Profile of the Metal Casting Industry, 1998,
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/
sectors/notebooks/casting.html.
16. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport.
17. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
18. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
19. Diane Kurtzman, Kurtz Bros., Inc., communication with Jeffrey Kohn,
EPA, January 18, 2008.
20. AFS, Industry Practices Regarding the Disposal and Beneficial Reuse
of Foundry Sands: Results and Analysis, August 2007.
21. Daniel Twarog, NADCA, communication with Jeffrey Kohn, EPA,
August 14, 2007.
Oil & Gas
1. Wells: World Oil Magazine, Producing Oil Wells, February 2007
(Total 2005), at http://www.worldoil.com/WOJVIAG/Feb-2007/07-
02_US_Oil_Wells_tabl.htm; Employment: Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, NAICS codes 211111, 211112, 213111, and
213112; Production: Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration, Production in Btu derived from Crude Oil Field
Production (Barrels) and Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and
Production (MMcf), http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_
crpdn_adc_mbbl_m.htm; and http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/
ng_prod_sum_dcu_NUS_m.htm.
2. Refineries: DOE, EIA, Refinery Capacity Report, Table 1, http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/refinery_
capacity_data/refcapacity.html, trend data for 1996 and 1998 were
not available; Employment: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics; Crude Oil Inputs into Refineries: DOE, EIA, Petroleum
Refining a Processing, Weekly Inputs, Utilization a Production
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm.
Although EIA data indicate 148 refineries, the number of facilities in
SIC 2911 (Petroleum Refineries) including the TRI and BR databases
exceed this count. This could be the result of numerous factors, such
as: (1) there are differences in how EIA defines the sector and how the
sector is defined by SIC code 2911, and (2) database counts reflect the
number of IDs in the data system; some facilities may inadvertently
report under multiple IDs within a data system. 2005 barrels of crude
oil inputs into refineries were estimated by multiplying the average
weekly inputs (barrels/day) by seven (days/week), and summing all
weeks in the calendar year.
3. The relevant NAICS categories (and codes) are Petroleum and Natural
Gas Extraction (211111), Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (211112),
Drilling Oil and Gas Wells (213111), Oil and Gas Operations Support
Activities (213112), and Petroleum Refineries (32411).
4. World Oil Magazine, Producing Oil Wells, February 2007 (Total
2005), http://www.worldoil.com/WO_MAG/Feb-2007/07-02_US_
Oil_Wells_tabl.htm; World Oil Magazine, Producing Gas Wells,
February 2007 (Total 2005), http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/
MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=3115 8MONTH_YEAR=Feb -2 007;
126 Appendix: Endnotes
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
DOE, EIA, U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Rotary Rigs in Operation
(Count), 2005, available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/
pet_crd_drill_s 1 _a.htm.
5. The EIA website contains further information on global production,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables 1_2.
htm and http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/
RecentNaturalGasProductionTCF.xls.
6. The Exploration and Production overview of this chapter was
written based upon the EPA sector lead's knowledge base that was
informed by various governmental, industry, and non-governmental
information sources including the following: EPA Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation (OPEI) Sector Strategies Program
Report Review Draft: Environmental Impacts from Oil and Gas
Production in EPA Region 8, May 2008; DOE report to Congress,
Energy Demands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the
Interdependency of Energy and Water, December 2006; and EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), Industry
Sector Compliance Assistance Notebook: Profile of the Oil and Gas
Extraction Industry, 1999.
7. API, Energy Efficiency Primer for the U.S. Oil and Natural Gas
Exploration and Production Industry, based on research and analysis
conducted by Advanced Resources International Inc., p. 2, January 2008.
8. WRAP is a collaborative effort and voluntary organization of tribal
governments, state governments, and various federal agencies.
Formed in 1997, WRAP works to improve visibility in western areas
by providing the technical expertise and policy tools needed by
states and tribes to implement the federal Regional Haze Rule (RHR).
9. EPA, Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan, EPA-821-R-04-014, August 2004.
10. Devon, Natural Gas STAR Partner Newsletter, http://www.epa.gov/
gasstar/pdf/devon_newslett er_1005.pdf.
11. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) by Argonne
National Laboratory, A White Paper Describing Produced Water
from Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed Methane.
January 2004; See also: DOE, report to Congress, Energy Demands
on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the Interdependency of
Energy and Water, p. 47, December 2006.
12. The main sources of water data are from Lasser and HIS, privately
managed databases containing data reported by industry to the
states for taxation and royalty purposes. They are widely used by
industry and government to help characterize oil and gas exploration
and production activity. The Lasser data provide information on the
number of wells drilled and amount of oil, gas, and water produced.
These data were used to estimate the amount of produced water
resulting from oil and gas operations as well as well-count and oil
and gas production. The HIS database was used to identify the CBM
wells and to help disaggregate the well data, including produced
water, by well type.
13. DOE, report to Congress, Energy Demands on Water Resources:
Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water,
December 2006.
14. International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group,
Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines: Onshore Oil and Gas
Development, April 30, 2007.
15. Devon, Corporate Responsibility Achievements, www.devonenergy.
com/CorpResp/P ages/achievements.aspx.
16. Drilling waste estimates are based on the API report, Overview of
Exploration and Production Waste Volumes and Waste Management
Practices in the United States. This API report provides emission
factors for drilling wastes based on production. The Draft EPA Sector
Strategies report used those emission factors with operating data
from the year of estimate. These emission factors have been used by
API for many years and are believed to be the best available.
17. Energy Use: DOE, EIA, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
(MFCS), 2002, Table 3.1, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/
contents.html. Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: EPA's National
Emission Inventory (NEI) for Point Sources: Final v3 2002. Releases
of Chemicals Reported to TRI: EPA, TRI, Public Data Release (PDR),
2005, freeze date: December 19, 2006; Hazardous Waste Generated
and Managed: EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste
Report, 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/
biennialreport.
18. EPA, Sector Strategies Program (SSP), Energy Trends in Selected
Manufacturing Sectors: Opportunities and Challenges for
Environmentally Preferable Energy Outcomes, 2007, p. 2-10 and 3-11.
19. DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Industrial
Technologies Program. Energy Use, Loss, and Opportunities Analysis:
U.S. Manufacturing and Mining, December 2004.
20. API, Fuel Choices for Advanced Vehicles, p. 14, September 2006.
21. EPA, SSP, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors:
Opportunities and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable Energy
Outcomes, p. 3-11, Petroleum Refining Section, Table 52.
22. EPA, SSP, Energy Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors:
Opportunities and Challenges for Environmentally Preferable Energy
Outcomes, p. 3-11, Petroleum Refining Section, p. 3-88.
23. DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy
and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Petroleum Refining Industry,
November 2007, http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/industry/petroleum_
refming/analysis.html.
24. EPA, ENERGY STAR, News Room Content, http://yosemite.epa.gov/
opa/admpress.nsf/.
25. See Endnote 2, above, discussing number of facilities reporting
various releases to TRI.
26. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
27. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
28. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2005.
29. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2005, p. 3-45.
30. DOE, report to Congress, Energy Demands on Water Resources:
Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water,
December 2006.
31. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
32. EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR.
33. EPA, Natural Gas STAR, Partner Update, fall 2005.
34. Performance Track recognizes and drives environmental excellence
by encouraging facilities with strong environmental records to go
beyond their legal requirements.
35. EPA, Performance Track, Feature Stories, http://www.epa.gov/
perftrac/members/news/mar08/feature.htm.
Paint & Coatings
1. Facilities: Census Bureau, CBP, 2005; available at http://www.
census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html, defined by NAICS code
32551 or SIC code 2851; Employment: Census Bureau, CBP, 2005;
Production: Census Bureau, Current Industrial Reports (CIR), 2006;
http://www.census.gOV/industry/l/ma325f06.pdf; Value of
Shipments: DOC, BEA: Industry Economic Accounts; http://bea.gov/
Industiy/Index.htm.
2. Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: EPA's NEI for Point Sources:
Final v3 2002 (includes facilities with NAICS code 32551 or SIC
code 2851, data compiled from EPA's facility-summary datasets);
Chemicals Reported to TRI: EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2006
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Appendix: Endnotes 127
-------
Public Data Release (PDR) (includes facilities that report primary
SIC code 2851 on their Form R); Hazardous Waste Generated and
Managed: EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report,
2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport.
3. The sector is defined by SIC code 2851 or NAICS code 32551.
4. Census Bureau, Economic Census, Paint and Coating Manufacturing:
2002, issued June 2005, Table 3, http://www.census.gov/prod/
ec02/ec0231i325510.pdf. Census Bureau, Economic Census, General
Summary: 2002, issued October 2005, Table 4, http://www.census.
gov/econ/census02/guide.
5. EPA TRI, 2006 PDR, modeled through EPA's Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI).
6. EPA TRI, 2006 PDR, modeled through RSEI.
7. EPA NEI for Point Sources: Final v3 2002.
8. EPA NEI for Point Sources: Final v3 2002.
9. Includes direct discharges to waterways of any TRI chemical and
discharges of metals to POTWs.
10. EPA TRI, 2006 PDR.
11. Federal Register, February 13, 2001, p. 10060; the survey covered
manufacturers of architectural, original equipment manufacturers,
and special purpose paints/coatings, but did not include the other
categories, such as miscellaneous allied products and artist paint.
12. In responding to public comment in the final rule (Federal Register,
April 4, 2002, p. 16262) EPA examined the impact of revising its
statistical analysis somewhat, which had the effect of reducing the
total wastewater volume slightly to about 14.5 million gallons.
13. Due to an apparent reporting error, a non-paint and coatings facility
is included in the hazardous waste generation total of 146,000 tons
and constitutes 12% of this total. If removed, the industry's total
hazardous waste generation would be reduced to 129,000 tons.
Industry classification for Haros Anodizing Specialists Inc. from Dun
a Bradstreet, accessed via EPA's Integrated Data for Enforcement
Analysis (IDEA), April 2008.
14. EPA, Exploring Opportunities to Improve Environmental Performance
Related to Hazardous Waste Generation and Management at Paint
and Coatings Facilities.
15. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005,: http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/.
This sector is defined by NAICS code 32551.
16. EPA TRI, 2006 PDR.
17. EPA TRI, 2006 PDR.
18. For more information on Coatings Care, visit: http://www.paint.org/cc/.
19. Product Stewardship Institute, "Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Background Summary," October 29, 2004 (revised April 1, 2005),
http://www.productstewardship.us/associations/6596/files/
PaintMOUBkgrdSummary.doc.
20. EPA, "Quantifying the Disposal of Post-Consumer Architectural
Paint," final report prepared for EPA's Sector Strategies Division by
Abt Associates, Inc., April 2007.
21. Product Stewardship Institute, "PSI Paint Project-National
Dialogue," http://www.productstewardship.us/displaycommon.
cfm?an=lB:subarticlenbr=117.
Ports
1. Number of Ports: AAPA, U.S. Public Port Facts, http ://www.aapa-ports.
org; Direct Jobs: AAPA, The Local and Regional Economic Impacts
of the U.S. Deepwater Port System, 2006, p.7, prepared by Martin
Associates, September 5, 2007, http://www.aapa-ports.org/Press/
PRdetail.cfm?itemnumber3485; Revenue: Census Bureau, 1997 and
2002 Economic Census, http://www.census.gov/econ/census02, North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 48831 and
48832.
2. In the 2005 survey, 48 ports responded, representing a 57°/o response
rate.
3. Meredith Martino, AAPA, personal correspondence with Kathleen
Bailey, EPA, regarding unpublished surveys conducted in 2005 and
2007.
4. Number of Ports, U.S. Public Port Facts, AAPA, http://www.aapa-
ports.org; Contribution of port activity to GDP: Trade a Economic
Growth - Port Industry Information, http://www.aapa-ports.org;
Customs Revenue: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, http://www.
nemo.cbp.gov/of/customs_report.pdf.
5. AAPA, "U.S. Port Industry," http://www.aapa-ports.org/Industry/
content.cfm?ItemNumber=1022anavItemNumber=901.
6. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
Pocket Guide to Transportation 2007, Tables 5-5 and 5-6, http://
www.bts.gov/publications/pocket_guide_to_transportation/2007.
7. Cruise Lines International Association, The Cruise Industry: A $35.7
Billion Partner in U.S. Economic Growth, undated, http://www.
cruising.org/press/research/2006.CLIA.EconomicSummary.pdf.
8. Testimony of Jean Godwin, AAPA, before the National Surface
Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, March 19, 2007,
http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/pdfs/commission_
meetings/0307_field_hearing_washington/031907_fh_aapa_
testimony.pdf.
9. Port of Oakland, "Port of Oakland Mobile Shoreside Power Test Is a
Success" (press release), August 27, 2007, http://www.portofoakland.
com/newsroom/pressrel/view.asp?id=74.
10. Port of Long Beach, Cold Ironing Cost Effectiveness Study, Volume
I Report, March 2004, p. 79, http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/
blobdload.asp?BlobID=2157.
11. For information on a "green" lease that the Port of Los Angeles
signed with PaO Nedlloyd in January 2006, please visit http://www.
portoflosangeles.org/Press/REL_BHC Approves 206-209 EIR.pdf.
12. In January 2006, EPA published a guide outlining methodologies
and best practices for emissions inventories at ports. The guide
is titled Current Methodologies and Best Practices in Preparing
Port Emission Inventories, http://www.epa.gov/sectors/ports/
bp_portemissionsfinal.pdf.
13. Meredith Martino, AAPA, communication with Kathleen Bailey, EPA,
January 31, 2008.
14. Port of Seattle, "Port of Seattle, SSA Switch to Biodiesel" (press
release), December 23, 2005, http://www.portseattle.org/news/
press/2005/12_23_2005_36.shtml; "EPA Presents Port of Seattle
with Clean Air Excellence Award" (press release), April 5, 2006,
http://www.portseattle.org/news/press/2006/04_05_2006_70.
shtml.
15. This figure is an internal EPA estimate of emissions savings. While
biodiesel produces lower emissions of some air pollutants compared
to petroleum-based diesel, it does produce higher emissions of NOX, a
precursor to smog.
16. Port of Los Angeles, "Los Angeles Harbor Commission Certifies
EIR and Approves Berth 136-147 TraPac Container Terminal
Expansion Project" (press release), December 6, 2007, http://www.
portoflosangeles.org/News/news_l 20607trapac.htm. Port of Los
Angeles, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental
Impact Report for Berths 136-147 (TraPac) Container Terminal
Project, November 14, 2007, http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/
TraPacFIER/feir_111407trapac.htm.
17. Port of Oakland, "Port of Oakland and SunEdison Flip the
Switch" (press release), November 8, 2007,
http://www.oaklandairport.com/press_releases_detail.cfm?ID=500.
128 Appendix: Endnotes
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
18. See 2006 Sector Strategies Performance Report, p. 68, http ://www.
epa.gov/sectors/performance.html.
19. This list includes ports for which emission inventories are still under
development. These inventories do not necessarily cover the same
universe of emissions sources; most do not estimate GHG emissions.
20. For more information on EPA's funding for clean diesel projects at
ports, visit the EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports/
grants.htm.
21. EPA SmartWay Transport Partnership, "A Glance at Clean Freight
Strategies: Common Chassis Pools for Drayage," http://www.epa.
gov/smartway/documents/420f06002.pdf.
22. Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Final 2006 San Pedro Bay
Ports Clean Air Action Plan, http://www.polb.com/environment/
air_quality/clean_air_action_plan.asp. Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach, "San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Fact
Sheet," undated, http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.
asp?BlobID=3432. While the immediate purpose of the Clean Air
Action Plan is to address emissions that affect public health on a
local basis, some of the proposed measures will result in a decrease
in GHG emissions.
23. Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, "San Pedro Bay Ports Clean
Air Action Plan Fact Sheet," undated, http://www.polb.com/civica/
filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3432.
24. Port of Los Angeles, First Quarter 2007 Clean Air Action
Plan Implementation-Milestone Status Report, http ://www.
portoflosangeles.org/environment_air.htm.
25. Port of Los Angeles, Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions
2005, September 2007, p. 15, http://www.portoflosangeles.org/
DOC/2005_Air_Emissions_Inventory_Full_Doc.pdf. Between 2001
and 2005, container volume at the port increased by 44%, while the
actual quantities of PM and NOX emissions increased by 13% and
9%, respectively, and actual SOX emissions fell by 4%.
26. SCSPA, "Corps Issues Permits for New Charleston Container
Terminal" (press release), April 26, 2007, http://www.port-
of-charleston.com/community/press_room/pressroom.
asp?PressRelease= 172.
27. SCSPA, "Port of Charleston Switches to Cleaner Fuel" (press
release), September 24, 2007, http://www.scspa.com/community/
press_room/pressroom.asp?PressRelease=186.
28. EPA estimate of emissions savings based on diesel consumption of
one million gallons annually.
29. Meredith Martino, AAPA, communication with Kathleen Bailey,
EPA, January 31, 2008. For more information, see Northwest Ports
Clean Air Strategy, May 16, 2007, adopted by the Port of Tacoma
Commission on January 17, 2008, and by the Port of Seattle
Commission on January 22, 2008, http://www.portseattle.org/
downloads/community/environment/NWCleanAirStrat_200712.pdf.
30. AAPA, "U.S. Ports Advocate for Reducing Emissions from Ships"
(press release), October 10, 2007, http://www.aapa-ports.org/
Press/PRdetail.cfm?itemnumber=3995. EPA has proposed setting
new international standards for both new engines and those built
before 2000. These new standards would apply to emissions of
NOX, SOX, and PM. For more information on the proposal, see the
EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htmffimo.
31. Puget Sound Maritime Air Forum, "Puget Sound Maritime Air
Emissions Inventory," p. 2, http://www.maritimeairforum.org/EI/
PSEI_Overview.pdf.
32. Port of San Diego, The Port of San Diego 2006 Emissions Inventory,
September 2007, p. ES-2, http://www.portofsandiego.org/
sandiego_environment/documents/2006_air_emissions_inventory-
september_2007.pdf.
33. For more information on the SmartWay Transport Partnership, see
the EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/smartway/fmancing.htm.
34. Port of Portland, "'Thirsty' Asphalt Wins Environmental
Sustainability Award" (press release), October 18, 2006, http://
www.flypdx.com/NewsRelease.aspx?newsContent=A_20061018
10282RMAPWAawardNR94.ascxatopic=Marine News Release;
Oregon Chapter of the American Public Works Association, "Local
Agencies Recognized For Sustainability" (press release), October 12,
2006, http://www.oregonapwa.org/Awards/release.julian2006.doc;
"Portland's Porous Pavement a Prize," Public Works Online, January
1, 2007, http://www.pwmag.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=760
aarticleID=438448.
35. Port of Everett, "Beach Enhancement for Mount Baker Terminal"
(successful application for AAPA Environmental Award), June 15,
2007, http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/EnvironmentalAwards/
2007/2007%5FEnviroAwards%5FEverettpdf.
36. St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, "Ballast Water
Management in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System,"
May 2007, http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/navigation/
b allast_water.html.
37. AAPA, "Ballast Water," http://www.aapa-ports.org/Issues/
US GovRelDetail.cfm?itemnumb er=8 8 0.
38. For more information on the research effort to end the problem of
ship-borne invasive species in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway
System, see the Great Ships Initiative website, http://www.nemw.
org/GSI/index.htm.
39. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Deep Water Ports and Harbors: Value
to the Nation," undated, http://www.vtn.iwr.usace.army.mil/pdfs/
DeepWaterPorts.pdf.
40. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Navigation: Economic Impact,
Environmental Benefits, Recent Activities," http://www.vtn.iwr.
usace.army.mil/navigation/default.htm.
41. AAPA's member surveys found that the percentage of ports with
dredged material management plans increased from 50% in 2005 to
68% in 2007. The percentage of ports with provisions for beneficial
reuse of dredged materials (e.g., wetland creation) grew from 38% in
2005 to 45% in 2007.
42. Port Fourchon, "Maritime Forest Ridge and March Recreation
Project" (application for AAPA Environmental Award), June 1, 2006,
http://aapa.files.cms-plus.eom/PDFs/EnvironmentalAwards/2006/2
006%5FEnviroAward%5FFourchon.pdf.
43. Meredith Martino, AAPA, personal communication with Kathleen
Bailey, EPA, regarding unpublished surveys conducted in 2005 and
2007.
44. For more information, see the EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/
owow/oceans/cruise_ships/disch_assess.html.
45. EPA, Profile of the Water Transportation Industry (Shipping and
Barging), 1997, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/
publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/water.html.
46. Meredith Martino, AAPA, personal communication with Kathleen
Bailey, EPA, regarding unpublished surveys conducted in 2005 and
2007.
47. Public Entity EMS Resource Center, 1st Ports EMS/SMS Assistance
Project: Final Report, May 30, 2006, http://www.peercenter.net/
ewebeditpro/items/073F8587.pdf. The eight ports that worked on
EMSs during the first EMS Assistance Project were the Virginia Port
Authority; Port of Corpus Christi Authority; Port of Portland, OR;
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; Port of Los Angeles;
Port of New Orleans; Port Everglades; and Port of Vancouver, WA. In
the second round of the project, the five ports working on EMSs were
the Maryland Port Administration, Port of Cleveland, Port of Everett,
Port of Long Beach, and Port of Oakland. Five other participating
ports worked on security management systems, in which the EMS
framework is used to manage security risks and vulnerabilities.
48. To assist other ports in developing EMSs, AAPA, and EPA partnered
on development of a publication titled EMS Primer for Ports:
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
Appendix: Endnotes 129
-------
Advancing Port Sustainability, January 2008, http://www.epa.gov/
sectors/ports/ems_primer.pdf.
49. Meredith Martino, AAPA, personal communication with Kathleen
Bailey, EPA, regarding unpublished surveys conducted in 2005 and
2007. For examples of the ports' annual environmental reports,
please visit the port websites, http://www.polb.com/news/pub/
green_port_annual.asp, http://www.portofportland.com/PDFPOP/
Env_06_07_ObjTrgts.pdf, and http://www.portofhouston.com/
publicrelations/environmenthtml.
50. EMS primer available on EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/sectors/
ports.
51. More information on Green Marine can be found on the Green
Marine website, http://www.green-marine.org.
52. To read AAPA's sustainability resolution and principles, see the
AAPA website, http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/sustainability_
resolutions.pdf.
53. Port of Portland, "Environmental Outreach and Communication
Program" (successful application for AAPA Environmental
Award), June 15, 2007, http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/
EnvironmentalAwards/2007/2007_EnviroAwar ds_Portland.pdf.
For more information on the Port of Portland's Terminal 4 sediment
cleanup project, see the Port of Portland website, http ://www.
portofportlandor.com/T4_EA_Home.aspx.
Shipbuilding & Ship Repair
1. Facilities: Beth Gearhart, U.S. Maritime Administration, personal
communication with Shana Harbour, EPA, December 2005.
Employees: Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (CBP), 2005,
http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html, defined
by NAICS code 336611 or SIC code 3731; Value of Shipments:
Department of Commerce (DOC), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA);
Industry Economic Accounts, 2005, http://www.bea.gov/industry/
xls/GDPBYIND_SHIP_NAICS_1998-2005.xls, defined by NAICS
code 336611 or SIC code 3731.
2. Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: EPA's National Emission
Inventory (NEI) for Point Sources: Final v3 2002 (data compiled from
EPA's facility-summary datasets. Includes facilities with NAICS code
336611 or SIC code 3731); Releases of chemicals reported to TRI:
EPA, TRI, 2005 PDR, freeze date: December 19, 2006; Hazardous
Waste Generated and Managed: EPA, National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report, 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/data/biennialreport. MFCS does not contain sector-level
data for shipbuilding and ship repair. This number is for the larger
NAICS category of transportation equipment (NAICS 336), which also
contains motor vehicle manufacturing).
3. Website of Maritime Business Strategies, LLC, citing Lloyd's Register's
World Fleet Statistics, http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/
statistics/world.htm.
4. DOE, EIA. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, 2002
Data Tables, Table 3.2, Energy Consumption as a Fuel, and Table
6.1., Ratios of Manufacturing Fuel Consumption to Economic
Characteristics, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/
data02/shelltables.html.
5. Census Bureau. Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries: 2004,
Annual Survey of Manufacturers (December 2005), http ://www.
census.gov/prod/2005pubs/am0431gsl.pdf.
6. Census Bureau. Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries:
2001, Annual Survey of Manufacturers (January 2003), http://
www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/m01as-l.pdf; Census Bureau.
Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries: 2004, Annual Survey
of Manufacturers (December 2005), http://www.census.gov/
prod/2005pubs/am0431gsl.pdf.
7. Hal Jones, Atlantic Marine, personal correspondence with Shana
Harbour, EPA Sector Strategies Division, October 5, 2007.
8. EPA TRI 2006 PDR.
9. EPA TRI 2006 PDR, modeled through RSEI.
10. Shipbuilding Council of America, personal correspondence with
Shana Harbour, EPA Sector Strategies Division.
11. EPA TRI 2006 PDR, modeled through RSEI.
12. EPA NEI for Point Sources: Final v3 1999 and Final v3 2002.
13. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Abrasive Blasting
Hazards In Shipyard Employment, December 2006, http ://www.
osha.gov/dts/maritime/standar ds/guidance/shipyard_guidance.
html#Background.
14. EPA TRI 2006 PDR; and DOC, BEA.
15. Shaun Halvax, BAE Systems, personal communication with Shana
Harbour, EPA, October 5, 2007.
16. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2005,
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/.
Sector is defined by NAICS code 336611.
17. EPA TRI 2006 PDR.
Data Sources, Methodologies,
and Considerations
1. See EIA website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.
2. Federal Register notice 71 FR 32464 (June 6, 2006). The rule became
effective for reporting forms due to EPA by July 1, 2007.
3. See Article 4(l)(a) of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change http://www.unfccc.int. Under decision 3/CP.5 of the
UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, national inventories forUNFCCC
Annex I parties should be provided to the UNFCCC Secretariat each
year by April 15. Parties to the Convention, by ratifying, "shall
develop, periodically update, publish and make available...national
inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals
by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal
Protocol, using comparable methodologies..." Article 4(l)(a) of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (also
identified in Article 12). Subsequent decisions by the Conference
of the Parties elaborated the role of Annex I Parties in preparing
national inventories. See http://unfccc.int.
4. See http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2006/June/Day-01/
w8496.htm.
130 Appendix: Endnotes
2008 SECTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT
-------
-------
------- |