Central Chemical Corp.

History of Central Chemical Corp.
In important ways, the circumstances surrounding Thomas’s entry into the fertilizer business were not propitious. First, Thomas began business near the end of a half-century-long relocation of the fertilizer industry’s center. Though fertilizer use continued to increase in the Mid-Atlantic states and elsewhere during the period from 1870 to 1920, the manufacture of fertilizer began to shift to the Southern states in the late nineteenth century. By 1902, Charleston had replaced Baltimore as the fertilizer capital of the country. The Mid-Atlantic states’ share of total fertilizer use decreased from 34% in 1880 to 14% in 1920. By contrast, in 1920 the South-Atlantic states used about 50% of all fertilizers consumed in the U.S. Thus, Hagerstown could no longer enjoy proximity to the major centers of fertilizer-material production, and, while previously situated between the two highest-fertilizer-use regions of the country, it now found itself on the northern edge of a region that now dwarfed all others.

Second, Thomas’s decision to continue in the practice (apparently favored by Hagerstown companies) of making fertilizer primarily from bone and organic materials came at the start of a rapid increase in the demand for mixed fertilizers, but also at the beginning of a precipitous decline in the use of bone and bone products as a source of phosphorous in fertilizers. With the growing use of potash and phosphate rock, consumption of mixed fertilizers grew from 46% of the total in 1880 to around 70% in 1920. During the period from 1890 to 1910, when Thomas was focusing on his presumably unmixed “dissolved bone” fertilizers, mixed fertilizers were capturing market share.

Furthermore, the period from 1880 to 1920 is also characterized by the decreasing use of organic materials in general. Though organic materials provided about 91% of the total nitrogen in 1900, by 1917 the total nitrogen contribution from organics had dropped to 46.5%. With regard to phosphates, bone meal, dissolved bones and boneblack, and phosphoro-guano use peaked in 1890, but their use dropped to a negligible amount by 1910 as the use of superphosphates from phosphate rock increased dramatically..

Third, even as Thomas had begun his business trading fertilizer for livestock from relatively distant places, the fertilizer industry was increasingly turning to local distribution. Though mid-nineteenth-century fertilizer plants typically were situated in East Coast harbor cities, twentieth-century plants were dispersed to be closer to areas of consumption.

Finally, even though the name “Thomas’ Dissolved Bone” suggests that Thomas produced his own superphosphates initially, the use of bone in the production of superphosphates was on its way out as described above. For all practical purposes, then, Thomas had set his business on the track of the second, smaller type of fertilizer company, which only mixed fertilizer and did not produce superphosphates. For the next 90 years, even when Central Chemical had affiliates across the nation, it would remain in this “smaller” category – relying on large suppliers for its materials. For reasons noted above, this was not a problem at the turn of the century vis-à-vis the larger companies. Starting in the 1890s, however, many agricultural societies began to advocate home mixing of fertilizer materials by farmers. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the fertilizer industry fought this effort successfully by insisting on the value of industrial mixing processes and the farmer’s comparative disadvantages in mixing.

Though in its early years, Central Chemical advertised itself as “Exporters – Manufacturers – Importers,” by the 1970s it had become little more than a middle-man between larger suppliers and farmers. It did not import its own materials, but purchased granulated materials from suppliers. There is no evidence that Central Chemical was exporting products out of the country anymore. And its manufacturing capacity consisted of mixing pre-processed granulated materials in various proportions. At this point, its consulting capacity became equally important to its factory processes.

Though Central Chemical and its subsidiaries were taking in a combined $25 million in sales by the late 1970s, an employee remembers that there was always a sense of trouble on the horizon. The vulnerability of a company that adds very little value to its product and relies entirely on contracts with larger suppliers requires no explanation. It appears that not long after Central Chemical became a bulk blender, its large suppliers began pushing their advantages. In the early 70s, Central Chemical’s supplier, Agrico Chemical Company, put pressure on Central Chemical to enter into a long-term contract. When Central Chemical refused, Agrico withheld di-ammonium phosphate and granular triple super phosphate at a time of national shortage in these materials. Central Chemical responded by filing an antitrust lawsuit against Agrico in federal court. For most of the next decade much of the time, resources, and energy of what was still a closely-held corporation would be consumed in this litigation. Ultimately the lawsuit proved unsuccessful.

All of this came at the same time that local, state, federal regulators were investigating the Hagerstown plant for its pesticide-disposal practices. In the 1970s the State of Maryland ordered two separate cleanups of the site; the EPA was just getting started.

Ultimately the push to eliminate the middle man that drove the switch to bulk blending began to turn on the blenders themselves. The larger companies and farmers wised up, and realized that they could both save money by dealing directly with each other. Farmers began buying direct-application materials from the same suppliers used by Central Chemical. By the early 1980s, Central Chemical’s network of fertilizer blenders had contracted substantially. Blending operations like those of the Hagerstown plant could no longer make the case for themselves. Crushed under the weight of increasingly serious environmental liability for its mid-century disposal practices, the Central Chemical Corporation contracted its operations substantially. The Hagerstown plant ceased operations in 1984 and the office headquarters moved from the old Thomas building to an office outside Hagerstown.


Translate

Friday, August 7, 2015

Descriptions of Environmental Release Report Contents



Environmental Release Reports profile the human health hazards of toxic chemicals released by industrial facilities into your community's air and water. They combine data from the most recent U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) together with authoritative information on the potential health hazards of particular chemicals to show you what chemicals in your area may pose health risks and what companies are responsible.

NOTE: Scorecard reports cover only the pollution from industrial facilities that were required to report to TRI in 2000, and only 650 listed TRI chemicals. The reports do not cover all toxic chemicals and omit many important pollution sources, such as motor vehicles and small businesses.Scorecard cannot tell you whether the amount of pollution in your own area is safe or unsafe, and it does not calculate the amount of health risk that reported pollution in your area poses. Scorecard tells you which chemical releases in your area might be of potential health concern, based on available data, and helps you identify the highest priorities among those chemical releases.

2002 Rankings: Major Chemical Releases or Waste GenerationWhat does it mean when your local newspaper reports that companies released 10,000 pounds of chemicals to your community? Which companies are responsible for these releases? Scorecard gives you a way to evaluate industrial pollution in your area, by comparing it to such pollution in other areas. Scorecard rankings combine the actual data that companies submit to EPA, showing how many pounds of certain chemicals they release, with information about the potential hazards of those chemicals to human health. Scorecard graphically illustrates how a specific facility or area compares to all facilities or areas in the country, or in a state, for a variety of different categories of pollution. Scorecard uses a thermometer with ten divisions that indicate the decile a facility or area falls in, ranging from cleanest/least polluted (lowest 10% of facilities or areas) to dirtiest/most polluted (worst 10% of facilities or areas).
2002 TRI Pollution Releases Sorted by Health EffectIt's not easy to figure out what kinds of health hazards are posed by all the chemicals that companies report they are releasing to your community. Scorecard tracks the recognized and suspected health effects of all of the chemicals reported in the Toxics Release Inventory. For releases from industrial facilities in your area, you can see how many pounds from each are chemicals that are recognized to cause cancer, or that are suspected of being toxic to the brain and nervous system, or that fall into 10 other categories of specific health effects.
Dioxin Compounds SummaryScorecard breaks out reported releases and waste management practices involving dioxin compounds. This information is presented separately from other TRI data because reporting is in grams, not pounds. Scorecard also provides detailed breakdowns of the specific dioxin congeners involved whenever this information was reported by facilities. Data on dioxin compounds prior to 2000 are not available.








 
  • 2002 Rankings: Major Chemical Releases or Waste Generation in WASHINGTON County*
    Cleanest/Best Counties in USPercentileDirtiest/Worst Counties in US
    0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

    Total environmental releases:
    Cancer risk score (air and water releases):
    Noncancer risk score (air and water releases):
    Air releases of recognized carcinogens:
    Air releases of recognized developmental toxicants:
    Air releases of recognized reproductive toxicants:
    See how this county ranks on other chemical release and waste management attributes tracked by Scorecard
    Rank counties in MARYLAND or facilities in WASHINGTON County by chemical releases or waste generation
    *Note: These rankings are based on chemical releases and transfers reported by industrial facilities to the Toxics Release Inventory, and do not take into account major sources of pollution or toxic chemicals that are not covered by TRI.

  •  


    No comments:

    Post a Comment