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

Hazardous Air Pollutants| By County

This report presents information about potential health risks from hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in your community. HAPs are chemicals which can cause adverse effects to human health or the environment. Congress has identified over 188 of these pollutants, including substances that cause cancer, neurological, respiratory, and reproductive effects. The report allows you to rank your community based on potential health risks, breaks down which pollutants and which sources contribute most to hazardous air pollution, and provides you with opportunities to take action. See Scorecard's overview of hazardous air pollution problems.Data Source: Scorecard combines exposure data from U.S. EPA's National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment with toxicity data to estimate the health risks posed by chemical pollutants in ambient air. NOTE: EPA exposure estimates, and the Scorecard risk estimates that are based on them, provide a screening-level assessment of hazardous air pollution problems and are subject to important caveats. EPA's exposure estimates are based on 1996 emissions data, although they are generally consistent with current air monitoring data. Scorecard's risk estimates are calculations based on models: they are useful for ranking purposes, but are not necessarily predictive of any actual individual's risk of getting cancer or other diseases. 

Maps Characterizing Health Risks from Hazardous Air Pollution
Scorecard provides maps at the national, state, county, and census tract level that illustrate the level of estimated cancer and noncancer health risks from hazardous air pollution. Scorecard's national map depicts the states with the greatest number of people living in areas where the cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants is greater than 1 in 10,000. On state, county and census tract maps, you can see whether your home, workplace, or school is located in an area where estimated cancer risk is higher, comparable, or lower than in other communities. More on Scorecard's mapper.

Ranking Areas by Health Risk
How does the added cancer risk from air pollution in your community compare to other communities across the U.S.? Scorecard provides a variety of ranking options for characterizing health risks from HAPs where you live. You can rank your state or county by the average individual's added cancer risk or noncancer hazard index associated with hazardous air pollutant levels in your area. You can also rank your state or county by the number of people living in areas where estimated cancer risks from hazardous air pollution exceeds 1 in 10,000, or where the hazard index exceeds 10.NOTE: The necessary data are available only for the "lower 48" states in the U.S. and only for counties in those states; i.e., not for Alaska or Hawaii.
For each of these health risk ranking criteria, you can specify whether you want to rank by hazardous air pollutants emitted from all sources combined, or from specific source categories (area, mobile, or point sources), or from subcategories of sources, like municipal waste combustors or refineries. More on rankings.

Environmental Justice Analysis
Inequities in environmental burden can be examined by identifying particular geographic areas and demographic groups that may be disparately affected by pollution. More on environmental justice.

Cancer Risks and Noncancer Hazards
For every state, county, and census-tract in the U.S., Scorecard estimates the cancer risks and noncancer hazards attributable to hazardous air pollutant exposures. Note that risk estimates are calculations based on models - they are useful for ranking purposes but are not necessarily predictive of any actual individual's risk of getting cancer or other diseases. Cancer Risks from Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Scorecard calculates an average individual's added cancer risk due to hazardous air pollution levels in an area. Scorecard also identfies the size of the population living in areas where cancer risk exceeds 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 10,000. Predicted risks of this magnitude exceed the Clean Air Act's goal of reducing lifetime cancer risks from hazardous air pollutants to one in one million by a factor of 1,000 or 100. Scorecard identifies the hazardous air pollutant with the highest contribution to estimated risks and provides ranked lists of all contributing pollutants.
Noncancer Hazards from Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Scorecard also calculates an average individual's cumulative hazard index from exposure to hazardous air pollution. Scorecard identifies the size of the population living in areas where the hazard index exceeds 1, meaning people are exposed to levels of HAPs that may pose noncancer health risks such as neurological, respiratory, reproductive and developmental effects and other adverse effects on human health. Scorecard identifies the hazardous air pollutant with the highest contribution to estimated risks and provides ranked lists of all contributing pollutants.

Sources Contributing to Health Risks from Hazardous Air PollutantsWhat is the largest source contributing to added cancer risk from hazardous air pollution in your community? The answer may surprise you. Mobile sources including both onroad vehicles (such as cars, trucks and buses) as well as offroad equipment (such as ships, airplanes, agricultural and construction equipment) contribute significantly to air pollution. Diesel emissions are the predominant source of cancer risk in Scorecard's assessment of hazardous air pollutants.For any state, county, or census tract, Scorecard estimates the proportion of added cancer risk and noncancer hazards that are attributable to area, mobile, and point sources. Scorecard also breaks down each individual pollutant's relative contribution to added cancer risk or noncancer hazards and provides the percentages of each pollutant that are emitted by point, area, and mobile sources, or attributable to background levels.

What We Don't Know About HAPs
It takes information to be able to figure out how safe or harmful any chemical exposure is, and that information is often not available to the public for many of the chemicals that are in the air your community is breathing. Information about a chemical's toxicity (known as risk assessment values) is needed before a risk assessment of chemical exposure can be performed. Scorecard describes how many hazardous air pollutants lack the risk assessment values or exposure data required to conduct a safety assessment. To obtain a complete profile of the data available for a specific chemical, click on its name to obtain its chemical profile and review the section on Information Needed for Safety Assessment.

Take ActionIf you are concerned about hazardous air pollution in your area, Environmental Defense encourages you to take action. Scorecard provides the opportunity to send an email message to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the governor of your state in support of efforts to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants and improve air quality.Discussion Forum is the place to voice your views, ask questions, or give answers about local air pollution, polluters and pollutants. This forum is for discussions about any local sources of pollution that may concern you. Find out what people are saying about a company, or meet others working on environmental problems in your community. Scorecard reports lead you to environmental volunteer opportunities in your community. The VolunteerMatch service lets you specify how far you want to travel and how often you want to offer your support. Scorecard also gives you a list of environmental organizations in your area that you can contact to work with on local pollution problems.
Links
Links to additional Scorecard reports on criteria air pollutants or chemical releases from manufacturing facilities can fill out the picture of which chemicals contribute to air quality conditions in your community. Where available, Scorecard also provides links to comparisons of EPA exposure estimates with current monitoring data on hazardous air pollutant concentrations. 


  • Ranking Areas by Health Risk
    Washington County
    Cleanest/Best Counties in USPercentileDirtiest/Worst Counties in US
    0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

    Added cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants:
    Noncancer risks from hazardous air pollutants:
    Number of people living in areas where cancer risk from HAPs exceeds 1 in 10,000:
    Number of people living in areas where noncancer risk from HAPs exceeds 1:


    Ranked by (select your ranking criteria)

    in

    from
          (explain)
    RankCountyAdded cancer risk (per 1,000,000)
    1.BALTIMORE (CITY)1300
    2.BALTIMORE1000
    3.HOWARD930
    4.ANNE ARUNDEL920
    5.MONTGOMERY850
    6.HARFORD830
    7.CECIL770
    8.PRINCE GEORGE'S760
    9.CARROLL750
    10.FREDERICK750
    11.KENT670
    12.QUEEN ANNE'S640
    13.CHARLES640
    14.TALBOT620
    15.WASHINGTON610
    16.CALVERT600
    17.ST. MARY'S570
    18.DORCHESTER520
    19.CAROLINE490
    20.WICOMICO460
    21.ALLEGANY420
    22.WORCESTER360
    23.SOMERSET340
    24.GARRETT310

  • No comments:

    Post a Comment