Document QJeD3n8Qb9zG95gDqknvXV6KL

ENVIRONMENTAL ANNUAL REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1994 CHAIRMAN'S LETTER IQ: What are you doing to "ensure... that these new technologies will not create problems to be dealt with by our children, our grandchildren..."? A: Monsanto is working to develop technologies to make chemicals with as little waste as possible. Our scientists have developed a process to make rubber chemicals with 94 percent, or 66 million pounds, less waste; a new catalyst for a process that reduces waste by 5.4 million pounds per year; and are working on a process to remediate contaminated soils in the ground with minimum disruption to the surface ecosystem. We are also developing agricultural technologies that take advantage of nature's own protections, for instance, promoting no-till farming to conserve topsoil, and creating plants which manufacture their own pesticide, thereby reducing the amount of pesticides which must be applied. 2Q: How is Monsanto going to make money through environmental improvement? Did you make a profit from the 90 percent air emission reduction program? A: The 90 percent air emission reduction program cost Monsanto about $130 million. There was some return, although small, from conservation of raw materials and less waste disposal costs. Monsanto decided that this program was a good investment because it positioned us well for the future. We could reduce wastes in a way that made sense for our businesses rather than at the mercy of prescriptive command and control regulations. In addition to staying ahead of future regulations, investments in environmental leadership are worthwhile because they position an organization to be sustainable in the long term. Public expectations continue to grow. In the future, companies which cannot produce worthwhile products with little or no impact on the environment will not be allowed to operate. Monsanto is making the investments now to position us well for the future. DSW 135820 STLCOPCB4035793 2 CHARTING OUR PROGRESS 3Q: Why did you fall short of a 90 percent reduction of air emissions in the United States? A: Our goal was to reduce air emissions of toxic chemicals worldwide by 90 percent by the end of 1992 from 1987 levels. We achieved that goal. In the U.S. we reduced toxic air emissions by 81 percent. The remainder are included in the pollution prevention program, which addresses toxic waste to all media. The ultimate goal is zero effect. 4Q: On your overall waste reduction goal, it looks as if you've hovered around 240 million pounds for the last three years. Will you be able to break that barrier? A: About 75 percent of Monsanto's 1993 worldwide releases and transfers of toxic chemicals went to injection wells. Of this, the majority was ammonium sulfate, which is an ingredient in common fertilizers. We have tried for many years to remove the ammonia from these deepwell streams, but, because of the presence of organic chemicals, it is a technological challenge we've not yet solved. Because of this, we recently issued a $1 million challenge to scientists worldwide to come up with a new technology to recover ammonia from these streams. That will allow us to reuse the ammonia, and to recover and either better treat, or reuse the organic chemicals. Response to this challenge has been very enthusiastic. We are confident that someone will come up with a creative solution. In the meantime, we have defined projects and actions which will achieve the 100 million pound target of the pollution prevention program without this breakthrough, but it will be tight and challenging. 5Q: What did you do to reduce your fines and penalties so significantly in 1992 and 1993 compared with 1991? A: There is usually a delay of as much as two to five years between when an alleged violation occurs and whether or not the government will seek a penalty. Although there were decisions pending on possible violations during 1992, a few cases were settled during the year. It is difficult to predict when each decision, which could result in monetary penalties, will close. Monsanto is committed to reducing the number of compliance penalties it receives. DSW 135821 STLCOPCB4035794 3 Additional information on compliance penalties per Environmental Annual Review, P6. 6Q: Were 1990 and 1991 fluke years, or are 1992 and 1993 fluke years? A: Penalties for 1986 were $5,000 1987 were $3,000 1988 were $545,500 1989 were $362,000 You can see that, while there are significant fluctuations, no other year compares with 1990 and 1991 levels. Many of the violations for which we were penalized were notification, or so-called "paperwork", violations caused by differing interpretations of the law and did not necessarily impact the environment. 7Q: What were you penalized for in 1990 and 1991? A: In 1990, a majority of the settlements were from differing interpretations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) law. As a result of that confusion, we chose to voluntarily participate in EPA's Compliance Audit Program (CAP), submitting chemical studies from past years, which we did not believe were reportable, for a capped penalty amount. Many other manufacturers participated in the same program. In 1991, a fairly major penalty was incurred by one of our manufacturing facilities. 8Q: Is the trendline a downward one? A: Compliance with all laws at all facilities is a company policy. However, we are continually faced with new laws, regulations and differing interpretations of complex issues. Our goal is of course a downward trend, but at the same time, the government's goal is stricter enforcement. We have always shared information about our facilities and operations with the public. For instance, Monsanto was one of the first companies to share our Material Safety Data Sheets. We are going well beyond reporting requirements with information included in the Environmental Annual Review. In the same vein, we are also reporting much more information to the regulatory agencies and by doing so, hope to avoid paperwork violations in the future. DSW 135822 STLCOPCB4035795 4 9Q: Why have your environmental expenditures dropped so sharply? Does this mean your environmental commitment is dropping? A: Not at all. We saw somewhat higher capital expenditures in 1992 as we raced to install equipment needed to meet the 90 percent air emission reduction target by the end of the year. While these amounts have come down somewhat, we plan to continue to invest to improve environmental performance. In some cases, Monsanto scientists are developing ways to make chemicals in a different way which doesn't create waste. While these innovations are exciting, they pose tough business decisions because capital is needed to build an entirely new plant rather than just install equipment on existing facilities. In those cases, the company is weighing the feasibility of its options. 10Q: As indicated on page 5, Monsanto is involved to some degree in 89 Superfund sites. How much would you anticipate spending to clean up those sites? A: According to the Monsanto 1993 annual report, Monsanto spent $39 million in 1993 for remediation of Superfund and other waste disposal sites. Monsanto's estimates of its liabilities for Superfund sites are based on evaluations of currently available facts with respect to each individual site and take into consideration factors such as existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and prior experience in remediation of contaminated sites...Monsanto has an accrued liability of $102 million as of Dec. 31, 1993 for Superfund sites. Uncertainties such as method and extent of remediation may affect Monsanto's estimate of its Superfund liability and lead to potential future expenses of as much as $30 million for these sites over the balance of the decade. 11Q: The Environmental Review mentions Monsanto's involvement in the Voluntary Protection Program. What is that? How did you get involved? What do you hope to gain through participation? A: The Voluntary Protection Program is a program administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that recognizes facilities which have gone beyond the laws requirements to safeguard the health and safety of employees and the public. In February of 1992, Monsanto committed that all of its plants would strive to achieve "Star" status. To achieve the Star, each facility must undergo rigorous safety audits and demonstrate their accident rates are well below those of the rest of the industry. Safety plans must be drafted by management and labor together, and approved by the agency. Monsanto made this commitment to fulfill one element of the Monsanto Pledge - to ensure that no Monsanto operation poses any undue risk to our employees and our communities. DSW 135823 STLCOPCB4035796 5 The Pensacola, Florida; Anniston, Alabama; Fayetteville, North Carolina; Luling, Louisiana; and Searle's Augusta, Georgia plants have already achieved Star status. Two other plants, in Soda Springs, Idaho and Monsanto Augusta, Georgia have achieved "merit" status, a step before the star award. 12Q: What is the 33/50 program? A: The EPA's 33/50 program was a challenge made by former EPA Administrator William Reilly to U.S. manufacturers to reduce emissions of 17 key chemicals by 33 percent by the end of 1992 and 50 percent by the end of 1995. Monsanto was one of the first companies to voluntarily undertake the challenge. By the end of 1993, Monsanto had surpassed the goal, reducing releases by 64 percent, two years ahead of schedule. FULFILLING OUR PLEDGE 13Q: When will you make a decision about your full scale production unit for 4- ADPA? Why wouldn't you build it if it increases capacity and saves so much money and resources? A: It takes a great amount of capital to build a brand new plant which would be necessary to take advantage of this new technology. In addition, the current plant would have to be written off. While the technology does offer many advantages, they would have to be great enough to justify the expense. The company is studying its options. 14Q: You mention that the 4-ADPA process uses chlorine as a raw material as if this is a bad thing. What's wrong with using chlorine? A: Nothing is wrong with using a raw material if it is used carefully and it ends up in the finished product. But in this case, the chlorine is not a raw material. It is only used to cause a reaction. It is then washed out in the waste stream. Monsanto bears the expense of buying a product, used only for a reaction, and then must also pay for its safe disposal. It doesn't make good business sense or environmental sense. The new process doesn't use enablers like chlorine, and nearly all raw materials end up in the final product. 15 Q: What is the material that used to be a waste that you are now selling as a paint stripper (page 7)? Again, you refer to the new product as "non-chlorinated", as if there were something wrong with chlorinated paint strippers. Is there? A: The nonchlorinated paint stripper is one of a family of non-chlorinated solvents or dimethyl ester products. While chlorinated solvents if used safely, should not pose any problems, the market is looking for nonchlorinated alternatives. By upgrading a waste product, we were able to not only fill that market need but also reduce waste. SW 135624 STLCOPCB4035797 6 16Q: Were you planning to sell your Eagle Watch property if you hadn't donated it to The Nature Conservancy? Are you taking it as a tax writeoff? A: We could have sold the property at a profit but the true value of the property was what it offered to wildlife. The donation was in keeping with the element of the Monsanto Pledge which states that we will manage all corporate real estate, including plant sites, to benefit nature. It also represented another opportunity for Monsanto to build on our growing relationship with The Nature Conservancy. Moreover, it allowed the property to be designated as a "Last Great Place" and help guarantee that the site will provide recreational and scenic benefits for future generations. Overall, the land was more valuable than the tax benefit. AIR EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM 17Q: Why is hydrogen chloride included on your Title III tables but excluded from your 90 percent emission numbers? A: Hydrogen and chlorine molecules are released during the combustion of most kinds of coal. Monsanto as well as many other manufacturers, utilities and even some homeowners, burn coal for heat and energy. These molecules may combine in the stack before release to the atmosphere to form hydrogen chloride, a Title III chemical. Following a review of EPA reporting guidelines developed since the start of the program, Monsanto believes that hydrogen chloride produced in the combustion of coal should be reported and we have adjusted our TRI reports going back to 1987. These emissions were not part of the original 1987 base, and were not included in the 90 percent program. Hydrogen chloride is, however, included in the overall waste reduction program which has a goal of reducing 240 million pounds of reportable waste from 1990 levels by the end of 1995. 18Q: If the 1.5 million pounds of hydrogen chloride from boilers had been included in the 90 percent program, would you have achieved your 90 percent goal? A: The 90 percent program was based on 1987 emission levels from our processes. Boilers were not included in that goal. Boiler emissions are included in the overall waste reduction program, underway now. 19Q: Did you fall short of your 90 percent goal in the U.S. by achieving only an 81 percent reduction? A: Our goal was a worldwide goal and we met that goal, but we would have liked to have achieved that percentage in the U.S as well. Technology takes time to develop. We continue to seek more efficient ways to reduce not only air emissions, but hazardous waste to all media. The 90 percent goal was just a benchmark. Our ultimate goal is zero waste. DSW 135825 STLCOPCB4035798 7 20Q: Are you going to continue to work toward 90 percent in the U.S.? A: We're going to continue working to reduce air emissions as part of the broader pollution prevention program. That goal is to reduce waste from all media to 100 million pounds, or about 70 percent of 1990 levels. POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM 21Q: Why is the program based on the U.S. SARA Title III laws and not on any global basis? A: No list of toxic chemicals exists that is acceptable worldwide. The U.S. list is extensive with over 300 chemicals. In addition, we added all chemicals listed on the European Community priority pollutant list, and carbon monoxide, a chemical of local concern in the U.K. We would hope that, at the end of 1995 when we re-establish goals for the next five year period, there will be some worldwide agreement about which chemicals are the highest priority. 22Q: Why are you using 1990 as your waste reduction program baseline rather than 1987, the baseline for your air reduction program? A: We developed and announced the air program in 1988, so 1987 was a logical base and the first year SARA data was measured. In 1991, we began to evaluate this broader program which we are now announcing, using 1990 as a logical base. We also became better at measuring and estimating our releases during the first few years of Title III reports which makes 1990 data more accurate. Remember, this is an ongoing process. Future programs will use other appropriate baselines. 23Q: Which chemicals are included under the waste reduction program? A: The waste reduction program includes all chemicals that were on the U.S. government's list of Title III reportable chemicals at the beginning of 1990. European Community Priority Pollutants and carbon monoxide are also included. Although we do not believe all the chemicals on the Title III list are hazardous, we are using it because there is no single globally accepted list of risk-based hazardous chemicals. We plan to have a better list that is based on health and environmental effects for future programs beyond 1995. 24Q: Is the waste reduction commitment global as well? A: Yes, the waste reduction commitment is voluntary, companywide and worldwide. ll5&Zb DSW STLCOPCB4035799 8 25Q: When you say this goal will be achieved by the end of 1995, will your SARA reports the next summer (1996) reflect a 240 million pound reduction from 1990? A: No. All projects will be in place by the end of 1995 to operate at a rate which is 240 million pounds less than where we were in 1990. 1996 will be the first full year we will operate at the lower rate. Those lower numbers will then be reported to EPA in the summer of 1997. 26Q: Why don't you try to reduce wastes from burning fuel oil and coal? A: We will be targeting hydrogen chloride emissions from utility boilers as this is a Title III chemical. Provisions of the Clean Air Act already regulate other releases from burning fossil fuels. 27Q: How will these reductions be accomplished? A: Waste will be reduced through a combination of process modifications and use of new and existing technology. Reductions will be achieved using Monsanto's waste elimination hierarchy: 1) do not create waste in the first place -- re-engineer the process if possible to create the product waste-free. 2) find ways to reuse or recycle materials that used to be considered waste; 3) where it cannot be recycled, use state-of-the-art techniques to destroy or immobilize the waste and 4) dispose of waste residuals in the most environmentally sound manner. We hope to find a way to remove ammonia from our deepwell waste streams which will drastically reduce our reportable releases. We are also going to shift reporting of waste streams from guest operations to the owners of those units so that we no longer report other companies' wastes. 28Q: What will happen if you expand a plant or increase production? A: Under the rules of the waste reduction program, * Any increases must be offset by reductions. * Releases from new or expanded facilities for existing products and processes must be offset by reductions. * Releases from post-1990 acquisitions or new product processes will be established in a separate database with separate consideration of reduction targeting. * If Monsanto no longer reports the material as a result of a sale or shutdown of a facility, our reported numbers will decrease. OSH 135827 STLCOPCB4035800 9 29Q: Which plant releases the largest amount of waste? A: About 48 percent of Monsanto's total U.S. TRI releases and transfers, or 72 percent of the worldwide releases and transfers of toxic chemicals recorded in the company's Pollution Prevention program are disposed of at the Alvin, Texas plant. The majority of this material relates to ammonium sulfate which is disposed of by underground injection. Plans are in place to reduce underground injection of toxic chemicals at this plant significantly by the end of 1995 and to virtually eliminate injection of toxic chemicals and hazardous waste by the end of 1999. 30Q: Why are you really making these reductions? Is legislation on the way? A: As with the 90 percent program, we are reducing our releases for a number of reasons: * We'd like to have none of our facilities on the government's lists of top polluters. In addition, it's what the public expects, and we must continually earn the right to operate from them. * We prefer to reduce wastes our way rather than wait for regulations to be drafted mandating precisely how to accomplish the same goal, but in a way which does not make sense for our business. * It makes good business sense. Reducing early will give us a competitive advantage when other companies later are working to initiate reduction programs. 31Q: How much reduction will actually come from source reduction vs. just treatment/incineration? A: Although we can't yet say, our waste reduction hierarchy favors source reduction wherever possible not only for environmental reasons but also because it pays back. Where that isn't possible, we search for ways to recycle or reuse the waste. The next step is to immobilize or destroy the waste on site, and finally, as a last resort, to dispose of waste residuals in an environmentally sound manner. 32Q: Does it include materials sent offsite for treatment? How much is processed off site? A: Although chemicals transferred offsite to public sewage treatment facilities or for other treatment or disposal do not necessarily reach the environment, they are treated just like releases and are targeted for reduction under the Pollution Prevention program. In past years, our Title III reports required offsite reporting for disposal or treatment. We now also include chemicals sent off-site for recycling and energy recovery. OSW 135828 STLCOPCB4035801 10 33Q: Why do you count ammonium sulfate in your Pollution Prevention program and not in your Title III TRI numbers? A: Ammonium sulfate was on the government's list of Title III chemicals in early 1990, the baseline year for the new waste reduction program and so, is targeted for reduction. Companies often are accused of "phantom reductions" by taking advantage of reporting changes. Our reductions are real and we've provided the tools for the public to track us. 34Q: How did you decide that 100 million pounds would be your goal for the pollution prevention program. A: As with the 90 percent air program, 100 million pounds is just a benchmark. As we achieve that goal, we'll set another goal, aggressive but reachable. Our ultimate goal is zero environment effect. 35Q: Will reducing waste 70 percent to 100 million pounds be an easy number to attain? A: It won't be easy, but we believe we can do it. 36Q: How did air emissions drop 2.1 million pounds in the U.S. in one year ('92 - '93)? A: A number of projects contributed to the reduction including a 380,000 pound reduction of xylene emissions at the W.G. Krummrich plant in Sauget, 111. through recycling, reducing and treating the xylene. A new process at the Muscatine, Iowa plant reduced emissions of acrylonitrile and styrene by 757,000 pounds. 37Q: What accounted for the 28 million pound drop in air emission worldwide between 1992 and'93? A: The maleic anhydride unit at the Newport, Wales plant was shut down at the end of 1992. The plant operated without those emissions throughout 1993. This accounted for a 26 million pound reduction of carbon monoxide and butane, two chemicals of concern in the United Kingdom. 38Q: What caused water releases to increase by two million pounds in the U.S. in 1993? (2.5 million pounds in 1992 to 4.7 million pounds in 1993) A: Ammonium sulfate (solution) releases increased by 4.6 million pounds at at one plant in 1993, while ammonia reported releases went down by about 2.3 million pounds due to a change in reporting methods. DSW 135829 STLCOPCB4035802 11 39Q: You are supposed to be decreasing your injection well numbers. Why did they increase by nearly 13 million pounds in 1993? A: In 1992, a unit which normally discharges to deepwell did not operate for six months. Thus, when the unit was placed back in service and operated for the full year of 1993, discharges to deepwell increased. Ammonium sulfate increased by 10 million pounds, ammonia increased by 1.2 million pounds and methanol increased by 1.1 million pounds. 40Q: What accounted for the 20 million pound drop in transfers in 1993? A: Recovery and sale of more HC1 at the Krummrich plant accounted for 9 million pounds less going to the POTW. A regulatory change in the ammonia reporting requirement resulted in 3.2 million pounds of ammonia discharged from Krummrich which is no longer reportable. Five million pounds of sulfuric acid released to the POTW, also from Krummrich, were no longer reportable by Monsanto when OxyChem purchased the ACL department and began reporting the waste. 41Q: What percentage of your emissions are carcinogens? A: In 1993, 27 percent of U.S. emissions of Title III chemicals were considered known or suspected carcinogens. Just as total air emissions have dropped, carcinogens emissions have also come down dramatically. Since 1987, Monsanto has reduced emissions of these materials by 81 percent from 4.7 million pounds in 1987 to .9 million pounds in 1993. We will continue to strive for greater reductions of carcinogenic chemicals under Monsanto's Pollution Prevention Program. SARA TITLE III DATA 42Q: What is a guest operation? A: A guest operation is an operating unit owned by another company, which we run for them. In most cases, guest operations were once Monsanto processes and reside within or adjacent to our current operations. Because some efficiencies might be involved, we sometimes contract with the owner to continue to operate these processes for them. Because we operate these facilities for the owner, we have reported the resulting waste from these guest operations. This gives an unrealistic impression of the amount of waste generated from Monsanto's processes. OSW 135830 STLCOPCB4035803 12 43Q: What are you doing to get rid of the waste you reported from guest operations? A: Since we no longer control management or investment decisions of the guest operations, we believe it is inappropriate for us to continue to be held accountable for waste from these operations. We have spoken with the new owners of these operations and they are beginning to report that waste on their own. 44Q: Why did your injection well waste go down by 15 million pounds in 1993 under the SARA program, but up about 13 million under the pollution prevention program? and why are the numbers so different. What is in the pollution prevention program that is not counted under SARA? A: Ammonia numbers reported to the EPA totalled 16 million pounds less released to injection well in 1993 than in 1992. This occurred as the result of an EPA reporting rule change. For 1993 only the "free" ammonia was reported for all ammonium compounds (except ammonium sulfate where "total ammonia" is still reported). Ammonia reported under Monsanto's Pollution Prevention program IS counted either as ammonia, or as the full ammonium compound, like ammonium sulfate. Monsanto established a stable, credible base for its program under Jan. 1, 1990 rules, so that rule changes would not create unreal effects. In 1992, a unit which normally discharges to deepwell, did not operate for six months. Thus, when the unit was placed back in service and operated for the full year of 1993, discharges to deepwell increased. Ammonium sulfate increased by 10 million pounds, ammonia increased by 1.2 million pounds and methanol increased by 1.1 million pounds. POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT DATA 45Q: When you list 26.8 million pounds of material that went to energy recovery, do you mean incineration? A: Waste which is burned for energy recovery is sent to a boiler. The material is burned as fuel and is generally cleaner than coal or oil. It may be considered a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) laws, not SARA laws, because it is "ignitable" which is considered hazardous under RCRA, not necessarily because the waste itself is significantly toxic. SW 13583J STLCOPCB4035804 13 46Q: What kind of wastes do you incinerate? metals? carcinogens? chlorinated compounds? Have you ever tested for dioxin formation? A: We only incinerate chlorinated hazardous waste at one incinerator in the U.S. and one in Europe. Tests have been completed on the European unit, demonstrating that dioxin emissions are controlled to very low levels. The U.S. unit is similar. Plans for further testing are being evaluated. Due to the high temperatures at which the material is burned, the makeup of the waste stream, and the temperature and residence time of the material in the incinerator, we feel comfortable that IF any dioxin is formed, it will continue to be at extremely low levels and should not cause any concern. 47Q: What is the Pollution Prevention Act? A: The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 requires most manufacturers to submit source reduction and recycling activities for each chemical reported under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. It also requires companies to report waste managed on-site prior to recycling, treatment or disposal activities and not released to the environment. The intent of the law is to encourage manufacturers to reduce or prevent pollution at its source. This is consistent with Monsanto's waste reduction philosophy. Our first priority is to reduce at the source, followed in order by recycle/reuse, immobilize or destroy waste on site, and the last option is to dispose of waste in an approved manner. RESPONSIBLE CARE 48Q: The Responsible Care evaluation process has been criticized as very subjective. Because companies evaluate themselves, how credible are the statistics? How can they really be compared across companies? A: The Responsible Care evaluation process is really a management tool to help companies identify where they are having difficulty in implementation. It is a process of continuous improvement. The CMA member companies are currently developing performance measures to help ensure consistency in reporting. These are expected to be in place by the end of 1995. OSW 135832 STLCOPCB4035805 14 49Q: The industry is also developing a system that will allow external parties to verify that the Responsible Care codes are being properly implemented and measured. Where does Monsanto rank against other companies on Responsible Care performance? A: Monsanto is among the leaders in international implementation. We are on schedule to reach "Practice in Place" by 1997, which equals or exceeds the implementation schedules of other Chemical Manufacturers Association member companies. DEEPWELL 50Q: How much does Monsanto currently release to deepwells? A: Under Title III in 1993, we reported 48.6 million pounds of a variety of materials which were disposed of through deepwell injection. This figure includes only the ammonium portion of ammonium sulfate. Under Monsanto's Pollution Prevention Program, since the full ammonium sulfate compound was included in the Jan. 1990 Title III list, we have targeted it for reduction. This amount in 1993 was 168.6 million pounds. 51Q: How many deepwells does the company operate? A: We operate eight deepwells at three plant sites, three at the Chocolate Bayou plant in Alvin, Texas; two at the Luling, Louisiana plant, and three at our Pensacola, Florida plant. 52Q: What does your deepwell policy involve? A: To significantly reduce injection of Title III and hazardous waste streams by the end of 1995, and virtually eliminate injection of hazardous chemical releases to deepwells by the end of 1999. 53Q: Why do you say "virtually" eliminate injection of hazardous chemicals by the end of 1999? Why don't you just eliminate them? A: For two reasons. First, we don't know what the government's list of chemicals will be by the end of 1999. Chemicals may be added or deleted from the list by that time. Second, better analytical methods are continually developed for measuring smaller and smaller amounts of materials in waste streams. It may be impossible to eliminate every last molecule of a material, although we'll get as close as we can. 54Q: How do you plan to achieve this goal? A: Each plant will accomplish this in a different way. In general, we plan to separate concentrated wastes from dilute material, use biological treatment DSW 135833 STLCOPCB4035806 15 for the dilute materials and some form of chemical processing for the concentrated materials. We recently issued a $1 million challenge to scientists worldwide to come up with a new technology to recover ammonia from mixed waste streams injected to deepwell. That will allow us to reuse the ammonia; to recover and either better treat, or reuse the organic chemicals; and to drastically reduce our waste numbers. Response to this challenge has been very enthusiastic. We are confident that someone will come up with a creative solution. 55Q: Why didn't you diminish use of deepwell injection before? A: Deepwells are an acceptable and preferred disposal method if properly sited and managed. We undertook this deepwell policy not because of a hazard, but because the numbers were substantial and the public expectation is for us to reduce environmental releases. We're therefore doing something about it. 56Q: Are you doing this mostly to get off the 'Top Polluters" list? A: Partly. We're not proud about having some of the largest releases in the nation and we have pledged to do something about it. Our target is to reduce all toxic and hazardous releases and emissions, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect. Most of our progress has been in air. We're now shifting to a more comprehensive program that targets all media. Our measure of our success will be our ranking on the "list". Monsanto's vice chairman has said that Monsanto's goal is to get out of the waste business. We're looking forward to plants of the future which manufacture quality products, cost effectively and as waste free as they can be. 57Q: How much of your targeted reductions involve deepwells? A: Of the 338 million pounds of 1990 chemicals targeted under the pollution prevention program, 230 million pounds was released to deepwells or about 68 percent. 1990 is the base year for the Monsanto's Pollution Prevention program. Sw 135834 STLCOPCB4035807 16 58Q: Why does Monsanto send so much material to injection well? A: Deepwell injection is an environmentally and technically sound waste disposal method approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for certain wastes under specified conditions. It involves injecting liquid wastes into deep underground formations using a well specifically constructed for that purpose. These materials are completely contained with no opportunity for migration. The injection zones are far below drinking water supplies and fresh water reserves that may exist and are separated from any fresh water supplies by thick layers of impermeable clay and other strata. In many cases this is the waste disposal method most preferred by the regulators. However, because the public is concerned about the volume of materials going to deepwell disposal, we have committed to virtually eliminate injection of hazardous chemicals by the end of 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL ANNUAL REVIEW 59Q: Why does Monsanto print an Environmental Annual Review? Is it just PR hype? A: Monsanto has a history of open and honest communication with the public. For decades, we have shared information about our products and processes, and have invited neighbors into our plants. Since 1988, Monsanto has shared emission and discharge information with the public, soon after we submitted our reports to the government. We are committed to public accountability. The Environmental Annual Review is one more tool to keep the public informed about our operations and progress toward our waste reduction goals. EARQ&A.94 DSW 135835 STLCOPCB4035808 Monsanto from (name-location-phone) 17 Diane Herndon, A2SP, X2915 DATE SUBJECT REFERENCE TO : June 27, 1995 : Environmental Annual Review Questions and Answers : Larry O'Neill Loren Wassell Jerry Ingenthron George Csolak Rich Nelson Jack Domeischel John Dickey David Brown Rodrigo Lopez Almeida Colin Wiltshire Michael Scharf Yuji Koizumi cc: S. R. Archer G. F. Barton L. J. Fisher S. L. Foster S. M. Taylor G. A. Young Attached is a set of questions and answers to help you respond to issues that could be raised by the 1994 Environmental Annual Review. You may wish to add any opunit, world-area or facility specific questions which may not be addressed in this packet, and then forward the set to representatives at your plants or sales offices who may receive questions. Internal distribution of the Review is underway. It will be sent to environmental journalists and other external contacts soon. If you have any questions, or need any help, please feel free to call (314-694-2915). DSW 135836 STLCOPCB4035809