Document VJ8agkDX5pE541q7q4pymNdKj

[ (r~ [ FINAL REPORT I An Industry Survey of [ Chemical Company Activities to Reduce Unreasonable Risk I 1 I I I I Prepared For ! era 1 CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 1 i [ February 11,1983 r i i PI Peat, Marwick,Mitchell&Ca [ AP00004580 pI I Peat,Marwick,Mitchcll&Ca 1990 K Street, N.W, Washington, D.c.20006 (202)223-9525 February 11, 1983 Mr. Timothy F. O'Leary, Jr. Associate Director - Health, Safety, and Chemical Regulations Chemical Manufacturers Association 2501 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Dear Mr. O'Leary: Feat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. is pleased to submit this final report. An Industry Survey of chemical Company Activities to Reduce Unreasonable Risk (CKA reference number C04). The report is organized as follows: Executive Summary* . Background; Study Objectives; . Study Approach; and Findings. The executive summary is an overview of the entire study. The background section provides a summary of the need for the study and a review of peat Marwick's and CMA's preparation for con ducting the survey. The study objectives and approach sections review the objectives and methodology in performing the survey. The findings section provides a straightforward presentation of the survey results. Four appendices have been prepared to augment the basic report. Appendix A contains a copy of the survey questionnaire. Appendix provides detailed results for key questionnaire responses to support our findings. Appendix C contains detailed results for all questionnaire responses. Appendix D contains examples of our statistical analysis of the data base in an attempt to identify and understand key relationships in the responses to the survey. AP00004581 PeauM*rwck.MiiChdl&Ca Kr. Timothy 7, O'Leary, Jr. Chemical Manufacturers Association February 11, 1983 2 Appendices A and B are attached to this report and Appendices C and D are bound in a separate volume entitled "Statistical Appendices." We have greatly appreciated the assistance and support that we have received from you, the impact Analysis Task Group and participating chemical companies in developing and conducting this important industry survey. We look forward to use of the data collected in the survey in presenting the industry's current activities to reduce unreasonable risk to health and the environment. Very truly yours. Pa# pyuJuSzjKMil t co. AP00004582 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary BACKGROUND STUDY OBJECTIVES STUDY APPROACH FINDINGS General Survey Results Approach for presenting Results Section I - General company Information-Survey Results Section II - chemical Hazard Assessment-* Survey Results Section III - Hazard Communication-Survey Results Section IV - Hazard Control--Survey Results Section V - Environmental Control Costs-Survey Results Page i 1 1 2 3 3 4 17 22 42 60 APPENDICES A Survey Questionnaire B Detailed Results for Key Questionnaire Responses C Detailed Results.for All Questionnaire Responses D Data Interpretation for Selected Variables Statistical Appendices c and D bound separately. AP00004583 --------------------------------- "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . :-4 i>''' EXECUTIVE SDKKAEY The U.S* chemical industry has identified a need to collect information about individual chemical company efforts to reduce unreasonable risk to health and the environment, in response to that objective the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) has undertaken a survey with jthe assistance of feat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co* This report -summarises the survey results. Prior to conducting a survey of the chemical industry. Pest Marwick assisted CHA in developing a questionnaire and testing it in a pilot survey of 22 companies. The pilot survey evaluated the feasibility of conducting an industry survey and idea* tified flaws in the questionnaire design.' As a result of the pilot survey,, it was determined that a full-industry survey was feasible with modifications to the questionnaire. The final questionnaire used In the survey is contained In Appendix A. participation in the survey was not limited in any way, provided that the participating companies could respond to the questionnaire for their U.S. chemical business (defined as domestic sales plus domestic based exports of products in SIC Code 28, Chemicals and Allied Products, but excluding Sic Code 283, Drugs). CMA requested the participation of their own member companies and made an extensive effort to contact and encourage participation of member companies from other chemical trade associations. Completed questionnaires were submitted directly to Peat Marwick to maintain the confidentiality of Individual company responses. Each survey response was coded, and company specific Information was removed from each questionnaire. The data col lected from the survey have been compiled into a computerized data base to provide the aggregated results for this report. One hundred and twelve valid survey responses were received during the course of the survey. The size of responding com panies, as measured by 1981 U.S. chemical sales, varied greatly. Thirty-seven responses were received from companies with 1981 O.S. chemical sales of less than $50 million. Eleven responses were received from companies with 1981 U.S. chemical sales of greater than $2 billion. The total U.S. chemical sales represented by the survey are $78 billion, which is estimated to represent slightly more than one half of the 1981 industry sales. The total U.S. chemical Industry employment represented by the survey is 474,300, which also represents slightly more than one-half of the 1981 industry employment PI {tat,Marwick,Mitche!l&Gi AP00004584 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY %c \ ` The following in a list of major findings from the survey by each of the five sections to the questionnaire. 2. General company Information - 1981 U.S. chemical sales (mean response) $733 million 1981 O.S. chemical employment (mean response) 4,400 Number of health/environmental specialists (mean response) 84 II. Chemical Hazard Assessment Percentage of responding companies with chemical hazard assessment programs 88% percentage of responding companies that perform toxicity testing 78% Annual expense for toxicity testing in 1961 (mean response) $1.7 million Total number of reported Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) pre-manufacture notifications (PMNs) submitted through 1981 (SPA received a total of 1,063 FMNa) percentage of responding companies that have filed at least one TSCA 8 <e) sub stantial risk report III. Hazard Communication 389 51% percentage of responding companies that use Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to communicate information about chemical products 99% percentage of responding companies that maintain the following informations Hate of chemicals used 97% . Lists of chemicals produced 99% * Work histories 83% Work site exposures 92% ii PI tot,Marwick^liidieU&CQ AP00004585  Medical records Significant adverse effects Customer complaints Employee complaints EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 951 81% 66% 85% XV. Hazard control Percentage of responding companies that have an Industrial hygiene or similar program 90% percentage of responding companies with Industrial hygiene or similar programs that cover manufacturing activities Percentage of responding companies that conduct health* environmental* or other type of compliance audits V. Environmental control Costs 100% 76% 1981 capital investment in air* water, and solid waste pollution control facilities (mean response) $11.5 million 1981 Operation and Maintenance expenses for air, water, and aolid waste pollution control (mean response) $14*1 million The complete survey results are summarised in the findings section of the report. Appendix B, which is attached to this report* provides statistical summaries for the responses to "continuous" variables, such as sales and staffing levels. Appendix C* which is bound in a supporting document labeled "Statistical Appendices," provides a complete listing of statis tical summaries for the responses to each Question in .the survey. The statistics included in both Appendix B and -Appendix c are presented for completeness. This survey has resulted in the collection and analysis of a substantial data base of information about the u.S. chemical industry'a activities to reduce unreasonable risk to health and the environment. The format of the survey also permits industry, government* and the public to assess issues by various parameters. Appendix D presents representative examples of statistical analyses conducted on the survey responses* to -determine if chemical companies of a particular size* line of business* or other factor responded to the survey in a signifi cantly different way. The conclusion from these analyses is that the vast majority of responses bear little relationship to company size* line of business* or other company characteristic. ill Bat,Manvick.Mitchei! ACq AP00004586 BACKGROUND During the past decade, the U.S. chemical industry has received significant attention from regulators and the public concerning the safety of chemicals to health and the environ ment. To address concerns that have arisen, the chemical indus try needed to gather information that describes typical company practices for controlling and reducing unreasonable risk to health and the environment. The information needed to document efforts by the industry to control and reduce unreasonable risk has not been readily available. The information is company-specific and relates to health and environmental policies and procedures, staffing, expenditures, use and availability of information, and many other practices. To collect this information and develop a pro file of the industry, a survey of the companies in the industry was required. The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) requested that Peat Marwick assist them in conducting an industry survey of chemical company activities to reduce unreasonable risk. Preceding the industry survey, a questionnaire was developed by industry experts with the assistance of peat Marwick. This questionnaire was pilot tested during a limited survey of chem ical companies during July and August 1982. As a result cf the pilot survey, it was determined that a full industry survey was feasible with a few modifications to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was revised to increase clarity and a follow-up effort was conducted with companies that participated in the pilot survey to update their survey responses to the revised questionnaire. The refined pilot survey responses were then Included in the full industry survey on a comparable basis. STUDY OBJECTIVES This study is a chemical industry survey of U.S. chemical company activities to reduce unreasonable risk to health and the environment. The objectives in conducting the survey were tos develop a credible data base of information on the chemical industry; and provide accurate results that document the indus try's level of effort in reducing unreasonable risk. 1 AP00004587 STUDY APPROACH The Approach In conducting the Industry survey was to con* duct a widespread mailing of questionnaires (see Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire) to chemical companies, cma was responsible for coordinating all mailing activities and also contacted other chemical trade associations to elicit partici pation in the survey from companies that do not belong to CMA. The other trade associations who participated werei * the Adhesive and Sealant Council (ASC)* . the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Asso ciation (SOCMA) t the Metal Finishing Suppliers' Association (MFSA); and the Manmade Fiber Producers Association (MFFA). Survey questionnaires were mailed out to potential partici pants in October, and a response was raquasted by November 30, 1962* While the questionnaires were being completed. Peat Marwick provided telephone asaistance to companies that required clarification of instructions for completing the questionnaire. Prior to receiving survey responses, an internal compu terised data entry and retrieval system was davaloped to store survey results. This system was designed to provide for rapid data entry and raviev in preparing the data base. All survey responses were returned directly to Peat Marwick to maintain the confidentiality of Individual company responses. Each of the questionnaires received was logged into a master coding book, reviewed for completeness, and, when necessary, the participating company was called for additional information or clarification of survey input. Survey responses were then entered into the data retrieval system and independently reviewed in order to minimise errors in the data base. All company-specific information that could be used.to identify respondents was then removed from each survey. Although individual questionnaires were reviewed for complete ness and clarity. Peat Marwick did not independently verify any of the information provided in this survey. The remaining portions of this report present our findings based on the survey data base. 1 1 3 f m M 2 AP00004588 FINDINGS This section of the report provides a complete summary of the survey results* It Includes a discussion of general results, an Introduction to the presentation approach, and the presentation of aggregated survey results* General Survey results One hundred seventeen (117) companies responded to the survey describing their D.S* chemical business and efforts to reduce unreasonable risk* Host of these respondents completed all or at least the majority of the questionnaire, as requested* Five of the responses were not considered to be valid responses due to incomplete data (e*g*, the majority of the questionnaire was not completed) or their chemical business did not .fell within the survey definition of a chemical business*! Therefore, the survey results are based on 112 valid responses to the questionnaire. The sizes of responding companies, as measured by 1981 D*S* chemical sales, varied greatly and are summarized in the follow ing table. TABLE 1 SURVEY RESPONSES BY 1981 D.S. CHEMICAL SALES Sales ($1981) Greater than 2 billion Between 2 and 1 billion Between 1 billion and 500 million Between 500 and 200 million Between 200 and 50 million Less than 50 million Sales category not reported TOTAL Number of Respondents 11 12 16 15 21 37 1 1121 1 The survey definition, of D.S. chemical sales isi "All domestic sales plus domestic based exports of products in SIC code 28 (chemicals and allied products), excluding Sic code 283 (drugs)." 3 AP00004589 The total 1981 D.S. chemical sales reported by the partici pants in the survey is 978.45 billion (1981 dollars). This com pares with $139.0 billion (1961 dollars) in sales reported for the Industry (SIC code 28, excluding code 283) by the Federal Trade Commission.1 Therefore# the 1961 C.S. chemical sales reported in the survey represents approximately 56 percent of the total industry sales. The total 1981 D.S. chemical Industry employment reported by the survey participants is 474*293. This compares vith total industry employment of 907*800 reported for the Industry (SZC code 281 excluding 283) by the tabor Cepartment.2 Therefore* the 1981 O.S. chemical industry employment reported in the survey represents approximately 52 percent of the total industry employment. in summary# the responding companies represent approxi mately one-half of the total industry on the basis of sales and employment* and Table 1 indicates that a broad distribution of company sizes is represented in the survey. Approach for Presenting Results The survey results are presented in the remainder of the report following the structure of the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of five major sections. i General Company Information; iz Chemical flazard Assessment; III Hazard communication; IV Hazard Control; and V Environmental Control Costs. In presenting results* these sections are presented in order# and the original language of the questionnaire has been maintained wherever possible. The responses to each survey question are aggregated to present the total and mean (arithmetic average) responses for appropriate questions (e.g.* number of employees) and response 1 Federal Trade Commission* Quarterly Financial Seport for Manufacturing* Mining and Trade corporations. 2 Labor Department* Bureau of Labor Statistics* Monthly Employment and Earnings Report. 4 3 1 3 3 ] ] 3 ] 3 3 3 J 3 3 3 3 J J AP00004590 frequencies (e.g., percent of companies indicating "yes* of the companies responding to the question) for all other questions. a number of the survey questions also requested "other* responses. These responses have been compiled and are presented directly after the results for each question. Detailed results for key questions are presented in Appendix B and a complete summary of responses for each question is provided in Appendix c. These appendices provide a number of useful statistics that describe the distribution of responses to individual questions. The statistics included are comprehensive and are provided as complete documentation. Generally# 105 to 112 responses were received for any one question; however, in certain instances the response rate is lower due to the survey design (sections are skipped by respon dents due to contingent questions) or other factors. Appendices B and C should be referenced for a better under standing of the response to a particular question. A statistical analysis of relationships between key vari ables has been conducted. Representative examples of these analyses are presented and discussed in Appendix D. The analyses conducted included multiple linear regression for' continuous variables such as sales and staffing# and cross tabulation for integer variables such as responses to "yes/no" questions. In both cases the analysis is directed toward iden tifying associations between responses to specific survey questions and key industry segments (e.g.# sales and line of business) and then determining the significance of those associations. This effort was undertaken to determine if the data col lected in the survey can be used to define industry segments that have significantly different practices. The conclusions to be drawn from Appendix D are that the vast majority of responses bear little relationship to company size# line of business or other company characteristic. I 5 AP00004591 SECTION I GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION Survey Results This section was designed to identify general information about each company. The results from this section of the ques tionnaire are used to establish the baseline for analyzing all survey responses. AP00004592 2 A* Company Information These questions requested specific company information to characterize the responding company. Questions A.1.1 to A.1*7 identify a company's total sales and employment# worldwide chemical sales and employment# U.s. chemical sales and employment, and total number of U.S. chemical products for calendar year 1981. The aggregated survey results to these questions are as follows A.1.1 Total company sales (worldwide) in millions of dollars A.1.2 Total company employment (world wide) at calendar year end (thousands) 1981 Data Total Kean 3415,115 $3,844 2,365 * 21.7 A.1.3 Total worldwide chemical product sales (all sales of products in SIC code 28, excluding 283) in millions of dollars A.1.4 Total number of employees at calendar year end associated with worldwide chemical product sales (ref. queation 1.3) (thousands) A.1.5 Total U.S. chemical product sales (domestic sales plus domestic based exports of products in SIC code 28, excluding 283) in millions of dollars $108,856 $1,027 694 6.4 $78,452 $733 A.1.6 Total number of employees at ealendar year end associated with U.S. chemical product sales (ref. question 1.5) (thousands) A.1.7 Total number of chemical products (count all product distinctions except package size as individual products) associated with U.S. chemical product sales (ref. question 1.5) 474 . 4.4 115,500 1,070 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 AP00004593 Question A.1.8 asked a company to identify the major product categories associated with their U.S* chemical business* according to SIC codes. For this question * major product cate* gories represent at least 10 percent of a company's total U.S. chemical sales. The responding companies identified major product categories with the following frequencies. Sic Code . Title Response Frequency 281 industrial Inorganic Chemicals 43% 282 Plastics and Synthetics 44% 264 Toilet Preparations 16% 285 Paints and Allied Products 14% 286 Industrial Organic Chemicals 66% 287 Agricultural Chemicals 29% . 289 Miscellaneous Chemical Products 44% i AP00004594 I- B. Management Attention to Health and Environmental" Matter s~~ The following questions were designed to determine the attention that management devotes to health and environmental matters. B.l What is the highest level in your company that is routinely involved in health and environmental matters concerning your 0*8. chemical business? Highest Level --- . BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DEPARTMENT HEAD Response Frequency 6% 24% 43% 15% 9% Other responses to question B.l were: executive vice president; and manager of corporate toxicology. B.2 Does your company have formal policies that address the following health and environmental concerns and are these policies publicly available? policy Frequency of Response Internal Policy is Publicly policy Available Medical Product Safety Worker Safety Transportation Hazardous Wastes Environment Disaster Plans 94% 26% 91% 40% 98% 41% 88% 30% 90% 31% 89% 33% 84% 36% Other health and environmental policies cited by companies wares internal Policies - process safety; 9 i I 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 S 1 AP00004595 - training? - regulatory compliance; - respirator use; - occupational health; - product quality; -and - industrial hygiene.* publicly Available policies - emergency response; - toxic substances; labeling; and - business conduct. Question B.3 was an open question which requested specific examples demonstrating management's approach for dealing with health and environmental matters. Sixty-four percent of the survey respondents provided examples. The examples fall into six major categories; upper management involvement; designation of health and environmental responsi bilities; . health and environmental policies; health and environmental programs; Industry research association membership; and health and environmental performance. 10 AP00004596 Many respondents cited examples of upper management involvement to demonstrate their management's approach to health and environmental matters. This involvement took many forms: Environmental staff reporting directly to upper management. One company's environmental staff reports directly to the executive vice president. Another company's health, safety and environmental affairs manager reports to a corporate vicepresident. Upper management environmental policy oversight. One company has a vice presidential regulatory affairs committee which oversees policy decisions. Another company established a corporate level envi ronmental affairs committee to attend to health and environmental issues. . PPPer management review of corporate environmental performance and programs. One company appointed members of the board of directors to a "public responsibility committee" which meets regularly to review corporate performance in environmental health areas. Another company has a corporate environ mental committee composed of corporate officers and company managers which reviews, coordinates and approves all environmental programs. Another company has a corporate group which is responsible for developing policy and advising and auditing line functions. One company sends copies of environ mental assessment reports to its board of directors. Upper management participation in environmental committees. One company reported top management involvement in environmental committees. Upper management responsibility for environmental compliance. One company has a "corporate compliance committee7 whose members are the corporate general counsel, vice president of technology, and manager of regulatory affairs. This committee reviews health and environmental concerns and reports directly to the president. Another company's major executives are responsible for ensuring facility* compliance with corporate health and environmental policies. Another company compiles reports of incidents by computer and then summarizes them for corporate management. All lost time accidents are immediately reported to the corporate management of another company. 11 AP00004597 Many companies cited examples of the designation of health and environmental responsibilities to illustrate their manage ment's approach to health and environmental matters. Companies designated vice presidents, managers, and line management and established boards, committees, and departments vith environ mental responsibilities. Many of the health and environmental committees are corporate level organizations. Companies frequently cited health and environmental policies to illustrate - their health andenvironmental approaches. Companies reported that they have policies con cerning distribution practices, technical publications, health, environmental quality, social responsibility, product testing, production. Industry sssociations, information . availability, product quality, and regulatory compliance. Some of these policies were to: encourage technical publications; . stop production to avoid or minimize health or environmental problems; perform health, safety, environmental, and regula tory reviews of new products, new processes, and old processes which have been significantly changed; encourage participation in CMA committees and with governmental agencies; review all new or modified projects; apply contaminant standards; use only approved hazardous waste disposal companies; provide occupational health manuals for each plant; have all employees wear proper safety equipment; evaluate health and environmental hazards of new raw materials; collect MSDSs for all materials and make them avail able on site; provide MSDSs for all products; maintain open communications with OSHA and NXOSB; and comply vith all OSHA regulations. 12 AP00004598 Survey respondents provided 81 examples of health and environmental programs which demonstrate their approach to health and environmental matters. The examples fall under seven major types of programs: Product safety. Examples included product steward ship, quality control, loss prevention, and testing programs. %m v Audits. Respondents cited safety, health, environ mental and industrial hygiene audit programs. Employee training. Companies train employees in......... safety, loss prevention, first aid and CPR. Emergency response. Respondents have emergency response systems for chemical emergencies. Cne company specified that it has emergency response teams for transportation incidents. Worker health. companies perform physicals, blood tests, and medical surveys; monitor chemical expo sures; use medical systems manuals; and have venti lation, hearing conservation, and industrial hygiene programs. One company developed a computer-based information system to track worker health, exposures, and materials at a cost of $2 million. Environmental. companies cited water monitoring, hazardous waste, environmental engineering and toxicity testing programs. Information systems. Companies cited KSCS management, 6(e) reporting, customer information distri bution, coding, labeling and chemical data collection programs. Several companies cited industry research association membership as an example of how they approach health and envi ronmental matters. One company's upper management Is actively involved in the Chemical industry Institute of Toxicology (CUT), and its key managers participate in the safety, health, and environment committee of several Industry associations including the Chemical Kanufaeturars Association (CHA), American Petroleum' Institute (API), Society of plastics Industry (SPZ), International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (lisspj, and Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) Other companies reported that they: are members of the National Safety Council; participate in outside environmental organizations; 13 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 AP00004599  are embers of CBEMTBEC; ------- encourage participation in CMA committees; and - encourage working with governmental agencies* Several companies cited their health and environmental performance records as a demonstration of their approach to health^ and environmental matters* These companies cited the following examples: In 19811 a company had no OSEA citations, no fatal ities# and the lowest frequency of employee Injury and illness in the nation. A company withdrew a product from the market because of discovered chronic health effects. A company led the industry in the development of quality assurance testing methods and company speci fications on emissions from building products* A company modified manufacturing processes to elimi nate hazardous waste. A company's major industrial chemical facility has coordinated an emergency response plan and served as the command center for a major region in the country. 14 AP00004600 I. C. Organization The following questions were designed to determine how com panies have organized their U.S. chemical business to carry out their environmental and health policies. Question C.l asks if a company has one or more .groups whose sole function is dealing with health or environmental matters. Of the responding companies, 78 percent indicated that they do have one or more of these groups. Question C.2 asks for a count of all health/envlronmental specialists (internal staff and outside consultants) used by a U.S. chemical company in 1981 on an equivalent full-time basis without double counting. The following is a summary of the total response and mean response bv function. Function Product Safety Worker Safety Health Legal (Env./Health) Transportation Safety Labeling Air Pollution Control Hater Pollution control Hazardous Haste Management Other Functions Number of Specialists Mean Response Total Response 5.6 19.8 22.0 1.9 2.1 1.4 6.4 11.8 8.6 5.6 574 2,018 2,245 197 218 138 650 1,201 877 574 Total* 84.4 8,693 The specific other functional areas identified above include: regulatory and legislative affairs; * Totals are not precisely equal to the addition of columns due to a limited number of partial responses. Some respon dents provided totals for this question, but did not answer the question in detail. The results presented reflect the most complete data available. 15 I 1 1 l 1 1 K t i \ AP00004601 . environmental impact; odor control; . fire control; . management and administration; process safety; and environmental audits. The following is a summary of the total response and mean response by specialist. Specialist Physician immunologist pathologist nurse Epidemiologist Toxicologist Industrial Hygienist Lawyer Environmental Engineer Other Professionals Technicians Total1 number of Specialists Mean Response Total Response 2.4 .1 .3 5.5 4 4.7 4.6 2.0 11.0 25.5 18.7 257 9 28 580 38 497 491 217 1 r 166 2*701 1*979 6*693 GO 1 Totals are not precisely equal to the addition of columns due to a limited number of partial responses. Some respon dents provided totals for this question* but did answer the question in detail. The results presented reflect the most complete data available. 16 AP00004602 SECTION II CHEMICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT Survey Results This section was designed to determine what U.S. chemical companies are doing to identify chemical hazards to health and the environment. Hazard assessment is sometimes called loss prevention or product safety review; it involves the determi nation of a hazard's presence or absence through the review of available data such as toxicity/ environmental fate/ and physi cal/chemical properties to evaluate the potential for harm or need for additional information. 17 AP00004603 II. A. Chemical Hazard Assessment Review This section asks what a company is doing to assess chemical hazards* A.l Do you have a program tor chemical hazard assessment? Of the companies responding, 88 percent have a pro gram. The remaining questions in Section 1I.A were answered by companies with a program. A. 2 About what percent of the time do you perform chemical hazard assessments when you have: New Products New Processes Any Formulation Changes Kean response 85% 76% 57% A.3 Which of the following events typically trigger a chemical hazard assessment for existing products or existing processes. Routine Process Change New Data New Product Use Employee Concern Consumer Concern New Regulatory. Requirements Response Frequency 41% 73% 94% 63% 81% 78% 92% 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J J AP00004604 other events identified as triggering assessments on existing products were: labeling and bulletin changes; product literature revisions; environmental incidents and concerns; USDS cyclical review; sales volume changes; raw material changes; employee protection; insurance company requests; consultant recommendations; and unspecified audits. chemical hazard A. 4 Vihat technical specialties were involved in your.chemical hazard assessment program during 1981? Specialties TOXICOLOGY legal' REGULATORY ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY ANALYTICAL (CHEMIST) MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE R6D/TBCHN2CAL PRODUCTION No Personnel 17* 10* 9* 12% 9* 7% 5% 21* 17% 9% 19% FREQUENCY OP RESPONSES Internal Personnel Onlv Outside Consultants only Internal Personnel ' and Outside Consultants 21% 26% 35% 52% 15% 23% 65% 3% 23% 70% 2% 16% 66% 3% 22% 73% 2% 18% 66% 3% 26% 39% 21% 16% 54% 12% 17% 66% 79% _ 5% 2% 19 AP00004605 1 Other technical specialities involved in 1981 chemical haz ard assessment programs were: Internal personnel Only: - microbiology; - transportation; and - quality control. Internal Personnel and Outside Consultants: - epidemiology; and - industrial task force. . Outside Consultants Only: - aquatic toxicology; - management consultants; and - insurance. A.5 Do you have a chemical hazard assessment committee(s)? 51 percent of the responding companies have committee (s) A.5.1 If yes, in approximately what year was your committee (s) started? The mean response to the survey was 1974. A.6 Does your company conduct formal environmental health and safety reviews for the design of new plants or equipment projects? 82 percent of the responding companies conduct these reviews 20 AP00004606 II. B. Testing Toxicity testing can be helpful to determine whether a sub stance could pose a hazard. This testing is defined to include animal# environmental# epidemiological# clinical# toxicological# etc. B.l Does your company have toxicity tests performed to evaluate the health effects or environmental effects of chemicals? Of the companies responding# 78 percent answered yes to this question. The remaining questions in Section II. B were answered by the companies that perforin toxicity testing. fi.1.1 In approximately what year did your company begin performing toxicity tests? The mean response to the survey was 1963. Questions B.2-B.4 request information that describes a chemical company's 1981 toxicity testing program in terms of staffing, number of products tested# expense of program# and' replacement value of testing facilities. Becognizing that a company's testing program may include a level of effort towards business segments other than their t)*S. chemical business# as defined in the survey# question B.3 requested an estimate of percentage of total expense that was attributable to the D.s. chemical business segment only. This factor has been used to adjust survey responses in all categories of questions B.2 and B.4. The corresponding results of the survey are presented in Table 2. 21 AP00004607 TABLE 2 CHEMICAL INDUSTRY SURVEY 1981 TOXICITY TESTING PROGRAMS MEAN AND TOTAL RESPONSES* Question No. Mean Response Total Response B.2.1 Equivalent full-time staff 14 1,178 B.2.2 Number of new substances/ products tested 22 1,856 B.2>3 Number of existing sub stances/products tested 29 2r4l8 2- 53 4,421 B2* 4 Annual in-house expense $1,184,000 $97,103,000 B.2.5 Annual contracted expense 380,000 31,170,000 B.2.6 Annual cooperative expense 123 ,000 10,309*000 .Total expense2 $1,724,000 $137,953,000 B.4 Replacement value of toxicity testing facilities in 1981 $3,148,000 $255,028,000 r m 1 Responses have been adjusted to percent of effort attribu table to U.S* Chemical business. 2 Totals do not sum exactly due to a limited number of par* tially complete questionnaires. 22 APboo64-6b8 Question .5 asked for examples which demonstrated changes in testing programs during the past 10 years* Fifty-five percent of the survey respondents provided . examples. The examples fall into one of the following testing program changes: organizational changes; new toxicity testing facilities and equipment; increased staffing; new testing policies; . improved testing practices; increased numbers of tests; more sophisticated tests; and improved recordkeeping and information collection* Most of the companies reporting organizational changes des ignated groups or individuals with environmental, health, and safety responsibilities. One company reported that it had set up its environmental, health, and safety group as an operating expense eenter with an annual budget. Another company estab lished a toxicology department and another reported that it had moved toxicological responsibilities to a more senior organi zation. The organizational changes reflect . the increasing responsibilities and importance of environmental, health, and safety functions. Mew toxicity testing facilities or equipment were reported by seven companies. One of the companies indicated that it had constructed a multi-million dollar toxicity testing laboratory. Another company spent nearly one and a half million dollars on an addition to its lab for inhalation toxicological testing. increased staffing for toxicological testing was reported . by 11 respondents. Cne company reported that it expanded its health staff from 5 . to 60 professionals. Another company reported that its full-time staff devoted to assessing toxi cological hazards increased from 4 to 25. A third company staffed a new lab with 39 employees. 23 AP00004609 Sew testing policies were instituted by 11 companies. The new policies covered new, existing end acquisition product testing? raw material testing? labeling; and government regula tory compliance. Four companies reported that they test all new products. One of these companies reported that toxicity testing is "now part of new product development and is carried out at an early stage. Another company indicated that commercialization development costs Include testing costs. Three companies reported that they have procedures in place for testing existing products: two reported that they prior itize mature chemicals for testing and one reported that it con ducts annual reviews to identify chemicals for testing and pro poses annual chemical testing programs to each division. Another company reported that it establishes the toxicity of all raw materials and examines products from acquisitions. Another company added intermediate and bulk chemical testing capabilities to test for safe environmental handling of these chemicals. Many companies cited examples of improved testing practices. Companies reported improvements in: Cood laboratory practices (GLPs). Companies reported that they now adhere to GLPs. Those pre viously following GLPs said that their GLPs are now "formalized," "better defined," or "strengthened, Protocols. protocols are now "updated," "more com plex," "formalized," "more comprehensive," and "better defined." Several companies designed internal testing protocols and one company "gained facility in protocol selection." . Quality control in testing. Examples of greater quality control Tn testing include auditing of testing, validation procedures for studies, review procedures for reports, quality assurance programs,- and careful review of subcontracted work. Many respondents also cited examples of increased numbers of tests as a major change in testing programs. Examples of tests which are conducted more often are: behavioral toxicology; chemical fate; chronic; 24 AP00004610  chronic and carcinogenic inhalation) corrosion; environmental toxicity; . fertility; flash point; - genetic; in vitro mutagenicity; metabolic; metals analysis; molecular toxicology; . oncogenic; pharmacokinetic; reproductive; sub-chronic; teratology; and wildlife. One respondent indicated that it tests more specie*, more animals per species, and more samples of internal organs. Another respondent said that its testing has "greatly expanded from previous years" to the point where it now Is spending over $1.5 million on contracted and cooperative toxicity testing. Another company identified increasing regulatory requirements and concern for produet liability as major reasons for con ducting considerably more tests. Closely related to the increase in numbers of tests Is the conduct of more sophisticated tests. Testing state of the art has advanced markedly; many current tests such as the Ames and cell transformation tests were not known in 1969. Companies reported that their current testing programs; emphasise bio-medical aspects of testing; use e tier-test approach to assess the toxicological hazards of chemicals; 25 AP00004611 I lm . emphasize chronic, sub-chronic, ~ and reproductive testing as opposed to the earlier emphasis on simple acute testing; use greater scientific depth; emphasize long-term testing; apply a greater breadth of tests; use more extensive histopathology; use more analytical chemiatry; and apply more sophisticated analytical characterization, Improved recordkeeping and Information collection was cited by s number oi respondents as an example of testing program improvements, Host of the companies cited use of computers as their improvement in recordkeeping, Respondents use computers for data collection, storage and search. The kinds of data computerized are: test documentation; medical health and environmental data; toxicity reports; industrial hygiene data; and material safety data. Companies also cited examples of recordkeeping improvements which did not involve computers. These companies: established archives for all data; expanded USDS coverage; use MSPSs for all products; and . established recordkeeping and reporting systems. Two companies cited examples of improvements in information collection. One reported that it began monitoring worldwide literature; another reported increased interaction with regula tory agencies in the planning and reporting of studies. m a ft 9 m Ii 1 ft i m ft m ft *; ft m *! ft ft I m 1, -- 26 I [ \ AP00004612 I II.C. TSCA Preroanufacture Notification cpmk) The impact of PMN nay be different depending on company size and the products involved. The guestions below are designed to indicate the factors that affect 0.5 chemical com panies. c.l so you have a procedure for determining that a PMN is required? 84 percent of the survey respondents have such a pro cedure. C. 2 Save you declined to manufacture any new chemicals because of the time or cost of PMN compliance? 18 percent of the < survey respondents indicated that they have declined to manufacture due to pMNs. Ten companies gave explanations as to why they declined to manufacture new chemicals because of PMN compliance. These ten responses were: "[pmn compliance was] more costly/nore complex than market potential warranted.* . "Cost of PMN [was] too high to warrant filing in hope of generating unknown dollars worth of sales." "[The] number of specialty chemicals has been reduced to those products clearly demonstrating superior performance." . "PMNs [were] submitted (for] all new imported chemicals but (were] withdrawn due to costs of tests requested by EPA." "Toxicity costs twerej excessive for market volume." "cost not a factor. Research and marketing objec tives occasionally switch from a PMN candidate to a non-pMN candidate for commercial development because of apprehension over PMN delays." 27 AP00004613  "[We] have encountered at least seven instances where both tine and cost of PMN have deterred further work on a new substance#" "Low volume materials cannot bear the expense or the time {of fmn compliance]#" "planned production was based on an expressed immediate need by the customer# The fmn approval process precluded the immediate production of the product# consequently# consideration of its production was dropped#" "Zt [the new chemical] would have been a useful addition to our product line but [potential sales] could not justify up-front toxicology expense." Questions II.C.3 and II.C.4 ask how many pMKs a company submitted and how many of these pMN substances have been or are likely to be commercialized# The total of survey responses is presented below in comparison to the total number of pMNs received by spa. Total pMNs Submitted Survey vs. Actual1 Survey Total EPAl Total Survey Total < a Percentage of EPA Total 1979 1980 1981 Total 19 36 14 5 365 225 662 389 1 #063 53% 40% ill 37% No# Commercialized 247 unknown? Percent Commercialized 63% 1 Received through direct correspondence with C#S# EPA# Office of pesticides and Toxic Substances. 2 The total number of substances commercialized of all PMKs is not readily available# 28 AP00004614 L II.O. tsca 8(e) Reports An 8(e) report informs EPA that a chemical may present a substantial risk to health or the environment. c.l Do you have a company procedure in place for con sidering fi(e) reports? 74% of the responding companies have a procedure for considering 8(e) reports* Questions D.1.1 and D.1.2 were answered by companies with a procedure. D.1.1 What are the sources of information that initiate an 8(e) review? Information Source Response Freouencv TOXICOLOGY 90% RESEARCH 72% PRODUCTION (EMPLOYEES) 78% CUSTOKER/CONSUMER REPORT 78% DATA FROM SUPPLIERS 70% Twenty-six companies reported 'other* sources of informa tion which initiate an 8(e) review. These "other* responses were: employee reports) employee requests; data from trade associations; data from other manufacturers; . data from government reports; data from trade literature? 29 AP00004615  data from outside labs; medical data; Industrial hygiene; company management; Kational Toxicology program (NTP) reports; public information; and regulations. 3 3 D.1.2 Approximately how many people are normally involved in your company's 8(e) review procedure? The mean survey response was 6.4. D.2 Bas your company filed at least one 8(e) report? 51 percent of the responding companies indicated that they have filed at least one report. 0.2.1 If yes, whom do you advise of your 8(e) reports? Response Frequency CUSTOMERS 90% CO-PRODUCERS 69% EMPLOYEES 94% Other responses to this question were; the public; government agencies; . ether research organizations; 30 AP00004616 suppliers; and company management 0*3 Has the information provided on 8(e) reports prepared by your company or any other company been used for your Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)? your own 8(e) reports Other 8(e) reports Frecuencv of Response Always Sometimes Never 54% 40% 6% 21% 51% 28% D.3-1 Has this information been used in your Industrial hygiene practices? Frequency of Response Always Sometimes Never Vour own 8(e) reports 74% Other 8(e) reports 29% 22% 4% 44% 27% 31 AP00004617 IM W>J -w I I I I I I SECTION III HAZARD COMMUNICATION Survey Results This section identifies what chemical companies are doing to inform employees and customers about chemical hazards. AP00004618 III.A. MSCS The Material Safety Data Sheet (USDS) is a source of infornation about a chemical* This question will determine how extensively they are used to transmit information. 1 1 * A.l What systems do you use to communicate information about chemical products? Information System Response Frequency USDS 99% LABELS 95% PRODUCT BULLETIN 87% LETTERS S0 TRAINING 84% POISON CONTROL CENTERS 34% A number of companies provided "other" systems that they use to communicate information. These systems are; CBEMTEEC; emergency response systems (emergency staff, call-in service, call response services); chemical data sheets (manufacturer data sheets, tox icity reports, hazardous material data sheet); bulletins (chemical hazard bulletins, environmental bulletins, safety bulletins, industrial hygiene bul letins, technical bulletins); educational programs (video tapes, slide presenta tions, seminars, presentations, meetings, movies, personal discussions); reference materials (American Industrial aygiene Association guides, hazardous material transpor tation guides, catalogs, repack sheets, transpor tation documents, wall charts, safety guides, user manuals, handbooks, publications); 33 AP00004619  medical advisors; and ---------- local municipal services (hospitals, fire depart ments) . The remaining questions in XI3.A. were answered by companies with asDSs. A*2 Do you send KSDSs to your customers? Response Frequency UPON TBS-FIRST SHIPMENT ONLY 26% UPON EVERY SHIPMENT 5% ON REQUEST 96% WHEN UPDATED 60% Other instances when companies give MSDSs to customers that were identified by respondents ares with samples; with product literature; during sales calls and visits by technical representatives; with customer information packets; annually; semiannually; periodic mailings through a computerized system; special mailing lists; to. potential customers; and with contracts* - 34 AP00004620 X A.3 Approximately what percent of your purchased chemicals and chemical products were covered by MSDSs in 1981? Purchased Chemicals Chemical Products Mean Response 86% 92% A.4 la the information provided on your WSDS more, the same, or leas then that called for on CSBA Form 20? More The Same less Response Frequency 55% 45% 0% 3 1 1 3 1 ' A.5 "How often do you review and update your KSESs? of the companies responding, 97 percent indicated that their HSDSa are reviewed and updated as new information becomes available. Twenty-three companies provided actual review and update periods and the mean response was every 2.0 years. ether companies reported that they review and update MSDSs: after formula modifications; continually; before each new MSDS print run; " periodically; when determined by product steward audit; and according to regulatory requirements. 35 AP00004621 A6 co you maintain files of MSDSs? 99 percent of the companies responding indicated that they do maintain USDS files. Of the companies with hsps files, 100 percent indicated that the files are available to company personnel. sixty-five percent Indicated that the files are available to the public. It should be noted that a number of the companies that make the files available to the public limit the release of this type of information to people with "a legitimate need to know." i 36 AP00004622 III. B. Labels Labeling provides"information to customers and employees. The following questions are designed to indicate the type of information transmitted and the proportion of chemical products for which such information is provided. B.l Typically# which of the following pieces of information appeared on your chemical product labels in 1981? The frequency of survey responses ordered by response frequency are? Label Information Response Freouencv PRODUCT OR TRACE NAME 98% NAME OF MANUFACTURER 97ft COMPANY ADDRESS 96ft PRECAUTIONS FOR-USE 87ft HAZARD IDENTIFICATION EMERGENCY PROCEDURES 86% 72% CODE NUMBER 68% COMMON NAME 66% CHEMICAL NAME 64% CONTAINER DISPOSAL 41% TELEPHONE CONTACT 34% CAS NUMBER 12% The following is a list of other information that was identified as being included on chemical product labels. measure statement? . DOT shipping name? United Nations hazard number? 37 3 3 3 3 ] 3 3 ] ] 3 3 3 3 3 3 J 3 AP00004623 marketing company name; first aid; MSDS availability; flash point; warranty? , open code date? signal word; CHEMTREC; lot marking; disclaimer; applications; label code number; specifications? and use date. 36 'i AP00004624 IXI.C. Information Systems V-ivq*noc. information systems identify, communicate. and record information on chemicals. f C.l Co you formally maintain the following information at either a corporate, divisional , or local level? Information Maintained LISTS OF CHEMICALS USED LISTS CF CHEMICALS PRODUCED WORK HISTORIES WORK SITE EXPOSURES MEDICAL RECORDS SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS Response Freouencv 97% 99% 83% 92% 95% 61% 86% 85% C.2 Do you have procedures established to respond to health and safety questions raised by customers and employees? Of the responding companies, 91 percent indicated that they have procedures established to respond to ques tions raised by customers and 96 percent indicated that they have procedures established to respond to questions raised by employees. 39 AP00004625 .XII.C. Training Training frequently involves communicating information on chemical hazards and teaches people how to avoid those hazards. D.l in which areas do your chemical plant employees (hourly and supervisory) receive training? Chemical Plant Employee AREAS OF TRAINING CHEMICAL HAZARDS HOURLY 97% SUPERVISi 961 WORKPLACE SAFETY 99% 97% HANDLING of MATERIALS 99% 96% EMERGENCY RESPONSE 86% 96% OFF-THE-JOB SAFETY ,63% 63% REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 64% 90% Companies provided a long list of areas in which they train supervisory and/or hourly personnel. Many of the responses were specific examples of the general areas of training already listed in the survey. Specific examples of emergency response training for both hourly and supervisory personnel were fire* fighting and confined space entry. Examples of training in workplace safety for both hourly and supervisory personnel were fire protection* respiratory protection* radiation protection, hearing conservation, transportation safety. In addition, supervisory personnel were trained in industrial hygiene and industrial ventilation. Examples of chemical hazard training for both hourly and supervisory personnel were carcinogens, hazardous wastes, and flammable liquids. Other areas in which both hourly and supervisory personnel receive training are: basic chemistry; equipment operation; disaster plans; 40 AP00004626  electrostatics; preventive health; transportation requirements; quality control; and employees' right-to-know. Other areas in which just supervisory personnel receive training ares process and product hazard reviews; . community complaints; and accident investigation* J 41 AP00004627 SECTION IV HAZARD CONTROL Survey Results This section is designed to identify what chemical companies are doing to control hazards that have been identified. 42 AP00004628 IV. A Listing of Cheiricals Lists of chemicals are ready sources of information that management can use to control hazards* The following questions Identify items that are listed and how the information is used* A.l Does your company maintain complete lists of the fol lowing materials? If yes, approximately when was this practice started? Lists Maintained PRODUCTS RAW MATERIALS AND SEG REGATED INTERMEDIATES SOLID WASTES Response Freauencv 100% 98% 90% Mean Yea; Started 1956 1965 1976 EFFLUENTS EMISSIONS 87% 1972 63% 1973 In completing question IV.A.1., several companies indicated that they began maintaining one or more of these lists in 1982* These companies are included in the data base* ether information which companies keep lists of are: chemical supplies; . liquid wastes; deepwell-disposed wastes; ocean-disposed wastes; hazardous materials; DOT regulated materials; . RCRA wastes; waste sites; and by-products. 43 1 1 1 1 1 S AP00004629 Question iv.A.2 has been answered by companies that main tain at least one of the lists identified above. A.2 Are internal chemical lists used to: Pse of Lists " Response Frequency Meet Regulatory Requirements? 94% Maintain internal Control? 98% Research Health and Safety? 86% Other activities for which chemical lists are used are tot target hazard communications? . alert transportation departments of hazardous chemi cals; respond to environmental incidents; . plan waste disposal; produce precautionary labels; and plan for emergency responses to environmental inci dents. 44 AP00004630 IV. B. industrial Hygiene Program -4 ' r industrial hygiene or similar programs are designed to pro tect workers from chemical hazards. B.l Do you have an industrial hygiene program or a similar program performing the same functions? 90 percent of the responding companies indicated that they do have a program* The remaining questions in Section 1V.B were answered by companies with a program* 1 3 3 1 S 1 B.2 Bow many total industrial hygienists and/or trained hygiene technicians were used in your U*S. chemical business in 19S1 on an equivalent full-time basis? The mean response was 6.9 and the total response was 60* B.3 Khat areas of operation does your industrial hygiene or similar program address? Area of Operation Covered by Program Manufacturing Maintenance Incoming Baw Materials processing packaging Storage Transportation Laboratory product Use Disposal Response Frequency 100 87% 77| 94% 82% 72% 60% 87% 70% 2% 45 AP00004631 Other areas addressed by companies' industrial hygiene pro grams ares -- labeling; personal protection; regulatory reviews and audita; contractors; customers; pilot plants; . product development; environmental remedial work sites; research and development; and contracted manufacturing. AP00004632 IV. C. Health Effects Monitoring Health effects monitoring provides an early warning of work-related health problems. C.l Does your company perform periodic reviews of their employees* medical histories? Cf the responding companies, 39 percent indicated that they perform periodic reviews on all employees and 47 percent indicated that they review selected groups of employees. Companies performing reviews of selected groups of employ ees' medical histories were asked to specify these groups. Approximately one half of these companies periodically review the medical histories of employees who are exposed or poten tially exposed to hazardous chemicals. Most of the rest of the companies performed periodic medical history reviews of selected in-plant and out-of-plant employees. In-plant employees cited were: production workers; . lab personnel; . chemical operators; waste handlers; all plant personnel; manufacturing workers; warehouse workers; . shipping and receiving workers; supervisors; and . ex-production workers. Out-of-plant employees cited were; sales personnel; 47 K AP00004633 . key people; ---- management and senior management; . truck drivers; executives; and senior staff, A few companies reported that they review the medical records of those required by government regulations. A few other companies perform periodic medical reviews of all older employees * i ! i 48 AP00004634 1 IV, D. Emergency Response The following questions seek to determine the types of emergency response teams that companies maintain and the training that they receive. These teams could include fire brigades, first aid teams, or chemical spills teams. D,1 Coes your company have emergency response teams? Response Teams Frequency of Response Fire Control 86% First Aid 87% Chemical Spills or Releases 63% Other incidences for which companies have emergency response teams are: transportation emergencies; . CHEMTREC; CHLOREP (for chlorine emergency responses); hydrogen cyanide emergencies; rescues; power failures; . noxious fumes; mutual aid; . contractor's emergencies; and natural disasters. The remaining questions in Section IV.D were answered by companies with emergency response teams for chemical spills or releases. I 4 49 AP00004635 D*2 Indicate the number of trained emergency response per sonnel for chemical spills or releases inside and out side of your facilities (emergency site activities and all activities} that your company maintained In the TJ.S. in 1961. Emergency Site Activities All Emergency Activities Number of Personnel Mean Response Total Response * 100 8/197 160 11,992 D.3 Co your company*s emergency response teams respond to outside emergencies not involving your products? 46 percent of the responding companies indicated that they do respond to outside emergencies not involving their products. 50 AP00004636 IV* Internal Health/Environmental Compliance Audits/fieviews internal health/environmental compliance audits/reviews are cne means that companies use to ensure that they are following health and environmental policies and regulations* The following questions will determine how extensively U*S chemical companies use this management tool* 1 1 1 E.l Coes your company have an internal health# environ mental, or other type of compliance audit program? Cf the responding companies# 76 percent indicated that they do have a compliance audit/review program. The remaining questions in Section IV. were answered by companies that have an audit program. Questions .2 and .3 requested specific information about the types of audits conducted, the year that the audits were started, the frequency with which audits are conducted, and the skills represented in conducting audits. Table 3 presents the results of the survey. Twenty-nine companies reported they perform other audits besides health and environmental compliance audits. Twenty com panies perform safety audits, seven companies perform . trans portation compliance audits, and five perform industrial hygiene audits* ether audits cited were: product safety; site assessment; process safety; FDA compliance; quality control; and RCRA. 51 AP00004637 TABLE 3 SURVEY RESULTS - COMPLIANCE AUDITS/REVIEWS ( Health Compliance Environmental Compliance ( Audits/Reviews Audits/Reviews Frequency audit/review ! was reported aa a company practice1 93% 93% Mean year started! i Mean audit/review frequency 1 Skills involved - frequency of response 1975 1*2 years 1978 - 1.3 years Legal 47% 63% Technical 96% ` 97% Management 91% 86% ( i \ I 1 Several companies indicated that they began audits/ ( reviews in 1982. In these cases, the companies were considered to perform audits/reviews and the year started was recorded as 1982. I t r i 52 AP00004638 other skills used in conducting and reviewing audits are: medical; industrial hygienist; regulatory; managerial engineering; internal audit; toxicological; safety; and operations. 3 3 3 1 1 1 53 AP00004639 IV. P. Transportation Transportation safety is an important element in reducing the public's risk from chemicals. The following questions seek to determine what your company is doing concerning transports' tion. P.l Coes your company train its personnel to understand transportation safety regulations and standards? 96 percent of the respondents provide this type of training. P.2 Does your company have a transportation procedures man ual? 80 percent of the respondents have a transportation procedures manual. T.3 If you have procedures, are the following items included in the transportation procedures manual? Procedures Included Loading/Unloading Handling packaging Labeling Placarding Inspection Spill/Emergency Fesponse Frequency 904 914 974* 97% 94% 874 83% 54 AP00004640 ether procedures contained in transportation procedure manuals are: audits; shipping document preparation; routing; . government regulations; DOT hazard material definitions; hazardous substance lists; product lists; drum codes; hazardous waste transportation rules; driver responsibilities; . markings; CHEMTREC; classifications; bill of lading instructions; Federal Kotor Carrier Safety Regulations, parts 391*397; and transportation equipment selection. 3 3 1 F. 4 Does your company provide precautionary information beyond Department of Transportation IDCT) standards for identifying the hazardous nature of chemicals in transit? 64 percent of the responding companies indicated that they do provide precautionary Information beyond DOT standards. 55 I AP00G04641 F5 Does your company use: Response Frecuencv Labels 98% Placards 87% Written Instructions 88% verbal Instructions 81% Other aids companies use in their transportation programs are: transportation data sheets; . USDS; . training; slide presentations; transportation emergency guides? . audits; hose connection tags; driver instruction cards; bill of lading notations? . hazardous waste manifests; checklists; handouts; and . CHEMTREC. AP00004642 7.6 Are your company products listed with CHEMTREC? 76 percent of the responding companies indicated yes. 7.7 Does your company maintain its own transportation emergency hotline? 50 percent of the responding companies indicated yes. 1 1 1 1 1 ] AP00004643 2V. 6. Waste Disposal Procedures The following question is designed to determine how com panies handle their chemical wastes. G.l In recent years, has your company been using propor tionately more, the same* or less of the following waste disposal methods for your chemical wastes? indi cate in the right-hand column if the method has not been used recently. Frequency of Response Recent t3se of Disposal Methods Method Not More Same Less Used Recently Recycled 74% 21% 0% 5% Stored on-s ite 16% 24% 42% 18% Stored off-site 4% 8% 30% 58% incinerated on-site Incinerated off-site 36% 43% 11% 5% 15% 12% 48% 30% Landfilled on-site 3% 13% 30% 54% Landfilled off-site 39% 24% 30% - 7% Twenty-one companies cited examples of other recent methods of waste disposal. The most common cited example was deepwell injection. Eight companies reported using deepwell injection: three more, three the same, and two less. Five companies reported they are using more process changes to reduce wastes. Three companies are landfarming (one more, one less, and one the same) One company indicated that it is using less ocean disposal. Other disposal methods which were cited as being used more are: . chemical destruction; biological treatment; bio-degradation; 58 AP00004644 i. neutralization; chemical-fixation; . sell for recovery or use; . detoxification; and Z vf` I e pyrolysis. v. i i 1 59 AP00004645 SECTION V ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COSTS Survey Results This section is designed to update the estimated costs to the U.S* chemical industry for end-of-process pollution control* Please provide the following information for your U*S* chemical business, defined as domestic sales plus domestic based exports of products in SIC code 28 (excluding 283). Pollution control facilities serve company questions using appropriate estimates of the""proportion dedicated" to your p.sV chemicaT business"! Cne source of information for this section may 5e submittals to the Census Bureau on Form.MA-2QQ* For the purpose of the survey, pollution control facilities fall into three major categories? air, water, and solid waste. Use the following definitions of these pollutants to complete Section V. Air pollutants are airborne substances including particu-lates (dust, fly ash, smoke), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, odors, fluorides, lead and other heavy metals, radioactive and toxic substances. Water pollutants are waterborne substances including phosphate, nitrates (-trites), substances that generate chemical or biochemical oxygen demand, solids, acids, bases, heavy metals, radioactive and toxic substances, synthetic organic molecules, harmful microbes, oil, grease, dyes, and heat* Solid waste includes garbage, trash, sewage sludge, dredged spoil, ^Incinerator residue, wrecked or discarded equipment, bio logical and chemical wastes, radioactive and other toxic mate rials* include solid waste produced as a result of air and water pollutant abatement* 60 AP00004646 V.A. Estimate your capital investment in pollution control facilities (original Installed cost) during calendar years 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, and 1977 for end-of- Frocess waste treatment/disposal The following table summarizes the mean company response and total response to the survey in millions of dollars (not adjusted for inflation) year 1961 - Mean Total 1980 - Mean - Total 1979 - Mean - Total 1978 - Mean - Total 1977 - Mean - Total Capital Expenditures (S Millions) Solid Air Water Waste Total 3.8 349 6.5 602 1.2 113 11.5 1,083 3.7 331 6.0 544 1.1 92 10.9 966 3.5 303 6.1 523 1.3 108 10.5 926 3.3 268 3.4 259 6.1 493 7.4 573 0.9 67 0.6 48 10.1 829 11.1 864 1 s 1 Totals are not precisely equal to the addition of rows due to a limited number of partial responses. 61 AP00004647 V* B. Estimate your 1981# 1980# 1979# 1978# and 1977 annual Operations and Maintenance (C&M) costs for end-of- process waste treatment/disposal. The following table summarizes the mean company response and total response to the survey in millions of dollars (not adjusted for inflation)* Tear 1981 - Mean - Total 1980 - Mean - Total 1979 - Mean - Total 1978 - Mean - Total 1977 - Mean Total Operation and Maintenance Costs ($ Millions) -k------------------------------ * soYi<T ----------------- L Air Water Waste Total 3.6 323 6.9 632 2.8 254 14.1 1#323 3.7 319 6.8 590 2.5 217 13.4 1#190. 3.1 258 6.1 52 2 2.0 169 11.7 998 2.6 198 2.3 172 5.6 429 4.9 366 1.7 125 1.5 106 10.5 609 9.2 691 Totals are not precisely equal to the addition of rows due to limited number of partial responses. AP00004648 V. C. Estimate the equivalent number of full-time personnel (operations, maintenance, engineering/ administra tion/ etc.) dedicated to operating and maintaining your pollution control facilities in 1981r 1979/ and 1977 at calendar year end. The following table summarizes the mean company response and total response to the survey in equivalent full-time personnel. Year 1981 - Mean - Total 1979 - Mean - Total 1977 - Mean - Total Air 20.7 1,820 20.2 1/655 18.7 1,458 Number of Personnel Solid Water Waste 43.8 3,945 19.0 1,713 44.5 3/736 17.0 1/427 38.1 3,050 15.4 1,233 Total 92.6 8,427 91.5 7/778 81.3 6,589 Totals are not precisely equal to the addition of rows due to a limited number of partial responses. i 63 AP00004649 appendix a SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE r i f i J AP00004650 SURVEY OF CHEMICAL COMPANY ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE UNREASONABLE RISK cm* CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 2501 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 PURPOSEx To survey the cheaical industry's commitment to reducing unreasonable risk to health and the environment. BENEFITS To demonstrate to policy makers and the general public the degree to which the cheaical industry is ensuring the safety of chemicals* Please return this survey fora by November 30, 1982* Thank you for participating in this important effort. AP00004651 SURVEY OF CHEMICAL COMPANY ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE UNREASONABLE RISK The U.S. chemical industry needs information to demonstrate its commitment to controlling and reducing unreasonable risk to health and the environment. This is a survey to identify that information. The results are intended to: present the U.s. chemical industry's efforts to reduce unreasonable risk for the TSCA reauthorization hearings; support the regulatory positions of the chemical industry; . provide performance and compliance documentation for the public; and provide feedback to participating companies' on the industry's effort to control and reduce chemical risks. Instructions for Completing the Questionnaire This is a survey of the U.S. chemical industry's activities to reduce unreasonable risk in calendar year 1981. For the purposes of this survey, the industry is defined as all domes tic sales plus domestic based exports of products in SIC code 28 (chemicals and allied products), excluding 283 (drugs). This definition must be used in completing the questionnaire for your U.S. chemical business, unless specific requests are made for other information. The questionnaire contains five major sections, addressing: I. General Company Information; II. Chemical Hazard Assessment; III. Chemical Hazard Communication; IV. Chemical Hazard Control; and V. Environmental Control Costs. Each section contains three to eight subsections with specific instructions for completing each question. The questionnaire is printed so that the sections can be separated and distribu ted to appropriate personnel for completion. If you do sepa rate the questionnaire, please copy these instructions and send them with the portion(s) of the questionnaire being distributed. AP00004652 1 The questionnaire is designed to minimize the effort required to respond. Therefore informed estimates are acceptable where exact data is not available* we are not requesting that major internal studies be undertaken to complete the questionnaire. If you have any problems in completing the questionnaire, please call Nr* Deems Buell of peat* Marwick, Mitchell & Co. at (202) 223-9525. Confidentiality of Questionnaire Responses Completing the questionnaire requires the disclosure of business information that many companies will consider confidential. To assure that responses are maintained confidentially during and after the survey, CMA is using peat, Marwick, Mitchell c Co., a major public accounting and management consulting firm, to conduct the survey and evaluate the survey results. The information released at the conclusion of the survey will be in aggregated form to protect the identity of individual respondents. To provide additional assurance to your company, a confidentiality agreement is enclosed for your company to enter into with Peat, Marwick, ` Mitchell & Co. Your response will be maintained as confidential even if your company does not enter into this agreement. Responding to the'Survey All participating companies must return their completed questionnaire by November 30, 1962. To limit follow up, a postcard is enclosed for your company to complete and return as soon as a decision has been made about participating in the survey. A return envelope is enclosed for submitting your completed questionnaire. If you do not use this envelope, please mark your return envelope CONFIDENTIAL* and mail it to: peat, Marwick, Mitchell 6 Co. 1990 K Street, N.w. Washington, D.C. 20006 ATTN: Mr. Deems Buell 1 AP00004653 TABLE OF CONTENTS CURRENT ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE UNREASONABLE RISK X. GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION A. Company Information B Management Attention to Health and Environmental Matters C. Organization II. CHEMICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT A. Chemical Hazard AssessmentReview B Testing C. TSCA Premanufacture Notification (PMN) D. TSCA 8(e) Reports III. HAZARD COMMUNICATION A. MSDS B. Labels C. Information Systems D. Training IV. HAZARD CONTROL A. Listings of Chemicals B. Industrial Hygiene Program C. Health Effects Monitoring D. Emergency Response E. Internal Health/EnvironmentalCompliance Audits/Reviews F. Transportation G. waste Disposal Procedures V. Environmental Control Costs A. Capital Investment B. Operation and Maintenance (O&M)Costs C. Staffing PAGE 1 1 3 4 5 5 6 6 9 11 11 13 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 22 22 AP00004654 SECTION I GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION ? . This section will identify general information about your company. The results from this section of the questionnaire will establish the baseline for analyzing all of your survey responses. I. A. Company Information Specific company information is essential to the survey for standardizing responses. The questions below request information about your entire company's activities (world-wide) and your company's chemical business (world-wide and U.S.). For this survey, a chemical business is defined by products in SIC code 28t excluding 283, and a U.S. chemical business is defined as domestic sales plus domestic based exports of products in sic code 2B, excluding 283. Your responses to the remainder of the questionnaire must be based on your U.S. chemical business, unless a question specifically states otherwise. Supporting functions provided by other areas of your company should be considered to be a part of your U.S. chemical business on a proportional basis when possible. A.l Provide the following information about your company's activities for the 1981 calendar year. 1.1 Total company sales (world-wide) in millions of dollars $ (1981$s) 1.2 Total company employment (world wide) at calendar year end 1.3 Total world-wide chemical/product sales (all sales of products in SIC Code 26, exluding 283) in millions of dollars $ (1981$s) 1.4 Total number of employees at calendar year end associated with your world wide chemical/product sales (ref. question 1.3) 1 AP00004655 A 1.5 Total U.S. chemical/product sales (domestic sales plus domestic based exports of products in SIC code 28f excluding 283) in millions of dollars $ 1X981$8) 1.6 Total number of employees at calendar year end associated with your U.S. chemical/product sales (ref. question 1.5) 1.7 Total number of chemical products (count all product distinctions except package size as individual products) associated with your U.S. chemical/product sales (ref. question 1.5) 1.8 Identify the major products associated with your 1981 U.S. chemical/product sales (ref. question 1.5} by checking the appropriate SIC codes below. (Consider major chemical product categories to represent at least 10% of your total U.S. chemical/product sales.) SIC Code Title 281 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 282 Plastics and Synthetics 284 Toilet Preparations 285 Paints and Allied Products 286 Industrial Organic Chemicals 287 Agricultural Chemicals 289 Miscellaneous Chemical Products A.2 What is your company's name? i i A.3 Who is your company's principal contact in completing the questionnaire, their job title, and telephone number? Name Job Title -J______________ ephone Number 2 AP00004656 p yf 3 i ' B* Management Attention to Health and Environmental Hatters The following questions will determine the attention that management devotes to health and environmental matters* For each question# check (vM all appropriate answers or provide the requested information* B.l What is the highest level in your company that is routinely involved in health and environmental matters concerning your U.S* chemical business? (check appropriate response) BOARD OP DIRECTORS PRESIDENT CORPORATE VICE-PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT DEPARTMENT BEAD OTHER (SPECIFY): B.2 Does your company have formal policies that address the following health and environmental concerns and are these policies publicly available? (check appropriate responses) INTERNAL PUBLICLY POLICY AVAILABLE YES NO YES NO MEDICAL PRODUCT SAPETY WORKER SAFETY TRANSPORTATION HAZARDOUS WASTES ENVIRONMENT DISASTER PLANS OTHER (SPECIFY) B*3 Please provide any specific examples that demonstrate your management's approach for dealing with health and environmental matters* 3 AP00004657 I, c. Organization The following question* will find how companies have organised their 0*S* chemical .business to carry out their environmental and health policies. for each question# check (<) all appropriate answers or provide the requested information* C.l Do you have one or more groups whose sole function is dealing with health or environmental matters? yes ; MO C.2 Use the matrix below to provide a count of all the health/ environmental specialists (internal personnel^plus outside consultants) that your 0*s* chemical business used in calendar year 1981* Present all specialists on an equi valent full-time basis according to their most appropriate health/environmental function* Do not double count* (In completing the matrix# product safety is defined as a function that includes coordination and development of hazard communication and regulatory compliance programs making use of other health information* Worker safety is defined as a function that includes occuptional safety and employee health monitoring. Health is defined as a function that includes human# animal# and environmental research and assessment*) riflAurra I FUNCTIONS Pretwet Safety Ispt (BmVHMiSil TiMMrtMtai Safety AfcEallmfen Cawtrd NtoMMoaCannl HMannarftaMmaWm M Mar's ISpadfy) i 4G AP00004658 SECTION II. CHEMICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT ' ' In this section we would like to know whet your company is doing to identify chemical hazards to health and the environ ment within your U.S. chemical business. Hazard assessment is sometimes called loss prevention or product safety review; it involves the determination of a hazard's presence or absence through the review of available data such as toxicity, environ mental fate, and physical/chemical properties to evaluate the potential for harm or need for additional information* II. A. Chemical Hazard Assessment Review we need to know what your company is doing to assess chemical hazards. For each question, check &/) all appropriate answers or provide the requested information. A.l Do you have a program for chemical hazard assessment? _YES ______ NO If the answer is NO, skip to question II.3.1. A.2 About what percent of the time do you perform chemical hazard assessments when you have: New Products New processes % % Any Formulation Changes % A.3 Which of the following events typically trigger a chemical hazard assessment for existing products or existing processes. (Cheek all appropriate answers) Routine Process Change New Data New Product Ose Employee concern Consumer concern New regulatory requirements _________ ___ _____ _____ _____ _____ other (Specify) AP00004659 A.4 What technical specialties were involved in your chemical hazard assessment program during 1981? (check all appropriate answers.) Specialties Internal Outside Personnel Consultants TOXICOLOGY LEGAL ? REGULATORY ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SAPETY ANALYTICAL (CHEMIST) MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE R 4 D/TECHNICAL PRODUCTION SPECIFY OTHERS: __________ _________ __________ _____ __________ __________ __________ __________ _____ _____________ _____________ _____________ ___ _____________ ___ _____________ _____________ _____ _____________ I A.5 Do you have a chemical hazard assessment committee(s)? _____ Yes _____ No 5.1 If yes, in approximately what year was your committee(s) started? ______ A.6 Does your company conduct formal environmental health and safety reviews for the design of new plants or equipment projects? YES ______ NO II. B. Testing Toxicity testing can be helpful to determine whether a substance could pose a hazard. This testing is defined to include animal, environmental, epidemiological, clinical, toxicological, etc. For each question, check (>/) all appropriate answers or provide the requested information. B.l Does your company have toxicity tests performed to evaluate the health effects or environmental effects of chemicals? *YES NO If the answer is NO, skip to question II.C.l. 6 AP00004660 1.1 in approximately what year did your company begin performing toxicity tests? ___ B.2 Toxicity testing programs often overlap between testing in support of a company's U.S. chemical business and testing in support of a company's other activities. To simplify estimating U.S. chemical business toxicity testing efforts/ provide the following information on the entire toxicity testing program(s) within your company in 1981 that provides all support for your U.S. chemical business. -Include both human health effects and environmental effects testing. 2.1 Equivalent full-time technical staff directly involved in the toxicity testing program. 2.2 Humber of new substances7pFoducts tested . (don't count individual tests) 2.3 Number of existing substances/products tested (don't count individual tests) 2.4 Annual operating expense of in-house toxicity testing $ (198r$s") 2.5 Annual expense of contracted toxicity testing S (1981 is! 2.6 Annual expense of toxicity testing performed in cooperative research programs fl98l is) B.3 Based on your answer to B.2/ estimate the percentage of total testing expense that was attributable to your U.S. chemical business. t B.4 Estimate the replacement value of your toxicity testing facilities that were in place during 1981 for the toxicity testing program described in question B.2. $___________ . (1981 is') 7 T AP00004661 B.5 Do you have examples which demonstrate changes in your testing prog rain during the past ten years? (consider planning, protocols, auditing, recordkeeping, types of studies, and reporting.) C. TSCA Premanufacture Notification (PMN) The impact of PMN may be different depending on company size and the products involved. The questions below will indicate the factors that affect your D.S. chemical business. For each question, check (vO all appropriate answers or provide the requested information. C.l Do you have a procedure for determining that a PMN is required? YES ______ NO ' C.2 Have you declined to manufacture any new chemicals because of the time or cost of PMN compliance? TBS NO If yes, how many due to: Time ______ Cost ___ Please explain C.3 How many PMN's did your company submit in: 1979_______ 1980________ 1981 If none, skip to question Il.D.l. C.4 How many of your PMN substances, reported in c.3, have actually been or are likely to be commercialized? _______ 8 AP00004662 II. D. TSCA 6(e) Reports rcr:.. An 8(e) report informs EPA that a chemical may present a substantial risk to health or the environment. For each question, check (/) all appropriate answers or provide the requested information. D.l do you have a company procedure in place for considering 8(e) reports? YES ______ WO If the answer is MO, skip to question II.D.4. 1.1 What are the sources of information that initiate an 8(e) review? (Check all appropriate answers) TOXICOLOGY RESEARCH PRODUCTION (EMPLOYEES) CUSTOMER/CONSUMER REPORT DATA FROM SUPPLIERS OTHER (SPECIFY) _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ 1.2 Approximately how many people are normally involved in your company's 8(e) review procedure? D.2 Has your company filed at least one 8(e) report? YES NO ' 2.1 If yes, whom do you advise of your 8(e) reports? (Check all appropriate answers) CUSTOMERS CO-PRODUCERS EMPLOYEES OTHERS (SPECIFY) _______ _ ______ 9 -5 AP00004663 D.3 Has the information provided on $<) -reports prepared by your company or any other company been used for your Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS's)? (Check appropriate answers) Always Sometimes Never Your own 8(e) reports Other 8(e) reports ___ ___________ ______ _____ ____ 3.1 Has this information been used in your industrial hygiene practices? (Check appropriate answers) Always Sometimes Never Your own 8(e) reports Other 8(e) reports 10 AP00004664 SECTION III. HAZARD COMMUNICATION This section will identify what chemical companies are doing to inform employees and customers about chemical hazards. III. A. USDS The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is a source of information about a chemical. This question will deter mine how extensively they are used to transmit informa tion. For each question, check (vO all appropriate answers or provide the requested information. A.l What systems do you use to communicate information about chemical products. (Check all appropriate answers) MSDS LABELS PRODUCT BULLETIN LETTERS TRAINING POISON CONTROL CENTERS OTHER (SPECIFY) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ __ (If you do not use MSDSs, skip to question IIX.B.l) A.2 Do you send MSDSs to your customers? (Check all appropriate answers) UPON THE FIRST SHIPMENT ONLY UPON EVERY SHIPMENT ON REQUEST WHEN UPDATED OTHER (SPECIFY) ______ ______ ______ ______ AP00004665 A.3 Approximately what percent of-your purchased chemicals and chemical products were covered by MSDSs in 1981? purchased Chemicals Chemical Products A.4 Zs the information provided on your MSDS more, the same, or less then that called for on OSHA Form 20? More The Same Less -.b'is' A.5 How often do you review and update your MSDSs? ANNUALLY AS NEK INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE OTHER (SPECIFY). A.6 Do you maintain files of MSDS's? YES NO If the answer is NO# skip to question iii.b.1 6.1 Are these MSDS's available to company personnel? YES NO 6.2 Are these MSDS's available to the public? YES NO 12 [ AP00004666 III. B Labels Labeling provides information to customers and employees. The following questions will indicate the' type of information transmitted and the proportion of chemical products for which such information is provided. For this question, check { V) all appropriate answers. B.l Typically, which of the following pieces of information appeared on your chemical product labels in 1981. PRODUCT OR TRADE NAME COMMON NAME CODE NUMBER CHEMICAL NAME NAME OF MANUFACTURER CAS NUMBER HAZARD IDENTIFICATION PRECAUTIONS POR USE EMERGENCY PROCEDURES CONTAINER DISPOSAL COMPANY ADDRESS TELEPHONE CONTACT OTHER (specify) _____ _____ __ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ III. C. Information Systems Information systems identify, communicate, and record information on chemicals. For each question, check () all appropriate answers. C.l Do you formally maintain the following information at either a corporate, divisional or local level? YES NO LISTS OF CHEMICALS USED LISTS OF CHEMICALS PRODUCED WORK HISTORY WORK SITE EXPOSURES MEDICAL RECORDS SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS 13 AP00004667 3 C.2 Do you have procedures established to respond.to health and safety questions raised by: CUSTOMERS ____YES ____NO EMPLOYEES YES NO III. D. Training Training frequently involves communicating infor mation on chemical hazards and teaches people how to avoid those hazards* We would like to obtain information on the areas in which you train your employees. For this question, check $/) all appropriate answers. D*1 in which areas do your chemical plant employees (hourly and supervisory} receive training? (Check all appropriate answers) Chemical Plant Employees AREAS OF TRAINING HOURLY SUPERVISORY 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 CHEMICAL HAZARDS WORKPLACE SAFETY HANDLING of MATERIALS EMERGENCY RESPONSE OFF THE JOB SAFETY REGULATORY COMPLIANCE OTHER (SPECIFY) 1 3 3 3 1 1 I I I 14 I AP00004668 SECTION IV, HAZARD CONTROL This section vill identify what chemical companies are doing to control hazards that have been identified. IV. A Listing of Chemicals Lists of chemicals are ready sources of information that management can use to control hazards. The following questions will identify items that are listed and how the information is used. For each question, check (</) all appropriate answers or provide the requested information. A.l Does your company maintain complete lists of the follow ing materials? If yes, approximately when was this practice started? WHEN YES NO STARTED PRODUCTS RAW MATERIALS AND SEG REGATED INTERMEDIATES SOLID WASTES EFFLUENTS EMISSIONS OTHER (SPECIFY) ___ ' ____ ____ ____ ____ . ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ' ________ ________ ________ _______ If the answer is NO in each case skip to question 1V.B.1 A.2 Are internal chemical lists used to: MEET REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS? MAINTAIN INTERNAL CONTROL? RESEARCH HEALTH AND SAFETY? OTHER (SPECIFY) YES ____ __ ____ NO ____ __ ____ 15 AP00004669  IV, B, . -:r*'DD G:. industrial Hygiene Program Industrial hygiene or similar programs are designed to protect workers from chemical hazards. For each question# check W) all appropriate answers or provide the requested information. B.l Do you have an industrial hygiene program or a similar program performing the same functions? YES ______ NO If the answer is NO, skip to question IV.C.l B.2 how many total industrial hygienists and/or trained hygiene technicians were used in your U.S. chemical business in 1981 on an equivalent full-time basis? B.3 What areas of operation does your industrial hygiene or similar program address? (Check appropriate items.) MANUFACTURING MAINTENANCE INCOMING RAW MATERIALS PROCESSING PACKAGING STORAGE TRANSPORTATION LABORATORY PRODUCT USE DISPOSAL OTHER (SPECIFY) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ______ ______ __ ______ IV. C. Health Effects Monitoring Health effects monitoring provides ah early warning of work-related health problems. C.l Does your company perform periodic reviews of their employees1 medical histories? (check appropriate answer) ALL EMPLOYEES SELECTED GROUP(S) OF EMPLOYEES (SPECIFY) DOES NOT PERFORM REVIEW 16 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] J 3 J J AP00004670 IV 0, Emergency Response The following questions seek to find out the types Of emergency response teams that companies maintain and the training that they receive. These teams could include fire brigades, first aid teams, or chemical spills teams. For each question, check (vO all appropriate answers or provide the requested information. D.l Does your company have emergency response teams for: YES NO Fire Control First Aid Chemical Spills or Releases Other (Specify) ____ ____ --___ ____ ____ __ If you do not have emergency response teams for chemical spills or releases, skip to question iv.E.l D.2 Indicate the number of trained emergency response person nel for chemical spills or releases inside and outside of your facilities (emergency site activities and all activities) that your company maintained in the U.S. in 1981. Emergency site Activities All Emergency Activities __ p.3 do your company's emergency response teams respond to outside emergencies not involving your products? _____ YES ______ NO 17 AP00004671 i XV. internal Health/Environmental Compliance Audits/Reviews ' Internal health/environmental compliance audits/reviews are one means that companies use to ensure that they are following health and environmental policies and regulations. The following questions will determine how extensively U.S. chemical companies use this ' management tool. For each question, check (v') all appropriate answers or provide the requested information. .1 Does your company have an Internal health, environmental, or other type of compliance audit program? YES ____ NO If the answer is NO, skip to question IV.F.1 E.2 indicate below which programs you have, the approximate year started, and approximate frequency that each type of audit is conducted on an annual basis. YES health compliance audits/reviews ____ Environmental compli ance audits/reviews ____ Other (specify) If yes, approx. Frequency NO Year Started Audit is Conducted __ __ _________^_ ____ _______ _______________________ E.3 What skills are represented in conducting and reviewing the audits identified in E.2? (check appropriate answers) Others Specified in E.2 Health Environmental Legal Technical Management Other (specify) 18 AP00004672 IV, F. Transportation . Transportation safety is an important element in reducing the public's risk from chemicals. The following questions seek to determine what your company is doing concerning transportation. For each question/ check (^) all appropriate answers. F.l Does your company train its personnel to understand transportation safety regulations and standards? ______ YES ______ NO F.2 Does your company have a transportation procedures manual? YES ______ NO P.3 if you have procedures/ are the following items included in the transportation procedures manual? LOADING/UNLOADING HANDLING PACKAGING LABELING PLACARDING INSPECTION SPILL/EMERGENCY OTHER (SPECIFY) YES ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ' NO ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ P.4 Does your company provide precautionary information beyond Department of Transportation (DOT) standards for identifying the ha2ardous nature of chemicals in transit? YES ______ NO F.5 Does your company use: YES NO LABELS PLACARDS WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS OTHER (SPECIFY) 19 AP00004673 F.6 Are your company products listed "-with CHEMTRBC? YES ______ NO P.7 Coes your company maintain its own transportation emergency hotline? YES ______ NO IV. G. Waste Disposal Procedures We would like to determine how companies handle their chemical wastes. For the following question/ check () the appropriate answers. G.l In recent years/ has your company been using proportion* ately more/ the same* or less of the following waste disposal methods for your chemical wastes? Indicate in the right-hand column if the method has not been used recently. (Check appropriate answers) RECENT USE OF DISPOSAL METHODS MORE SAME LESS METHOD NOT USED RECENTLY RECYCLED STORED ON-SITE STORED OFF-SITE INCINERATED: ON-SITE OFF-SITE LANDFILLED; ON-SITE OFF-SITE OTHER (SPECIFY) 20 AP00004674 SECTION V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COSTS This section will serve to update the estimated cost to the u.s. chemical industry of end-of-process pollution control. Please provide the following information for your U.s. chemical business# defined as domestic sales plus domestic based exports of products in SIC code 28 (excluding 283). In cases where your pollution control facilities serve company activities beyond vour U. S. chemical business# answer~the following questions using appropriate estimates of the proportion dedicated to youF U.S. chemical business. One sour<te of information for this section may be submittals to the Census Bureau on Form MA-200. For the purposes of the survey# pollution control facilities fall into three major categories] air# water# and solid waste. Use the following definitions of these pollutants to complete Section V. Air pollutants are airborne substances including particulates (dust# fly ash# smoke)# sulfur oxides# nitrogen oxides# carbon monoxide# hydrocarbons# odors# fluorides# lead and other heavy metals# radioactive and toxic substances. Water pollutants are waterborne substances including phosphate# nitrates Urites), substances that generate chemical or biochemical oxygen demand, solids, acids# bases, heavy metals# radioactive and toxic substances# synthetic organic molecules# harmful microbes# oil# grease# dyes# and heat. Solid waste includes garbage, trash, sewage sludge# dredged spoil, incinerator residue# wrecked or discarded equipment, biological and chemical wastes# radioactive and other toxic materials. Include solid waste produced as a result of air and water pollutant abatement. V. A. Capital Investment Estimate your capital investment in pollution control facilities (original installed cost) during calendar years 1981# 1980# 1979# 1978# and 1977 for end-of-process waste treatment/disposal. (Ranges may be used.) Air Pollution Water Pollution Solid Waste Control Control Disposal 1981 (installed cost) 1980 (installed cost) (1961 $'s) 8 (1980 S's) 8 (1981 S's) (1980 $'s) $ TrmTT) 8 Ti.980 S's) (Continued to next page) 21 AP00004675 A. Capital Investment (Con't.) ---- ----- - ~ - 1979 (installed cost) 1978 (installed cost) 1977 (installed cost) S (1979S'S) $i. X (1978 S'8) $ tJ <T9*7 it's) 4 (1979 4 4 (1978 3 l8) 3 TT57T 4 'a) B. Operation and Maintenance (0&M) Costs S (1979 3 'si 3 (i$74 3 3x (1977 3 Estimate your 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, and 1977 annual O&M costs for end-of-process waste treatment/disposal. (Ranges may be used.) Air Pollution Water Pollution Solid Waste Control Control Disposal 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 Staffinq 3 (1961 S's) *, (1980 S's) 4 (1979 S's) 3 (1978 S's) $ U,L , (1977 S's) ' 3 Timmy 3 (I960 S's) 4 (1979 S's) $ (1978 S'S) S (1977 S's) 3 (1961 4's) S (ilea $te) 4 (1979 S's) 4 TTSTTT7?! S "uT77 "4'S) Estimate the equivalent number of full-time personnel (operations, maintenance, engineering, administration, ' etc.) dedicated to operating and maintaining your pollution control facilities in 1981, 1979, and 1977 at calendar year end. Air Pollution Water Pollution Solid Waste Control Control Disposal 1981 1979 1977 22 AP00004676 APPENDIX E DETAILED SURVEY RESULTS FCR KEY QUESTCNS AP00004677 Appendix B provides individual summary tables that statis tically describe the distribution of responses .to ail "continuous" type questions in the survey such as sales and employment. ihe tables are organized in the order that questions were asked on the survey. Ihe response to each of these questions is identified by an alphanumeric that ranges from VAR3 to VAR391 and an abbreviated title for the question. A complete set of summary tables (one table for each question) is provided in Appendix C. Each page in Appendix B may contain more than one table. She pages are numbered and an index that relates questions with page numbers is provided at the end of this discussion. Figure B-l illustrates the descriptive tables used in this Appendix. Comments have been added to both tables to clarify the information provided. It should be noted that a complete set of statistics is provided with each table and that all statistics are not necessarily appropriate indicators for the responses to each Continuous" type question. AP00004678 t Appendix B INDEX Section Subsection Title Page Nos. 1 GENERAL COMPANY INFORMAT ION B.l-8 A Company Information B.l-2 B Managesent Attention to Health No questions and Environmental Hatters listed C Organization B.2-6 II CHEMICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT B.0-12' A Chemical Hazard Assessment Review B.8-9 B Testing fi.9-B.il C TSCA Premanufacture Notification IPMN) fa.11-12 D TSCA 8{e) Reports B.12 III HAZARD COMMUNICATION A MSDS B Labels C Information Systems D Training B.12-13 fi.12-13 No questions listed No questions listed No questions listed 4 AP00004679 AP00004680 Section IV \ Subsection A B C D E F G Appendix B INDEX (continued) title HAZARD CONTROL Listing of Chemicals Industrial Hygiene Program Health Effects Monitoring Emergency Response Internal Health/Environmental Compliance Audits/Reviews transportation Haste Disposal Procedures ENVIRONMENTAL CONIRCL C0S1S A Capital Investment B Operation and Maintenance Costs C Staffing Page Nos.* B.13-16 B.13-14 B.14 No questions listed B.15 B.15-16 No questions listed No questions listed B.17-29 B.17-21 B.22-26 B.27-29 AP0000468I TABIk E B-l AN ILLUSTRATION OP A CONDESCRIPT1VB TABLE USED TO QUARTIM CONTINUOUS VARIABLES Alphanumeric IdentiIyer Abbreviated Question Title VARIABLE VAttJBI A|R-|9BI STAFF MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUN 20*666 3107*202 650*000 1620*600 STD ERROR KtlRTOSIS MINIMUM 5*562 61*602 0*0 STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 55.762* 5.907 6SO.IOO VALID OBSERVATIONS " 611 MlSSfNQ OBSERVATIONS - 26 Number ot responses to the questions Hunber ot non-responses to the questions Id DelinItions < Bean - sun ol responses divided Standard error - estivated by dividing by the nunber of responses standard deviation of responses by the square root ol the number ot Variance - Average squared deviation responses, used to deter- fcon the Mean* a Measure mine discrepancy between of central tendency (variance ay not be printed due to sanpLe can and popula tion Mean large values) Range Bum - Maximum response Minus the minlaun response -All responses added together Kurto8is - Measure o( relative peaked ness or flatness of curve defined by responses, a positive value indicates greater peakedness than a normal distribution standard Deviation - Square root o( Hie vat iaitce skewness Maximum - Measures the symmetry of the distribution ot responses, a positive value indicates that responses are clustered to the left of the mean with extreme values to the right - highest response Hlniwim - Lowest response l i i ii i I AP00004682 SURVEY RESUL1S flLl SURVEY* (CREATION OAfl 0|/|9/83> SUBFILE 5GT2B SIT02B SPf5TO|B S200T50* S50T02IO 5LTS9H VARIABLE MEA* VARIANCE Range SUM VAR3 T01AL COMPANY 3.9*4 99.979 60.585 415.115 SALES-BIII IONS 19(1 IIS STO ERROR ftURtOSlS MINIMUM 9*942 24.704 0.002 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 109 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 1/19/43 SHISS PxGfc D.l STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 4 9.99s 4.640 9.597 VARIABLE VAR4 TOTAL COMPANY EMPLOYMENT-THOUSANDS KEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUN 21.999 2970.137 403.993 236S.I95 STB ERROR KUR10SIS MINIMUM 4.949 29.401 0.037 VALID OBSERVATIONS 199 MlSSlNO OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 3 SI.973 4.9U 404.000 VARIABLE VANS NORLO-WlOE CHEMICAL SAlCS-BlLtlONS 19BII MEAN VARIANCE MANGE SUN 1.027 3.849 11.871 I0B.056 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 0.191 11*549 9.002 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 1*6 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 9 |.99p 3*217 11*973 VARIABLE VAR9 WORLD-VIDE CHEMICAL EMPLOYMENT-THOUSANDS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 9.428 I9G.092 80.143 994.099 STD ERROR KUR1GSIS MINIMUM 1*357 12*914 0.037 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 199 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - SID OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 4 14*100 3*52? 90.160 f i f ( i j [ I1 r <9 SURVEY HESUITS riu SURVEY* (CREATION OAIE a 01/19/83* SUBFILE S0T28 SIT028 SPT5T0IB S20BT50B S50T0200 SLTSOH VARIABLE VARY (J$ CHEMICAL SALCS-BILLIONS tSBISS hEAN VARIANCE nance Sun M33 I *653 7.871 78.452 STD ERROR KURTOSIS MININUN Oi|2* 11*417 0.102 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 17 KISSING OBSERVATIONS BI/19/83 SM|SS PACE B.2 STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM S | .286 3.091 7.879 VARIABLE VARS U.S. CHEMICAL EMPL0YPENT7H0USiN0S MEAN VARIANCE Ranoe SUM *351 87.723 67.063 *74.293 STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0.897 22.1*0 037 VALID OBSERVATIONS - A J89 M1S51N6 OBSERVATIONS - Variable VAR9 NUMBER OF CHEMICAL PRODUCTS MEAN VARIANCE Range SUM 1069.907 Mt.um 177*9.008 I1S5SO.OOO STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 227.697 31.205 1.000 VALID OBSERVATIONS 108 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 0 VARIABLE VAR27 TOTAL-PHOOUCT SAFETY MEAN variance Range Sum 5.62* 126.34* 74.SB0 573.600 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 1.113 16.099 0.0 Valid observations itz MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 3 9.366 4.26| 67.100 STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM * 2366.29* 5*164 17750*006 STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 18 11*2*8 3*6*| 74*580 AP00004683 AP00004684 SIWVEf RESULTS file survey* (creation date oi/iv/bs) SUBTILE SGT2B SIT02B . 5PTST01B S201ISH S50T020B SLT50M Variable varjo total-worker safety HEAR VARIANCE Range SUN I9m 1726.423 jio.om 20IR.2N STO ERROR KURIOStS HININUH 4||* 26.399 0*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS 102 MlSSIHO OBSERVATIONS - i VARIABLE VARSI TOTAL-HEALTH REAR VARIANCE Range SUM 22.012 4130*052 525*000 ' 2245*200 Valid observations - 102 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0*369 39*|00 0*0 hissing observations - Ot/19/03 SMISS P*Gt B.3 STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM |0 4I.SS* 4.402 3|8*00 STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXINUN 10 04*205 66* 525*000 &3Variable var total-legal near variance Range SUM 1.933 10*480 17.000 197*200 Valid observations - 102 STD ERROR KURfOStS MINIMUM 0*321 9*231 0*0 hissino observations - STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 10 3.23? 2*900 17*000 Variable varts total-transportation REAR VARIANCE RANGE SUN 2.IM 24.330 40.000 210*100 STO ERROR KURlOSIS MINIMUM 0*408 35*89? Q0 VALlO OBSERVATIONS 102 HISSINO OBSERVATIONS - STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 10 4*033 5*33( 40*010 v * | if .I SURVEY RESULTS FILE SUHVFYA (CREATION DATE 01/19/631 SUBTILE SGI2B SIT02B SPTSTOJ0 S200TS0Q SS0TO2II SLT50M VARIABLE VARS 7 TOTAL-LABELIMO HEAR Variance Range SUM l 356 A,SSI 11.000 136.300 valid observations 102 VARIABLE VAR99 TOTAL-AIR Dean VARIANCE Range SUN 6.373 I9S.262 116.008 650.008 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 102 STO ERROR KUftlOSIS MINIMUM 8.211 8.955 0*0 missing observations STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 1.365 37.764 0.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 01/19/93 SMtSS page B.4 STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM ia 2.133 2.5*3 11.800 STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 10 13.000 110.008 * VARIABLE VAfllll TOTAL-VAIER MEAN variance RANGE SUM 11.775 066.021 230.000 1201.100 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 102 STO ERROR KURlOSIS MINIMUM 2.91* 32.736 0.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STO OCV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM ID 29.426 1.196 230.000 VARIABLE VAR123 TOTAL-HAZARDOUS WASTE REAM VARIANCE RANGE sUm 6,SOS 6)0.400 232.000 676.780 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 2.444 67.526 0.6 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 182 HISSING OBSERVATIONS - STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM ID 24*70(1 7.64ft 232.00ft AP00004685 SURVEY RESULTS FILE SURVEY* (CREATION DATE 01/19/631 SUBFILE SGT28 S1T02B SPTSTO10 S200T500 S50I0200 SLT50H VARIABLE VAR135 TOTAL-OTNEtt MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUN 5.627 490.ISO 151.600 674.0(0 Valid observations - 102 STD ERROR KURlOSIS MINIMUM 2.192 32*166 0.0 missing observations - gl/l/U SWISS P*6t n.5 STD oev SKENNESS NAXIMUM 10 22*146 9.466 151.004 Variable VARI4T TOTAL STAFF MEAN variance mange SUN 04.394 23596.(US 006.000 6692.696 ' valid observations 10J STD ERROR KURI0SIS NtNlNUN 18.136 9.435 0.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS STO OEV SKENNESS MAXIMUM 9 163.611 2.924 6*060 VARIABLE VARI46 TOTAL PHYSICIAN Mean variance Mange SUM 2.427 18.709 2S.OOO 257.300 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 106 STO ERROR KURtOSfS MINIMUM 6.420 9.566 0.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS 6 VARIABLE VARI49 TOTAL IMMUNOLOGIST Mean VARIANCE Range SUM 6.001 0.262 5.000 8.660 SID ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0.052 73.204 0.0 VALIO OBSERVATIONS 106 HlSSlNO OBSERVATIONS STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 6 STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 6 4*325 2*064 26*000 0.53| 0*344 6*000 O oO o-A. AP00004687 SURVEY RESULTS FILE SURVEYA (CREATION DATE 01/19/03) SUBFILE SGT2B SIT02B SPI5I0IB $2807500 S5O?O20O .SLTSOM VARIABLE VAR1S0 TOTAL PATHOLOGIST HEAR VARIANCE RANGE SUN 6*26| 1*043 7*000 27*700 STI) ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 9.099 2T.364 9.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS * 106 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 01/19/83 SMtSS STO DEV SKEVhESS MAXIMUM 6 P*GE Q.6 |*02t 5.01m 7*000 VARIABLE VARISl TOTAL NURSE NEAR VARIANCE RANGE SUN 5.4T4 180.S48 40*000 500*200 VALID OBSERVATIONS - |0b STD ERROR KURT0S1S MINIMUM 0.974 T*200 0*0 PISSING OBSERVATIONS - VARIABLE VAR1S2 TOTAL EPIDEMIOLOGIST NEAR Variance RANGE SUM 0.359 0*846 6*000 30*100 STD ERROR ' KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0*009 15*217 0*0 Valid observations - 106 MISSING observations STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM SlO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 6 10*027 2*651 46*000 0*920 3*50* 6*000 VARIABLE VAH153 TOTAL TOMICOLOOIST near VARIANCE Range Sum 4*690 139*464 74*000 497*100 STO ERROR KURT0S1S MINIMUM 1.147 15*140 0*0 tAllO OBSERVATIONS * 106 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - $TO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 6 11*009 3.73* 74.08ft i i i SURVEY RESULTS FILE SURVEY* (CREATION OATE 11/19/131 SU0FILE SGT2B $|?028 SPTST01B S200T509 SSOTUZOO SLTSOM VARIABLE VARI54 TOTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST RIAL VARIANCE RANGE SUM 4.6M 11.459 (MM MI.4M STD ERROR KWMOSIS MINIMUM 0*077 16*070 0*0 Valid observations - 100 PISSING OBSERVATIONS - 01/19/0) SHtSS page STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 6 9*025 )*!? 61*008 VARIABLE VAftISS tOTAL LAWYER REAR VARIANCE Range SUM 2.042 9*255 17*000 216*500 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 106 STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0*295 10*402 0*0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS . STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 6 3.04? 2*919 IT*9G0 VARIABLE VAR1S6 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER REAR VARIANCE RANGE SUM 11*00) 4)6*300 125*000 1166*300 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 2*029 14*264 0*| VALID OBSERVATIONS - I0A PISSING OBSERVATIONS 4td oev SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 6 20*009 3*404 125*008 VARIABLE VAR|5T TOTAL OTHER PROFESSIONALS HEAR VARIANCE RANGE SUM 2S.402 3085*004 390*000 2?0|*|00 STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 5*395 23*172 0*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS . 100 MISSING OBSERVATIONS . STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 55S4) 4*308 398*006 ii ii j i i ! AP00004688 Mi *** AP00004689 SURVEY RESULTS FILE SURVEYA (CREATION DATE 01/14/831 SUBTILE SGT20 SITO20 SPTSTO10 S2O0T5OO SSM0200 -SLT50M VARIABLE VAR1S8 TOTAL TECHNICIANS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM * 1ft,669 2 66.925 624.080 IV70.980 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM S* |07 35.038 0*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS |06 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - oi/io/as SMfSS page n.n STO OEV SKEGNESS MAXIMUM 6 52*51:1 5*36? 420*000 VARIABLE VAR140 NEW PRODUCT ASSESSMENTS NEAR VARIANCE RANOE SUM 85*800 951*126 109.000 7650*000 STD ERROR KURfOStS MINIMUM 3*251 1*725 *0 VAUO OBSERVATIONS * 90 MISSING observations - STD OEV SKEMNESS MAXIMUM 22 J9*G4a |,82i 100*900 VARIABLE VAR16I NEW PROCESS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 76*091 1960*727 100*000 6696*000 VALlO OBSERVATIONS - OB ASSESSMENTS STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 3*903 *0*669 0*0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS STO DEV ' SKEGNESS MAXIMUM 26 36*416 lOO1a*O1O1O9 variable MEAN VARIANCE NANCE SUM VARI62 FORMULATION CHANGE assessments 57*325 >1596*121 00*000 6506*000 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 6.666 1*666 0*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS 00 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEVNESS MAXIMUM 32 39*926 0*160 loo.oon r survey results PILE SURVEY* (CRCAttON DATE 01M9/03) SUBFILE S0T2B S1TO20 SPT5T01B S200T500 $5010200 SLT50M VARIABLE VARI02 YEAR COMMITTEE STARTEO REAR VARIANCE RANGE SUN 1*74*320 iti.m A6*G0G 90116*000 STD ERROR KUR10SIS MINIMUM 1*422 7*105 1934*000 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 50 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - ftl/19/03 SMISS PjGE B9 STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 62 toos 2*606 1902.On VARIABLE XMIIA .0 ATTRIB testing staff HEAR VARIANCE RANGE SUM 14*192 1010*971 146*400 1177*965 STB ERROR KURfOStS MINIMUM 3*490 7*726 0*0 Valid observations 03 MISSING OBSERVATIONS * VARIABLE mil) ATTR1B NEW PROOOCTS TESTED REAM VARIANCE Range sum 22*357 S32T6A2 452*900 1655*620 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 0*012 20*307 0*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS 03 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 29 STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 29 31*79* 2*02*1 140*400 ! T2*99a 4 V*223 452*900 VARIABLE XXXIBO - ATTRIB 0 EXISTING PRODUCTS TESTED Mean VARIANCE Range sun 29*403 6600*424 650,000 2417*030 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 9,011 42,539 0*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 02 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 30 01*791 0*042 6S0*O0O AP00004690 AP0000469I SURVEY RESULTS FILE 5URVEYA (CREATION DATE 01/19/03) SUBTILE SGT2B SI102B SPT5TOIB S200T900 SSDT0200 SLTS9M VARIABLE XXXI09 f ATTRlB 0 TOTAL PROOUCTS TESTED mean VARIANCE Mange sum 53*260 15719.999 699*999 4421.259 STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM' 13*762 15*494 0*9 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 3 MISSING OBSERVATIONS * 1/19/63 SHISS P*6t 0.10 STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 29 125*375 3*077 690*0011 VARIABLE XXX|90 ATTRlB IN HOUSE EXP-fHOUSANDS |98|SS , HEAR VARIANCE RANGE SUM 1184.103 16901.000 97102.990 Valid observations - 02 STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 337.593 11*674 0*0 missing observations STD DEV * SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 30 3057.831 3*339 16090.900 VARIABLE XXX19I t ATTRIO CONTRACTED EXP*THOUSANDS |96|SS MEAN VARIANCE Range SUM 300.126 694010*240 4130.000 31170*320 STD ERROR KURtQSlS MINIMUM 92*051 9*910 0*9 Valid observations 02 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 30 033*S$3 3*964 4130*990 VARIABLE XXX|92 ,1 ATTRlB COOP EXPTKOUSaN0S |90|fS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 122.739 56759*316 1494*509 19309*329 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 25*994 14*464 9*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 04' MISSING OBSERVATIONS STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 20 230*24? 3*370 1494*509 j i SURVEY RESULTS PILE SURVfVA ICREATION DATE suer ill SGT20 * S1TOE6 SPT5T0IB S200TS01 S50T02B0 SLT50M variable XXX193 f ATTR18 TOTAL EXP-THOUSANCS I9B|9S ream variance RANGE SUM t?26*6QG 17099*099 . Ur952.t)T STD ERROR KURlOSIS MINIMUM All.ISA 7*79? 9,0 VALlO OBSERVATIONS * 09 plSSlNG OBSERVATIONS oi/19/ai SWISS page B.ll STD DEV SKEWNESS .MAXIMUM 32 3677*672 2*777 variable XXKI95 .f ATTRIB FACILITY VALUE-THOUSANDS 1981*S mean VARIANCE Range SUN 1UI.49I HiatiH* 45099*099 25502T.69S STO ERROR KURlOSIS MINIMUM 9A9*TT7 11*769 9*9 VALlO OUSENVATfONS 01 PISSING OBSERVATIONS - STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 31 7667*99| 3*172 6S90G*090 VARIABLE VAREAS 1979-PMN RE AN VARIANCE RANGE SUN 0*190 l43l 9*990 19*990 VALlO OBSERVATIONS - 199 STO ERROR KURlOSIS MINIMUM 0*966 21*927 9*0 PISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 12 0,66* 6*661 6*990 VARIABLE MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUN VAR294 1909-PMN 1.600 16*362 36*990 US,900 VALlO OBSERVATIONS - 193 STO ERROR KURlOSIS MINIMUM 0*399 53*933 0*9 MISSING OBSERVATIONS STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 9 6*965 6.517 36*900 4 I 1 AP00004692 mm mm mm mm mm U SURVEY RESULTS FILE SURVEY* (CREATION OAIE 01/19/831 SUBFILE SGT2B SIT02B SPT5T01B S200T500 SS010200 SLTSON VARIABLE VAR20S 1981-PHN MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 2*184 16*077 27.000 225*000 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 103 STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0*405 13*797 0*0 missing observations ot/i9/a SNISS pace ft.12 STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 9 4*108 3*235 21*008 variable VIR206 COMMERCIALIZED PNNIS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 2*446 20*090 33*000 247*000 SID ERROR KUflIOStS MINIMUM 0*455 20i*90 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS 101 MlSSINO OBSERVATIONS - STO OEV SKEWNESS maximum 11 4*571 3*023 33*000 VARIABLE VAR2J3 8-E REVIEW MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 6*407 14.2*4 17*000 519*000 VALIO OBSERVATIONS 81 STO ERROR KURtQSIS MINIMUM 0*419 0*T6| 1*000 MlSSINO OBSERVATIONS - STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 31 3.m 1*652 18*000 VARIABLE VAR232 1 HSOS*PORCHASED CHEMICALS ME All VARIANCE SAUCE UM 86t|6S 288*T86 7S*000 6BTS*000 (ALIO observations 103 STO ERROR KURICSI5 MINIMUM 1*474 2*285 25*080 MlSSINO OBSERVATIONS - STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 9 10*994 1*451 190*000 AP00004693 lURVEV RESULTS File survey* icreation date oi/iv/om SUBFILE 5GT2B 5IT02B SPTSTOIR S200TSM 55010200 SLTSOH Variable vam233 t hsos-oehical prooucts ML Alt VARIANCE Mange SUM VI.Oil 236.SN H.MI 9T32.6A0 STO ERROR KURtOSIS MINIMUM 1.494 7.629 20.800 tfALlO OBSERVATIONS 106 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 6I/I9/B3 SMISS PGE 5.13 STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 6 1S*30f 263m 166.694 VARUHLE VAR23S USDS UPDATE FREQUENCY Mean VARIANCE RANGE SUN 1.957 I.I3A 3*500 AS.000 . STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0*222 -1.440 0*580 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 23 missing observations - Variable VAH269 1 PRODUCT LIST-YEAR STARTED mean VARIANCE RANGE 90m 1956*326 617.705 136*600 166246*000 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 2.680 T.2S3 1046*660 Valid observations - 06 KISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 09 STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 26 1*065 0*309 4*000 24.054 -2.274 1902.060 VARIABLE VAR27I MATERIALS LIST-YEAR STARTED rear variance Range SOM 1965*040 103*022 52.000 163699*000 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 1*485 -6*749 1936*686 VALIO OBSERVATIONS 83 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 29 13*529 6*630 1902*000 AP00004694 <9 & S mmteo* aN mMBoOM<BOBw ss O5UK M >Sx WIiilSi ^euX O MAX oai Ml b- te< tn >vtz tel 1*0 O tel X * # a <A! Aw: SNlSS NlSSfNO OBSERVATIONS SLTSON SS0TU2OB SP15101B S200T5O S1T02B FILE 5URVEYA {CREATION DATE A l/ I V A J I Cin* oe IT * a B e * O B N tfl e <n SSI ocz te*a -- </> k ac i tf) w w (ft <c X o i/t a r in sins ^ wei K ^-- 4 osz ^ ^vsx*x Ninaw BOBO BOOB ino>N* * a m O9 mm fm mBm (A 5fete *te < wu 2 <S* 4uciS<tgZel:X5id tel B B O B B B B BB 9 sswe n (A 9B 1 te M 2 9 te < >X 8 1*1 a o W 5= * IT e oo ID a c ba O B--X UI Kins te w e x at sii X te tf) uzx s -- e> s8 9-- Nino $9 X te tfl (A M9 W X in Si 2 U SEf 1 o w OX ell 8 OKX tel te> <0 B B (te B e b C* 9 B B oiteiu e U *ton b fte #te 9wm (W e ru *n B tel ID m zU _ w ZI9 msxx tel 9 % & sa BOB OOcOMe tI" -- <0 gUi :tei >o xU4<S<a VALIO OBSERVATIONS 95- AP00004695 SUBFILE 50120 AP00004696 SURVEY RESULTS FILE SURVEYS 'CREATION OATE 01/19/031 SUBFILE SGT2S Sit028 SP1ST01B S200T500 S50T0200 SLTSOM VARIABLE VAR296 EMERGENCY SHE mean VARIANCE RANGE SUM 99*963 6S1B5.TB9 2000*000 8197*000 VAL10 OUSCRVATIUNS - 82 STD ERROR KURtOSIS MINIMUM 20*195 39*197 0*0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - SWISS STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 30 VARIABLE VAR297 ALL EMERGENCY NEAR VARIANCE RANGE SUM 159*093 109075*710 2090*000 11992,000 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 75 SYO ERROR KURtOSIS MINIMUM 30*130 14.609 0.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD OCV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 37 VARIABLE VAR30I HEALTH A001T-VEAR STARTEO MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUN 1975*200 00*972 32*000 136314*000 STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0*176 3*356 1950*000 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 66 MlSSINO OBSERVATIONS STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM M VARIABLE VAR302 HEALTH AUOtT-FREOUEWCY Dean VARIANCE Range Sum 1,203 0*392 3.boo 03*3o STO ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0*077 6*355 0*200 VALID OBSERVATIONS 67 MlSSINO OBSERVATIONS STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM PaCL D.15 255*315 5*733 2000*000 330*260 3*S3o 2000*900 6**01 1*701 1902*000 0*626 |*4fln 4*000 I SURVEY HESULIS FILt SUHVfrd (CREATION BATE 0|/|l/UI SUBTILE SO (211 SII02B SP1STOIB S2IM50I S5OTO200 SLTSOH VARIABLE VAR309 ENV AUOII-YtAR STARTEO MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM >971*506 I6S65 iB.OAf I30A31.OO0 STD ERROR KURfOSIS MINIMUM ABA 1.264 IIMitOt VALID OBSERVATIONS - TO MISSING OBSERVATIONS I/I9/B3 SWISS page r. ig STD DEV* SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 42 A.07ft -I.25S 1902*000 VARIABLE VAN3IB ENV AUDIT-FREQUENCY REAM VARIANCE RANGE SUM 1.312 0.623 3*900 04O66 STD ERROR KURIGSIS MINIMUM 1.099 3*031 0.100 VALID OBSERVATIONS 6A MISSINS OBSERVATIONS STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM AS .0 190 1.AT6 A.000 AP00004697 SUAVEV RESULTS FILE SURVEYA fCREATION DATE a 0|/|9/3) SUBFILE SOT2B SIT02B SPTSTOIB S2001S06 SSITOTN SLTSON VARIABLE VAR339 I961-10TAL CAPITAL-MILLIONS |T0lf5 MEAN VARIANCE range SUM 11*925 3050*151 931*000 1083.379 STD ERROR KUR10SIS MINIMUM 5*696 06*691 0*0 VALID OttSEHVAfIONS - 99 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 01/20/63 SWISS P*Gt B.l1 STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM IB 55*228 0*15} 931*000 variable VAR390 AIR* 1901 capital-millions isbiis MEAN VARIANCE range SUM 3*796 243*313 195*060 ' 369*217 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 1*626 7S*aS4 e.o valid observations 92 pissing observations - STO BEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 2t 15*598 6*409 145*606 variable VAN34I VATER-1981 CAPITAL-MILLIONS |901S5 mean VARIANCE RANGE SUM 6.S48 1326*693 340*000 602*450 SID ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 3*797 07*554 0*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 92 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 26 36*424 9.2S? 346*668 Variable var392 solid waste-iooi capital-millions ibbiss MEAN SARlANCE ANGE im 1*239 17.560 38.000 112.611 STO ERROR KURIOSISMINIMUM 8 0*639 67.379 0*0 +ALID OBSERVATIONS - * 91 PISSING OBSERVATIONS STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 21 4*I9|) T.T51 30*008 AP00004698 fS* SURVEY MESUITS FILE SURVEY* ICREATION OATS 61/19/031 SUBF1LC SG12B SIT02B SP1STOIB $2061560 S5MO200 SLTSOH variable VAR363 1906-TOTAL CAPITAL-MILLIONS 19I09S BEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 10.052 33|?A5 &IMOO 9*5.657 STO ERROR ' KURI0SI5 MINIMUM 5.036 64.658 0.0 VALIO OBSERVATIONS * 19 missing observations 61/26/83 SWISS Pa6E B.10 STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 23 55.0*1 .*5 8|I.M variable VAR364 AIR-1900 CAPITAL-MILLIONS I900JS NEAR VARIANCE RANGE SIM 3.6T4 217.999 136.006 330.619 STO ERROR KURI05IS MINIMUM 1.556 T9.I56 9.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 90 NISSINO OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 22 I6.76S 6.03s 136.000 VARIABLE VAH36S WATER-1966 CAPITAL-MILLIONS I900SS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUN 6.062 1327.522 366.000 563.736 STB ERROR KUR10SIS MINIMUM 3.061 67.996 9.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 90 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEWNESS maximum 22 16.63k 9.332 366.000 variable VAR366 SOLID NASIE- I960 CAPITAL-MILLIONS I909SS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM I.OOT I7.IT9 30.006 92.627 STO ERROR KUR10SIS MINIMUM 6.657 T2.92B 0.9 VALIO OBSERVATIONS - 65 MlSSINO OBSERVATIONS - ' STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 27 6.2IA 6.203 36.BiO AP00004699 SURVEY RESULTS Hit SuHVen ICREAT10N MU 11/19/63) SUBFILE SGfZB SII02B SP|ST0|8 S2O61S06 S5010260 5LT50M VARIABLE VAR3A? 1979-TOTAL CAPITAL-MILLIONS |9T9SS ME AA VARIANCE Mange SUM 18.52? 2S33.2S2 471*000 926.3*7 0 STD ERROR nuriosis MINIMUM 5.365 03.175 0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 00 MlSSlNO OBSERVATIONS - 01/20/03 SWISS P6t B.19 STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 24 50.33! 9.00a ATI.00a VARIABLE VAR340 AIR- 19TV CAPITAL-MILLIONS I9T90S MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 3.52? 102*454 121.000 303*200 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 1.457 69.200 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 06 MISSIMO observations - STO DEV SKCVNESS MAXIMUM 26 13.560 0.004 121.006 variable VAR349 WATER-1979 CAPITAL-MILLIONS |9T9SS mean VARIANCE RANGE SUM 6.079 1089.966 306.000 922.192 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 3.560 B2.B83 0*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - * 06 MISSINO observations - VARIABLE VAR3SI SOLID VASTE-1979 CAPITAL-MILLIONS 19?9SS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 1.200 25.141 44.000 100.176 SID ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 0.547 65.213 0.0 VALID OBSERVAT IONS - 04 PlSSlNO OBSERVATIONS - STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 26 STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 20 33.91a 9.029 306.900 5.91a 7.7I| 44.00(1 AP00004700 *MWM SURVEY HESUilS FILE SURVEYS (CREATION OME i SI/I9/B3I SUBFILE 56120 SIT020 SPTSTOlB S20OISO0 SS9IO200 SLT50M VARIABLE VAR3SI 1970-TOTAL CAPITAL-HILL IONS |9T0*S MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 10*106 2290*301 432*000 020*675 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 5*294 76*639 *0 VALlO OBSERVATIONS - B2 MlSSINB OBSERVATIONS - variable VAR352 AIR- 1970 CAPITAL-MILLIONS I4TS MEAN VARIANCE range SUM 3*314 200*002 I2S*000 260*422 VALlO OBSERVATIONS - 01 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 1.575 71*164 9*0 MlSSINB OBSERVATIONS - variable VAR3S3 WATER-1976 CAPITAL-MILLIONS |970SS MEAN variance RANGE SUN 6*006 93|#07S 274*000 492*973 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 0 3*392 76*026 0*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 01 MISSING OBSERVATIONS 01/20/63 SMtSS PGt B. 20 STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 39 $10 DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 31 . 47*04| 0*630 432*000 14*173 *ISl I2S*000 STO DCV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 31 30.527 0*664 274*000 VARIABLE MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VAR3S4 SOLID NASTE-I9T0 CAP!TAL-MILLIONS I970S5 9*163 I46|| 33*000 67*302 SfO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 0*433 67*074 0*0 Salmi observations - 70 MlSSlNO OBSERVATIONS $10 OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 34 3*02p 7*959 33*0011 AP00004701 SURVEY RESULTS #ILE SURVEYS (CREATION 0A?E 0|/|9/I3> SUBFILE SGT2B 511028 SPT5T018 S2001$M S50I0208 -SLT50M VARIABLE VAN355 |977-TU?AL CAPITAL-MILLIONS |T7*S rEan VARIANCE Range sum II.0T9 2192.541 441.014 Bfc3.1T? $10 ERROR KURIOSIS HfNlMUH 5.302 69*909. fl.4 VALID 0USERVA1I0NS - 7S MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 1/20/83 SWISS P*GE H.21 STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 39 40*124 0*139 400.006 VARIABLE VAN356 AIR-197? CAPITAL-MILLIONS lOlffS mEan variance RANGE SUM 3.912 200.99? 129.000 259.27S S10 ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 1.658 66.060 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS * 76 MISSINGi OBSERVATIONS - VARIABLE VAR35? WATER-1917 CAPITAL-MILLIONS |977SS KEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 7.990 902.191 250.000 572.053 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 3.923 65.478 0.1 VAUO OBSERVATIONS - 71 MISSING OBSERVATIONS STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM * 36 STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 35 ' 19.955 7.970 129.000 * 30.036 7.079 250.000 VARIABLE VAR358 SOLID VA$fE-|97? CAPITAL-WILLIONS I97IIS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUN 0.441 9,A|9 26.000 90.366 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 0.3S9 65.206 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS 75 MlSSINO OBSERVATIONS STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 37 3.069 7.699 26.00n AP00004702 SUHVEV RESULTS PILE SURVEYA (CMMUM 0A1E 11/14/131 SUBFILE Sflf2H SIT02B SPISTO10 S2OOI50O S5OTO20O SLTSOM VARIABLE VAH359 1901-TOTAL OlMlLLlONS |90|S MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SIM 16.071 1001.521 265.000 1322.661 $10 ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 3.392 37.SI6 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 96 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 91S20/BJ &M|SS P/lGE 5.22 STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 10 32.007 5.66i 265*000 VARIABLE VAR360 AIR-1901 O6H-MILLI0NS I'OlfS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 3.636 73.900 56.000 323.612 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 0.9| | 23.065 0.0 VM.IO OBSERVATIONS - 09 MISSING OBSERVATIONS STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 23 *S9y 6.563 56.000 VARIABLE VAR361 WATER-1901 OtM-HILLlONS |90|fS mean variance range sum 6.963 600.669 176.009 631.770 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 2.090 57.7B6 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 91 MlSSINO OBSERVATIONS STO OEV SKEWNESS maximum 21 20.117 7.06a 176.00ft VARIABLE VAR362 SOLID WASTE-1901 OOMtiLLIONS I9BIIS- KEAN VARIANCE RAN6E SUM 2.162 36.691 35.606 256.110 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 6.616 IT.60S 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS 92 MISSING OBSERVATIONS STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 20 5.09ft 3.920 35.600 AP00004703 suhvev results FILE SURVEVA (CREATION DATE i 01/19/631 SUBFILE SGI2U S1T02B SPTSTOIB S2001S06 SSS1O200 SLTSOH Variable VAR363 |9flO~TOTAL OfcM-RILLIONS I9O0IS BEAR VARIANCE Range SUM 13*306 996*276 256*060 |l09*S92 SID ERROR MjRlQSlS MINIMUM 3.362 37*169 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS M MISSING OBSERVATIONS 01/21/83 SWISS M*Gi STO DEV SKEUMESS MAXIMUM 23 3|*S3? 5*677 250*00A VARIAttLC VAR366 AIR-1960 OlM-NlLllONS I9601S REAR VARIANCE RANGE SUN 3*760 70*277 57*600 3|0S6S STO ERROR KUAIOSIS MINIMUM 8*960 21*661 0*6 Valid observations - 05 RISS1NQ OBSERVATIONS - SID OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 27 *067 6*317 S7*i6o variable VAR365 RATER-1900 OLH-HILLIONS |9flOSS REAR VARIANCE RANGE SUM 6.777 3S7*||0 162.000 569*563 STO ERROR KURfOSIS MINIMUM 2*026 56*066 8*0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 07 MISSING OBSERVATIONS $70 OEV . Skewness maximum 25 10*696 4.76* 102*666 9 VARIABLE VAR366 SOLID RASIE 1966 04M.MILLI0NS I900SS Bear Variance RANGE SUM 2.520 13*060 39*066 216*665 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 8*626 26*167 9*6 Valid observations 66 MISSING OBSERVATIONS * STO OEV SKEWNESS. MAXIMUM 20 S*2i 6.68* 39*006 SURVEY RESULTS FILE SURVEY* |CREATION DATE 0I/19/A3* SUBFILE SGT2B SIT02B SPTSTOlB S20QT500 SSITV200 -SLT50H VARIABLE VAR36T 1979-TOTAL OLH-MlLLfOMS |919)S NEAL VARIANCE RANGE SUM 11*74* 749*9)1 213*099 996*39? STD ERROR KUMOSIS MINIMUM 2*979 3S.S9B 9*9 VALID OBSERVATIONS - BS MISSING OBSERVATIONS - #1/29/93 Swiss FGE R. 24 STD BEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 27 27*399 5*3*9 213*990 variable VAR36B AIR-1979 OMI-MILLIONS I9799S meal variance MANGE SUM 3*072 63*497 50*009 256*972 STO ERROR KURfOSlS MINIMUM 9*799 ' 24*576 9*0 VALIO OBSERVATIONS * 94 missing OBSERVATIONS - VARIABLE VAR369 MATER-1979 OLH-HKLIONS 19799* MEAN variance RANGE SUM 6*071 265*657 137*009 522*095 STO ERROR KURfOSlS MINIMUM I.T59 49*933 9*9 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 96 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 20 T*3t4 4*S9| 99*999 STO DEV SKEUNESS MAXIMUM 26 10*299 6.463 1)7*994 VARIABLE VAR370 SOL10 WASTE-1979 OlM-MlLLlONS 19T91S MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 2*9)2 23*604 33*209 169*623 STD ERROR KURfOSlS MINIMUM 9*533 2T*|20 9*9 VALIO OBSERVATIONS 93 KISS1N6 OBSERVATIONS STO oiv SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 29 4*059 4*909 33*209 . AP00004705 SURVEY RESULTS Tut survey* (creation date * oi/h/oji SUBMLE SGT2B S1I020 SPT5TOIB S200TS00 SSGI0200 SLTSOH Variable VAR3TI |97B*fOTAL OIH-HILLIONS I97BIS ream Variance Nance sum 10.502 *40.816 IB?.*00 NMSI SID ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 2.903 31.452 0.0 , valid observations - 77 missing observations - 01/21/83 SHISS PGt B.25 STO OCV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 35 25.472 5.09a 107.00a Variable VAR3TZ AlR-|976 OiMMILLIONS 14TBSS mean VARIANCE range SUM 2.643 47.222 . 47.000 198.261 VALIO OBSERVATIONS . ?S STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 793 26.021 0.0 missing observations - STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 37 6.077 4.53? 47.00a variable VAR373 WATER-1976 OlM-MIlLIONS |9?B*S MEAN VARIANCE Range sum S.S75 224.410 1|B.000 429.310 STO ERROR KURIOSIS minimum 1.76? 42.764 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS 77 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD DEV * SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 35 14.960 6.004 1(6.000 VARIABLE VAR374 SOLID *AS?-|9lfl OIK-MILLIONS I9T0SS MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 1.662 20.040 29.000 IZ4.4S4 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 0.517 24.410 0.0 VALIO OBSERVATIONS - 75 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEWNESS ' MAXIMUM 37 4.477 4.TtA 29.00a AP00004706 tooI **"" SURVEY RESULTS FILE SURVEY* (CREATION DATE 01/19/03) SUBFILE S6T2B SITOZB SPtSTQlB S2001500 S50TU2O0 SLTSOH VARIABLE VAR37S |977-TO|AL OLN-MILLIONS (9T7SS NEAK VARIANCE RANGE SUH 9.210 S6I.I99 106.OOA 691.225 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 2.735 37.527 0 VALIB OBSERVATIONS - 7S NISSIHS OBSERVATIONS 01/20/03 SH|SS P*6t B STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 37 23*613 SiMS 160*000 VARIABLE VAR376 AIR-1977 OLH-HILLIONS I97TSS BEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUN 2.349 63*219 67.000' 171*500 STD ERROR KUR10SIS MININUH 0.769 32.130 0.0 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 73 HISSING OBSERVATIONS STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 39 6*574 5.30c 47.00i> VARIABLE VAR377 WATER-1977 OiH-NILLIONS 1977*5 HEAR VARIANCE RANGE SUH 6.006 100.503 109.000 366.620 STO ERROR MOfllOSIS MININUN 1*506 45.026 0*0 VALlO OBSERVATIONS - 75 HISSING OBSERVATIONS STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 37 13*733 6*203 109*000 VARIABLE VAR376 SOLID NA$TE-|977 OIM-M ILL TONS 1977SS HEAR VARIANCE RANGE SUM 1.453 17.232 25.400 106.051 STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM 1.406 26.051 6.0 Valid observations - 73 HlSSINO OBSERVATIONS STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 39 4.151 5.001 25.400 SURVEY RE5ULIS FILE SURVEY* (CREATION PAYE 01/19/0)1 SUBFILE S6T2U S11028 SP1S10IB S200159B SS910260 SLT50M 01/20/0) SMISS Rage 0.27 VARIABLE VAR3T9 TOTAL 91AFF-I90I Man VARIANCE RANGE Sim 92.AOS 71*66.010 2379.000 0*27.100 VALID OBSERVATIONS 91 SID ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 20.026 S9.7KO 0.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - VARIABLE VAR380 AIR-1901 STAFF rear VARIANCE range sum 20.600 3107.202 650.000 * 1020.600 VALIO OBSERVATIONS - 00 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 5.962 61.00? 0.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STB DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 21 STO DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 26 207.31? 7.17m 2)70.000 95.T4? 5.997 059.990 variable VAR3BI WATER-1901 STAFF REAR variance RANGE sim 63.03) 20370.752 1660.000 3965.000 VALID OBSERVATIONS 90 STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 10.792 72.920 9.9 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 22 159.397 9,129 VAHlABLE VAR302 SOLID WASTE-1981 ST6FF mean VARIANCE RANGE SUN 19.030 3161.112 660.000 1712.700 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM S.92T 65.266 0.9 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 90 missing OBSERVATIONS - STO OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 22 50.224 0.305 060.090 AP00004708 SURVEY RESULTS FILE SllMVEVA (CREATION BATE 91/14/83) SUBFILE SC I2B S1T02B SHISfOlB S2MTSII $5810284 SLT50M VARIABLE V'ARJOJ TOTAL S|AFF-|979 MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 91.504 02861*743 2490.680 7171808 VALID OBSERVATIONS 05 STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 31*101 59*103 8*0 HISSING OBSERVATIONS lt/20/13 SMISS PM B.2G STO DEV SKEWNESS IUXI HUM 2? 2flT4?s |t22l 2498*088 VAN|ABLE VAR3B4 *|R-1979 STAFF CC 38475,448 NAMiE 1568.884 SUM 3736.188 MUftlOSIS MINIMUM 78.502 8*8 VALIB OBSERVATIONS - 88 HISSING OBSERVATIONS SKCWMC5S MAXIMUM 28 8*112 1588*088 VARIABLE VAR38S VAIER*19?9 STAFF HEAR VARIANCE RANGE SUM 66*877 38675.668 1588*888 3?36*198 VALIB OBSERVATIONS - 06 SID ERROR KUftlOSIS MINIMUM 19.067 18*502 0*0 HISSING OBSERVATIONS - 1% 4* AMtfMBLC JW` n- MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM I6.*f r MR0. VAR3W62. P5 20110 UASIC-1078 STAFF 'TO,888 f ' 15.893 $T0 ERROR 38S2.SI2 KUftlOSIS "'^riN.MI MINIMUM 1627*680 *t ir 8.828 39.182 8.8 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 06 HISSING OVSCRVATIONS - SVD OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 20 1 UM SID OEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 28 176*572 8*112 1588*808 SS*2S(| 8*888 628*988 AP00004709 SUAVEV RESULTS FILE SURVEYA (CREATION DATE 01/19/03) SUBFILE SGT2B SIT02B SPTSTOIB S200T500 S50T0200 -SLTSOM VARIABLE VAR3B? TOTAL STAFF-1977 MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM 1.349 63470*967 2130.000 6509.300 VALID OBSERVATIONS - At SIO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 27.993 S6.0I6 0*0 missiho observations - 1/20/63 SHISS PACE B.29 STD OEV skewness maxinun 31 251*934 7.010 2130.00a VARIABLE VAHlfld AIR-1917 staff HE AN VARIANCE! range SUM 10*694 > 3927.90? 520.000 1450.100 VALID OBSERVATIONS - V STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 7.096 54>660 0.0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - STO OEV SKEWNESS maxinun 34 02*673 6.979 520*000 variable VAR309 VATR-|f?7 STAFF mfan VARIANCE RANGE SUN 30*121 19011*604 1190.000 3049.100 VALID OBSERVATIONS - STO ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM IS.416 63.400 0*0 MISSING OBSERVATIONS - sto ov SKEWNESS maximum 32 137*003 7*624 1190*000 VARIABLE VAR390 SOLID WASTE-1977 STAfF HEUi VARIANCE AMtfiC SUM |S.Mt 2905*402 420.000 |232*500 VALID OBSERVATIONS STD ERROR KURIOSIS MINIMUM 6.026 63.253 *' ' MISSING OBSERVATIONS sto oev SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 32 53.90* 6*272 420.0ft AP000047I0