Air-Polluter Rankings Prompt Firms to Clean Up : Environment: Some find that reducing toxics can even be good for business.

Four years ago, a stark set of statistics persuaded Cyrus Jaffari that his company should operate cleanly, or not at all.

It was 1987, and, for the first time, a federal law required companies such as Jaffari’s metal finishing firm, Caspian Inc., to report the pollutants they spewed into the air. Jaffari was happy to oblige, but when the emissions reports came in, he was appalled by what they revealed.

Of the more than 80 companies in San Diego County that filed, the Kearny Mesa company was the second-worst polluter in 1987, having put 835,947 pounds of solvent and other toxics into the air. A private research group ranked Caspian the 55th largest emitter of carcinogenic air pollutants in the country.

“It genuinely bothered me,” Jaffari said recently. “We said, ‘If there’s going to be a list, we don’t want to be on it.’ Right there, I made a decision: we were either going to improve or get out of this business.”

Today, Jaffari is still in the chemical milling business--and, as he promised, Caspian Inc. is no longer among the county’s worst air polluters. The reason: an innovative technique, pioneered by Caspian researchers, that has allowed the company to substitute a water-based coating for one that contains perchloroethylene--a probable human carcinogen.

The result: in 1988, Caspian’s toxic emissions were down 60% to 356,318 pounds. In 1989, they were slashed again, to 15,650 pounds. And, last year, Caspian reported another stunning reduction--total reported chemical emissions in 1990: 255 pounds.

Caspian Inc. is proof that, although many San Diego County companies continue to legally spew toxics into the air in great volume, a select few--driven, they say, by public relations concerns and by the desire to be good corporate neighbors--have recently taken steps to cut their toxic emissions.

The federal “community right to know” law, passed in 1986 after the chemical disaster at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, has created part of the incentive for such voluntary environmental efforts.

The law requires manufacturers to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--and, by extension, the public at large--with annual reports of their use and disposal of about 340 compounds.

The reports can be misleading in that they reflect a mere fraction of toxic discharges--many big polluters, such as the Navy and other government entities, are not required to file. Even so, throughout the Southern California region the reports show that large volumes of chemical waste continue to be vented into the air, despite pollution-control rules that have become steadily more stringent.

But, by providing standards of comparison, the “right to know” law has in recent years enabled communities to rank their local industries, creating an annual polluters’ hall of fame that no company wants to be part of. To keep themselves off that list, many manufacturers have begun to make changes.

The federal General Accounting Office, which surveyed the nationwide industry response to the law, estimates that more than half the affected companies “made one or more operational changes” to cut pollution. In addition, dozens of corporations around the country have signed up for the EPA’s “33/50” program, volunteering to cut emissions of 17 high-priority chemicals 33% by 1992 and 50% by 1995.

Closer to home, a handful of local companies have committed millions of dollars to clean up their operations--and their public images.

* Rohr Industries, which has an aircraft components plant in Chula Vista, cut its toxic emissions nearly in half in 1990 by significantly reducing its use of methyl chloroform (or 1,1,1-trichloroethane), methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl ketone.

* Signet Armorlite, the San Marcos-based eyeglass lens manufacturer, began a four-year, $1.5 million cleanup last year. The company, which has ranked worst among the county’s toxic emitters during three of the past four years, is determined to reduce its emissions 90% by 1994.

* In 1989, Kelco, which manufactures products from kelp, completed a four-year, $5 million program, including installation of a $2.5-million scrubber. The program reduced Kelco’s emissions of volatile organic compounds--specifically isopropyl alcohol and propylene oxide--by about 95%.

Kelco officials, who have more experience than most with air cleanup strategies, warn that sometimes fixing one problem can create another. Steve Zapoticzny, a Kelco spokesman, said that, during Kelco’s emissions reduction program, the company installed three scrubbers that used water to cleanse the air.

“Well, then the drought hit. And our water usage had increased by 9%,” Zapoticzny said. Last March, when city officials called for local industries to reduce their water consumption by 30%, the San Diego company desperately started pumping salt water into its scrubbers--even though sea water will corrode the equipment.

Zapoticzny said a Kelco task force is studying how to make salt water more compatible with the expensive scrubbing systems. But so far, they haven’t found the answer.

The Kelco example proves the rule: cleanup programs are never cheap. And they don’t necessarily shield companies from criticism. Signet Armorlite, for example, unveiled its four-year plan in February, 1990, after Palomar College officials wrote the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District and Signet to complain about the lens plant’s impact on their campus a quarter-mile away.

“What specifically prompted us was the concern of the community and the college,” said George Benoit, Signet operations services manager. “We just said this isn’t the image we want to portray in the community. We’ve been here since 1972. We’re neighbors, we work here, we live here.”

Under a plan approved by the APCD, Signet purchased new equipment and began using a substitute for methylene chloride, a solvent--and a possible carcinogen--that the company had relied on to remove residual plastic and resin from eyeglass lens molds. The substitute is a different type of cleaner that has a higher boiling point and low vapor, and thus lower emissions.

Despite these efforts, two lawsuits were filed against Signet in August by the state attorney general’s office and the Environmental Defense Fund, a national watchdog group. The suits allege that, for years, Signet had violated state law by failing to adequately notify the public about the hazards associated with its manufacturing processes, by engaging in unfair business practices and by resorting to deceptive advertising.

“We’re doing a lot of work trying to convince the attorney general that we’re not the risk that some people think we may be,” said Benoit, who stressed that the company began its cleanup efforts “before threat of a lawsuit.”

Benoit predicted that the company, which continued to emit more toxics than any other San Diego County manufacturer in 1990, will see dramatic improvements when the 1991 emissions reports are tallied next year. So far this year, he said, Signet has emitted less than half the toxics it did during the same period in 1989.

“Throughout 1991, we’ve had a nice steady decline. I’m happy to say so far we’ve done better than what we’ve committed to,” he said. “When we file (the ‘community right to know’ report) next year, you’ll see a drastic reduction. Ninety-one will look real good.”

Reducing emissions doesn’t have to mean buying all new equipment. John F. Walsh, Rohr’s director of corporate relations, said the company has committed itself to reduce overall toxic pollution 25% from the 1988 level by 1995. But, instead of re-outfitting the plant with scrubbers or other mechanisms designed to control pollutants, he said, Rohr is trying to reduce emissions at the source, by substituting less toxic solvents, cleaners and paints.

Walsh said that Rohr has concluded that providing for a clean environment makes good business sense. And indeed, despite the initial expense of implementing a cleanup program, some companies say they have reaped economic as well as environmental benefits.

Caspian Inc. spent $4 million, 80% of its net worth, to develop a non-polluting maskant, or coating. Metal airplane parts are dipped whole into the maskant, which is then removed in places--like a stencil--to allow corrosive chemicals to contour the parts, making them lighter. When the process was perfected, Jaffari says, he made an announcement to his staff: “Effective tomorrow, we are not going to use solvent-based maskant.”

“He turned the whole facility into a pilot plant, which is unheard of,” said Linda Collins, Caspian’s environmental manager. But the gamble paid off: Jaffari says the new process is more economical to use and is less damaging to the health of his workers. (Previously, when Caspian used perchloroethylene, workers had to wear masks and work in shorter shifts to avoid the effects of the chemical’s toxic vapors).

Moreover, Caspian is beginning to market the maskant to the aerospace industry, which relies on chemical contouring, or milling, to make its aircraft as light as possible. Already, Boeing Aircraft Co. in Seattle has put Caspian’s new maskant on their its product specification list, Jaffari said.

“I don’t subscribe to the (idea of) unavoidable excessive pollution for a product. It’s a question of priorities,” said Jaffari. “And I think the investing public is getting to be more sophisticated.”

To that end, even companies that don’t see immediate economic gains after they implement clean-up plans may reap other financial benefits from a good environmental record. The annual compilation of manufacturers’ emissions reports has already become a tool for socially minded investors such as pension and endowment funds that weigh corporate citizenship in their investment decisions.

And a new environmental research service offered by the nonprofit Investor Responsibility Research Center relies partly on toxic release data to assess the environmental records of big corporations.

“There are those who want to screen their portfolios on the basis of trying to remove any bad actors . . . in this case companies with large amounts of emissions or pollution records that they feel are worse than the industry average,” said Doug Cogan, manager of global issues for the new environmental research service.

By putting that information in the hands of investors, consumers and environmental groups, Cogan said, the inventory of emissions data is “a revolutionary development in environmental law-making.”

Staff writer Myron Levin contributed to this article.

How to Obtain Toxic Release Data

Toxic release data for specific manufacturers--or all manufacturers within a ZIP code, a city, or an entire county--can be obtained from the California Environmental Protection Agency in Sacramento.

Data-seekers can call the Cal EPA help desk at (916) 327-1848, or write Cal EPA; Office of Environmental Information, 555 Capitol Mall, Room 525, Sacramento CA 95814.

Floppy disks containing a full year of data for the entire state may also be purchased for $50 apiece. Disks are available for 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

Toxic Chemicals and Their Effects

Compounds emitted into the air in the largest volumes by Southern California manufacturers. Chemical: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Human and Environmental Effect: TCA for short. A clear liquid used to degrease metal and to clean printing presses and electronic parts, among other things. Fairly low in toxicity; a high dose is needed to cause immediate effects. Concentrated exposure can irritate the eyes and lungs, and affect the heartbeat and central nervous system. Workers have died from high exposure in enclosed spaces. No link with cancer has been proved in limited animal tests. TCA depletes the ozone shield that screens the sun’s harmful rays. Chemical: Methylene Chloride Human and Environmental Effect: A clear liquid used as paint stripper, metal degreaser and in adhesives, foam and plastics processing. Common ingredient in paint strippers sold to consumers. Irritates skin and in high concentrations affects heart and central nervous system. Considered a probable human carcinogen based on animal tests. Chemical: Freon 113 Human and Environmental Effect: An odorless, colorless gas used as a blowing agent in foam manufacture, as a refrigerant and as a cleaning solvent. Widely used due to its low toxicity, although high levels can cause eye, nose and throat irritation and asphyxia. Strong ozone depleter. Chemical: Perchloroethylene Human and Environmental Effect: Also known as PCE or tetrachloroethylene. Used in metal drying and degreasing. Also most widely used as a dry-cleaning chemical. Detected in many local drinking water supplies due to ground water seepage. Moderately toxic. Workplace exposure has resulted in liver, kidney and central nervous system effects. Considered a probable human carcinogen based on animal tests. Chemical: Acetone Human and Environmental Effect: Flammable liquid used as fingernail polish remover; also to make chemicals, remove paint and clean and dry precision equipment. Toxicity is low, but at high levels it can irritate the nose and throat and cause lightheadedness. Reacts in sunlight to create smog. Chemical: Ammonia Human and Environmental Effect: A colorless liquid or gas with irritating odor used as a household cleaner, as a refrigerant, in metal treating and synthetic fibers. Concentrated fumes can cause severe irritation to eyes and lungs. Chemical: Styrene Human and Environmental Effect: A flammable, usually colorless, oily liquid with pungent odor used in the manufacture of plastics and resins. One of the most heavily used chemicals in the U.S. Can irritate eyes, nose and throat. Styrene vapors contribute to smog. Suspected carcinogen. Chemical: Methyl Ethyl Ketone Human and Environmental Effect: MEK for short. A solvent used to make paints, paint removers, adhesives, drugs, cosmetics and artificial leather. Explosion hazard. Concentrated exposure can cause dizziness, headaches and blurred vision. Chronic, low-level exposure can cause decreased memory and slow reflexes. May cause reproductive harm, based on animal studies. Chemical: Toluene Human and Environmental Effect: A flammable liquid used as a gasoline additive and in making inks, detergents and pharmaceuticals. Skin and eye irritant. Chronic exposure may cause anemia, damage to liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Contributes to ozone, the main ingredient in smog. May be toxic to a fetus. Chemical: Xylene Human and Environmental Effect: A flammable liquid used in fuels, lacquers and such household products as glues and fingernail polish coatings and rubber cement. Can irritate eyes, nose and throat. Chronic exposure can damage the liver and central nervous system. Fatalities have resulted from breathing intense concentrations. Xylene vapors contribute to smog. Chemical: Glycol Ethers Human and Environmental Effect: Used in resins, paints, dyes, cosmetics and brake fluids. Concentrated exposure can cause nausea, headaches and kidney damage. May be toxic to a fetus. Chemical: n-Butyl Alcohol Human and Environmental Effect: A flammable liquid used as a solvent in the manufacture of resins, varnishes, detergents and lacquers. Can cause skin, eye and throat irritation. Source: Toxic release inventory reports filed by Southern California manufacturers with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.